Coventry City FC hold stadium talks with Rugby Borough Council (2 Viewers)

chiefdave · Apr 2, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
I suspect that they are having to be alot more hands on than they are with other investments. For example they have shares in an Eastern European telecommunications company. I doubt that they've had to install a complete management system in there like they've tried and failed to at CCFC.

And that I suspect is the root of the problem. Ranson sold them an investment, put x amount in and get a return of y. It didn't work. At that point they should have walked but for some reason they stuck around and in came Orange Ken. Ranson was far from great but I think its the point at which Ken came in that things went seriously wrong. They probably could have sold us and got some sort of return when Ranson left. By the time Ken had finished we were pretty much worthless and Fisher and Sepalla have done nothing but make things worse.

DazzleTommyDazzle · Apr 2, 2015

oldskyblue58 said:
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...... why?

This was always my concern.

I used to have debates on GMK with those who thought that cutting costs was the answer to everything (remember Tommy Atkins....). I tried to point out that cost cutting is only effective as part of an overall strategy that while resetting the cost base, still leaves you with a business that is in a position to move forward.

Any idiot can just cut costs, the problem is that it often means that reduced revenues also result, so you then have to cut more costs (repeat until your club is a fond memory)........

oldskyblue58 · Apr 2, 2015

Are SISU running the club as such. Don't they in reality really just control the tap on the finance they provide. What usually happens is that investors or their agents bring in suitable executives to run the enterprise properly within an overall framework. Unfortunately that's the problem the selection of those key people appears to have been woeful. The day to day decisions/operations are pretty much down to the directors I would think with oversight by Joy/minions. There are two directors TF & SW.

I just do not see Joy and her minions sitting in their London offices directing the marketing operations for example

As Fisher has said the aim is to be independent of the "owner/investor" and therefore the club has to stand on its own two feet - to cut its cloth accordingly ....... that means no more funding and the club making its own way and decisions......wherever that leads us to. I must admit the meaning of that and the associated thoughts do not fill me with confidence or optimism for the future - far from it

italiahorse · Apr 2, 2015

chiefdave said:
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.

To be honest I don't think they have a clue about running a football club.
They seem to put people in charge that are more about there own ego's than actually being able to maximise revenues, put together a effective football team and importantly communicating with fans.

chiefdave · Apr 2, 2015

oldskyblue58 said:
Are SISU running the club as such. Don't they in reality really just control the tap on the finance they provide. What usually happens is that investors or their agents bring in suitable executives to run the enterprise properly within an overall framework. Unfortunately that's the problem the selection of those key people appears to have been woeful. The day to day decisions/operations are pretty much down to the directors I would think with oversight by Joy/minions. There are two directors TF & SW.

If you take the emotional connection out of it you can sort of see what they have done.

Ranson was the one that came up with the idea so he was placed in charge of executing it. When he walked they brought in Delieu who was most likely the only other football person they knew from when they were after Southampton.

And then we end up with Fisher. To be fair to him he's inherited a right old mess and some of his ideas, such as needing ownership of our ground, aren't necessarily wrong, it's the way he's tried to achieve things that is the problem. Is that down to his incompetence, the fact that he's dealing with a council rather than a private business or that football clubs tend to not follow the normal rules of business? I suspect all of those have contributed.

As you say i very much doubt Joy is running things day to day but I suspect she has a much closer eye on this than she has in the past or does with other investments.

oldskyblue58 · Apr 2, 2015

So what is the latest spiel as to what size of plot we are apparently looking for and what will be on it ........... the skeleton details seem to change depending on who is being told or which way the wind is blowing? Even the 3 sites TF came up with before had greatly differing areas

chiefdave · Apr 2, 2015

oldskyblue58 said:
So what is the latest spiel as to what size of plot we are apparently looking for and what will be on it ........... the skeleton details seem to change depending on who is being told or which way the wind is blowing? Even the 3 sites TF came up with before had greatly differing areas

I would say anything from 60 acres down. When talking about 60 acres it involved retail and moving the academy and training facilities. I suspect there will still be a view to move the academy so as not to be reliant on Higgs however moving out of Ryton has most likely become less attractive after RBC said they were unlikely to grant permission for it to be used as housing in the future therefore reducing the value of any sale.

