Nick
Administrator
They said at the start they didn't think it would be possible. Then people got angry at them and it all of a sudden changed didn't it?
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.
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 to. All along I have said that SISU/CCFC will not allow a solution for the continued funding of the Cat 2 Academy.
Maybe they can't, that meeting would take even less time.It would take what, an hour or two at most?
Maybe they can't actually offer anything?
Maybe they can't, that meeting would take even less time.
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?
It's dumb because CCFC know what facilities will be available and now they know when.
It's dumb because it's up to CCFC to say the facilities fall short of the requirement and why.
It's dumb to not say that CCFC/SISU are at fault here for not going to meetings.
It's really dumb to only ever see one side of the story 'all' the time.
Really? So they have said they can have the kicking barn over and over again? If they have been told what's available and when surely that just needs to be written down?
How can they say if they fall short if they don't know what is actually available to them and at what times?
It's really dumb to not look at the bigger picture...
Personally I think I would have replied to his letter but perhaps not in the way CA is expecting. Something along the lines of this (might run it past solicitor first mind - am guessing what comes next)
- would thank him for the letter and the list of detailed requirements/schedules
- would then list the facilities that CCFC are presently contracted for under the current user agreement and if they differ to the list provided
- would then point out that presently due to the Wasps planning application and the project to install a swimming pool at the AHC the facilities at the AHC are still open to review and negotiation. It is still possible for CCFC to have input in to the future of AHC
- would offer to help try find a solution to the needs of the Cat 2 Academy in Coventry but that all options need to be considered
- point out the operation of the Academy is the responsibility first and foremost of the CCFC directors
- then finally that i look forward to sitting down to talk properly in solving this situation, because a solution can only be fully negotiated face to face not through correspondence or the press
I would not plan out or guarantee anything from 01/07/2017
However all that reply would do really is continue the stale mate. So in a sense I can understand not replying as a stance to take (not one I agree with but nor do I agree with refusing to talk). It would place the onus back on CA, but I suspect he wont talk because of what comes next
However it looks like CSF are going to play it hard ball. I can understand why they feel they can - they hold all the important cards and the clock is ticking. CCFC's only card is to go legal but the problem with that is the ticking clock - 11 months from now they have no way of being there any way. We all know how long legals can take. In the end if CCFC want even part of their Academy there then they are going to have to sit down and talk.
Back to the Ricoh part 2
isn't it in the telegraph pretty much every week ?
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/wasps-offer-help-coventry-city-11416081
Armstrong.....
"What we have offered them is use of the indoor kicking area so that they can maintain their category two status, which requires them to have an indoor facility contractually available to them.
“We have offered them up to three hours every weekday evening in the indoor kicking area so that they can maintain that Academy status. That should help them if they take us up on the offer.”
He added that Coventry City FC could rent the indoor area on a “generous basis” stating he understood the importance of it to the football club.
........................
Not commenting on anything Armstrong has said, but surely the club have a starting base for sitting round the table ?
my guess is Nick that until they know if the swimming pool is a go they probably have no way of doing that in terms of rooms offices etc. It has been made reasonably clear what pitches are going to be available. If CCFC have a user agreement with Wasps for the indoor pitch then that is covered whether they stay or not - the terms of that only get ironed out once CCFC commit to wanting to use it
a huge thread about the owners of our academy site not emailing the football club owners about what they have on offer and the football clubs owners refusing to sit down with them and ask...
Even if they did email that across, 1st thing CCFC would say (as I would)....."what does up to 3 hours every weekday mean ?" "could we get told on a Tuesday we can have it on a wed" etc etc
All of which could be asked if they actually got round a table as opposed to playing this out in public
If everything has been made clear what is available then why wouldn't then just put it in a "letterheaded" email and send it over? That's what I don't get.
It wouldn't be signing a contract.
Really? So they have said they can have the kicking barn over and over again? If they have been told what's available and when surely that just needs to be written down?
How can they say if they fall short if they don't know what is actually available to them and at what times?
It's really dumb to not look at the bigger picture...
neither are heads of agreement or letters of intent but we all know where that has led in the past. The pool development is still early days so who has what office when for CSF let alone CCFC is probably not worked out
The pitches are in reality the easier bit in this (there are solutions but all sides have to be flexible), it is the provision of classrooms, offices, changing rooms, physio rooms and meeting rooms that are going to be the sticking point for the Cat 2 audit
So let the Academy close for the sake of wanting a letter instead of attending a meeting !!
Dumb to me however you look at it. But carry on backing the CA and CCFC stance.
If they sit round a table, thinks like that could very much get misunderstood couldn't they?
Again, look at how confused the trust were about the outcome of their meeting...
CSF gave the impression when the news first came out that it couldn't be done with the academy still there. What has changed?
SISU love legal action don't they? Surely it is in CSF's interests to make sure it is documented also?
So let the Academy close for the sake of wanting a letter instead of attending a meeting !!
Dumb to me however you look at it. But carry on backing the CA and CCFC stance.
FFS that's why you have minutes and they are confirmed at the following meeting.
That's why people are tasked to get the missing information for the next meeting.
It's what happens in the real world.
OR have you thought it might not be possible (just to quote CSF when the news came out) and they are spinning the blame a bit and people are lapping it up?
Yes Sisu are spinning the blame. They want it closed and it's not their fault. Well not on here anyway.
If everything has been made clear what is available then why wouldn't then just put it in a "letterheaded" email and send it over? That's what I don't get.
It wouldn't be signing a contract.
Apart from when bailing out a failing business owned by the council of course.
Can people really not see how much of a fail it would be to demand things in writing, if they actually wanted to close it down?
Everybody really needs to move on. Sisu have been out manoeuvred .
Bearing a grudge will finish CCFC and it's only CCFC that needs to understand that Wasps/CCC/Higgs/CSF are just moving on without us.
Monty Pythons Black Night fits the bill.
or if they do want to keep it open but don't get what they want in writing and they lose the academy
Emails leave a paper trail. The company I work for have a bad debt at the moment going to court and emails most definitely are making part of our case, they tell a story. Nothing legally binding but they do form part of the back drop to our case. We've also seen the same happen in the JR's. Now if you were negotiating with a company that has a litigious nature wouldn't you be weary of putting anything in writing regardless of how trivial unless an agreement had been made in person first? I know I would. An acknowledgement of receipt is to be expected but a point by point reply isn't especially when you consider who's being replied to. Either way it's no excuse for not attending the meeting. I suspect that the real reason is because of the objection. Attending the meeting would devalue the objection as it shows that you are looking to use something that you object to.
Why won't Anderson attend a meeting?
This proves then they are both as bad as each other.Straight up refused to put anything in writing.
Looks like their bluff was called then?
Standard line!
Yes Sisu are spinning the blame. They want it closed and it's not their fault. Well not on here anyway.
I guess in the same respect written confirmation of what you fear may be the case (as in no we can't accomdate you) strengthens said objection.
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?