Formal Planning Objection from CCFC (7 Viewers)

dongonzalos · Aug 2, 2016

It is amusing though when
You are making a clear point that
CA should have attended that meeting.
He shouldn't be pulling out at the last minute and setting conditions.

That is what is been debated yet....

Andy Thorn
Coventry City Council
Wasps London background
Valuing your club over CCC or Wasps
Not posting on match day threads

It all starts seeping out.

Fact of the matter
SISU should never have repeatedly threatened to build our own academy if we actually were not going to back it up.
Once they made that mistake and it has put us in this predictiment.
Then CA should have turned up to what may turn out to be our one and only chance to secure the future of the academy.

Nick · Aug 2, 2016

dongonzalos said:
It is amusing though when
You are making a clear point that
CA should have attended that meeting.
He shouldn't be pulling out at the last minute and setting conditions.

That is what is been debated yet....

Andy Thorn
Coventry City Council
Wasps London background
Valuing your club over CCC or Wasps
Not posting on match day threads

It all starts seeping out.

Fact of the matter
SISU should never have repeatedly threatened to build our own academy if we actually were not going to back it up.
Once they made that mistake and it has put us in this predictiment.
Then CA should have turned up to what may turn out to be our one and only chance to secure the future of the academy.

He didn't pull out and then set conditions...

He said from the start it was to be in writing.

Interesting how you only point out that we should be debating CA not going to the meeting, nothing about CSF / Wasps in all of it. Just goes to show really.

People don't seem to want to actually think any further than "blame sisu" do they? Has anybody tried to think about "why" he didn't turn up? The same as "why" CSF wouldn't put anything into writing?

You only need to see when the council tried to block CCFC moving to the Butts as soon as they heard about it... SISU's fault...

Rusty Trombone · Aug 2, 2016

These are the quotes in the Telegraph from Anderson.

Mr Anderson says the club have made CSF aware of those requirements and he won’t meet them until they have confirmed those conditions can be met.

He told the Telegraph: “CSF haven’t confirmed to us what we would need in relation to how many pitches, changing rooms and office space, once the contract has run out.

“Once that has been confirmed we will sit down with CSF and discuss the future of our Academy at the Higgs Centre.”

Mr Anderson had previously told the Supporters’ Consultative Group on June 22 that the Academy rules meant there was ‘no negotiation to be had’.

He told the SCG: “There is no negotiation to be had with other parties around a table because the football club doesn’t have a choice to either comply or not comply with those technical requirements, which have been communicated to Coventry Sports Foundation.”

I think it's universally agreed that there are negotiable areas with regards the Academy rules, number of locations etc. If as seems to be the case from those quotes Anderson wants CSF to confirm they can provide everything, which it would seem they cannot, then the stalemate will continue. If they reply that they can't provide everything Anderson seems to rule out meeting at all.

skybluetony176 · Aug 2, 2016

Ian1779 said:
50 year lease at 1.3m a year is £65 million. Original loan was what? 21millon?

What would CCFC have got for their money?? Absolutely nothing... 0% ownership 0% revenue access.

That's what I call a cash cow to the council.

CCFC were gifted a half share in the ACL initially you seem to forget and as Grendull has confirmed CCC never took a dividends from ACL so it was never a cash cow. As far as I know the only money they ever made was selling it to Wasps which they apparently underpaid for so again no cash cow. It cost money to run any business and ACL only ever really made enough to pay the bills. Hence no dividends, no cash cow.

chiefdave · Aug 2, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
CCFC were gifted a half share in the ACL initially you seem to forget

They weren't gifted it at all. They had put millions into the project and were promised a 50% share of the freehold when CCC took over. CCC backtracked on that at the last minute and changed it to 50% of ACL. Of course ACL then had to pay over £20m to CCC for the lease.

Rusty Trombone · Aug 2, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
CCFC were gifted a half share in the ACL initially you seem to forget and as Grendull has confirmed CCC never took a dividends from ACL so it was never a cash cow. As far as I know the only money they ever made was selling it to Wasps which they apparently underpaid for so again no cash cow. It cost money to run any business and ACL only ever really made enough to pay the bills. Hence no dividends, no cash cow.

ACL was a cash cow to the Council in the same way as CCFC is a cash cow to the ironically named Joy i.e. not a cash cow.

dongonzalos · Aug 2, 2016

Nick said:
He didn't pull out and then set conditions...

He said from the start it was to be in writing.

Interesting how you only point out that we should be debating CA not going to the meeting, nothing about CSF / Wasps in all of it. Just goes to show really.

People don't seem to want to actually think any further than "blame sisu" do they? Has anybody tried to think about "why" he didn't turn up? The same as "why" CSF wouldn't put anything into writing?

You only need to see when the council tried to block CCFC moving to the Butts as soon as they heard about it... SISU's fault...

Do you think he should have attended the meeting?

Please give an honest answer

Nick · Aug 2, 2016

Rusty Trombone said:
These are the quotes in the Telegraph from Anderson.

Mr Anderson says the club have made CSF aware of those requirements and he won’t meet them until they have confirmed those conditions can be met.

He told the Telegraph: “CSF haven’t confirmed to us what we would need in relation to how many pitches, changing rooms and office space, once the contract has run out.

“Once that has been confirmed we will sit down with CSF and discuss the future of our Academy at the Higgs Centre.”

Mr Anderson had previously told the Supporters’ Consultative Group on June 22 that the Academy rules meant there was ‘no negotiation to be had’.

He told the SCG: “There is no negotiation to be had with other parties around a table because the football club doesn’t have a choice to either comply or not comply with those technical requirements, which have been communicated to Coventry Sports Foundation.”

I think it's universally agreed that there are negotiable areas with regards the Academy rules, number of locations etc. If as seems to be the case from those quotes Anderson wants CSF to confirm they can provide everything, which it would seem they cannot, then the stalemate will continue. If they reply that they can't provide everything Anderson seems to rule out meeting at all.

His quote doesn't say he wouldn't meet them until they confirm the conditions would be met does it? It says he was asking about pitches, changes and office space after the "contract".

It reads that he is trying to confirm what's to be had once the contract has run out doesn't it?

Rusty Trombone · Aug 2, 2016

chiefdave said:
They weren't gifted it at all. They had put millions into the project and were promised a 50% share of the freehold when CCC took over. CCC backtracked on that at the last minute and changed it to 50% of ACL. Of course ACL then had to pay over £20m to CCC for the lease.

Pretty sure osb58 has said time and time again the club put in around £400k, and did then receive money for the 50% they sold.

Nick · Aug 2, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Do you think he should have attended the meeting?

Please give an honest answer

Do you think CSF / Wasps should have put something in writing?
Do you think CSF should have replied to CCFC when they were trying to extend the agreement before the Wasps stuff came out? (they confirmed they had it, they ignored it)

fernandopartridge · Aug 2, 2016

chiefdave said:
They weren't gifted it at all. They had put millions into the project and were promised a 50% share of the freehold when CCC took over. CCC backtracked on that at the last minute and changed it to 50% of ACL. Of course ACL then had to pay over £20m to CCC for the lease.

This is why I've stopped bothering. After years of debate many of the most vociferous still don't even grasp the basic facts of how we arrived where we are today.

SkyBlueZack · Aug 2, 2016

Gifted? It would still be a gasworks without the club. Tesco paid for the build effectively. This whole the council are saviours is tiresome. After the mortgage was paid, the club would still be paying £1.3 million a year (without the mess we've had). Where would that £1.3 million go once the mortgage was paid? Let's not forget any profit was put back into ACL. So the club being overcharged kept the mortgage paid and paid for any improvements. Yet we were being quoted unfair prices. When we say woah hang on a minute and kick up a fuss, the council sell to a London rugby club an asset that wouldn't be in existence without our football club. That is grossly unfair, immoral and scandalous. I said before the council are vermin.

Ian1779 · Aug 2, 2016

Rusty Trombone said:
Pretty sure osb58 has said time and time again the club put in around £400k, and did then receive money for the 50% they sold.

I was under the impression it was closer to £2m
Yes they were helped out when they got in the shit by someone buying their half share, but after that the opportunity to buy back at a price near to what they sold it for was long gone.

Rusty Trombone · Aug 2, 2016

Nick said:
His quote doesn't say he wouldn't meet them until they confirm the conditions would be met does it? It says he was asking about pitches, changes and office space after the "contract".

It reads that he is trying to confirm what's to be had once the contract has run out doesn't it?

Well not "would" be met but "could" be met, but I presume that wasn't the point you're making. That's right, what would happen next June, that was the point of the meeting wasn't it, they aren't going to get things built before then I doubt.

skybluetony176 · Aug 2, 2016

Nick said:
His quote doesn't say he wouldn't meet them until they confirm the conditions would be met does it?

Why didn't he go to the meeting then?

dongonzalos · Aug 2, 2016

Rusty Trombone said:
These are the quotes in the Telegraph from Anderson.

Mr Anderson says the club have made CSF aware of those requirements and he won’t meet them until they have confirmed those conditions can be met.

He told the Telegraph: “CSF haven’t confirmed to us what we would need in relation to how many pitches, changing rooms and office space, once the contract has run out.

“Once that has been confirmed we will sit down with CSF and discuss the future of our Academy at the Higgs Centre.”

Mr Anderson had previously told the Supporters’ Consultative Group on June 22 that the Academy rules meant there was ‘no negotiation to be had’.

He told the SCG: “There is no negotiation to be had with other parties around a table because the football club doesn’t have a choice to either comply or not comply with those technical requirements, which have been communicated to Coventry Sports Foundation.”

I think it's universally agreed that there are negotiable areas with regards the Academy rules, number of locations etc. If as seems to be the case from those quotes Anderson wants CSF to confirm they can provide everything, which it would seem they cannot, then the stalemate will continue. If they reply that they can't provide everything Anderson seems to rule out meeting at all.

The original conditions at the Higgs centre bends the rules
It was achieved through Higgs and the football club working together with the regulators.
Basically good negotiations

Now there are 'no negotiations to be had'

I think CA wants it in writing that the site will provide all of those requirements to the letter.
I presume if all those require are met to the letter, it wouldn't work for Wasps aswell.
I presume if you have meetings and discussions in order to tinker here and there, you will somehow come up with a solution, that like this one will eventually be agreed upon by all parties.

So I think the demanding it in writing to the exact requirements set out is to try and screw over the plan to bring in Wasps. I think the not turning up to meetings is to try and not find a work around.

I think the plan will ultimately fail, Wasps will end up there anyway.
We won't get our work around.
We will get frozen out.
It will take Wasps longer to get there due to a load of legal action.
However they will still get there.

SISU will waste money on a legal battles
It will agitate Wasps more guaranteeing us an exit from the Ricoh.

Again the club itself will get screwed as it is a pawn in a battle of chess. Where rarely decisions are made with its best interest at the forefront

All of the above is just my opinion and for me, the best solution is attend the meetings work with CSF and try and get a work around to secure the future of the academy

Rusty Trombone · Aug 2, 2016

Ian1779 said:
I was under the impression it was closer to £2m
Yes they were helped out when they got in the shit by someone buying their half share, but after that the opportunity to buy back at a price near to what they sold it for was long gone.

Terms were agreed to buy back for £5.5m, it was sold for £6m (part cash, part write off of loans). Please let's not start the argument about the charitable donation though.:banghead:

Captain Dart · Aug 2, 2016

Rusty Trombone said:
Pretty sure osb58 has said time and time again the club put in around £400k, and did then receive money for the 50% they sold.

About right. People keep coming up with 'facts' that are actually misrepresentations of the truth. The Higgs bought the clubs 50% share from them for a similar amount they put in.

Rusty Trombone · Aug 2, 2016

SkyBlueZack said:
Gifted? It would still be a gasworks without the club. Tesco paid for the build effectively. This whole the council are saviours is tiresome. After the mortgage was paid, the club would still be paying £1.3 million a year (without the mess we've had). Where would that £1.3 million go once the mortgage was paid? Let's not forget any profit was put back into ACL. So the club being overcharged kept the mortgage paid and paid for any improvements. Yet we were being quoted unfair prices. When we say woah hang on a minute and kick up a fuss, the council sell to a London rugby club an asset that wouldn't be in existence without our football club. That is grossly unfair, immoral and scandalous. I said before the council are vermin.

Could the Council have sold the land Tesco etc is on and just kept the money rather using it to build the stadium?

dongonzalos · Aug 2, 2016

Nick said:
Do you think CSF / Wasps should have put something in writing?
Do you think CSF should have replied to CCFC when they were trying to extend the agreement before the Wasps stuff came out? (they confirmed they had it, they ignored it)

Was that a yes or no
Think I missed it in there?

No I don't think they should be putting things in writing before even having a meeting with someone.

Yes they definitely should have replied to any communication from him. Straight away with a date for a meeting to discuss it.

SkyBlueZack · Aug 2, 2016

Captain Dart said:
About right. People keep coming up with 'facts' that are actually misrepresentations of the truth. The Higgs bought the clubs 50% share from them for a similar amount they put in.

About right? RT claims they put in 400k and you say about right. Then go on to say the Higgs bought the share for a similar amount the club put in. Now we know that Higgs paid 5.5 million. So which is it Captain?

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Aug 2, 2016

ffs refusing to answer a question is as pathetic as Anderson refusing to go to the meeting, club really doesn't stand a chance when its stuck between these two sets of wankers.

skybluetony176 · Aug 2, 2016

Ian1779 said:
I was under the impression it was closer to £2m
Yes they were helped out when they got in the shit by someone buying their half share, but after that the opportunity to buy back at a price near to what they sold it for was long gone.

We shook hands on a deal to buy it back at considerably less than what we sold it for. And then reneged on it.

Nick · Aug 2, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Was that a yes or no
Think I missed it in there?

What, like you missed it a few posts back?

You do realise just asking the same question over and over doesn't make it any different?

SkyBlueZack · Aug 2, 2016

Rusty Trombone said:
Could the Council have sold the land Tesco etc is on and just kept the money rather using it to build the stadium?

Not if Richardson is right and he brokered the deal? Let's be honest the council are pretty useless. How many empty shops are in the city centre? How much money is wasted by the council on things the City doesn't need. I don't think the council are any more competent at running the City as SISU are at running our club.

Captain Dart · Aug 2, 2016

SkyBlueZack said:
About right? RT claims they put in 400k and you say about right. Then go on to say the Higgs bought the share for a similar amount the club put in. Now we know that Higgs paid 5.5 million. So which is it Captain?

You are a dullard, CCFC put in ~£6M, Higgs bought 1/2 share of ACL for ~£5.5M, net contribution of club ~£0.5M, which is 'about' ~£0.4M adds up. Not gonna quibble over 100K.

Nick · Aug 2, 2016

Rusty Trombone said:
Well not "would" be met but "could" be met, but I presume that wasn't the point you're making. That's right, what would happen next June, that was the point of the meeting wasn't it, they aren't going to get things built before then I doubt.

Why was it all sudden that CSF wanted to meet? Why didn't they meet the months before when CCFC were writing to them before the Wasps move came out and they were completely blanking them?

SkyBlueZack · Aug 2, 2016

Pretty sure osb58 has said time and time again the club put in around £400k, and did then receive money for the 50% they sold.

That indicates the club only put in 400k and then sold their share for 5.5million does it not? No mention of net contribution. Half the problem we have is people have no comprehension skills. Just read and see what they fucking want.

Captain Dart · Aug 2, 2016

SkyBlueZack said:
Not if Richardson is right and he brokered the deal? Let's be honest the council are pretty useless. How many empty shops are in the city centre? How much money is wasted by the council on things the City doesn't need. I don't think the council are any more competent at running the City as SISU are at running our club.

The City Centre is a disgrace and a hollow shell of its former self, but empty shops are to be seen in many City Centres and High Streets all over the country, its a national trend caused by changes in shopping habits and the fact that most people have their own car and can do most of their regular shopping in one of the many out of town centre Hypermarkets that are around.

Frankly most councils are pretty hopeless in many ways, Coventry is not a particularly bad exception to the rule, its definitely not in the upper quartile of well run authorities.

Even dispute those failings they are not responsible for CCFC, that is up to the directors and management of the club.

SkyBlueZack · Aug 2, 2016

Captain Dart said:
The City Centre is a disgrace and a hollow shell of its former self, but empty shops are to be seen in many City Centres and High Streets all over the country, its a national trend caused by changes in shopping habits and the fact that most people have their own car and can do most of their regular shopping in one of the many out of town centre Hypermarkets that are around.

Frankly most councils are pretty hopeless in many ways, Coventry is not a particularly bad exception to the rule, its definitely not in the upper quartile of well run authorities.

Even dispute those failings they are not responsible for CCFC, that is up to the directors and management of the club.

Not when they are trying to hinder the club at every opportunity because they don't like our owners. There is a lot of fans that don't like the owners but still buy ST's.

I don't like saying it but if you go Birmingham City centre you don't see many empty shops and there always seems to be a development of some sort. Different budgets admittedly.

Nick · Aug 2, 2016

Captain Dart said:
Even dispute those failings they are not responsible for CCFC, that is up to the directors and management of the club.

It keeps coming back to only CCFC can be responsible for damage caused to CCFC.

It really isn't the case is it? Still...

Are the owners of Cov Bees at fault for the mess with Brandon Stadium? Or is it councils etc?

Captain Dart · Aug 2, 2016

SkyBlueZack said:
Pretty sure osb58 has said time and time again the club put in around £400k, and did then receive money for the 50% they sold.

That indicates the club only put in 400k and then sold their share for 5.5million does it not? No mention of net contribution. Half the problem we have is people have no comprehension skills. Just read and see what they fucking want.

No he didn't, this is what he said...

oldskyblue58 said:
From details in CCFCH accounts

The option to buy the land lapsed sometime before 31/05/02. So CCFC never had any land to sell in part or its entirety to Tesco or anyone else

There had been costs incurred in the initial development some £18.4m against which there were debts and loans outstanding which reduced that to a net asset of £4.8m

The £4.8m was to be the investment from CCFC in the joint venture with CCC which did not commence until after 31/05/02. That investment was through football investors ltd

The club increased that £4.8m asset by £2m (i assume additional costs on the project) during the year to 31/05/03 leaving an asset of £6.8m.

The club couldnt afford to pay its way and sold the £6.8m asset to the Charity for £6.5m

The charity paid for it by £2m in cash the waiver of 2.5m 5% debebenture loans (2003) and the settlement of £2m loans directors of CCFC made to CCFC

Those folks are the facts as disclosed by the club and its auditors in accounts filed at Companies House

Got to ask how the club spends £20m on a project to build on land it doesnt own - and they do it by almost equally massive loans and debt !!!??

So when CCFC "invested" in the joint venture they transferred to the assets but also the associated creditors....... and then received pretty much the full value from the charity for something that hardly existed

stupot07 · Aug 2, 2016

CCFC said:
ffs refusing to answer a question is as pathetic as Anderson refusing to go to the meeting, club really doesn't stand a chance when its stuck between these two sets of wankers.

Yeah correct.

1) Anderson should have attended the meeting

2) CSF and wasps should know what facilities are available, there is no reason why they can't put it in writing. I believe they know they can't offer much and this is a PR stunt and that's why they won't put it in writing.

But no, everyone is focusing just on point 1, because blaming sisu is the path if least resistance. And just to reiterate, Anderson should have attended thr meeting.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

shmmeee · Aug 2, 2016

Nick said:
It keeps coming back to only CCFC can be responsible for damage caused to CCFC.

It really isn't the case is it? Still...

Are the owners of Cov Bees at fault for the mess with Brandon Stadium? Or is it councils etc?

The buck stops with the owners, yes. Just like every business on the planet.

You've got shitty relations with your suppliers? Fix them or get new suppliers.

Try going in front of shareholders at any firm and saying "They were all being mean to me!". Even if you don't blame Sisu for our current predicament (and you'd have to be a raving loon not to), it's still their job to fix it.

As I say to my kids: it's not your fault, but it is your problem.

Captain Dart · Aug 2, 2016

SkyBlueZack said:
Not when they are trying to hinder the club at every opportunity because they don't like our owners. There is a lot of fans that don't like the owners but still buy ST's.

I don't like saying it but if you go Birmingham City centre you don't see many empty shops and there always seems to be a development of some sort. Different budgets admittedly.

What emotive shite, they may be withdrawing good will due to legal assaults, I know I wouldn't do any business with anyone who took me to court. You wouldn't either.

Formal Planning Objection from CCFC (7 Viewers)

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

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

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency