skybluejelly
Well-Known Member
So does that mean you were a dustman..if you travelled the borough daily
I live in Brownsover - far worse places like Admirals estate/ New Bilton/ lots of Bilton for that matter. Knock down the new development in that wasteland that is Cawston . . Best fish and Chippy in Brownsover. So there !
I used to work for RBC and travelled around the borough daily- can't think of any suitable site that would be on the Coventry side - but then SISU won't worry on that score. Maybe there is some old MOD sites that could be freed up .
So does that mean you were a dustman..if you travelled the borough daily
Its obvious it would be Rugby, the planning committee there never turn anything down. They are f*cking useless.
So back to topic
What on earth have CCFC been paying CBRE for for two years but are now having a go @ DIY
Most of Cawston queue up on a Friday night at Brownsover chippy !
So back to topic
What on earth have CCFC been paying CBRE for for two years but are now having a go @ DIY
FEARS Rolls-Royce will close its entire Ansty site are mounting following new proposals to outsource more operations, we can exclusively reveal.Staff sources told the Coventry Observer of a company briefing last week regarding future production of fan cases for the family of Trent civil aircraft engines.
Read more: More Rolls-Royce Ansty closure fears as new plan exposed | Coventry Observer
Anyone else up for a new protest campaign with the aim that the club stays not just in Coventry but at the Ricoh?
CCC should offer the land at Courtaulds by the clock tower off the Foleshill Road to Fisher for this wish for stadium, ideal location, plenty of it and in need of re-development. That would test his and SSUs sincerity once and for all.
Its obvious it would be Rugby, the planning committee there never turn anything down. They are f*cking useless.
Good luck with that.
Far too many City fans seemingly hate the Ricoh unfortunately.
I'd definitely be up for it, but I just don't think you would get the groundswell of support. People are making the Ricoh the scapegoat for our having a crap team on the pitch.
It's nothing to do with the teams performance.
It's to do with a realisation that without access to all income (which is the reason wasps stated that a rental arrangement can't work) the club will forever be a league one or at best struggling championship club.
The other factor is as time moves on there will be a move to brand the stadium more and more for themselves.
A new owner is needed but only one that agrees a strategy of getting out as quickly as possible.
And what if that owner doesn't exist? Which apparently they don't.
Should we stick with SISU? SISU are a bigger stumbling block than the arrangement at the Ricoh where success are concerned. Their short term make do thinking is first in the queue of what's killing the club.
It's nothing to do with the teams performance.
It's to do with a realisation that without access to all income (which is the reason wasps stated that a rental arrangement can't work) the club will forever be a league one or at best struggling championship club.
The other factor is as time moves on there will be a move to brand the stadium more and more for themselves.
A new owner is needed but only one that agrees a strategy of getting out as quickly as possible.
Depends if at best your ambition is to be occasionally in the championship facing inevitable relegation but spend 90% of its existence in league one or two.
Brand!!!
They can't even run a fucking shop how will they make any money from a stadium in the middle of nowhere?
You make out itis the only way but they will still be renting and will have to pay off the debt of the nee ground but at least we will be cash flow positive.
With a team no better then we have now a stadium no better then the Ricoh, with yet another ground that's to big for the fan base.
They would be better of buying Rugby Town and using their ground, would be plenty big enough for there needs.
Cod even rename the main stand as the Tim Fisher stand you could then sit there in peace.
You didn't answer the question. And what you've just described is all SISU have to offer. New ground or not. We're seeing the "benefit's" of SISU's short term make do policy already under TM. Yes the football is better but the nett result is the same. You're putting the cart before the horse. Step 1 is get rid of SISU, we're only going backwards with them.
It's nothing to do with the teams performance.
It's to do with a realisation that without access to all income (which is the reason wasps stated that a rental arrangement can't work) the club will forever be a league one or at best struggling championship club.
The other factor is as time moves on there will be a move to brand the stadium more and more for themselves.
A new owner is needed but only one that agrees a strategy of getting out as quickly as possible.
So they had met them when Fisher said it last week?
TF had been very open at a recent Stadium Advisory Group meeting, and provided clear insights regarding potential stadium site work – including dialogue with Rugby Borough Council.
TF then read a statement from CBRE, the property consultants, which highlighted that discussions had taken place with Rugby Borough Council on potential stadium sites and their deliverability
Have the FL turned round to the club and demanded to see proper progress ? :thinking about:
perhaps because technically CCFC have one year or so left on the temporary day rental agreement - the option for 2 more years has not yet been exercised. League rules require clubs to have a minimum 10 year agreement at some point that will need to be complied with. Do we know the details of the option is it at CCFC's discretion or not? What financial implications are there to exercising the option? So the FL might well monitor the situation closely so that they can highlight early any potential problems from a problem club that threaten the integrity of their overall competition.
Not to mention the owners saying they are not staying at the Ricoh - the FL might want to know how that is going ............
Yes, that makes sense.
we need access to revenues, blah blah blah....
Over 6 months now since they were able to sell a club shirt...
They cant get the basics right, let alone run a multi facility stadium
This bothers me too. The costs at the club seem to be being slashed but isn't the other side of that maximising the incomes we can have. That simply does not seem to be very effective at all. If the shop is a fair reflection of the overall marketing strategy then it is a shambles.
As you say we are repeatedly told how income is vital to the club and its ability to put players on the pitch and yet when it comes down to the actual operation of things like the shop doesn't back that up at all......
we need access to revenues, blah blah blah....
Over 6 months now since they were able to sell a club shirt...
They cant get the basics right, let alone run a multi facility stadium
perhaps because technically CCFC have one year or so left on the temporary day rental agreement - the option for 2 more years has not yet been exercised. League rules require clubs to have a minimum 10 year agreement at some point that will need to be complied with. Do we know the details of the option is it at CCFC's discretion or not? What financial implications are there to exercising the option? So the FL might well monitor the situation closely so that they can highlight early any potential problems from a problem club that threaten the integrity of their overall competition.
Not to mention the owners saying they are not staying at the Ricoh - the FL might want to know how that is going ............ seems not too well......:thinking about:
They can't even run a fucking shop how will they make any money from a stadium in the middle of nowhere?
They've made a right mess of running the football club for sure but are they generally incompetent? How do their other investments perform? Genuine question and I have no idea what the answer is, just wondered if the mess they've made here is the exception to their usual level of success.
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?