Formal Planning Objection from CCFC (2 Viewers)

Otis · Aug 1, 2016

I think people are putting far too much credence on the comments section on the CT website, which is very much akin to the letters page on the paper itself.

The only people I know read the letters page is my mum and dad.

Full of idiotic complaints and inane moaning about the trivialist of matters.

I don't know anyone who reads the comments page on the website either.

The only time I ever look at it is upon being directed to it by someone on here.

I wouldn't take too much heed of the SBT being pro Sisu/Telegraph readers being pro council stuff at all.

Not so long ago since it was considered that SBT was pro council and GMK was the pro Sisu one and I don't even think the notion that is because all the GMK lot came over here holds much water either.

There's been a few come over, but a lot were already posting on here anyway.

Comments sections always draw in the moaners and the nutters and the confrontational and the weird. I have never had the inclination to sift through it all.

Warwickhunt · Aug 1, 2016

ashbyjan said:
The Trust is today writing to the CCC Planning Committee asking them to reject the proposal until suitable arrangemets have been made regarding the CCFC academy. If you wish to contact any of the members of the planning committee that are meeting on Thursday to state your objections their contact details are:
pervez.akhtar@coventry.gov.uk
richard.brown@coventry.gov.uk (Chairman)
john.mcnicholas@coventry.gov.uk
rachel.lancaster@coventry.gov.uk
catherine.miks@coventry.gov.uk
kieran.mulhall@coventry.gov.uk
pat.seaman@coventry.gov.uk
hazel.sweet@coventry.gov.uk
roger.bailey@coventry.gov.uk
gary.crookes@coventry.gov.uk
glenn.williams@coventry.gov.uk

I have written to them all hopefully something of what i said may sway opinions (hold my breath awaiting abuse)

Brylowes · Aug 1, 2016

Otis said:
I think people are putting far too much credence on the comments section on the CT website, which is very much akin to the letters page on the paper itself.

The only people I know read the letters page is my mum and dad.

Full of idiotic complaints and inane moaning about the trivialist of matters.

I don't know anyone who reads the comments page on the website either.

The only time I ever look at it is upon being directed to it by someone on here.

I wouldn't take too much heed of the SBT being pro Sisu/Telegraph readers being pro council stuff at all.

Not so long ago since it was considered that SBT was pro council and GMK was the pro Sisu one and I don't even think the notion that is because all the GMK lot came over here holds much water either.

There's been a few come over, but a lot were already posting on here anyway.

Comments sections always draw in the moaners and the nutters and the confrontational and the weird. I have never had the inclination to sift through it all.

So is your Mum the nutter' and your dad the moaner, or the other way round.

Otis · Aug 1, 2016

Brylowes said:
So is your Mum the nutter' and your dad the moaner, or the other way round.

Luckily they only read it and do not contribute to it.

Deleted member 5849 · Aug 1, 2016

Otis said:
but a lot were already posting on here anyway.

...and wouldn't want to be reminded of their pro-SISU stance

Broken Hearted Sky Blue · Aug 1, 2016

Nick said:
Not at all, people like Steve, last and bhsb etc go home and away most weeks don't they? Italia has a season ticket?

However, you will get people who don't.

Couldn't you have found others to group me in with

Nick · Aug 1, 2016

Broken Hearted Sky Blue said:
Couldn't you have found others to group me in with

Sorry, I didn't have my black book of mentalists to hand :clown::mask:

chiefdave · Aug 1, 2016

Ian1779 said:
The thing is that the CET choose which articles they allow the comment section to be enabled on. There have been occasions over the last couple of years when they disabled the comments area - in particular articles that were not complimentary of Wasps or CCC.

They choose which comments go on as well. More than one person has said to me their comments, criticising the council, have disappeared.

ashbyjan · Aug 1, 2016

This is what the Trust have sent to all members of planning committee

"Dear Mr Brown

The Sky Blue Trust represents 3000 Coventry City Supporters and we are writing to you as Chairman of the Planning Committee on their behalf.

You are shortly due to be making a decision on whether to grant planning permission for Wasps rugby club to build a new training facility at the Alan Higgs Centre on Allard Way and we would urge you to take the following points into consideration before making any irrevocable and potentially damaging decision.

The building of Wasps academy and specifically the indoor “kicking barn” will have a direct effect on the incumbent academy currently housed at the centre, the academy of the City’s football team, Coventry City. The barn will displace the current outdoor U21 pitch which the football club uses but also the subsequent loss of two other pitches threatens the cherished and valuable Category 2 status of the Sky Blues academy. When this is added to the much rumoured council and Coventry Sports Foundation plan to build an indoor swimming pool on the CCFC academy’s current indoor pitch it makes their position at the centre almost impossible.

The football clubs academy has produced many top class footballers from the City who have gone on to enjoy major success as professionals. The list is long and illustrious but a simple list does not convey what the academy offers to young footballers in Coventry. It is the chance to fulfil a dream, to play for their home town club, to represent their/our/your City across the globe, promoting the name of Coventry and giving themselves the chance of a career they might not otherwise have had. The academy gives youngsters across Coventry that rare commodity - hope.

Should the club lose their Category 2 status. or lose the academy all together, it would be a tragedy because the Football League does not allow the establishment of these academies easily. Once lost it might never be regained and it would be the young footballers of the area and the supporters of Coventry City who would suffer. Club owners come and go but supporters will always be there and they will remember those who helped and those who hurt their football team.

The 'Provision for the Wasps' academy directly threatens this “factory of hope” and we and our 3000 members, many of whom are also voters, urge you to reject the planning application until a proper plan is put into place for the football clubs academy to remain in its current home.

The original purpose of the Higgs Centre was to house the football clubs academy. Alan Higgs was a great patron of the club and also a true benefactor to the youth of Coventry, The academy was built for the club and also for the community. For it to be granted academy status, a decade ago, a joint delegation from the club and the Higgs Centre went to the football authorities to plead their case. After what we have been told was a close call the argument that the centre would be better serving the community and the football team swung the argument. Ironically the final decision was made by the then Aston Villa Chairman Doug Ellis to grant academy status. It was this cooperative strategy that we wish all parties to adopt again and work together to find a solution that would suit all parties.

Whilst the requirements for a football academy are spelt out in black and white by the FA and Football League as fans of Coventry City know all too well, all rules of the footballing authorities have a good deal of flexibility in them. If all the relevant parties (CCFC, Wasps, CSF) and maybe some other parties such as Coventry City Council or Warwick University work together a solution could be found. However if this planning application, in its current format is approved it will not allow sufficient time for any compromise plans to be discussed, agreed and enacted.

We therefore urge you and your fellow committee members to reject the Wasps application until a satisfactory long term solution is found for the Coventry City academy."

Warwickhunt · Aug 2, 2016

Warwickhunt said:
I have written to them all hopefully something of what i said may sway opinions (hold my breath awaiting abuse)

i HAVE HAD A REPLY
Miller, Tracy <Tracy.Miller@coventry.gov.uk>
8:08 AM (3 hours ago)

to Kurt, Allan, Keiran, Pat, me, Pervez, Roger, Richard, Gary, Rachel, John, Catherine, Hazel, Glenn
Dear Mr Reaney

I have been forwarded the email below that you sent to planning committee members. As you are aware the planning application is being considered by Planning Committee on Thursday, I will ensure your comments are included in the late representation papers for consideration. In order to retain the integrity of planning committee its Members do not correspond with applicants, agents, supporters or objectors on applications they are considering.

Kind Regards

Tracy Miller
Head of Planning and Regulation
Place Directorate
Coventry City Council
Floor 3 – Civic Centre 4
Much Park Street
COVENTRY
CV1 2PY
tracy.miller@coventry.gov.uk

ccfcway · Aug 2, 2016

Talks hit stalemate !

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/talks-over-coventry-city-academys-11694040

Nick · Aug 2, 2016

Straight up refused to put anything in writing.

Looks like their bluff was called then?

However CSF also told the Telegraph that “the door remains open” for talks to be revived should the club wish to return to the negotiating table.

Standard line!

ccfcway · Aug 2, 2016

"council officials are legally obliged to make planning decisions in line with the planning regulations. If there is any suggestion the rules have not been followed, any decision would be open to a legal challenge"

ding ding, round 10

Nick · Aug 2, 2016

Weren't they just sent the details of what was used now and the timetables and asked what / if they would be able to offer? I am not sure that is asking too much is it?

If they just reply with what's on offer and what could be done, things can go from there.

ccfcway · Aug 2, 2016

wouldn't any minutes of any agreed meeting be put in writing ?

ccfcway · Aug 2, 2016

Nick said:
Weren't they just sent the details of what was used now and the timetables and asked what / if they would be able to offer? I am not sure that is asking too much is it?

If they just reply with what's on offer and what could be done, things can go from there.

haven't they done that ?. The telegraph keep printing the 3 hours, £120 an hour etc etc. Genuine question, what are they missing to get round a table ?

Captain Dart · Aug 2, 2016

Nick said:
Straight up refused to put anything in writing.

Looks like their bluff was called then?

Standard line!

Why won't Anderson attend a meeting?

Nick · Aug 2, 2016

Captain Dart said:
Why won't Anderson attend a meeting?

It's probably to do with why they won't put anything in writing. Maybe he thinks they can't do anything and are trying to spin it? After all, they said at the start the academy wouldn't be able to be there. Then got some stick and went back on it saying "the door is open".

Asking for things in writing isn't a prerequisite of talks, that IS talks isn't it?

If it was the club wanting to close the academy, CSF would have put something in an email surely?

ccfcway · Aug 2, 2016

Captain Dart said:
Why won't Anderson attend a meeting?

attend the meeting. ask the specifically relevant questions to satisfy the cat 2 criteria and ask for the answers to be noted.

CCFC have then called CSF bluff and also have what they need (or not) in writing, which is what they are after.

Nick · Aug 2, 2016

ccfcway said:
haven't they done that ?. The telegraph keep printing the 3 hours, £120 an hour etc etc. Genuine question, what are they missing to get round a table ?

Yes, they keep saying 3 hours at £120 an hour but it isn't as simple is it? Meanwhile it looks like they are being kind and helpful but in reality aren't doing anything.

the same as they say "the door is open" over and over....

ccfcway · Aug 2, 2016

all this reminds me of when we didn't have headed note paper.

Rusty Trombone · Aug 2, 2016

Nick said:
It's probably to do with why they won't put anything in writing. Maybe he thinks they can't do anything and are trying to spin it? After all, they said at the start the academy wouldn't be able to be there. Then got some stick and went back on it saying "the door is open".

Asking for things in writing isn't a prerequisite of talks, that IS talks isn't it?

If it was the club wanting to close the academy, CSF would have put something in an email surely?

If the clubs owners (as opposed to the club) wanted to close the Academy they would try and avoid having a meeting to discuss keeping the Academy.

ccfcway · Aug 2, 2016

Nick said:
Yes, they keep saying 3 hours at £120 an hour but it isn't as simple is it? Meanwhile it looks like they are being kind and helpful but in reality aren't doing anything.

don't disagree, if CA attended and asked the questions, we would know what they are / aren't doing. The onus has to be on the club, its us who have everything to lose, do you not agree ?

Grendel · Aug 2, 2016

Rusty Trombone said:
If the clubs owners (as opposed to the club) wanted to close the Academy they would try and avoid having a meeting to discuss keeping the Academy.

Why? They would just close it. Very few fans would be bothered.

Captain Dart · Aug 2, 2016

Nick said:
It's probably to do with why they won't put anything in writing. Maybe he thinks they can't do anything and are trying to spin it? After all, they said at the start the academy wouldn't be able to be there. Then got some stick and went back on it saying "the door is open".

Asking for things in writing isn't a prerequisite of talks, that IS talks isn't it?

If it was the club wanting to close the academy, CSF would have put something in an email surely?

Do you actually realise what a dumb statement you've made? Almost unbelievable.

Nick · Aug 2, 2016

Rusty Trombone said:
If the clubs owners (as opposed to the club) wanted to close the Academy they would try and avoid having a meeting to discuss keeping the Academy.

Surely CSF and Wasps would be fighting to get it written down and leaked to the telegraph if that was the case? He said from the start he wanted to do things in writing to start didn't he?

Let's not pretend CSF / Wasps would miss a PR opportunity? If they put in writing what they can offer and CCFC then don't reply they have their pants down.

Rusty Trombone · Aug 2, 2016

Grendel said:
Why? They would just close it. Very few fans would be bothered.

Seems that is what they are in the process of doing.

Nick · Aug 2, 2016

Captain Dart said:
Do you actually realise what a dumb statement you've made? Almost unbelievable.

How is that dumb? He has written to them with information and requesting information, if they write back then that is talks isn't it?

Captain Dart · Aug 2, 2016

Nick said:
How is that dumb? He has written to them, if they write back then that is talks isn't it?

No its an exchange of letters, talks involve talking.

Rusty Trombone · Aug 2, 2016

Nick said:
Surely CSF and Wasps would be fighting to get it written down and leaked to the telegraph if that was the case? He said from the start he wanted to do things in writing to start didn't he?

Let's not pretend CSF / Wasps would miss a PR opportunity? If they put in writing what they can offer and CCFC then don't reply they have their pants down.

Maybe they have more important things to be getting on with, if the clubs owners aren't interested why waste time on it.

Nick · Aug 2, 2016

Captain Dart said:
No its an exchange of letters, talks involve talking.

It is communication isn't it? That can be classed as "talks".

It is nearly as anal as saying somebody didn't say on a forum, they typed...

Nick · Aug 2, 2016

Rusty Trombone said:
Maybe they have more important things to be getting on with, if the clubs owners aren't interested why waste time on it.

It would take what, an hour or two at most? A lot less than having to do a meeting?

Maybe they can't actually offer anything?

Ian1779 · Aug 2, 2016

Playing Devils advocate here... Anderson is new to the organisation and wasn't involved in any of the preceding nonsense. He has howeve no doubt seen the actions over time from both sides - Fisher with his comments that are mostly bollocks, as well as stuff from Higgs/ACL. I don't see what is wrong with not having some basic information in writing beforehand as point to be negotiated?

Can you accommodate CCFC academy if the Wasps application goes ahead?
Will the facilities available to CCFC allow us to maintain our Cat 2 status?

One of the main criticisms of SISU buying us initially was that they failed to do due diligence on club and stadium situation. Now it appears this to some that it doesn't matter for this scenario.

People quite rightly say why would you negotiate with SISU - but let's be honest the actions of CCC, ACL, Higgs etc have hardly been exemplary either.

If CSF have nothing to hide and genuinely can provide for CCFC academy than why not some written statements prior.

I personally think they can't do what we need, or won't do anything that would possibly jeopardise any relationship with Wasps... to the detriment of everyone else.

letsallsingtogether · Aug 2, 2016

Brylowes said:
If there are City fans that don't want the club to succeed, well they are not City fans.
It's a contradiction in terms.

Bollocks,
Their are people who don't want our owners to succeed I am one.
They have done nothing what so ever for our club NOTHING
Lost our right to the ground.
Cant be bothered to fight for our academy.
Took us to Sixfields
As for the Club to succeeding yes yes yes, sorry but I don't see our owners wanting that.
Thats my opinion if you don't agree great, but don't try saying we are not City fans.
I and many others like me haven't brought season tickets to watch them lose.

albatross · Aug 2, 2016

If Chris Anderson cannot travel from Ryton to Alard way to discuss the future of the academy then I think that says it all. He simply wants a letter so he can say that it does not fit the requirements , Blame the rest of the world , remove the funding from the academy like the club seem to want do. All along I have said that SISU/CCFC will not allow a solution for the continued funding of the Cat 2 Academy.

Formal Planning Objection from CCFC (2 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency