@richh87
Member
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sp...oventry-city-planning-build-highfield-4003689
SISU desperately pulling at the heart strings of City fans!
SISU desperately pulling at the heart strings of City fans!
'Highfield Two' (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter @richh87
- Start date
@richh87
Member
Owners of Sky Blues planning to build Highfield Road II 'just outside' city
Coventry City claim to have bid for land to build a stadium called “Highfield Two” – and intend to play at Walsall until it opens.
The Telegraph has learned Sky Blues bosses claim to have already progressed to a second round of bidding for the undisclosed site “just outside” the administrative boundary of Coventry City Council.
Our sources also say Walsall’s Banks’ stadium is being pursued by directors of Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd as the “most likely option” for a temporary ground share in the meantime.
The aim is to build a new stadium “within three years”.
The provisional name for the project - “Highfield Two” - is seen as a way of winning over disgruntled fans to the idea.
More than 10,000 people have signed the Telegraph’s petition against CCFC Holdings and its owners Sisu’s plans to ground share outside the city, following the ongoing bitter dispute with Ricoh Arena owners Arena Coventry Limited.
Many fans were unhappy with the club leaving its former 23,000-capacity Highfield Road stadium near the city centre for the larger 32,000-capacity Ricoh near the M6.
As talks have broken down over a lower rent and joint ownership at the Ricoh, it is understood Coventry City (Holdings) Ltd want to base their plans on Rotherham United’s new 12,000-seat stadium, which took four years to build.
They believe the new stadium would be nearer to Coventry city centre than the Ricoh Arena.
Club directors are impressed with the New York Stadium at the South Yorkshire club as it was completed last year at a “cheap” cost of £20million.
The club believes paying back over many years a private developer who would build the stadium would be cheaper than the £1.2m-a-year Ricoh rent.
The stadium in Rotherham is also thought to be a suitable model to follow as it is a “modular” project – meaning more capacity can easily be added if the club is promoted and attendances shoot up.
Coventry City directors, who have discussed the plans with key sources, say they have kept the Football League fully informed while the plan is progressing.
The Football League will only allow clubs to play home fixtures outside their home town or city if any temporary ground-share arrangement is within a certain mileage - thought to be 30 miles - and the club has a clear business plan to return to their home city within a designated period.
Rotherham United were given four years, but it is understood Coventry City directors believe their plans could be completed within three years.
The Telegraph understands five sites just outside Coventry’s administrative boundary have been identified by property agents employed by Joy Seppala-headed Sisu and Holdings Ltd, headed by Tim Fisher.
But several sources say one site has already become the preferred option, and a bid was put in.
We understand that bid has moved to a second round of bidding alongside offers from other prospective buyers.
It is believed obtaining planning permission inside Coventry City Council’s boundary might be difficult - given the dispute with the council and ACL, which is still subject to High Court action.
But Coventry City Council’s planning committee, as with all district councils in Warwickshire, are “quasi-judicial” bodies – meaning councillors are legally obliged to vote based on “material planning considerations”.
Coventry City bosses are pinning their hopes on winning planning permission at appeal or at a public inquiry if they cannot get their plans through any local council’s planning committee.
Coventry City claim to have bid for land to build a stadium called “Highfield Two” – and intend to play at Walsall until it opens.
The Telegraph has learned Sky Blues bosses claim to have already progressed to a second round of bidding for the undisclosed site “just outside” the administrative boundary of Coventry City Council.
Our sources also say Walsall’s Banks’ stadium is being pursued by directors of Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd as the “most likely option” for a temporary ground share in the meantime.
The aim is to build a new stadium “within three years”.
The provisional name for the project - “Highfield Two” - is seen as a way of winning over disgruntled fans to the idea.
More than 10,000 people have signed the Telegraph’s petition against CCFC Holdings and its owners Sisu’s plans to ground share outside the city, following the ongoing bitter dispute with Ricoh Arena owners Arena Coventry Limited.
Many fans were unhappy with the club leaving its former 23,000-capacity Highfield Road stadium near the city centre for the larger 32,000-capacity Ricoh near the M6.
As talks have broken down over a lower rent and joint ownership at the Ricoh, it is understood Coventry City (Holdings) Ltd want to base their plans on Rotherham United’s new 12,000-seat stadium, which took four years to build.
They believe the new stadium would be nearer to Coventry city centre than the Ricoh Arena.
Club directors are impressed with the New York Stadium at the South Yorkshire club as it was completed last year at a “cheap” cost of £20million.
The club believes paying back over many years a private developer who would build the stadium would be cheaper than the £1.2m-a-year Ricoh rent.
The stadium in Rotherham is also thought to be a suitable model to follow as it is a “modular” project – meaning more capacity can easily be added if the club is promoted and attendances shoot up.
Coventry City directors, who have discussed the plans with key sources, say they have kept the Football League fully informed while the plan is progressing.
The Football League will only allow clubs to play home fixtures outside their home town or city if any temporary ground-share arrangement is within a certain mileage - thought to be 30 miles - and the club has a clear business plan to return to their home city within a designated period.
Rotherham United were given four years, but it is understood Coventry City directors believe their plans could be completed within three years.
The Telegraph understands five sites just outside Coventry’s administrative boundary have been identified by property agents employed by Joy Seppala-headed Sisu and Holdings Ltd, headed by Tim Fisher.
But several sources say one site has already become the preferred option, and a bid was put in.
We understand that bid has moved to a second round of bidding alongside offers from other prospective buyers.
It is believed obtaining planning permission inside Coventry City Council’s boundary might be difficult - given the dispute with the council and ACL, which is still subject to High Court action.
But Coventry City Council’s planning committee, as with all district councils in Warwickshire, are “quasi-judicial” bodies – meaning councillors are legally obliged to vote based on “material planning considerations”.
Coventry City bosses are pinning their hopes on winning planning permission at appeal or at a public inquiry if they cannot get their plans through any local council’s planning committee.
Flying Fokker
Well-Known Member
What! Paying back the loan would be cheaper than the 1.2 million?
They were offered 400k weren't they?
They were offered 400k weren't they?
Sky blue north east
Member
There only ever be one highfield road so shutr the feck up sisu your plan is as sad as you little bunch of shisters!!!!
BurbageSkyBlues
New Member
Lots of positioning, intended to persuade the FL that they are serious and that they are fit and proper to run s club.
From comments by Appleton etc, about the FL having the gift to decide where the GS goes, it would indicate that they are not yet sure where to 'allocate' the share to, so Sisu need to show good intent. Don't forget, they still have a strong say in the sale of Ltd, as the majority creditor.
Of course, once they have the GS, they then have the option to sell it and not build a new stadium, writing off any costs of 'planning' that have been incurred. And of course, if they had actually bought the land, that would be an assert that could be sold at a profit as and when it suits them, so no loss there.
All they need to do at this stage, is produce a feasible plan, to convince the FL that they will be the right entity to carry the club forward. They don't have to actually go ahead with the stadium......would you trust them?
Just my interpretation of events, of course.
From comments by Appleton etc, about the FL having the gift to decide where the GS goes, it would indicate that they are not yet sure where to 'allocate' the share to, so Sisu need to show good intent. Don't forget, they still have a strong say in the sale of Ltd, as the majority creditor.
Of course, once they have the GS, they then have the option to sell it and not build a new stadium, writing off any costs of 'planning' that have been incurred. And of course, if they had actually bought the land, that would be an assert that could be sold at a profit as and when it suits them, so no loss there.
All they need to do at this stage, is produce a feasible plan, to convince the FL that they will be the right entity to carry the club forward. They don't have to actually go ahead with the stadium......would you trust them?
Just my interpretation of events, of course.
Last edited:
SkyBlueBlood2
New Member
Brilliant! Their hell hellbent on turning us into a lower league club! Already in league 1 now they want a league 1 stadium! 
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
If you were a developer would you offer any sisu run company credit?
block30bloke
Member
No fans ... no point
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Brilliant! Their hell hellbent on turning us into a lower league club! Already in league 1 now they want a league 1 stadium!
How? HR wasn't a L1 stadium.
BrisbaneBronco
Well-Known Member
Nearer to the city centre than ricoh yet outside city boundaries.
Ansty?
Ansty?
Sky Blues
Active Member
What level would you class a 12,000-seat stadium as?
(Clearly, I'm talking about the Rotherham one they're looking at, not Highfield Road, before anyone gets the wrong end of the stick.)
Last edited:
Manchester_sky_blue
Well-Known Member
Baginton is under Warwick council rather than Cov and there could potentially be space there..............
KersleyDigs
Well-Known Member
Insulting and patronising. How dare they!!! Is nothing sacred?!
NOW THEY ARE TRYING TO ASSOCIATE WITH OUR PROUD HISTORY.
feck OFF SISU YOU ABSOLUTE SCUM PILE!
NOW THEY ARE TRYING TO ASSOCIATE WITH OUR PROUD HISTORY.
feck OFF SISU YOU ABSOLUTE SCUM PILE!
Sky blue north east
Member
Im astonished psgm has not turned up on this thread yet banging on bout sbt AMAZING!!! SISU JUS FECK OFF NOW!!!!
SkyBlueRuffian
Well-Known Member
Ha ha Highfield Road the sequel, hilarious.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
The more stories which appear like this the less likely these crackpot ideas seem likely to actually happen.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Agree, BSB. Time is ticking. The administrator has got to pull his finger out and sort this mess out.
ryb1983ccfc
New Member
this is getting fucking ridiculous! Get out of our club! Why are these people still here!
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
That NY Stadium in Rotherham is easily L1 level..
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
It's also a model to follow rather than exact replica.
Modular and ability to extend is a good thing, shame nobody designed the Ricoh with that thought really.
Skybluerevolution (Pt2)
New Member
The Ricoh can be extended, it is modular also as I have been told...
SkyBlueBlood2
New Member
Read the article, they want to base it on Rotherams New York stadium! 12000 capacity, and as basic as it gets!
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
They haven't secured the land, they haven't agreed a ground to share, and at this moment in time they don't even have the right to play football. If PH4 or A.N. Other gets a slice of the Ricoh and preferred bidder status from Appleton they have nowhere to turn.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
When they built it, it was admitted the only way to extend the stands was to knock them down.
That's not my idea of modular!
Manchester_sky_blue
Well-Known Member
That would all be fine if Appleton could be relied upon to be impartial and just award preferred status to the best bid. I have absolutely no confidence that he will do that, do you?
@richh87
Member
With this in mind, maybe we should be doing our best to convince the Football League that SISU aren't 'fit and proper' owners - rather than petitioning about the stadium location?
If we could can stop the Football League transferring the golden share to CCFC Holdings it gives us a much better chance of getting rid of SISU.
Last edited:
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
My hope is that as he is bound by law he will do his job to the letter. If he doesn't I hope someone replaces him who will.
Manchester_sky_blue
Well-Known Member
I think it would probably take some sort of legal challenge to remove him and bring someone else in. i don't know why ACL didn't do that the second SISU appointed him to administer CCFC Ltd. It must have been obvious to everyone that they only did that so they could get a sympathetic person in instead of someone of the courts/ACL's choosing.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
As Holdings' statements become increasingly ludicrous I think that they're accepting that the game is up and this self inflicted administration has backfired. All it will take is for the League to give the GS back to Ltd and that will finish them off.