I suspect the requirements are to a certain extent fluid and dependent on what is available. That of course assumes there is ever to be an actual site and any serious work is being put in to acquiring one.

Samo · Apr 2, 2015

The Reverend Skyblue said:
Oh dear, I think I remember we were down to two sites in the lastest news about this, and I'm sure we were close to securing one of them

So two years down the road and we still haven't secured a blade of grass or getting anywhere near to doing so.

What a waste of time Fisher is, if this is his whole job remit ,what the hell has he been doing.

Nothing... its not real... Shhh

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 2, 2015

oldskyblue58 said:
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...... why?

It is an interesting question really... as I struggle to believe the answer is that they are as utterly inept as they appear to be on that score.

Even the most useless company can supply *some* shirts to a guaranteed pent-up demand, after all.

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 2, 2015

DazzleTommyDazzle said:
This was always my concern.

I used to have debates on GMK with those who thought that cutting costs was the answer to everything (remember Tommy Atkins....). I tried to point out that cost cutting is only effective as part of an overall strategy that while resetting the cost base, still leaves you with a business that is in a position to move forward.

Any idiot can just cut costs, the problem is that it often means that reduced revenues also result, so you then have to cut more costs (repeat until your club is a fond memory)........

Worth pointing out McGinnity's time was cut costs and only cut costs... and that too brought us to the brink (16yos being played, no ground of our own... many parallels to now, really!)

chiefdave · Apr 2, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
It is an interesting question really... as I struggle to believe the answer is that they are as utterly inept as they appear to be on that score.

Even the most useless company can supply *some* shirts to a guaranteed pent-up demand, after all.

The replica kit thing I can kind of understand. I suspect Puma print all clubs shirts at the same time and an order outside that timeframe comes with the same conditions as when you want a non-template kit i.e.: there is a relatively high minimum order. What I struggle to believe is that Puma don't have any generic stock that's some shade of blue that could just have a club crest stuck on it.

oldskyblue58 · Apr 10, 2015

At the risk of stirring up comment as to the worth of FOI's, the latest response from RBC received by SB Trust is on the Trust website

http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/

skybluetony176 · Apr 10, 2015

"The club wanted to understand how RBC would deal with an application for a stadium in the borough of Rugby"

Isn't that what they're supposed to be paying CRBE for? Which begs the question. Are they still employing the services of CRBE?

oldskyblue58 · Apr 10, 2015

I think it is interesting if you tie in the dates of the meetings with what was said at the recent SCG and at the SCG/Directors meetings. There would appear to be some contradictions :thinking about:

It would seem that the RBC response was subject to internal review to double check and that the SBT request covered both formal and informal approaches including by CBRE

It would seem the latest meeting was a discussion of the process not of any sites in particular. I think we already know the 23/09/13 meeting was about the Brandon site and that was rejected by RBC (may have also included the disposal of the Ryton training ground which was also rejected)

skybluetony176 · Apr 10, 2015

oldskyblue58 said:
I think it is interesting if you tie in the dates of the meetings with what was said at the recent SCG and at the SCG/Directors meetings. There would appear to be some contradictions :thinking about:

It would seem that the RBC response was subject to internal review to double check and that the SBT request covered both formal and informal approaches including by CBRE

It would seem the latest meeting was a discussion of the process not of any sites in particular. I think we already know the 23/09/13 meeting was about the Brandon site and that was rejected (may have also included the disposal of the Ryton training ground which was also rejected)

It sounds like a phone call I'd make if I wanted to know how to apply for an extension on my house. Could you even go as far as to call it speculative? They certainly don't seem to have even talked about certain speculative sites. Certainly nothing you could make an exciting new announcement on in the new year. Wasn't there supposed to have been requests for impact statements etc as well as contact with highways and environmental agencies? They've narrowed it down to two sites though.

Astute · Apr 10, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
They've narrowed it down to two sites though.

Is that north of Rugby and south of Rugby?

martcov · Apr 10, 2015

Astute said:
Is that north of Rugby and south of Rugby?

