Non AMP
Sky Blues Talk
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Coventry City Football Club
  • Coventry City General Chat
Ad
This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Butts (1 Viewer)

  • Thread starter better days
  • Start date Apr 16, 2019
Forums New posts
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 6
Next
1 of 6 Next Last
better days

better days

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #1
The Times is saying this morning that sharing with Coventry Rugby at The Butts is the main option after St Andrews was disqualified because it's too far from Coventry
 
kg82

kg82

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #2
Well, don’t know where they’ve got that from. I’d actually prefer the butts over anything else, but I thought there’s a restriction on professional football being played there.

Anyway, I think they might have that wrong.

It would be nice to know who the source is.
 
Last edited: Apr 16, 2019
Wyken Sky Blue

Wyken Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #3
I like the Butts and I cannot lie...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Somerset Sky Blue, oucho, chiefdave and 6 others
M

Magwitch

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #4
If that’s true re. St Andrews being deemed too far that doesn’t leave much else does it. Knocks out Walsall, Leicester even Northampton. This Times statement needs confirming yes or no
 
Gynnsthetonic

Gynnsthetonic

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #5
The council tried but could not enforce it. You may even get it up to 10000 with temporary stands
 
  • Like
Reactions: vow
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #6
Magwitch said:
If that’s true re. St Andrews being deemed too far that doesn’t leave much else does it.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

I'm not convinced by the veracity of such a claim really, because if a move were to be allowed, you'd *have* to allow St Andrews as an option.
 
better days

better days

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #7
I know the Butts was the club's preferred option back in Chris Anderson's time
It would be the least worst option
 
  • Like
Reactions: vow
T

theferret

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #8
CRC originally had approval for up to a 12,000 capacity. That may have lapsed (not sure), but that was based on there being no changes to local infrastructure. This would have to go through planning (even temporary stands), but there would have to be a very good reason for planners to reject a proposal for a capacity up to that amount, assuming it was a solid proposal all round from a planning perspective. Time is against us though. Would like this to happen, and once we are there it would perhaps open up the possibility of a more permanent upsized development over time.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #9
better days said:
It would be the least worst option
Click to expand...
It would. Based on the last time it came up however, I'm not expecting it!
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #10
There was a rumour on Twitter on Sunday that it's Nuneaton with temporary stands.

I'm still holding out hope we'll sort something at the Ricoh.
 
A

Ashdown

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #11
And people think the Ricoh pitch is bad !!
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #12
Ashdown said:
And people think the Ricoh pitch is bad !!
Click to expand...

Talking of pitches, aren't they putting in a new pitch, (perhaps 4G?), that wouldn't be acceptable to the EFL?
 
O

oldfiver

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #13
clint van damme said:
Talking of pitches, aren't they putting in a new pitch, (perhaps 4G?), that wouldn't be acceptable to the EFL?
Click to expand...

I suppose it would depend on who owned CCFC ?
 
C

CCFC88

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #14
My thoughts when SISU made the give us land and a 3 year rent deal at the Ricoh and we'll drop court action was that the easiest way out for the council would be to say we have no suitable land but we'll support any development at the Butts.

They seem very worried about public opinion in the lead up to local elections, they have a PR open goal here if they support Butts redevelopment and keep CCFC in the city.

They also however despise SISU so it depends how much pride they are happy to swallow.
 
Reactions: the rumpo kid

Kneeza

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #15
clint van damme said:
Talking of pitches, aren't they putting in a new pitch, (perhaps 4G?), that wouldn't be acceptable to the EFL?
Click to expand...
That was the plan, yes, but things have changed significantly.
With what is going on next season (caveat: contracts to sign, etc) there's no way this could happen.
So I call bullshit.
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #16
CCFC88 said:
My thoughts when SISU made the give us land and a 3 year rent deal at the Ricoh and we'll drop court action was that the easiest way out for the council would be to say we have no suitable land but we'll support any development at the Butts.

They seem very worried about public opinion in the lead up to local elections, they have a PR open goal here if they support Butts redevelopment and keep CCFC in the city.

They also however despise SISU so it depends how much pride they are happy to swallow.
Click to expand...

I've said this numerous times but the council can't give anyone the go ahead to develop the Butts.
Jon Sharp owns the club and gas specific plans of his own.
It's arrogant to think that CCFC can just turn up their and do what they want.
 
Reactions: rondog1973 and Captain Dart

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #17
Kneeza said:
That was the plan, yes, but things have changed significantly.
With what is going on next season (caveat: contracts to sign, etc) there's no way this could happen.
So I call bullshit.
Click to expand...

What's bullshit? Cov aren't laying a new pitch or the type of pitch is prohibited by the EFL?
 
C

CCFC88

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #18
clint van damme said:
It's arrogant to think that CCFC can just turn up their and do what they want.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone's suggesting we'd turn up and do what we'd want, those involved would see it as a win/win/win if a fair partnership was agreed upon, the only potential losers in the situation would be Wasps financially and potentially through a rise in CRFC's potential.

Still think Wasps will make a public offer to us to stay at the Ricoh however which I don't think SISU would be able to turn down publically.
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #19
CCFC88 said:
I don't think anyone's suggesting we'd turn up and do what we'd want, those involved would see it as a win/win/win if a fair partnership was agreed upon, the only potential losers in the situation would be Wasps financially and potentially through a rise in CRFC's potential.

Still think Wasps will make a public offer to us to stay at the Ricoh however which I don't think SISU would be able to turn down publically.
Click to expand...

But why would CRFC use up valuable land developing a stadium far too big for their needs when they can develop it to open up other income streams?
I also thing the retirement village puts massive limitations on the size of any stadium development and the pros who run it have plans to expand though I don't know if theyve been given the green light.

Would be a great temporary option if there's any truth in the Times report. I'm all for anything that keeps us in Cov.
 

hill83

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #20
clint van damme said:
It's arrogant to think that CCFC can just turn up their and do what they want.
Click to expand...

Everyone on here has said that and at least 10 people at work.
 
Reactions: SkyBlueDom26
C

CCFC88

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #21
clint van damme said:
But why would CRFC use up valuable land developing a stadium far too big for their needs when they can develop it to open up other income streams?
Click to expand...
Would they be able to develop income streams that generate more income than say 50% (if its a true partnership) of 30 football matches per year with 10-15,000 fans.

Yes they don't need a 10-15k stadium, there's only a handful of rugby clubs in the country that do need that, Wasps are playing at a 1/3rd full stadium week in week out currently

A temporary deal if they can get the capacity to 8k would work for me, just don't see the council allowing us to starve Wasps in such a way..
 
Reactions: vow

Cigarfingers

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #22
CCFC88 said:
Would they be able to develop income streams that generate more income than say 50% (if its a true partnership) of 30 football matches per year with 10-15,000 fans.

Yes they don't need a 10-15k stadium, there's only a handful of rugby clubs in the country that do need that, Wasps are playing at a 1/3rd full stadium week in week out currently

A temporary deal if they can get the capacity to 8k would work for me, just don't see the council allowing us to starve Wasps in such a way..
Click to expand...


Fuck the Wasps, Fuck Sisu, Fuck the Council & the Villa too!
 
Reactions: Hugh Jarse, RegTheDonk, Terry Gibson's perm and 6 others

pusbccfc

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #23
Blackpool Football Club - stand replacement - GL events UK

A case study into Blackpool's temporary stands.

I see no reasons why we couldn't build to of those by August.
 

SkyBlueDom26

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #24
This would be excellent! Redevelop it with 3 new stands and the new 4G pitch

Perfect location with it being so close to town! Have to kick the new 'phoenix' club out first though.....
 
Reactions: CanadianCCFC and Greggs

Corrado

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #25
If its the butts next season I will be getting a season ticket for myself and my lad straight away
 
Reactions: CanadianCCFC, ohitsaidwalker king power, ccfc92 and 2 others

pusbccfc

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #26
Corrado said:
If its the butts next season I will be getting a season ticket for myself and my lad straight away
Click to expand...

I'd get a season ticket for Cov rugby too.
 
Reactions: CCFC88
K

KeresleyArmpit

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #27
The Butts is the dream for the majority of city fans I'd say. I'm not sure on the 4G pitch situation, whether it's happening or not, but the pitch is known for being awful and would need work regardless.

St Andrews is the next best thing and the only other ground I'd consider going to regularly. Fairplay to those in charge if these are legitimately the final 2 options.
 
Reactions: ccfchoi87
S

skysblue

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #28
better days said:
The Times is saying this morning that sharing with Coventry Rugby at The Butts is the main option after St Andrews was disqualified because it's too far from Coventry
Click to expand...
Coventry to propose ground share with local rugby club with just 4,000 capacity stadium | Daily Mail Online
 

richnrg

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #29
bit of a long drive to Blackpool though :mooning:
 
Reactions: Hugh Jarse, RegTheDonk, vow and 1 other person

ceetee

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #30
SkyBlueDom26 said:
This would be excellent! Redevelop it with 3 new stands and the new 4G pitch

Perfect location with it being so close to town! Have to kick the new 'phoenix' club out first though.....
Click to expand...

Am I the only one who thinks that the grand plan is to install Cov.Utd. at the Ricoh...?
 

SkyBlueDom26

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #31
ceetee said:
Am I the only one who thinks that the grand plan is to install Cov.Utd. at the Ricoh...?
Click to expand...
Fuck me if that were to happen i think there would be a riot
 

shepardo01

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #32
Call me an old cynic, but with the council leaked e mail trying to block pro football there, Sharp wanting to develop site (and nedding ccc support) is this just a vehicle to point more at the council being obstructive (if) when it is blocked as being a possibility....
 
Reactions: Deleted member 5849

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #33
Lot of bonkers PR on the go. Conspiracy after conspiracy, rumour upon rumour.
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #34
CCFC88 said:
just don't see the council allowing us to starve Wasps in such a way..
Click to expand...

And that's the issue. Why should th Council care about Wasps? They've never cared about the indigenous football club.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
  • Apr 16, 2019
  • #35
The Butts would be brilliant. Obviously it would only happen if it was acceptable to CRFC but if we’re paying a rugby club rent I’d much rather them benefit than Wasps.

As for planning permission I have a feeling there’s a loophole where you can put stands up for something like 30 days without permission. It would be a pain to keep taking them up and down but could you in theory get around it that way?
 
Reactions: RegTheDonk and vow
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 6
Next
1 of 6 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Share:
Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Coventry City Football Club
  • Coventry City General Chat
  • Default Style
  • Contact us
  • Terms and rules
  • Privacy policy
  • Help
  • Home
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2021 XenForo Ltd.
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Home
  • Forums
    • New posts
    • Search forums
  • What's new
    • New posts
    • Latest activity
  • Members
    • Current visitors
  • Donate to the Season Ticket Fund
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?