Moff
Well-Known Member
Personally I disagree, as I think they knew there was too much at stake to go public with the risk of egg on their face. To be fair that's opinions though, they will differ, and I guess we will never know.
If they'd been drawn up they'd be all over the Observer by now. In this war of words we're currently experiencing from all sides they'd be no chance that opportunity would be missed.
I haven't defended anything you idiot.
If we're in partnership with CRFC as you well know we're supposed to be on the BPA there's nothing stopping them getting plans in for the both of us. Even if they don't want to do it we can do it with their permission. I even posted a link earlier that explains it. You're to busy imagining that I'm defending the council to actually read what I've posted.
Anybody would do a better job than Sisu.
Just need to wrench the club off them first.
Do your bit and tell them you want them gone. You do don't you ??
So you've never posted anything that says the City Of Rugby initiative was from the councils perspective a good initiative and doesn't impact the football club at all?
Yes or no for clarification Tony
You really are a dumb ass. That would kill our club and barely scratch wasps. Still, you'd get to think you're clever sticking two fingers up to wasps so I guess that's all that counts.
The fans go along with it because it gives them something to shout at SISU about.
Post a link to what I've said if it concerns so much.
You got a like for that - from Italia.
Yes or no first Tony - do you agree the city of rugby is a good initiative for coventry or not?
Yes or no will suffice Tony.
We already are.Because that's what you'd love more than anything - to be owned by a franchising hedge fund with no respect for tradition, history or culture.
We already are.
Where are the other Wasps teams?Apart from the franchising bit of course.
No, Reid's article was actually published after Gilbert's wasn't it?I think you'll find it was actually the reverse in this instance... Exclusive was the Observer article.
Apart from the franchising bit of course.
Good post gynnsthetonic, the bit highlighted is very much how I feel, you never hear of other councils trying to DICTATE how football clubs are run, it's only CCC who are trying to do it.SISU say the club is self sustaining so have no need to sell, and could quite easily carry along as it is until all court cases are exhausted.I've just been reading an old article in the evening standard dated 24/10/07 about SISUs potential takeover of Southampton 2 months before they bought us,it's says about Seppalla having balls of steel and she was also criticised by the High Court back then for SISUs aggressive behaviour and lying in court, didn't the council ever look into this when they chose them over other candidates to run the club.It's seems like the council are trying to force ownership but hardly have a good record and what's running the football team got to do with them, never hear of Newcastle council or Leeds council trying to dictate over there clubs allegedly crap owners to get them removed as they are busy running successful cities without getting embroiled in football politics.
Our local council are full of ex shop stewards, union bosses, milkman, exBernie Inn employees, hardly top class well educated business people are they!
Before Wasps there was not enough revenue in total between CCFC and ACL to keep them both profitable. In fact only the Olympics, extraordinary income and smart financial reporting made ACL appear profitable - but the truth is the cash flow was almost constantly negative. And that was back when the club paid £1.2m rent per year plus match day expenses (about £10k/match).
One reason - the main reason - ACL couldn't maintain a profitable operation was the £21m mortgage. The interest payments made the difference.
Now that loan is gone - but it has been replaced by an even bigger one. The interest payments way more than the Yorkshire Bank loan. And it's short term.
On the plus side Wasps is now adding revenue, but at the same time CCFC is paying a lot less. Stadium main Sponsorship is devaluated as long as CCFC hasn't committed to stay long term.
So, all in all I guess(!) that ACL/Wasps/CCFC combined are LESS profitable than previously ACL/CCFC were. Take away CCFC and I guess(!) ACL/Wasps are heading directly towards financial meltdown.
All efforts we see in action is to keep the club at the Ricoh.
So in my opinion, the best way to hurt Wasps is to take away their revenue. Demonstrate outside the gates. Contact their sponsors. But even more effective - move CCFC out, even to Northampton.
I should get a like for that from any self respecting CCFC fan. Frankly speaking your big idea would be the end of the club. Clearly not as important as sticking two fingers up to Wasps for you. Pathetic really. You're the Nigel Farage of CCFC fans.
Far more would support the club this time.
Even a non league ground with temporary stands to tough it out would be better than propping wasps up thanks.
You really are a dumb ass. That would kill our club and barely scratch wasps. Still, you'd get to think you're clever sticking two fingers up to wasps so I guess that's all that counts.
Both. The legals are pointless and have already done more damage to our club than any benefit that they ever could have hoped to achieve and that damage is still ongoing.
Forget what Wasps want. The majority of fans want them dropped and we should be pushing SISU to do it regardless. There's no gain from it, it's as simple as that.
Don't think so. Apparently Simon published it a few minutes after according to people who read both and then changed the time.No, Reid's article was actually published after Gilbert's wasn't it?
Agree, Tony. I think nearly all of us want Sisu to drop the legal stuff and you are right on Grendel too.
He can very much be a decent poster on here, but of late at times, he's become an irritable, insulting, incredibly patronising, fook Wasps at all costs Mr. Angry.
To suggest we would be better off in a non-league ground with temporary stands is idiocy of the highest order.
Did we not get close to 20,000 on on occasion at the Ricoh last season?
To move out of the city, miles away to a non league ground with a fraction of the capacity would just be pure madness and it would hit us hard and hurt us so very, very badly. Crazy talk and unfortunately this intense, spitting, vein busting hatred of Wasps by some has got to a stage whereby people seemingly are prepared to let our own club suffer incredibly badly and be put under even more threat than it already is.
The obvious answer to all this if we want our own stadium is to get a new short term deal at the Ricoh for 5-10 years while we seek out and actually build the new bloody thing! And then secondly, if Higgs don't want us, focus all our intentions of securing a new academy.
Get the funding for that, build it and include some extra revenue space they need alongside it that could be used for functions and conferences and exhibitions and conventions etc. etc. Bring some much needed coffers in from that.
If Sisu are saying they can get the money raised for a new stadium, then they can get the money raised for a new academy.
Obviously if we could have stayed at Higgs that would have been the best solution. We should still fight to get CCFC included in the new Higgs venture, but if we can't secure that then we need the academy.
If Sisu say they can build the new stadium/are looking for locations/would ground share with Cov and they are genuine about it, then they must have the means to build a new academy and there's nowt to stop them tying in with another local club to do so.
It's fine to want Wasps gone, but the spitting blood, wide eyed, snarling, shouty, shouty, screw them at any cost stance is rather scary and is doing no-one any good at all.
Unfortunately Grendel has become a bit of a caricature and his stance is worrying.
What happened to the thread let's all come up with ideas? Thought that was for us to find some common ground, not just shout people down and call them idiots!
That's exactly what Wasps would want.
Further cut the income and stress the club/Sisu.
The Wasps facilities would still be there for CCFC to return without Sisu.
Bring it on.
Surely a negative thing?"Further cut the income " - so you agree WASPS are restricting the income?
No offer to CCFC from WASPS has included any offer of additional income generation to the football club
Said. So where are they? Has the application been put in? Are these plans going to be generic artist impressions again?
Don't think so. Apparently Simon published it a few minutes after according to people who read both and then changed the time.
Sorry not up to speed with this but are others saying that SG posted an article and altered the time that it was posted at?
It's only the few on here that call it franchising. In reality it's not.Where are the other Wasps teams?
We are right in the thick of a media war.. HMS Telegraph fires a broadside...
and HMS Observer replies..
No it's just idiots like you that believe it isn't.It's only the few on here that call it franchising. In reality it's not.
TF: This is Jon Sharp’s project – it is his rugby club, his proposal to put to the council first and foremost. This venture does not involve SISU,
We don’t want to create animosity with the City Council. It does need pointing out that this is a Coventry City FC venture, not a SISU venture
Jon Sharp -Talks are in the very early stages still. We have had some preliminary architect drawings and planning advice
Read more at http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/...ting-minutes-3132807.aspx#FU10sLWGMGdzOKZ1.99
You may not like to hear what TF says BUT are you doubting what Jon Sharp is saying?
So we should sit back and let Wasps do whatever they want. This includes taking everything that our club needs to survive and prosper. And all in the hope of another hedge fund picking up the pieces.As I have said all everybody has to do is sit back and watch it happen.
I doubt anything that SISU are connected to in some way. I don't believe or disbelieve JS but then at the same time he's produced nothing tangible for anyone to see and touch so it's just all words. We've been here before, in fact we've been here for the last 3 years, why will this prove to be any different just because there's a new name involved? Even the wording is sounding familiar so you'll forgive me if I take it with a big pinch of salt.
It's only the few on here that call it franchising. In reality it's not.
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?