Intrigue, it may be a double bluff. CRFC could want to force Sisu's hand to see if any preliminary conversations are going to lead to anything. Or if your really in to conspiracy theories then Wasps could have asked CRFC to make the plans known to force Sisu to negotiate the Ricoh lease as its all gone quiet on extending the current two years, if it were to happen Wasps have time to see if their is another sporting tenant willing to contribute.So what is in it for CRFC?
Will they explain what their interest is they are protecting?
That could be Butt Fluff.The triple bluff will be when someone goes past the Butts and finds there's another Ikea being built there.
Surely they can't do that, they don't own acl now?What a joke, looks like the council are trying to force the Ricoh as the only professional football venue in the city. Not looking likely they will ever help the club find a viable site within the city for a new ground.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
What is it's position?
Broken by Cov RFC, why would they do it?
It's ok the telegraph will have the exclusive as soon as the council send them what to say overFirmly in Wasps arse by the sound of it. I'm struggling to think of any valid reason for such a clause. Look forward to an explanation from CCC.
Can't sign anything with the council blocking it can we?I would prefer the Butts location.
Apart from the 25k capacity.
However I can't believe the rugby club would break ithe news without checking with SISU first
Not exactly great for the partnership if they did.
Unfortunately I think it maybe about having leverage before agreeing a long term deal with Wasps.
Just wish we would get on and get it signed if that's the way we have to go.
It's ok the telegraph will have the exclusive as soon as the council send them what to say over
I really don't see why this is such a big issue for you?But if you read what has been said here they are talking about considerably less than 25,000.
That sounds to me like it may be much nearer to 15,000 than to 25,000.
tbf, HR was there before planning (and people driving to games... or even owning cars for that matter!) became such an issue.
Thats a better response , whether its genuine or not at least it shows some form of maintaining professionalism rather than the other smug sack of unprofessional shit MatonDamian Gannon:
He said: “I understand that the relationship between CCFC and the Council has not been great but this presents a real opportunity for us to “press the reset button” on our relationship with them and work to produce an outcome that works for the football club as well as the local authority. It would seem churlish for the Council to reject such a proposal out-of-hand particularly as a move closer to the city centre so obviously fits in with what we have been trying to achieve over the past few years in terms of growing the city centre.
“I have written to the Football Club and the Rugby Club asking for a meeting so I can get a fuller appreciation of these proposals and how we can all work together to make our city prosper and our local sports team achieve their true potential.”
He said: “This is very exciting news not only for the Butts and Spon End but also for the city as a whole. There is significant potential to regenerate this area creating jobs and opportunities for local people.
“Whilst I understand it still early days and there is a-lot of work still to be done the proposals sound as though they fit very closely with the council’s political, economic and social objectives of focusing on growing the city centre and becoming a top-ten city. This proposal would bring thousands of people into the Butts and would have positive knock-on effects to local businesses in the city centre.”
CCC. have final say on any buildings within City boundaries, and any permissions come from them directly.
Not that hard really SBWM. My health determines I can no longer work. Five, maybe ten minutes research usually suffices. It's also not that hard to actually know what you're attacking posts for! Simply read rather than attack because you don't like a poster
I really don't see why this is such a big issue for you?
What a joke, looks like the council are trying to force the Ricoh as the only professional football venue in the city. Not looking likely they will ever help the club find a viable site within the city for a new ground.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Capacities:
Just a few here. Can't be arsed to go through a whole stack of them, but .....
Arsenal - 60,000
Villa - plans to increase to 50,000
Chelsea - plans to increase to 60,000
Palace - 26,000
Everton - 40,000
Leicester - plans to increase to 42,000
Liverpool - 58,000
Man City - plans for 61,000
Man U - 76,000
Newcastle - 52,000
Norwich - plans to increase to 35,000
Southampton - 32,500
Stoke - plans to increase to 30,000
Sunderland - 49,000
West Bromwich - plans to increase to 30,000
Blackburn - long term plans to increase to 41,000
Bolton - 28,700
Bristol C - 27,000, plans to increase to 30,000
Brighton - can be expanded to 30,000
Cardiff - 35,000, can be expanded to 60,000
Charlton - plans for increase to 31,000, with potential to go to 40,0000
Fulham - plans to increase to 31,000
Hull - can be expanded to 45,000
MK -32,000, can be expanded up to 50,000
Barnsley - can be expanded up to 40,000
Now I know we obviously can't compete with the Man U's and Chelsea's and Arsenal's of this world, but if we have any ambition about us at all we need to be able to compete with the Stoke's and the West Brom's and the Norwich's and the Charlton's and Blackburn's and Bolton's.
The talk here is a maximum of 25,000, but that it is likely to be much lower.
25,000 has to just about be the minimum I would say. If we want success and get success, demand could quickly outstrip availability.
15,000 is okay for League One apart from any big play-off/cup/title bearing games, but in League One playing the Birmingham's and Villa's and Wolves etc. we will easily surpass 15,000 and much likely be well over 20,000.
The talk of 25,000 as an absolute maximum and to be unlikely, just concern me.
We have success and do really well and 25,000 would a short term measure leaving us to look to move again.
I know people are desperate to get away from Wasps, but we can't be blinkered here.
Someone needs to seriously have a good look at sinking it, raising it up in the sky, or knocking stuff down to get us a stadium that can fulfill our needs for the next half century at least.
Sent from my Hudl 2 using Tapatalk
no they don't - interesting to see who is squirming at this news. Do you and Senior Thick share the same care home?CCC. have final say on any buildings within City boundaries, and any permissions come from them directly.
Because obviously if we have real success it won't be enough. It won't be anywhere near enough to compete at a high enough level.
15,000 will see us to the Championship, but then we would struggle to make any dent on that.
So many clubs are expanding. We need much bigger than 15,000. To me that is blatantly obvious.
So what was the crap coming from SISU about CCC won't let us build a Stadium inside Coventry's boundary then. :facepalm:No they don't, if they refuse you appeal to the secretary of state.
Because obviously if we have real success it won't be enough. It won't be anywhere near enough to compete at a high enough level.
15,000 will see us to the Championship, but then we would struggle to make any dent on that.
So many clubs are expanding. We need much bigger than 15,000. To me that is blatantly obvious.
There will need to be infra structure improvements, road improvements etc. Improvements to bus and rail links coincide with match days or are viable 7 days per week. Yes it will bring people in to the City which is good news, but sorry CD it is going to need new car parking the existing 8000 you identify wont be enough to take the extra traffic imo.
How many parking spaces are there at the Emirates or the Etihad for example (I have no idea but not a huge amount I'd suggest). It seems like people are trying to create issues for us that haven't been a problem for anyone else.
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?