Have I missed an academy update? (8 Viewers)

stupot07 · Jul 19, 2016

italiahorse said:
Don't be so protective, of course they do.
The lack of information and attendance from the club indicates that they need to check back before they say anything.

I'm not being protective. I couldn't give a shit about sisu, but the continued club=sisu, sisu=club is just wrong. Sisu don't run the club day-to-day. The £600k for the academy is already in the agreed budget, the logistics of running the academy is very much the clubs responsibility. And its not even downgrading the the academy to cat 3 will save them £600k, it still requires £200-300k investment to run a cat 3.

They should have attended the meeting.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Orca · Jul 19, 2016

stupot07 said:
I'm not being protective. I couldn't give a shit about sisu, but the continued club=sisu, sisu=club is just wrong. Sisu don't run the club day-to-day.

They should have attended the meeting.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

On what basis is it wrong? Richard Branson doens't run all the aspects of Virgin day to day, but he's still the man pulling the big levers. SISU are involved in everything major that happens. Who would the club go to to get funds to redevelop BPA for example? They wouldn't be able to just get a loan. Their hand is on the tiller and it is in the till (to the tune of interest payments converted to shares). Separating them is used by those who try to remain blind to the instigators of our downfall.

ashbyjan · Jul 19, 2016

stupot07 said:
I'm not being protective. I couldn't give a shit about sisu, but the continued club=sisu, sisu=club is just wrong. Sisu don't run the club day-to-day. The £600k for the academy is already in the agreed budget, the logistics of running the academy is very much the clubs responsibility. And its not even downgrading the the academy to cat 3 will save them £600k, it still requires £200-300k investment to run a cat 3.

They should have attended the meeting.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Stu - you are correct that in day to day matters the club is the club and doesn't seek or need permission from SISU but this matter is in that murky water where politics comes into it and as soon as that happens then you can bet your bottom dollar SISU will have influence. Does Joy tell CA what instant coffee to get for the canteen - no,. Does she tell him what to do when dealing with Wasps and indirectly CCC supported bodies such as CSF, I bet she does. Remember the holding company for the club is Sky Blue Sports and Leisure and Joys right hand woman Laura Deering sits on the board of SBSL - sure she doesn't sit there for fun but for control.

Captain Dart · Jul 19, 2016

Academy manager's viewpoint
http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/category-ii-football-academy-3136560.aspx

oldskyblue58 · Jul 19, 2016

Captain Dart said:
Academy manager's viewpoint
http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/category-ii-football-academy-3136560.aspx

so doesnt actually say it has to be on one site - so say Warwick Uni could be used for second site or some other venue

Didn't Wasps say that they could have the kicking barn 15 hours per week - we only use for 12

They need access to 4 grass pitches, how many are left after development, is it possible to put in another?

"The key to fulfilling these requirements is that the Academy has to have guaranteed and exclusive use during the times they are needed to run the various programmes and training sessions". not 24/7 ....... so usage can be planned, agreements tailored as they have been already

Weekend fixtures are played Saturday or Sunday morning - is Ryton an option for some of those? if not why ? are there other options

Still of a mind that there is a workable solution if there is a will on all sides to do it

stupot07 · Jul 19, 2016

Wasps said we could have the kicking barn for up to 3 hours a day in the evening. Not sure how that helps the vocational day release of the u11-16's in the winter, or thr u18 or u21's who presumably train in the day.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

ashbyjan · Jul 19, 2016

stupot07 said:
Wasps said we could have the kicking barn for up to 3 hours a day in the evening. Not sure how that helps the vocational day release of the u11-16's in the winter, or thr u18 or u21's who presumably train in the day.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Wasps have offered the kicking barn in the afternoons - they use it in the mornings. Academy currently only block books the indoor pitch for afternoons so no real change. Only conflict would be if CCFC are training outside of a morning and weather forces them indoors and they would have no where to go. These are small points but I have been through the requirements and the options available and in my opinion if there really was a will to continue with the academy a workable solution could be arrived at, but as has been said several times it needs all parties to want to find that solution.

chiefdave · Jul 19, 2016

dongonzalos said:
So if correct wasps or this sports foundation contacted the FL.
Discovered what is required for the academy to remain at the Higgs Centre.
They will meet the requirements and lower the rent

That's what I took from CJs tweets last night:

"Its pretty much what we get now. In some cases it's more than before"
"the key point is it can continue there. In better facilities than it has currently and for less money"
"At the new facility all parts of the academy can be based there and in theory only there"

The academy would have, at the very least, the same level of facilities available at Higgs as they do currently, the price would be lower (although so long as its not higher the price isn't really of great significance here) and no additional sites would be needed.

OSB, were you asking questions of the FL on behalf of the trust?

Would be good to get the Trust to issue a statement saying what exactly the position is as they understand it and then for Wasps & CSF to confirm that is correct.

Then the ball is firmly in Anderson's court. Absolutely nothing stopping the deal being done if what was said last night is correct.

ashbyjan · Jul 19, 2016

chiefdave said:
That's what I took from CJs tweets last night:

"Its pretty much what we get now. In some cases it's more than before"
"the key point is it can continue there. In better facilities than it has currently and for less money"
"At the new facility all parts of the academy can be based there and in theory only there"

The academy would have, at the very least, the same level of facilities available at Higgs as they do currently, the price would be lower (although so long as its not higher the price isn't really of great significance here) and no additional sites would be needed.

OSB, were you asking questions of the FL on behalf of the trust?

Would be good to get the Trust to issue a statement saying what exactly the position is as they understand it and then for Wasps & CSF to confirm that is correct.

Then the ball is firmly in Anderson's court. Absolutely nothing stopping the deal being done if what was said last night is correct.

Like I said earlier CJ's tweet about lower costs was a misinterpretation of what was being said last night - Wasps have offered their kicking barn to CCFC at a discounted rate from what they would normally be hiring it out at - that is not necessarily less than CCFC are paying Higgs at present.

As for the last part of your message - watch this space!

Orca · Jul 19, 2016

http://coventryobserver.co.uk/news/...ventry-city-academy-home-foi-request-reveals/

Les Reid's bias comes to the fore again. Have a read of this article and then let me know if the following phrase might have been completely misinterpreted by multi award winning Les:
"The email (pictured) – written by planning officer Kurt Russell to Robert Gilmore of Wasps’ consultants Oxalis Planning on June 6, states: “Hi Rob. I’ve been looking through the application that came in whilst I was on leave and I can’t see any information regarding the loss of the existing football and netball pitches and the relocation of these facilities either within the Allard Way site or elsewhere.

“The loss of the facilities was always going to be a sticking point, and this seems to be being realised by the early objections that we have received.

“Please can you provide some information on this, which will help us to justify the proposal to planning committee when the time comes?”"

Now I read that email as the planning department asking the planning applicant what they were going to do about the loss of the facilities. "Please can you provide some information on this" to me says, you've said nothing about the loss of the existing facilities, this will be a problem, what are you going to do about it? Not, you've said nothing about the loss of the existing facilities, you need to justify why they're going as this might be a problem.

I'm not going mad here am I? Has Les completely mis-read this? Of course, the Observer have removed their comments section so no ability to publicly challenge Les.

Captain Dart · Jul 19, 2016

I'm sure he hasn't misread it, just spun the meaning to suit an agenda.

Oh look, no comments allowed on his article, is he afraid of criticism?

Orca · Jul 19, 2016

Captain Dart said:
I'm sure he hasn't misread it, just spun the meaning to suit an agenda.

Oh look, no comments allowed on his article, is he afraid of criticism?

He's claimed on Twitter that using the word US in the sentence, "which will help US to justify the proposal to planning committee when the time comes" is the Council colluding with Wasps. I've pointed out that the planning officer stated the proposal should have included information about "the loss of the existing football and netball pitches and the relocation of these facilities either within the Allard Way site or elsewhere". To me, asking for them to be relocated as part of the plans shows the planners are doing anything but.

Orca · Jul 19, 2016

I've also found this, which is the reply to the Council from the Wasps planning team.

chiefdave · Jul 19, 2016

Orca said:
Please can you provide some information on this, which will help us to justify the proposal to planning committee when the time comes?”"

Why is it the responsibility of a council employee to justify Wasps proposal and the potential removal of the football clubs academy facility. Strikes me as odd, especially when combined with the other mail from the council about managing the PR.

I certainly hope what is being fed to the Trust isn't part of managing the PR.

chiefdave · Jul 19, 2016

Orca said:
I've also found this, which is the reply to the Council from the Wasps planning team.

This is what concerns me. That reads as if the netball facilities are going, not to be replaced. And our academy can stay until the end of our current agreement.

Doesn't address the issue of facilities being lost and certainly doesn't tie up with what the Trust have been told. If what the Trust has been told is correct I would expect Wasps and CSF to be shouting it from the rooftops.

Orca · Jul 19, 2016

chiefdave said:
This is what concerns me. That reads as if the netball facilities are going, not to be replaced. And our academy can stay until the end of our current agreement.

Doesn't address the issue of facilities being lost and certainly doesn't tie up with what the Trust have been told. If what the Trust has been told is correct I would expect Wasps and CSF to be shouting it from the rooftops.

I suspect there might be a few i's to be dotted and t's to be crossed before they can. If the facility ends up being different, but better in some ways, maybe a bit worse in others, roughly the same cost for CCFC, acceptable to the FL and passes planning, doesn't everyone win? That's left me feeling a bit giddy - when was the last time that happened when our club was involved?

oldskyblue58 · Jul 19, 2016

the netball courts have been effectively lost for 6 years though, well before any wasps proposal or interest at AHC. So really it isn't going to cause any problem to the Wasps planning application. Is there a shortage in netball courts in the last few years? Apparently ceased being used because they no longer conformed to Netball regulations

Statement of fact though isn't it the CCFC agreement finishes June 2017, to date there have been no discussions on any new arrangement. Therefore 01-07-2017 CCFC have no right to be there. That can of course change if a new but different arrangement is made. Got to all act like grown ups first though and talk

Orca · Jul 19, 2016

and this....
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-md-pulls-out-11635112?
It was CA who pulled out of the meeting. Paul Breed says the door is open for them to meet. Why aren't they? :banghead:

chiefdave · Jul 19, 2016

Orca said:
I suspect there might be a few i's to be dotted and t's to be crossed before they can. If the facility ends up being different, but better in some ways, maybe a bit worse in others, roughly the same cost for CCFC, acceptable to the FL and passes planning, doesn't everyone win?

It does but if that is the case why be so secretive about it and why did CSF suddenly stop talking to the club right before Wasps application was fired in. Wasps even stated in the Telegraph that they didn't think it would be possible for the two to co-exist.

Moff · Jul 19, 2016

Orca said:
We still sit in a vacuum of inaction from the club and its board on this issue, but people still want to not blame the club. Those people are on here and are in the press.

I guess I see the comment that people dont still blame SISU as wasted sentiment Orca. This site involves too much bickering between fans, and instead we should be foucssing on the inaction of the club, which I believe is what you also want.

Whether people blame SISU or not is irrelevant to the actions, or lack of, that SISU make, and pointing the finger makes not one jot of difference.

Otis · Jul 19, 2016

Orca said:
and this....
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-md-pulls-out-11635112?
It was CA who pulled out of the meeting. Paul Breed says the door is open for them to meet. Why aren't they? :banghead:

Well I would say we need a reason. If genuinely he couldn't go due to extenuating circumstances then fine, but if we just pulled out because we didn't wish to attend, then that is quite a different matter.

