Butts Park Arena is new home (2 Viewers)

Calista · Dec 11, 2015

I’m going to assume for argument’s sake that Les Reid wouldn’t have got this completely wrong. I don’t see why CRFC shouldn’t have two suitors?

Anyway, I’ve really felt good at the Ricoh recently - so if CCFC seriously want to move out and build another stadium, it would at least help if I was inspired by the plans.

Wimbledon have just (yesterday) got permission for a new ground which is very similar in scale to CCFC’s supposed ideas for the Butts (11K expanding to 20K): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35066622.

The stadium seems to occupy a slightly bigger footprint than you could have at the Butts, unless you start taking chunks out of the adjacent park (very popular I’m sure). Wimbledon’s scheme also has the benefit of a lot of residential development to go with it – the Butts might have to be a cheaper job, and SISU don’t exactly have a track record of being prepared to splash out on things. So the attached image is probably about as good as it is going to look.

Not very thrilling as far as I am concerned, and a step down in status for the club IMHO – more of a “small town” vibe, although the city centre location would go a little way to compensate.

Much more detail about the Wimbledon plans at the link below (the stadium design stuff starts on page 108).
Wimbledon stadium

Calista · Dec 11, 2015

Rob S said:
I get the feeling that there has been a change of heart, yes. Also, it'll be interesting to see how things pan out after the JR appeal etc.

If this is indeed the case, it would introduce a strange new sense of sanity to proceedings. I’m not sure I could cope with that.

wingy · Dec 11, 2015

Norman Lockhart said:
I’m going to assume for argument’s sake that Les Reid wouldn’t have got this completely wrong. I don’t see why CRFC shouldn’t have two suitors?

Anyway, I’ve really felt good at the Ricoh recently - so if CCFC seriously want to move out and build another stadium, it would at least help if I was inspired by the plans.

Wimbledon have just (yesterday) got permission for a new ground which is very similar in scale to CCFC’s supposed ideas for the Butts (11K expanding to 20K): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35066622.

The stadium seems to occupy a slightly bigger footprint than you could have at the Butts, unless you start taking chunks out of the adjacent park (very popular I’m sure). Wimbledon’s scheme also has the benefit of a lot of residential development to go with it – the Butts might have to be a cheaper job, and SISU don’t exactly have a track record of being prepared to splash out on things. So the attached image is probably about as good as it is going to look.

View attachment 4909

Not very thrilling as far as I am concerned, and a step down in status for the club IMHO – more of a “small town” vibe, although the city centre location would go a little way to compensate.

Much more detail about the Wimbledon plans at the link below (the stadium design stuff starts on page 108).
Wimbledon stadium

The only difference between the two articles is. That on this occasion both parties are willing to be quoted

Not that there is anything difinitive about that
I did find it odd that there wasn't one from John Sharp in the first instance,,be that through reluctance or the lack of the question being asked,surely It would have been?

SkyBlueZack · Dec 11, 2015

The problem with the council is they are elected representatives. Therefore open to more scrutiny. We live in a democratic country where our opinions are supposed to count. This as we're all aware of arises from the Ricoh dispute. I know most CCFC fans would in a democratic process rejected anyone but CCFC buying the stadium. Maybe another club renting there or co-ownership between CCFC and CRFC. I know it's not the case but in my opinion I would/hope to believe that those that put themselves forward to represent the masses at all times consider the implications to their peers, because in my opinion if you put yourself forward for that position you need to be at the very least a good listener. I don't think as CCFC fans we have been listened too and that applies to SISU too. It's just that in my opinion I don't expect the same/more from them.

Astute · Dec 12, 2015

Grendel said:
Excellent response when proved wrong.

In your head at the most.

I have had enough of pussy footing around an idiot like yourself. Well done for being a keyboard warrior. I would say that you bring nothing to debates. But that would be wrong. You bring less than nothing. Goodnight thrush.

martcov · Dec 12, 2015

Astute said:
It is an away game so neither will you.

I live in Germany ( as Grendel knows ) and I often work Saturdays ( as Grendel knows). But, I get over to Cov now and again and watch city if they are at home. I show the TV games in my Pub ( Sheffield is too early for the pub, but I will watch it ). I have never had a city fan watching though. I read the threads when I can, but don't expect ratings etc when I can't see the players.

Astute · Dec 12, 2015

martcov said:
I live in Germany ( as Grendel knows ) and I often work Saturdays ( as Grendel knows). But, I get over to Cov now and again and watch city if they are at home. I show the TV games in my Pub ( Sheffield is too early for the pub, but I will watch it ). I have never had a city fan watching though. I read the threads when I can, but don't expect ratings etc when I can't see the players.

I know.

Grendel (thrush from now) always has a go at other supporters that can't make every home game but never does away games. I have offered to drive to Coventry to pick him up and then take him to an away game a few times. My offers always get ignored. Yet he is a better supporter than me as distance, shift work and a busy life in general get in the way.

martcov · Dec 12, 2015

Astute said:
I know.

Grendel (thrush from now) always has a go at other supporters that can't make every home game but never does away games. I have offered to drive to Coventry to pick him up and then take him to an away game a few times. My offers always get ignored. Yet he is a better supporter than me as distance, shift work and a busy life in general get in the way.

This being the same super fan, who would accept a 15000 all seater stadium. When it was pointed out that we will get over 15000 in League 1 if we are in for promotion this season, he said SISU should increase the price to make up for the fans that cannot get into the stadium. Great. Football for the wealthiest. The others can stay outside. Grendel being better off than many on here.

Astute · Dec 12, 2015

martcov said:
This being the same super fan, who would accept a 15000 all seater stadium. When it was pointed out that we will get over 15000 in League 1 if we are in for promotion this season, he said SISU should increase the price to make up for the fans that cannot get into the stadium. Great. Football for the wealthiest. The others can stay outside. Grendel being better off than many on here.

Just a sad old man. A superfan who says he earns as much as the prime minister but doesn't go to away games. And has a go at those of us for being crap fans who can spend as much or more going to one game as his season ticket costs.

skybluetony176 · Dec 12, 2015

martcov said:
This being the same super fan, who would accept a 15000 all seater stadium. When it was pointed out that we will get over 15000 in League 1 if we are in for promotion this season, he said SISU should increase the price to make up for the fans that cannot get into the stadium. Great. Football for the wealthiest. The others can stay outside. Grendel being better off than many on here.

I guarantee that if Grendulls master plan was to happen the price would have to keep going up as it will have a negative effect on attendances. Attendances will become ever decreasing circles and the prices under Grendulls master plan would have to become ever increasing circles.

I like the idea of the Butts if only because of it's location but 12-15k is a joke. Unless you can build a 20k stadium with the possibility of 25k the Butts isn't even worth consideration.

martcov · Dec 12, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
I guarantee that if Grendulls master plan was to happen the price would have to keep going up as it will have a negative effect on attendances. Attendances will become ever decreasing circles and the prices under Grendulls master plan would have to become ever increasing circles.

I like the idea of the Butts but 12-15k is a joke. Unless you can build a 20k stadium with the possibility of 25k the Butts isn't even worth consideration.

Exactly. Grendel bases his price policy on demand and supply ( it was called "supply and demand" when I was at school, but then I am as much a property developer as Grendel is an economist ). Without being a property developer though, I can see that a stadium of more than 10000 at the Butts will not get planning permission - purely because I know I he area. It is a nice thought, but not realistic.

letsallsingtogether · Dec 12, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
That's fair enugh. I would say it's to be encouraged if the club make noises through whatever channels that they would like t work with CCC however.

But all we ever get from them is noise, never get any facts dates etc.
Just it is sensation and we will let you know in three weeks.
Knowing my luck it will be 3 weeks after my funeral.

martcov · Dec 12, 2015

Astute said:
Just a sad old man. A superfan who says he earns as much as the prime minister but doesn't go to away games. And has a go at those of us for being crap fans who can spend as much or more going to one game as his season ticket costs.

I always bring the missus and my kid. That means 3 flights, hotels, meals etc.. I visit family as well, but I cannot do that every other week.

martcov · Dec 12, 2015

letsallsingtogether said:
But all we ever get from them is noise, never get any facts dates etc.
Just it is sensation and we will let you know in three weeks.
Knowing my luck it will be 3 weeks after my funeral.

if there is an afterlife...... You have eternity, so you may yet hear from some later deceased person that a stadium has been built...

Grendel · Dec 12, 2015

martcov said:
Exactly. Grendel bases his price policy on demand and supply ( it was called "supply and demand" when I was at school, but then I am as much a property developer as Grendel is an economist ). Without being a property developer though, I can see that a stadium of more than 10000 at the Butts will not get planning permission - purely because I know I he area. It is a nice thought, but not realistic.

Well......http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/demand-and-supply.html

Grendel · Dec 12, 2015

Astute said:
Just a sad old man. A superfan who says he earns as much as the prime minister but doesn't go to away games. And has a go at those of us for being crap fans who can spend as much or more going to one game as his season ticket costs.

More than the Prime Minister? The facts keep rolling on....http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...officials-better-paid-than-David-Cameron.html

martcov · Dec 12, 2015

Grendel said:
Well......http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/demand-and-supply.html

Now enter "supply and demand".

Nick · Dec 12, 2015

So without reading through the crap, does the argument that the article is wrong because it has been taken down still stand?

Did anybody post on here that we would be playing at the Butts?

Has anybody who keeps going on about Les Reid's bread being buttered paid any attention to what has come out the last couple of weeks?

Tune in next week.

Nick · Dec 12, 2015

martcov said:
Now enter "supply and demand".

Is that where CCFC should pay a lot more than Wasps for the Ricoh because it means more to them?

Astute · Dec 12, 2015

Grendel said:
More than the Prime Minister? The facts keep rolling on....http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...officials-better-paid-than-David-Cameron.html

Morning thrush. I suppose you now didn't tell us all how much you allegedly earn. And you didn't know anything about the wasps move although the company that you say that you work for and the position that you say you have would have known.

FOS.

skybluetony176 · Dec 12, 2015

Grendel said:
Well......http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/demand-and-supply.html

Are you really so dumb that you can't see that this business model only works for a few elite teams at the very top of the football pyramid?

We'd have to be in the premier league for even the slightest chance of Grendullnomics to work. Something that is never going to happen at a 12-15k stadium without a sugar daddy.

Interestingly AFC Bournemouth have a stadium capacity of 11.5k and are playing in the premier league and you can still buy an adult match day ticket for under £40 clearly they haven't stumbled across Grendullnomics yet otherwise their ticket prices would be on par with Arsenal, Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool and Man City. Why do you think they aren't?

martcov · Dec 12, 2015

Nick said:
So without reading through the crap, does the argument that the article is wrong because it has been taken down still stand?

Did anybody post on here that we would be playing at the Butts?

Has anybody who keeps going on about Les Reid's bread being buttered paid any attention to what has come out the last couple of weeks?

Tune in next week.

No. It is wrong. Another article on here was quickly removed....... Perhaps I am getting confused ;-)

No. just that the site to build a new stadium has been revealed. The Sky Blues being the people looking for the said site to build a stadium. Implies that they ( a football club ), would be building a stadium to play football in. A fair assumptiondon't you think?

Yes. Nothing relevant to this discussion. Being right on one thing doesn't mean everything is gospel.

Astute · Dec 12, 2015

Nick said:
Is that where CCFC should pay a lot more than Wasps for the Ricoh because it means more to them?

Why does the truth have to be stretched all the time?

The arena was devalued by us not payind the rent then going to Northampton. They could have had 50% before then for 5.5m. So what would a big reduction on 5.5m be?

Nick · Dec 12, 2015

Astute said:
Why does the truth have to be stretched all the time?

The arena was devalued by us not payind the rent then going to Northampton. They could have had 50% before then for 5.5m. So what would a big reduction on 5.5m be?

It isn't being stretched? It is what Mart said.

martcov · Dec 12, 2015

Nick said:
Is that where CCFC should pay a lot more than Wasps for the Ricoh because it means more to them?

No, I think that is 'economic rent'. In this case the difference between building your own stadium or buying an existing one. If it costs 35m ( TF quote ) to build a smaller stadium, then it would be a better decision to use up to 35m to buy a larger existing stadium with 365 day revenue etc.. What Wasps paid is irrelevant to your calculation. What is better for SISU/ CCFC is the economic factor. Why always Wasps? I am concerned for the future of CCFC and think that SISU fucked up and could have offered at least 35m and be no worse off than building a new stadium. Plus, we would already be there. The relationship to the council was wrong from the word go. Yes the council are no Sunday School teachers, but SISU wanted something from them and they should have gone in differently. P.S. I am not interested in Wasps.

martcov · Dec 12, 2015

Nick said:
It isn't being stretched? It is what Mart said.

See above post. You are missing the point. You seem to obsessed with Wasps. My point is: if TF says - which he did - that he has investors for a 35m new, but smaller stadium at a yet to be disclosed site near Coventry. SISU could have offered up to this price - at least - to buy both shares and pay off the YB loan. They would then have a 32000 stadium with 365 days income in Cov. They didn't see eye to eye with CCC and wanted according to Joy - never been denied by her - unencumbered freehold. CCC and many Coventry residents saw that as dangerous as SISU could do anything they wanted with the stadium. The deal should have been done long before it got that far and it should always have been coupled with the lease extension. All the dodgy deals, including both sides wanting to hit the YB for a huge loan reduction were based on playing 'hard ball'. The result is we got nothing. Wasps played 'soft ball' and got everything. So, yes we should have maybe paid more than Wasps did in the end, but we would be there and Wasps would be in 15000 stadium in a London suburb. Which would have been better for us?

skybluetony176 · Dec 12, 2015

martcov said:
See above post. You are missing the point. You seem to obsessed with Wasps. My point is: if TF says - which he did - that he has investors for a 35m new, but smaller stadium at a yet to be disclosed site near Coventry. SISU could have offered up to this price - at least - to buy both shares and pay off the YB loan. They would then have a 32000 stadium with 365 days income in Cov. They didn't see eye to eye with CCC and wanted according to Joy - never been denied by her - unencumbered freehold. CCC and many Coventry residents saw that as dangerous as SISU could do anything they wanted with the stadium. The deal should have been done long before it got that far and it should always have been coupled with the lease extension. All the dodgy deals, including both sides wanting to hit the YB for a huge loan reduction were based on playing 'hard ball'. The result is we got nothing. Wasps played 'soft ball' and got everything. So, yes we should have maybe paid more than Wasps did in the end, but we would be there and Wasps would be in 15000 stadium in a London suburb. Which would have been better for us?

That's the point alot on here want to ignore. Even if we'd bought ACL using the formula price for both shares, taken on the YB mortgage and had the lease increased to the 125years they'd already negotiated we'd still have been considerably better of than what SISU are suggesting as an alternative in terms of what we physically would have for our money but we'd have an asset that genuinely offers not only 365days a year revenue but also considerable parking revenue. Something the Butts is never going to offer.

Nick · Dec 12, 2015

martcov said:
No, I think that is 'economic rent'. In this case the difference between building your own stadium or buying an existing one. If it costs 35m ( TF quote ) to build a smaller stadium, then it would be a better decision to use up to 35m to buy a larger existing stadium with 365 day revenue etc.. What Wasps paid is irrelevant to your calculation. What is better for SISU/ CCFC is the economic factor. Why always Wasps? I am concerned for the future of CCFC and think that SISU fucked up and could have offered at least 35m and be no worse off than building a new stadium. Plus, we would already be there. The relationship to the council was wrong from the word go. Yes the council are no Sunday School teachers, but SISU wanted something from them and they should have gone in differently. P.S. I am not interested in Wasps.

Do you belIeve they had 35m for a new stadium? I'd say that's posturing bullshit.

Wasps are mentioned because they bought it, so it's comparable

martcov · Dec 12, 2015

Nick said:
Do you belIeve they had 35m for a new stadium? I'd say that's posturing bullshit.

TF was refering to investors. The same investors who won't deal with CCC, but are looking for a site in Cov.

Whether or not they had investors, the deal was to be - theoretically and with hindsight - to be had for at most that price.

If they don't have that sort of money, then we are renting from Wasps for the foreseeable future. Like it or not.

Your dig at me though, is wrong. My point is valid ( whether or not it could ever have taken place ). What Wasps paid is not relevant. What we should have paid is relevant. The Ricoh was worth more to us long term. We now have nothing. We must either pay a lot of money and lose years of revenue building a new stadium, or be at Wasps' mercy. If we had secured the Ricoh at more than Wasps' paid ( obviously up to a figure ) we would still be better off than we are now. The only way that could change, is if Wasps give us a good rental deal with some revenue. That is, IMO, dependant on the Naming Rights and our profile. A cheap rent with revenue would be better than building a new stadium, at least for the time being. Population may go up, boundaries may change, land may become available, but short term it looks as if renting the Ricoh is the only option.

martcov · Dec 12, 2015

Nick said:
Do you belIeve they had 35m for a new stadium? I'd say that's posturing bullshit.

Wasps are mentioned because they bought it, so it's comparable

Oh, and is not 35m a bit more than Wasps raised in 6,5% bonds against the stadium and prestige of a Rugby club? Could not SISU Capital have done the same? Revaluing the Ricoh in their sole posession to 45m ( as opposed to a charity and a council ) and offering the prestige ( higher naming rights etc. ) of a football league club with a long tradition?

Wasps pulled it off with a lesser product ( Rugby as opposed to football ).

skybluetony176 · Dec 12, 2015

What we need is a ten year deal (even if SISU are serious about building a new) competitive rent, access to revenue and dare I say it but a share of the naming rights too as it's clear us being at the Ricoh is going to be key to securing the best deal for the naming rights.

If we get promoted this season we already know that we are capable of getting 20k on a regular basis when there's a feel good factor around the club. We also know that unless you're in the premier league ticket revenue is king. Not 365days a year revenue. 12-15k capacity just like Grendullnomics simply doesn't work.

Astute · Dec 12, 2015

martcov said:
Oh, and is not 35m a bit more than Wasps raised in 6,5% bonds against the stadium and prestige of a Rugby club? Could not SISU Capital have done the same? Revaluing the Ricoh in their sole posession to 45m ( as opposed to a charity and a council ) and offering the prestige ( higher naming rights etc. ) of a football league club with a long tradition?

Wasps pulled it off with a lesser product ( Rugby as opposed to football ).

Wasps pulled it off because they negotiated. SISU failed because they alienated everyone including us supporters.

martcov · Dec 12, 2015

Astute said:
Wasps pulled it off because they negotiated. SISU failed because they alienated everyone including us supporters.

In this case I am referring to the bond deal. Nick thinks TF didn't have 35m. I am saying, nor did Wasps, but they pulled off the bond deal by upvaluing the Ricoh and using the image of Wasps. We could have done that through SISU Capital - theoretically - and without unencumbered freehold. it woukld have probably been easier for us with a tradition based football club in our home town ( established fan base ).

martcov · Dec 12, 2015

Nick said:
Do you belIeve they had 35m for a new stadium? I'd say that's posturing bullshit.

Wasps are mentioned because they bought it, so it's comparable

Wasps are mentioned because you are addicted to them. At the time the shares and the loan were to be negotiated, Wasps were in Wycombe trying to get planning permission for a stadium. No-one could have known what Wasps were willing to pay for a stadium that they did not know was available. They are irrelevant to the calculation now and they were then.

torchomatic · Dec 12, 2015

Fuck me. The Tony, Mart, Astute Council tag team are in form today.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

Butts Park Arena is new home (2 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency