skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
That doesn't bode well for total stadium capacity. 10% for away fans I think is the leagues minimum requirement.
We could always stick the away end out of the way a bit to save space
Personally I hope the BPA move does not happen - ideally the owners of the Butts will veto any involvement with CCFC, and, failing that, CCC will prohibit this on planning/technical grounds (or the FA/FL will refuse permission to move grounds). We ought to build a sustainable future at the Ricoh, really.
Personally I hope the BPA move does not happen - ideally the owners of the Butts will veto any involvement with CCFC, and, failing that, CCC will prohibit this on planning/technical grounds (or the FA/FL will refuse permission to move grounds). We ought to build a sustainable future at the Ricoh, really.
Did Coventry Utd just sign a deal to ground share at the Butts, as I know
Everyone on here is all for standing up for the little guy, and playing fair.
How will this stack up.
Also did I hear Coventry Bears (is it ?) play here as well,
Surely the best thing to do is to stay at t he Ricoh on a long-term secure basis. It has got sufficient capacity for another future rise to the big time, we'll probably be able to buy a chunk of it when Wasps get into financial difficulties, and we're there already; it's our home (even if we do not own it). There's no evidence that moving to the Butts would be a preferable option.Why? Surely it should be what is best for CCFC.
Surely the best thing to do is to stay at t he Ricoh on a long-term secure basis. It has got sufficient capacity for another future rise to the big time, we'll probably be able to buy a chunk of it when Wasps get into financial difficulties, and we're there already; it's our home (even if we do not own it). There's no evidence that moving to the Butts would be a preferable option.
Like the long term secure basis we had on the last deal?
Which Tim Fisher chose to tear up, to try to to force ACL into bankruptcy
And you dream of that, it just looks like 'well ' a league 1 ground, I knowIf anyone wants to look more into the Union Berlin example, I found this below:
http://www.groundhopping.se/UnionBerlin.htm
It actually looks phenomenal and I think would be achievable.
Turn the North and East stands into seating, leave the South stand as it is and you've got a corker of a stadium that would be our home.
I know.... Dream on Earlsdon....
If anyone wants to look more into the Union Berlin example, I found this below:
http://www.groundhopping.se/UnionBerlin.htm
It actually looks phenomenal and I think would be achievable.
Turn the North and East stands into seating, leave the South stand as it is and you've got a corker of a stadium that would be our home.
I know.... Dream on Earlsdon....
And you dream of that, it just looks like 'well ' a league 1 ground, I know
That's where we are but surely we still aspire to rise again, this or any
Sort of deal at the Butts is just accepting we've found our level. IMHO
Very worrying.
And you dream of that, it just looks like 'well ' a league 1 ground, I know
That's where we are but surely we still aspire to rise again, this or any
Sort of deal at the Butts is just accepting we've found our level. IMHO
Very worrying.
I believe something like the Union Berlin stadium is achievable on The Butts site.
When it comes to thinking about a new football stadium I believe too many people have a fairly closed mind, they think of an outskirts of town bowl with lots of car parking. I believe we need to think differently and a more traditional stadium close to the city centre might suit the club better. Some might think it quirky, but it would have character and it would be our home.
Nick you keep harping on about that.Yeah, the £1.2 million a year one with no revenues. That long term one.
That's certainly a valid argument. However at the moment we're short on options. If the Butts proves to be viable then its probably our best option.I think the main argument against going to the BPA (assuming that nothing or no-one stands in its way) is that it could be regarded as not being very aspirational.
Nick you keep harping on about that.
But surely they would do a new deal?
If they were not happy with it you know what they would do.
1.2 1.2 1.2 that's all we ever hear would it be that much again....
Maybe if we got to the prem but hey it would pay for it self.then......
I'm sort of with you.Surely the best thing to do is to stay at t he Ricoh on a long-term secure basis. It has got sufficient capacity for another future rise to the big time, we'll probably be able to buy a chunk of it when Wasps get into financial difficulties, and we're there already; it's our home (even if we do not own it). There's no evidence that moving to the Butts would be a preferable option.
Yes, the one which the club signed and agreed when it suited them to do so (decling the council offer of a variable rent option which would have seen us pay less in L1. The £1.2m being mostly to pay back the cost of building the Ricoh, which we couldn't afford, and which no private investor would offer. That one.Yeah, the £1.2 million a year one with no revenues. That long term one.
Personally I'm happy for Wasps to stay at the Ricoh and succeed there; mostly because it would serve our owners right, and shoot them right up the bum!I'm sort of with you.
Ideal scenario is ...
We move to the 15,000 capacity Butts, play there for a couple of years, the Ricoh Wasps folly fails and they bugger off.
We move back into the Ricoh as our own and we leave Cov rugby with a lovely, shiny little stadium that should help them move back up amongst the big boys too.
Union Berlin don't play in the Bundesliga and probably Never will.... We at least did play premiere league and may one fine day return ( dreams).
Yep, it looks okay. Bang average. All a bit beige and uninspiring.And you dream of that, it just looks like 'well ' a league 1 ground, I know
That's where we are but surely we still aspire to rise again, this or any
Sort of deal at the Butts is just accepting we've found our level. IMHO
Very worrying.
Personally I'm happy for Wasps to stay at the Ricoh and succeed there; mostly because it would serve our owners right, and shoot them right up the bum!
Plus, if WRFC do succeed, it'll mean they can afford to give us a better deal on rent and other revenues, to help us. That might include revenues from the casino, hotel, exhibition hall etc, which we wouldn't get at the Butts.
That's certainly a valid argument. However at the moment we're short on options. If the Butts proves to be viable then its probably our best option.
Get ourselves into a better position and we become more attractive for one of those foreign investors who want to put silly money in.
Remember we wouldn't have to stay at the Butts forever.
Yes, the one which the club signed and agreed when it suited them to do so (decling the council offer of a variable rent option which would have seen us pay less in L1. The £1.2m being mostly to pay back the cost of building the Ricoh, which we couldn't afford, and which no private investor would offer. That one.
CCFC went to the council with a begging bowl and took a deal that suited at the time; when it came to upholding their end of the bargain, the owners kicked the council in the balls and reneged on their half of the deal. It was shameful and that was the real root cause of the problems we see today.
Yes, that one.
Deliberately ignoring the other justification which I showed would help CCFC, but yes just smear me and don't worry whether I have a point or not.Ah, another "As long as it hurts SISU" type of thing.
Deliberately ignoring the other justification which I showed would help CCFC, but yes just smear me and don't worry whether I have a point or not.
So you think it's OK to renege unilaterally on a signed commitment purely because it suits you to do so, rather than negotiating changes in good faith? I work as a contracts manager pal, and nobody reasonable behaves in that way, let me tell you. It's not wonder they all got to p1ssed off.Yes, that one where we paid more in rental with no revenues than it 100% sold for with a 250 year lease. Still, as long as it "shows sisu up" you wont mind.
Yes, clearly it is in their interest for it to be financially viable for us to play at the Ricoh, subject to their own needs. Clearly.The one where you said Wasps would share their revenues to "help" us?
So you think it's OK to renege unilaterally on a signed commitment purely because it suits you to do so, rather than negotiating changes in good faith? I work as a contracts manager pal, and nobody reasonable behaves in that way, let me tell you. It's not wonder they all got to p1ssed off.
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?