Maybe there is a genuine reason.

chiefdave · Jul 19, 2016

Hopefully there will be another article in the CT shortly with a response from Wasps and CSF confirming the availability of the required facilities to enable the academy to continue.

dongonzalos · Jul 19, 2016

chiefdave said:
Hopefully there will be another article in the CT shortly with a response from Wasps and CSF confirming the availability of the required facilities to enable the academy to continue.

Let's say they do
What happens then? What if the club say there is a catch and all is not as it seems....

Captain Dart · Jul 19, 2016

Otis said:
Maybe there is a genuine reason.

Lets hear it then.

chiefdave · Jul 19, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Let's say they do
What happens then? What if the club say there is a catch and all is not as it seems....

We'll cross that bridge when we come to it! I have concerns that the trust are being played a little here. We've had Wasps saying the two can't co-exist at Higgs, CSF breaking off talks with Anderson and the chap who manages CSF saying in the Telegraph there wouldn't be the facilities required.

We then had Anderson asking for details of what would be made available to the club, and we were told he got no response.

Then all of a sudden at the Trust meeting they've been told by Wasps and CSF that there will be at least the same level of facilities available to CCFC as there is currently and the academy can stay at Higgs all on one site.

Notwithstanding the restriction from the Higgs Charity that prevents the club signing up to a long term deal that is, given the current state of things, about the best we can hope for and as the saying goes if it sounds too good to be true it probably is.

So lets get conformation from Wasps & CSF. Not a difficult question. Just need a yes / no answer, can they confirm that they have informed the Trust that the same level of facilities, or better, as at present will be available for the academy on a long term basis subject to an agreeable rental deal and resolution of the Higgs Charity clause.

oldskyblue58 · Jul 19, 2016

Honestly do not see how all the facilities will be able to be on the same site. The best CCFC I think will get is that they have use of indoor facilities, a floodlit artificial surface, 1 maybe two grass pitches and pretty much most of the other rooms they currently have. The AHC will turn in to the main centre not the only centre. CCFC will have to source other suitable sites or use Ryton to make up the slack in pitches, artificial pitches and rooms

dongonzalos · Jul 19, 2016

chiefdave said:
We'll cross that bridge when we come to it! I have concerns that the trust are being played a little here. We've had Wasps saying the two can't co-exist at Higgs, CSF breaking off talks with Anderson and the chap who manages CSF saying in the Telegraph there wouldn't be the facilities required.

We then had Anderson asking for details of what would be made available to the club, and we were told he got no response.

Then all of a sudden at the Trust meeting they've been told by Wasps and CSF that there will be at least the same level of facilities available to CCFC as there is currently and the academy can stay at Higgs all on one site.

Notwithstanding the restriction from the Higgs Charity that prevents the club signing up to a long term deal that is, given the current state of things, about the best we can hope for and as the saying goes if it sounds too good to be true it probably is.

So lets get conformation from Wasps & CSF. Not a difficult question. Just need a yes / no answer, can they confirm that they have informed the Trust that the same level of facilities, or better, as at present will be available for the academy on a long term basis subject to an agreeable rental deal and resolution of the Higgs Charity clause.

Well if they said it to the trust why can't they come out with a statement

Why do you think that CA pulled out or didn't ask for it to be another day if he had a problem? Surely promising CA stuff Infront of the trust would have been great for the club, if they had concerns about the sincerity of it..
Or do you think they only promised these things once they knew CA wasn't turning up, what do you think they would have said differently if he was there.
Also why do you think CS wouldn't meet DA to discuss things prior to this?

Orca · Jul 19, 2016

oldskyblue58 said:
Honestly do not see how all the facilities will be able to be on the same site. The best CCFC I think will get is that they have use of indoor facilities, a floodlit artificial surface, 1 maybe two grass pitches and pretty much most of the other rooms they currently have. The AHC will turn in to the main centre not the only centre. CCFC will have to source other suitable sites or use Ryton to make up the slack in pitches, artificial pitches and rooms

Well I know the site and if the current indoor pitch is becoming a swimming pool and other facilities, the current caged pitch is becoming the kicking barn and one of the other grass pitches (which are usually under utilised from my experience) is being redeveloped by Wasps to meet the needs of the Academy. All the facilities CCFC need are there now and after the redevelopment and the only thing being removed is the unused Netball courts and one total pitch. It should only be a question of working out logistics to suit the FL, Wasps, CCFC and CSF.

chiefdave · Jul 19, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Well if they said it to the trust why can't they come out with a statement

Agreed, said similar earlier. Lets get a statement from the trust saying what they have been told by Wasps & CSF, then a statement from Wasps & CSF confirming it is correct.

oldskyblue58 said:
Honestly do not see how all the facilities will be able to be on the same site.

Tend to agree with you, hence why I would like some public statements issued to get everything clarified. Otherwise it will end up with CCFC saying one thing, Wasps & CSF another and the Trust another.
Lets get it all out in the open.

oldskyblue58 · Jul 19, 2016

I can see some merit in a statement from the Trust however.................

What tends to happen is that the Trust say something, others hide behind it or use it as an excuse not to say anything, blame the trust for saying things, then fans start going on about the trust doing nothing and the focus and fall guy are the Trust not the decision makers

If the Trust has achieved a position of meeting brokers or even go betweens in this I think I would be patient and let them work on that for a short while. Let them see if they can get something moving. They seem to have access to all sides at the moment. If in a couple of weeks there is no movement then let them give a report of what has gone on and who hasn't co operated.

Keep the decision makers focussed on the problem - retaining the Academy Cat 2

oldskyblue58 · Jul 19, 2016

Orca said:
Well I know the site and if the current indoor pitch is becoming a swimming pool and other facilities, the current caged pitch is becoming the kicking barn and one of the other grass pitches (which are usually under utilised from my experience) is being redeveloped by Wasps to meet the needs of the Academy. All the facilities CCFC need are there now and after the redevelopment and the only thing being removed is the unused Netball courts and one total pitch. It should only be a question of working out logistics to suit the FL, Wasps, CCFC and CSF.

even if there are gaps in the current provision we now know there could be the potential to fill those gaps by other means. Just requires a little thought, co operation and organisation. So the threat to the Cat 2 Academy is.................

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 19, 2016

Otis said:
And I would just add, surely if this is proves to be true that they are not interested, then NONE of us can possibly believe in ANY new stadium at all and this includes the Butts groundshare thing.

Who believes them now anyway?

My point has always been the fans should campaign for certain options, as the club needs options now and in the future... regardless of what its owners choose to do in the here and now

armybike · Jul 19, 2016

Stand by your beds - Reid has spoken.

Apparently raising the point that Anderson failed to attend the meeting re CCFC Academy is "silly spin" and what should have happen is all the information be put in writing for the attention of CCFC.

Eerrrmmmm......surely the meeting was to discuss the information and try to find a way forward with all the relevant parties present!

covmark · Jul 19, 2016

armybike said:
Stand by your beds - Reid has spoken.

Apparently raising the point that Anderson failed to attend the meeting re CCFC Academy is "silly spin" and what should have happen is all the information be put in writing for the attention of CCFC.

Eerrrmmmm......surely the meeting was to discuss the information and try to find a way forward with all the relevant parties present!

Yeah, don't often agree with you, but CA should have attended. It does come across that the club are not really fussed about the academy.
Massive shame if that's the case.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 19, 2016

covmark said:
Yeah, don't often agree with you, but CA should have attended. It does come across that the club are not really fussed about the academy.
Massive shame if that's the case.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

Spin is extreme, it's reasonable to question why he didn't attend.

Of course there may have been an entirely reasonable reason, and I'm sure they'll be arranging another meeting ASAP as a result, eh...

Have I missed an academy update? (8 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

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

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

CCFC Finance Director

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency