Nick
Administrator
Haven't they been telling the trust what it would be already? Just not publicly?
Agreed and on point 2, plenty of commentators on this subject think CSF and Wasps should be saying what the proposal should be, but surely the onus is on CCFC to do that?
Agreed and on point 2, plenty of commentators on this subject think CSF and Wasps should be saying what the proposal should be, but surely the onus is on CCFC to do that?
I'd like to rent a car, and a provider offers me a car to rent and then I could say, ooh, I don't like that car much, I'm not going to bother. Would seem to be a convenient way out for me, yes?
Or, I need a car to these specifications please make one available. Rental provider puts up a car to my spec and I pay my money and drive as it's a perfect match for my requirements.
As it's not public, I guess only those who were there know. CCFC can't know either as they didn't turn up.Haven't they been telling the trust what it would be already? Just not publicly?
As it's not public, I guess only those who were there know. CCFC can't know either as they didn't turn up.
The owner of the rents company would put forward a number of car options are available, what add one available (insurance, breakdown, tyres,service) and what the costs are. Or are you magically supposed to know that?
Its a crap analogy as you'd have already done your research, decided what car you want and had already looked at who provides the option you want at the best price.
Wasps and CSF should slap exactly what they can offer on the table make it public then people can put the club under pressure, I get the impression that wasps and CSF are playing the trust and the fans and ccfc are playing into it and will get all blame, whilst we get squeezed out of the higgs and the city . They're all a bunch of bullshitters.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Why could he not just attend the meeting ?Reads that way to me as well.
Surely if they are telling the trust what is on offer they just email it over to the club to say "this is what we can offer, at this price per month / year".
Why would they just tell the trust about it off the record?
Nothing we didn't already know.
They won't be able to use the same CSF facilities as they won't exist - 2 of the remaining 4 pitch's will be exclusively wasps, and wasps will have exclusive access to the 3rd half of the time. When tbr swimming pool arrives the classroom, meeting room, physio room, etc that is currently next to the higgs indoor pitch will likely be replaced.
Wasps should bloody pay for the pitch to be relocated to the standard required, I won't be high fiving them for that, plus it will benefit them in the long run as it will be one of their 2 exclusive training pitches.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
We don't pay anything to CSF? We use all facilities there for free? WowCCFC haven’t paid for any pitches ever, all the facilities at the Higgs centre were paid for by the Higgs charity.
You seem to think CCFC has a right to something they did not pay for and everyone else must move aside for them.
He means we never paid for/ or owned the facilities, just a short term rental agreementWe don't pay anything to CSF? We use all facilities there for free? Wow
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Lets be clear on the facts as stated by the Trust. The Trust has had meetings with Wasps and CSF and (directly and as part of SCG) with CA. It has also had contact with FL about what is needed for a Cat 2 academy and how much flexibility there is in these regulations. It has also had information on how the current set up was arrived at and how, if the letter of the FL regs is applied, the current academy does not actually meet the standards for Cat 2 but because the club worked together with Higgs to present a case directly to the FL and negotiated it together a compromise was reached and we have an academy.
What The Trusts findings show to date that there appears to be the facilities and the good will from both CSF and Wasps to work with CCFC to find a solution that would probably satisfy the FL. What Wasps and CSF offer might not satisfy every criteria and the club may have some facilities elsewhere eg another pitch or two from Ryton or Warwick Uni etc but there does appear to be the potential for a solution. However as previously stated all sides have to work together to come up with the proposal - this is not a tick box exercise, as with most things involving the FL there is a level of discretion around a proposal and around inspections. There is no 100% guarantee but unless you are willing to try you will never know. Maybe Wasps and CSF are just blowing smoke up peoples arses (personally I don't think so) but unless the club actually calls their bluff and starts dialogue we will never know.
Of course they have to move the pitch, their development means the pristine pitch we pay for and have an agreement is going to be closed, and rightly they are paying for it to be relocated so they can crack on with building. That is all I am saying, nothing about long term, just that they shouldn't be back slapped for doing what they should or CSF should do.
There is no room for the academy, wasps, CSF, swimming pool etc to all be on site. If we do manage to keep the academy and use the kicking barn the rest of the academy is likely to have to be delivered from alternative site.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Lets be clear on the facts as stated by the Trust. The Trust has had meetings with Wasps and CSF and (directly and as part of SCG) with CA. It has also had contact with FL about what is needed for a Cat 2 academy and how much flexibility there is in these regulations. It has also had information on how the current set up was arrived at and how, if the letter of the FL regs is applied, the current academy does not actually meet the standards for Cat 2 but because the club worked together with Higgs to present a case directly to the FL and negotiated it together a compromise was reached and we have an academy.
What The Trusts findings show to date that there appears to be the facilities and the good will from both CSF and Wasps to work with CCFC to find a solution that would probably satisfy the FL. What Wasps and CSF offer might not satisfy every criteria and the club may have some facilities elsewhere eg another pitch or two from Ryton or Warwick Uni etc but there does appear to be the potential for a solution. However as previously stated all sides have to work together to come up with the proposal - this is not a tick box exercise, as with most things involving the FL there is a level of discretion around a proposal and around inspections. There is no 100% guarantee but unless you are willing to try you will never know. Maybe Wasps and CSF are just blowing smoke up peoples arses (personally I don't think so) but unless the club actually calls their bluff and starts dialogue we will never know.
It is being put across that what is being offered will be approved:
So it isn't bang on 100% that it will work then?
Was it Wasps or CSF that said themselves it was likely it wouldn't? (I can't remember who it was now, it was one of them).
I got the impression (which is why I thought it was good news) that it was certain what was being offered would mean the Academy would be able to exist?
Doesn't the above say the academy would still exist.
Sorry all of that was a bit confusing to me.
Oh that it's already agreed.I got the impression the FA had given it the thumbs up
Never said they did and yes i know that, just like he knew what I meant but chose to ignore it and move the goal posts. We have a user agreement and pay for facilities that include a dedicated pitch that meets the FL specifications, wasps building a barn there means that pitch will not be usable, therefore between them CSF and wasps have to provide a FL standard dedicated pitch for academy use as per the user agreement until July 2017.He means we never paid for/ or owned the facilities, just a short term rental agreement
Which I coming to an end. But you know that, right
Yeah, that's what I meant!Sorry you mean the temporary changes whilst they build.
No that's just standard business nothing special.
Luckily they don't follow the mantra "contracts are there to be broken". If they did business like some were encouraging our owners to do in the past, we would be royally in it.
Oh that it's already agreed.
I always got the impression Wasos and CDF were going to suggest a solution that would probably statisfy the FA.
However the club never turned up to find out what it was.
Oh that it's already agreed.
I always got the impression Wasos and CDF were going to suggest a solution that would probably statisfy the FA.
However the club never turned up to find out what it was.
Something that should be noted is that it is possible to keep the Cat 2 status by using Wasps' new facilities. If anything they will be an upgrade on what we had before. The powers that be would have to use their discretion but they have to with the current set up as some things do not meet the requirements.
But it seems we can have an academy in the future, but SISU can't even be botheredNever said they did and yes i know that, just like he knew what I meant but chose to ignore it and move the goal posts. We have a user agreement and pay for facilities that include a dedicated pitch that meets the FL specifications, wasps building a barn there means that pitch will not be usable, therefore between them CSF and wasps have to provide a FL standard dedicated pitch for academy use as per the user agreement until July 2017.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Again, this pretty much confirms that with the new facilities the Cat 2 status will be available still.
Is this not the case?
It is being put across that what is being offered will be approved:
So it isn't bang on 100% that it will work then?
Was it Wasps or CSF that said themselves it was likely it wouldn't? (I can't remember who it was now, it was one of them).
I got the impression (which is why I thought it was good news) that it was certain what was being offered would mean the Academy would be able to exist?
Thanks for clarifying.People are putting there own interpretation on conversations etc and remember CJ is twittering in real time so some mistakes may occur - the only people who can state 100% that academy will pass is the FL and as no proposal has been put to them them its hard for that to happen. As I said earlier going by the letter of the FL regs we shouldn't even have an academy now but because the club worked with the Higgs they went to the FL together and presented their case and the FL granted them one. It was actually Doug Ellis who rubber stamped it! What is being suggested by the Trust is that by working with CSF and Wasps and filling in the gaps themselves by using Ryton or Warwick Uni the club could formulae a new proposal to be put to FL that could preserve the academy. One thing is for certain that if no new proposal is put forward then the club will 100% lose its academy. Surely its not asking too much is it for CA to work with other parties to find a solution is it?
I'm never wrong.
How come people kept hinting about it but would never say straight what it was? When questioned it was said they weren't allowed to say any more?No embargo put on his non attendances - it was simply brought up at the Trust meeting during the discussion about the academy.
It's not actually news as people knew the fa would always allow some movement.
Surely the news was that a meeting had been arranged between the parties to try and move things forward?
It was bigger news that CCFC were a non show, bigger news than waiting for it to come up in conversation at a trust meeting over a month later I would have thought.
It is almost as if it was meant to come out then for some reason, CSF even had a quote lined up for the next day and the telegraph had the article on there - http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-md-pulls-out-11635112
It isn't fact, it is just opinion so probably could be well off the mark but it smacks of more PR game playing to me...This time the trust are in on it.
not really about making news though but about finding an academy solution. Assuming the objective of all concerned is retention of the Cat 2 status Academy would immediately pointing the finger be the diplomatic course of action or would giving a bit of time to make a new arrangement be better? Clearly no new arrangement to meet was forth coming
Didn't CA also make clear he saw no point in meeting at this point until he got his response in writing.
I would think the Trust etc thought the best course of action was to encourage meetings rather than close doors. Clearly the question was asked at the AGM and an honest answer given. The usual result of the Trust revealing something that might be viewed by CCFC directors/owners as detrimental to their interests has been the cold shoulder and a refusal to talk. No reason for communication to stop but would be interesting to know if it has, as will the next SCG meeting be in terms of the SBT
The whys and wherefores of Anderson's non-attendance appear to be spawning conspiracy theories due to no information/statement being offered by the club.
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?