Privately, council sources tell me of fears the rugby club could be swallowed up by the football club and they are just looking out for the interests of a 142-year-old Coventry sports club.
Probably the best article simon has ever written!
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Pretty good article tbf, in reference to the bit you have quoted Nick Simon goes on to say that line is bs from the council
I wouldn't want that to happen.another question are CCFC fans (or owners) really going to care if in the future the rugby club gets buried and CCFC end up with all the stadium? Would be nice but probably naive to think they would care.
another question are CCFC fans (or owners) really going to care if in the future the rugby club gets buried and CCFC end up with all the stadium? Would be nice but probably naive to think they would care.
another question are CCFC fans (or owners) really going to care if in the future the rugby club gets buried and CCFC end up with all the stadium? Would be nice but probably naive to think they would care.
The truth is if done correctly it could present huge opportunity.
I think the football club could with a small capacity be sold out every week. There will be those who enjoy both sports. Very easily the football clubs database could be shared and offers made to go the the rugby.
The marketing could be geared to sporting heritage in the City and supporting these teams is supporting the community.
The truth is if done correctly it could present huge opportunity.
I think the football club could with a small capacity be sold out every week. There will be those who enjoy both sports. Very easily the football clubs database could be shared and offers made to go the the rugby.
The marketing could be geared to sporting heritage in the City and supporting these teams is supporting the community.
So you constantly gripe about a rugby club being our direct competition for supporters,The truth is if done correctly it could present huge opportunity.
I think the football club could with a small capacity be sold out every week. There will be those who enjoy both sports. Very easily the football clubs database could be shared and offers made to go the the rugby.
The marketing could be geared to sporting heritage in the City and supporting these teams is supporting the community.
Or it could be because they from and called Coventry.Highly doubt it is coincidence that both clubs are highlighting Coventry in their marketing.
View attachment 5227 View attachment 5228
What an absolute joke. Why not ask them about why Wasps haven't delivered any promises? Why not ask them if they don't want the Rugby club to be damaged, how is Wasps helping?
CA has already said they have said no on every point. If we had a half decent local media they would be straight on to Wasps asking them why they were hindering the clubs progress.Surely its up to Chris Anderson not Wasps to give the feedback on the 17 items?
Neither would I. Wouldn't mind Wasps going under though. With their debt, hopefully will happen.I wouldn't want that to happen.
id love the idea of watching CCFC in a full stadium, even if it was 15k. Whilst best endeavours and all that, the "there will be those who enjoy both sports", if that's the case, the majority who enjoy rugby will always head to wasps as the standard is far superior. the vast majority of those who will attend the butts for rugby will already will be Coventry rugby club fans. The challenge will be to grow that fan base, not jut maintain it. Ironically, there seems to be more talk and interest in rugby since wasps turned up, so it might just help
I work in Chelmsley Wood. In the past 18 months I have come across 6 people who now go to Wasps. None of them live in Coventry.
On the other hand Simon says the progress is being hampered by CCC attempting to block CCFC at the BPA.... Is progress the BPA or the Ricoh? Anyway not accepting all 17 points at the start of negotiations is not unusual - that is why they are called "negotiations", the same as saying, ok we'll build our own at the BPA. It doesn't mean we will definitely end up at BPA... It can still go either way, but whatever happens we don't have much time to mess around... And yes, CCFC are responsible for the future development of the city and have to treat each case on it's merits - if SISU and CRFC can lay viable plans on the table and suggest solutions for potential problems, then they have every right to be treated as anyone else. But, it would ease things on a human level if SISU offered to act more conciliatory - Even if legally they don't have to ( the Same goes for CCC ). You cannot have planning discussions glaring hatred at each other. CA and Duggins are both fresh faces, so there should be no "hell freezing over" or throwing keys on the table.CA has already said they have said no on every point. If we had a half decent local media they would be straight on to Wasps asking them why they were hindering the clubs progress.
if people really care then why are their attendances only around the 2k mark? we have had a dig at people not getting up the Ricoh in big enough numbers (no matter who owned the Ricoh or when bigger attendances might have made it more difficult for it to be sold to wasps). or is it genuinely possible CRFC can use the new stadium as a more effective springboard towards new ownership and climbing their leaguescthan we can?
Personally I think it would be a sensible strategy to be pursuing more than one option.On the other hand Simon says the progress is being hampered by CCC attempting to block CCFC at the BPA.... Is progress the BPA or the Ricoh?
Its not the best starting point though is it? If they intended to have meaningful negotiations wouldn't they have agreed to at least some points to show willing and enable things to move forward. Just saying no to everything doesn't seem a great way to open.Anyway not accepting all 17 points at the start of negotiations is not unusual - that is why they are called "negotiations"
The council need to approach CA and the current situation as a separate from any action being taken by SISU. Put that to the side. If and when a plan to move forward comes together that is a time you might say can we stop all the other action but refusing to even speak to the club won't move things forward.CA and Duggins are both fresh faces, so there should be no "hell freezing over" or throwing keys on the table.
CA has already said they have said no on every point. If we had a half decent local media they would be straight on to Wasps asking them why they were hindering the clubs progress.
I posted on their Facebook the other day that they had put up an article quoting the council leader saying he wouldn't stand in the way yet the day before they had him quoted as saying he wouldn't speak to the club.
Those two statements are compatible yet there was no follow up. That's what frustrates me, obvious questions aren't asked. You could say the same of Reid, if he was speaking to the club about the Butts why not ask the question about capacity?
Be nice to have a definitive list of those 17 points, and the answers given to each of them. "Discussions came to nought" tells us absolutely nothing really does it? Came to nothing because of what, or who? I don't care who it looks bad for, lets just have the information.
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?