There is just a clear practical obstacle even if both clubs are willing to get around the table, and that is that it makes no sense for Wasps to have us here if they don't profit from it, and it makes no sense for us to stay if the finances would work out better at our own ground. These things are mutually exclusive and would need some concessions from Wasps to make it worthwhile staying on a purely financial basis. Even then, this is a ground that will be decked in Wasps branding and will not feel like CCFC's home one bit.
All makes me think what happened when this first started and that is that SISU must now take a new ground seriously and put all their energy into that.
I think it will be a lot sooner than four years. The business model used has not worked, we will be lucky to be in the professional leagues by then. Its gone too quiet over the last three weeks, something is going on behind the scenes, Waggot has been the only one to speak publicly in that time and he wasn't a man that sounded that confident. Its just a hunch, rumours, lack of stock in the shop, something's wrong but as per usual we will be the last to know.I think they have tried to find a site - to cover themselves for what's happening now. Cov is out of the question for lots of reasons - as is green belt. It's not going to happen. We should be "embedding" ourselves with Wasps. They need us to an extent and we have to get a good deal for the time being. I think we will see something happen when we get nearer the 4 year deadline. Then we will see how the cookie crumbles.
Well the number of years is different, what else is?
I think they have tried to find a site - to cover themselves for what's happening now. Cov is out of the question for lots of reasons - as is green belt. It's not going to happen. We should be "embedding" ourselves with Wasps. They need us to an extent and we have to get a good deal for the time being. I think we will see something happen when we get nearer the 4 year deadline. Then we will see how the cookie crumbles.
My hunch is sisu cant and wont wait for 4 years. The reason is what do they do in those 4 years..... Keep losing money? Another relegation? More time wasted? Seems no reason to stay around to me. Senior Vick could be right, it has been very quietly lately and last time it went this quiet we moved home. There to me just has to be a bigger plan to play out now.....surely?
It is very worrying. If they have Cash flow plus, they could plod along a bit longer. I would rather they throw the towel in sooner. But the end of the agreement ( if they get that far ) will be the decider- they won't have a stadium and Wasps have the keys to the Ricoh.
One is lock stock and barrel the other a few shares, no income streams etc etc.
The length of lease makes all the financials an entirely different proposition.
Sorry, you are wrong here, it's exactly the same in everything except the length, one is 125 years one is 250 years. As the argument you were making is that SISU wouldn't know that a long lease was a possibility, then, well, that's wrong isn't it.
I think they have tried to find a site - to cover themselves for what's happening now. Cov is out of the question for lots of reasons - as is green belt. It's not going to happen. We should be "embedding" ourselves with Wasps. They need us to an extent and we have to get a good deal for the time being. I think we will see something happen when we get nearer the 4 year deadline. Then we will see how the cookie crumbles.
Wasps will only need us to boost their profits-the club will be permanently hamstrung under these arrangements.
yep. up shit creek and dependant on Wasps - and our relationship to them....
You know I find it odd you are that opposed to the club building outside Coventry if that's what it has to do to survive when you were so sympathetic to Wasps relocating 'because they had to'.
What's the difference?
You know I find it odd you are that opposed to the club building outside Coventry if that's what it has to do to survive when you were so sympathetic to Wasps relocating 'because they had to'.
What's the difference?
It will be because of the "ambition".
Although when asking if it would be ok to move us out of Coventry to survive and show ambition it will be "but, but, but"
You know I find it odd you are that opposed to the club building outside Coventry if that's what it has to do to survive when you were so sympathetic to Wasps relocating 'because they had to'.
What's the difference?
no, it will be because building outside of Coventry is not what Coventry need to do to survive,
So how will we survive with low crowds and restricted income access?
So how will we survive with low crowds and restricted income access?
no, it will be because building outside of Coventry is not what Coventry need to do to survive, in fact it's a much worse decision financially than just staying put.
If Wasps chucked us out (they won't) and people still wouldn't accept a new stadium outside of Coventry then you and BSB would have a point, until then you don't.
Personally I have no issue with 5 or 10 more mins in the car, my issue is simply that the stadium is clearly fantasy, it makes no sense financially, they clearly aren't willing to invest the amount of money it would cost even if it did make sence and if they were willing to spend 20mill + they should have brought the Ricoh even if they had to accept they had overplayed their hand and double wasps offer at the eleventh hour. It would still have been massively more financially viable than building themselves.
Everyone is just playing along with sisus game by continuing to believe it's possible that we may build a stadium.
You are assuming that I think that a new stadium is the only way forward for the club. What I asked martcov was quite different and that was that if the club had to build a new ground outside Coventry to survive, would you support it on the grounds that it 'had to be done', as is claimed that Wasps 'had' to as well? This is not for debating about whether that is the case now, but if that situation arises, would you back it or not?
I think any CCFC fan would have to support it BSB if that was what had to be done. That it implies it is to be the only or final option left doesn't it. Because otherwise before accepting the owners assessment personally I would want a lot more detail, reasoning and comparison as to why "it had to be done"...... and that's no matter who owned the club
I'm not assuming anything, you asked what the difference I was, I responded that the difference is that ccfc don't need to build a new stadium to survive, infact it's clearly a worse option financially.
If ccfc had to build a new stadium outside coventry to survive I would support it (assuming reasonably close to coventry) if it wasn't reasonably close to coventry but it was truly necessary in order to survive I wouldn't like it, it would probably be the end of my support but I'd understand it. I don't see any realistic situation where this could occur but there is my answer if it ever does.
I'm not even against building a new stadium now (as long as it fulfils our needs) other than the fact that if they are willing to do it they are stupid beyond all belief not buying the ricoh. It's just that I'm 100% confident it isn't happening, 100% confident there is no financial argument for it and that believing it might be possible is doing exactly what sisu want.
You are assuming that I think that a new stadium is the only way forward for the club. What I asked martcov was quite different and that was that if the club had to build a new ground outside Coventry to survive, would you support it on the grounds that it 'had to be done', as is claimed that Wasps 'had' to as well? This is not for debating about whether that is the case now, but if that situation arises, would you back it or not?
would imagine that there are some NDA's is place and seems that with WASPS that means you conduct your business in private and announce once it is concluded
I hope it stands for No Dickheads Allowed. That would stop Fisher from fucking everything up as he normally does.
Me too. That should rule out Fisher, Elliott, Hoffman and Haskell.
Me too. That should rule out Fisher, Elliott, Hoffman and Haskell.
L thought they said earlier in this thread that no dickheads were allowed?The SCG Chair and Vice Chair (Jonathan Strange and Peter Ward) are meeting the Football club Board tomorrow and reporting back to the SCG group meeting Thursday evening, so we should have a better idea of what is going on by then
If it wasn't true and they said it, is that not lying?
It is like saying this new stadium is "spinning it a bit"
Negotiations seem to be going well.
Wasps say that talks are ongoing. Fisher seems to have stopped his bullshit about needing their own stadium. What more could we ask for at this present moment?
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?