Good job the twitter doesn't show the location of them, people would be coming to stab me without actually reading.
What're the balti pies like? Might be enough to lure me over.
Don't know, they never have any!
Imagine what they would want to do if they DID actually read your posts.Good job the twitter doesn't show the location of them, people would be coming to stab me without actually reading.
To tap into another thread is "Kate" not technically a commoner
There's precedent for this though. If push comes to shove, Cov could move to a nearby town for a maximum of, I believe, three years - see Rotherham United's temporary move to Sheffield.Clause 13.4:
The Board will not generally approve any ground sharing arrangement where the Club plays its matches outside the conurbation, as defined by the Board, from which the Club takes its name or with which it is otherwise traditionally associated.
i.e. Good luck trying to get permission to play outside Coventry.
It doesn't mean that at all. The fans would get no say. It just means that fans must not be unreasonably inconvenienced in getting to "home" games. For example, a temporary move to Birmingham or Leicester might be acceptable under this clause, whereas a move to Penzance or Vladivostok would not.13.7.3 would not adversly affect... the supporters...
i.e. the fans get a say.
That just means they'd take catchment areas into consideration, but I can't see any problem with a temporary move out of Coventry under this clause either. I don't imagine Birmingham or Villa fans for example would abandon their clubs to follow Coventry. There might be a small number who, in the event of a short term ground share, would go to home matches of both clubs, but any host club won't lose fans in the long term.13.7.5 would not adversly affect other clubs in the vicinity of the proposed location
i.e. depending on the proposed location other (league?) clubs could have a say
I reckon the club should buy the bottom half, that way you can still use the pitch and the lower part of the stands. Might reduce your attendance figures though.No we won't. We will either end up buying at least half the ground or paying a massively reduced rent.
I dont wanna stay at The Ricoh. Its owned by wankers, its too big, theres no atmosphere and we cant afford it
you still out of work otis? Time on your hands etc
Is the Ricoh owned by wankers? :thinking about:
Why didn't we say that when they saved the club?
There's precedent for this though. If push comes to shove, Cov could move to a nearby town for a maximum of, I believe, three years - see Rotherham United's temporary move to Sheffield.
It doesn't mean that at all. The fans would get no say. It just means that fans must not be unreasonably inconvenienced in getting to "home" games. For example, a temporary move to Birmingham or Leicester might be acceptable under this clause, whereas a move to Penzance or Vladivostok would not.
That just means they'd take catchment areas into consideration, but I can't see any problem with a temporary move out of Coventry under this clause either. I don't imagine Birmingham or Villa fans for example would abandon their clubs to follow Coventry. There might be a small number who, in the event of a short term ground share, would go to home matches of both clubs, but any host club won't lose fans in the long term.
Can you put any of it up nic? like otis, i'm having a slow day as well
Not guilty. If the roles were reversed, I could never develop the same level of passion and loyalty for Coventry, Forest or Derby. I expect it works the same both ways.No idea who voted for Leicester.
My guess is Blue Maniac!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?