Is this spurious bullshit from TF, or are the Trust publishing negative information in an attempt to destabilise the Club and demoralise the fans - as the CT dös ( apparently according to a certain Clique of Posters )?

oldskyblue58 · Apr 10, 2015

I think the two Trust members at the SCG were challenged on the FOI's by Fisher. They said they would get the SBT to double check with RBC and report the findings. They have done that. It makes no comment on the FOI's or new stadium. Nothing more than that as far as I can see. The previous article to this one was

With the end of the season approaching fast, and the Sky Blues still in the danger zone, we think it’s important that fans get behind Tony Mowbray and the team. They are fighting for their First Division lives, and the support of our fans can give them a real boost.

We are City fans. We MUST continue to support the team, whatever we think of the owners of our Club

Moff · Apr 10, 2015

martcov said:
Is this spurious bullshit from TF, or are the Trust publishing negative information in an attempt to destabilise the Club and demoralise the fans - as the CT dös ( apparently according to a certain Clique of Posters )?

To be fair the people who claim the Telegraph are biased are only doing the same as all those who claim the Observer is biased, and there are far more throwing their dollies out of the pram at Les Reids reporting than at the Telegraphs.

Personally I think they both have their own agenda, Les Reids is wild and off tangent, whilst the Telgraphs is more subtle but they enjoy putting the boot in and strirring when they wish.

In respect of the Telegraph I think there is a lot of lazy journalism just rehashing of stories or press releases with a catchy title, to try to pull us the public in so to raise advertsing revenues as we click onto the site. I think both papers are poor now and a pale shadow of their former selves.

chiefdave · Apr 10, 2015

Moff said:
Personally I think they both have their own agenda, Les Reids is wild and off tangent, whilst the Telgraphs is more subtle but they enjoy putting the boot in and strirring when they wish.

Would agree with that. Reid is a political reporter first and foremost so comes at things from a different angle, clearly he does not think highly of our council. That could be down to individuals or a dislike of the Labour party overall. It seems he's going from being edited in an over-zealous manner, at least in his opinion, to not being edited at all. Result is any valid points he raises get lost.

On the flip side the CT is clearly more onside with the council, and most certainly Wasps coupled with a dislike for SISU. They attempt to be more subtle with it as you say but its still there.

As with a lot of things it seems people want to pick one side over the other and stick with it no matter what so it ends up like groundhog day with the same arguments going round and round.

skybluetony176 · Apr 10, 2015

Moff said:
To be fair the people who claim the Telegraph are biased are only doing the same as all those who claim the Observer is biased, and there are far more throwing their dollies out of the pram at Les Reids reporting than at the Telegraphs.

Personally I think they both have their own agenda, Les Reids is wild and off tangent, whilst the Telgraphs is more subtle but they enjoy putting the boot in and strirring when they wish.

In respect of the Telegraph I think there is a lot of lazy journalism just rehashing of stories or press releases with a catchy title, to try to pull us the public in so to raise advertsing revenues as we click onto the site. I think both papers are poor now and a pale shadow of their former selves.

Here's the thing. You could argue both papers are just reporting the facts but and its a big but the CT can't report any good news stories on CCFC because let's be honest, there aren't any. Missing relegation again is about as good as the good news stories are going to get and that story is yet to break. The Observers award winning political journalist on the other hand missed both the good news Jaguar and LTI stories that the local council were claiming as a victory in an election year from what I can see in preference to a spat at the local football clubs SCG meeting. You can see why at least one of those papers gets accused of being biased.

olderskyblue · Apr 10, 2015

Nick said:
So they had met them when Fisher said it last week?

No, they hadn't

albatross · Apr 10, 2015

What is clear is that have spent more time in meetings discussing and contriving our move to Northampton and back which was the backdrop to our supposed need for a new stadium. Now we have on record two exploratory meetings with RBC.

Hell they've even met more times with the SBT and CCC and WASPS SCG etc.. than they have spent on this supposed cornerstone of their plan

skybluetony176 · Apr 10, 2015

albatross said:
What is clear is that have spent more time in meetings discussing and contriving our move to Northampton and back which was the backdrop to our supposed need for a new stadium. Now we have on record two exploratory meetings with RBC.

Hell they've even met more times with the SBT and CCC and WASPS SCG etc.. than they have spent on this supposed cornerstone of their plan

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the first meeting recorded in the first round of FOI's and was actually about developing Ryton for the accademy and not a new stadium? If I'm right does that mean we're down to one meeting for the new stadium?

Covcraig@bury · Apr 15, 2015

Jack Griffin said:
Already housing planned there isn't there? That is the score with CCC, any land is for housing, they even want to gobble up the greenbelt, Cllr Maton doesn't seem to understand the public are not with him on that issue.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/700-new-homes-built-former-8430720

Time to vote this lot out of council.. May the 7th is only around the corner and their must be a candidate that is city through and through !!!

chiefdave · Apr 15, 2015

Covcraig@bury said:
Time to vote this lot out of council.. May the 7th is only around the corner and their must be a candidate that is city through and through !!!

To be honest I don't think enough people care about CCFC anymore for it to be an issue. Put our situation into another city and you'd probably have a single issue candidate running and the other candidates being desperate to be seen to be supportive of the football club and against the Ricoh sale.

Thats the saddest part, after years of being ground down it looks like people are just giving up.

Covcraig@bury · Apr 15, 2015

I think your right chiefdave !! There used to be around 20 of us went to every game home and away, now 2 or 3 go home games the rest pick away games like myself . Sisu have defiantly destroyed the community/fans and devided once friendship between our supporters . If the council and Sisu could just come to some agreement regarding waste brown belt land within the City ( not Rugby BC ) and draw a line under the whole issue .. I have never liked our owners and would like to see the back of them, but I know the only way for the club to go forward is benefit from all match day and year round revenue . PUSB and heads need banging together

oldfiver · Apr 15, 2015

chiefdave said:
To be honest I don't think enough people care about CCFC anymore for it to be an issue. Put our situation into another city and you'd probably have a single issue candidate running and the other candidates being desperate to be seen to be supportive of the football club and against the Ricoh sale.

Thats the saddest part, after years of being ground down it looks like people are just giving up.

Sadly that is not just CCFC supporters but long standing Coventry residents - this Council does not want us. You have to be a Chinese student paying £30k a year to be taught at the Uni - English not a requirement!

Tonylinc · Apr 15, 2015

Look, this latest "news", if indeed it is so, will just be Fisher having a chat to RBC in order to justify his job. This new stadium is a complete non-starter; the figures simply do not add up. He knows it and so do we........move on.

Hobo · Apr 15, 2015

oldfiver said:
Sadly that is not just CCFC supporters but long standing Coventry residents - this Council does not want us. You have to be a Chinese student paying £30k a year to be taught at the Uni - English not a requirement!

CCC do not make policy decisions for Coventry University or Warwick University?

Macca · Apr 16, 2015

chiefdave said:
To be honest I don't think enough people care about CCFC anymore for it to be an issue. Put our situation into another city and you'd probably have a single issue candidate running and the other candidates being desperate to be seen to be supportive of the football club and against the Ricoh sale.

Thats the saddest part, after years of being ground down it looks like people are just giving up.

Sad but true, the fire has certainly gone from my belly, add a good 12 or so mates too

shmmeee · Apr 16, 2015

Hobo said:
CCC do not make policy decisions for Coventry University or Warwick University?

Hush with your logic.

mrtrench · Apr 16, 2015

Covcraig@bury said:
Time to vote this lot out of council.. May the 7th is only around the corner and their must be a candidate that is city through and through !!!

I hope not. I certainly wouldn't want a politician in charge who favours a private enterprise.

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 16, 2015

mrtrench said:
I hope not. I certainly wouldn't want a politician in charge who favours a private enterprise.

I would be with you all the way if I saw anything other than aspiring to private enterprise.

All the arguments have been financial, the way ACL was set up was akin to a private enterprise deal, the arguments for Wasps coming are financial, much as they were financial for the stand-off with CCFC.

The social is duly ignored.

And for *that* they should all be voted out. The last social decision wrt our club was the building of the thing in the first place... and by that I mean Nellist and co pushing for it being more about urban regeneration - I may not have agreed with that as a concept when it came to football teams and football grounds... but at least it was a social argument!

Now all we get is returns on loans, exposure to risk, and cost benefit analyses all over the place.

In other words, a sad echo of private enterprise.

Coventry City FC hold stadium talks with Rugby Borough Council (2 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

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

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency