In or around Coventry....does it matter? (1 Viewer)

Paxman II · Apr 26, 2014

I'm getting tired of this get Cov back in Cov message now. Yes we want our team back home but to put a finite term such as "in Coventry" as a requirement is annoying.
If we do have a new stadium then I am fine with it if it's in the Coventry area - as in say Brandon, Exhall for example.

We should be coming back to the Ricoh but we all know that.

Man Utd don't play in Manchester do they? Not strictly anyways. There are many clubs that have their stadiums just on the borders of their towns but well within the catchment and of no consequence to supporters.

Evans1883 · Apr 26, 2014

yes but within reason , not happy to have it in lets say leamington for example

dongonzalos · Apr 26, 2014

It doesn't matter to be fair as long as it is close enough for all to get to it.

The biggest issue is the club can't explain how it can be financed.

blend · Apr 26, 2014

The Ricoh is in Coventry. A mythical stadium can be anywhere as it doesn't exist, it is only a prop.

dongonzalos · Apr 26, 2014

Evans1883 said:
yes but within reason , not happy to have it in lets say leamington for example

I guess that depends which part of the city you live in

bigfatronssba · Apr 26, 2014

Sorry. Its Coventry or nothing for me.

I don't care whether or not some other club plays outside its towns boundaries. We are Coventry, one of England's great ancient cities. To not have our football club play within our boundaries is a disgrace, and I cant believe that some Coventrians would be happy about that.

the rumpo kid · Apr 26, 2014

he's tired of it all...........lets put baba to bed and mummy will sort it all out this silly football for you , bless.

Cheshire Sky Blue · Apr 26, 2014

Paxman II said:
I'm getting tired of this get Cov back in Cov message now. Yes we want our team back home but to put a finite term such as "in Coventry" as a requirement is annoying.
If we do have a new stadium then I am fine with it if it's in the Coventry area - as in say Brandon, Exhall for example.

We should be coming back to the Ricoh but we all know that.

Man Utd don't play in Manchester do they? Not strictly anyways. There are many clubs that have their stadiums just on the borders of their towns but well within the catchment and of no consequence to supporters.

Its Coventry for me. The thought of Brandon or similar is a nonsense. Man U technically may be located Salford & therefore not be located in Manc land, but at least you can walk from the station. (its only about 2.5 miles where as the RICOH is about 4 miles fro Cov station)

Astute · Apr 26, 2014

How ever much you would be happy for it to be outside Coventry you must remember after the FOI requests the location was stretched even further. It made the location possible as far as Solihull. If they were serious about the ground and location the last time they spoke of it the position of it wouldn't be anywhere near Coventry. It makes hardly any difference to people to me as I travel over 4 hours to get to a home game. It could be even closer for me. But I wouldn't go on principle. Would anyone be happy to travel to somewhere as far away as Solihull to a permanent home for our club?

dongonzalos · Apr 26, 2014

Astute said:
How ever much you would be happy for it to be outside Coventry you must remember after the FOI requests the location was stretched even further. It made the location possible as far as Solihull. If they were serious about the ground and location the last time they spoke of it the position of it wouldn't be anywhere near Coventry. It makes hardly any difference to people to me as I travel over 4 hours to get to a home game. It could be even closer for me. But I wouldn't go on principle. Would anyone be happy to travel to somewhere as far away as Solihull to a permanent home for our club?

No it should be somewhere that is easy for the majority to get to.
However as I say still would like to know how we pay back 75 million plus if we do it?

chiefdave · Apr 26, 2014

If we were moving somewhere just outside the city for a valid reason I wouldn't really have an issue with it. However at the moment there doesn't appear to be valid reason for not playing in the city so I don't support playing out of it, either at Northampton or a new stadium.

If SISU can come out and clearly explain why we need a new stadium out of the city and how that is viable then I may change my opinion.

Evans1883 · Apr 26, 2014

dongonzalos said:
I guess that depends which part of the city you live in

tile hill , the closest part lol

lordsummerisle · Apr 26, 2014

bigfatronssba said:
Sorry. Its Coventry or nothing for me.

I don't care whether or not some other club plays outside its towns boundaries. We are Coventry, one of England's great ancient cities. To not have our football club play within our boundaries is a disgrace, and I cant believe that some Coventrians would be happy about that.

One of Englands great ancient counties too before being abolished, great to see your campaign to get Exhall and Ansty suitable sites for a ground within historic limits.

I personally don't think that we should play anywhere at "home" outside the historic limits of the City Wall myself.

ccfcway · Apr 26, 2014

dongonzalos said:
It doesn't matter to be fair as long as it is close enough for all to get to it.

The biggest issue is the club can't explain how it can be financed.

or where it is !

or when it will be built !

Spionkop · Apr 26, 2014

Yes it does matter.

Samo · Apr 26, 2014

blend said:
The Ricoh is in Coventry. A mythical stadium can be anywhere as it doesn't exist, it is only a prop.

Only fucking just. If it fell over it would be outside.

lordsummerisle · Apr 26, 2014

Samo said:
Only fucking just. If it fell over it would be outside.

Doesn't count as Coventry for me, well outside the City Wall.

No sense of history some people, shameful Scumeaton Scabs the lot of them.

Samo · Apr 26, 2014

lordsummerisle said:
Doesn't count as Coventry for me, well outside the City Wall.

No sense of history some people, shameful Scumeaton Scabs the lot of them.

Quite right. Bastards! Tear down Cathedral Lanes and build there I say!

lordsummerisle · Apr 26, 2014

Samo said:
Quite right. Bastards! Tear down Cathedral Lanes and build there I say!

Do we really need two Cathedrals anyway?

fernandopartridge · Apr 26, 2014

bigfatronssba said:
Sorry. Its Coventry or nothing for me.

I don't care whether or not some other club plays outside its towns boundaries. We are Coventry, one of England's great ancient cities. To not have our football club play within our boundaries is a disgrace, and I cant believe that some Coventrians would be happy about that.

If the Ricoh was the other side of Rowleys Green Lane?

Samo · Apr 26, 2014

lordsummerisle said:
Do we really need two Cathedrals anyway?

We do have one to spare.

ajsccfc · Apr 26, 2014

It matters massively, I measure my outrage with a trundle wheel and a map from the 1500s.

Samo · Apr 26, 2014

ajsccfc said:
It matters massively, I measure my outrage with a trundle wheel and a map from the 1500s.

That is SUCH a coincidence!

stupot07 · Apr 26, 2014

Within reason, it wouldn't matter to me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

RFC · Apr 26, 2014

chiefdave said:
If we were moving somewhere just outside the city for a valid reason I wouldn't really have an issue with it. However at the moment there doesn't appear to be valid reason for not playing in the city so I don't support playing out of it, either at Northampton or a new stadium.

If SISU can come out and clearly explain why we need a new stadium out of the city and how that is viable then I may change my opinion.

All football experts and knowledgable people within the game have stated that under FFP none of the 92 P & FL clubs could afford not to own their own ground. Simple really and if the club can't afford it then it must be in the owners hands, as the rental model under FIFA's rules will never ever work.

The rules are based on gross total income which amounts to 60% of ALL turnover (not profits) that can be used for anything player related (transfers, wages, bonuses etc. etc.).

So if your income is restricted and doesn't include for instance car park revenues and food & beverage sales, your basically 'up a gum tree)!

Jack Griffin · Apr 26, 2014

What an idiot you are, if all clubs have to comply it simply drives down the cost base unilaterally.
There is no restriction of income as you seem to think, it is outgoing costs that are restricted.
What should the clubs do then, spend 110% of turnover on player related costs?

Rusty Trombone · Apr 26, 2014

RFC said:
All football experts and knowledgable people within the game have stated that under FFP none of the 92 P & FL clubs could afford not to own their own ground. Simple really and if the club can't afford it then it must be in the owners hands, as the rental model under FIFA's rules will never ever work.

The rules are based on gross total income which amounts to 60% of ALL turnover (not profits) that can be used for anything player related (transfers, wages, bonuses etc. etc.).

So if your income is restricted and doesn't include for instance car park revenues and food & beverage sales, your basically 'up a gum tree)!

Maybe we should build or buy a ground then, you should have mentioned this before. How will the build or purchase be funded?

Sky Blue Harry H · Apr 26, 2014

RFC said:
All football experts and knowledgable people within the game QUOTE]

Sorry RFC, but you lost my vote about 800 posts ago P.S. Not sure you can include yourself in the above?

The Gentleman · Apr 26, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
Maybe we should build or buy a ground then, you should have mentioned this before. How will the build or purchase be funded?

And how long till we see them pesky plans!

chiefdave · Apr 26, 2014

RFC said:
All football experts and knowledgable people within the game have stated that under FFP none of the 92 P & FL clubs could afford not to own their own ground. Simple really and if the club can't afford it then it must be in the owners hands, as the rental model under FIFA's rules will never ever work.

The rules are based on gross total income which amounts to 60% of ALL turnover (not profits) that can be used for anything player related (transfers, wages, bonuses etc. etc.).

So if your income is restricted and doesn't include for instance car park revenues and food & beverage sales, your basically 'up a gum tree)!

Did you copy and paste that from Joys piece in today's program? How does owning the ground give you anymore revenue than owning the lease?

Given that the FL replied to that chap doing his Uni project that the majority of clubs don't own their own ground will we be seeing huge numbers of clubs going out of business or moving away from their current grounds?

wingy · Apr 26, 2014

chiefdave said:
Did you copy and paste that from Joys piece in today's program? How does owning the ground give you anymore revenue than owning the lease?

Given that the FL replied to that chap doing his Uni project that the majority of clubs don't own their own ground will we be seeing huge numbers of clubs going out of business or moving away from their current grounds?

Given that last years Turnover would have permitted a Wage budget of £4M. this season ,why would we assume that on possession of all revenues would equate to SISU spending 60% of them when this season they spent around 30%

dongonzalos · Apr 26, 2014

wingy said:
Given that last years Turnover would have permitted a Wage budget of £4M. this season ,why would we assume that on possession of all revenues would equate to SISU spending 60% of them when this season they spent around 30%

Kinda puts that comment to bed really

Is it me or there a compelling argument that we don't need to own our own ground.

There is no argument ever put forward why we have to own the Ricoh.

There is no explanation about how we can afford to build a new stadium.

There are lots of explanations about how buying ACL would be a better option or agreeing a long long term rent deal with as much match day revenue included as possible. There are lots if explanations about how we can't afford to build a new stadium.

There are lots of explanations as to why a short term rent deal at the Ricoh is better if we are genuinely building new stadium than staying at Sixfields.

There is no real explanation as to why we are staying at Sixfields

Astute · Apr 26, 2014

RFC said:
All football experts and knowledgable people within the game have stated that under FFP none of the 92 P & FL clubs could afford not to own their own ground. Simple really and if the club can't afford it then it must be in the owners hands, as the rental model under FIFA's rules will never ever work.

I take it Man City will be skint soon then.

Astute · Apr 26, 2014

dongonzalos said:
Kinda puts that comment to bed really

Is it me or there a compelling argument that we don't need to own our own ground.

There is no argument ever put forward why we have to own the Ricoh.

There is no explanation about how we can afford to build a new stadium.

There are lots of explanations about how buying ACL would be a better option or agreeing a long long term rent deal with as much match day revenue included as possible. There are lots if explanations about how we can't afford to build a new stadium.

There are lots of explanations as to why a short term rent deal at the Ricoh is better if we are genuinely building new stadium than staying at Sixfields.

There is no real explanation as to why we are staying at Sixfields

Why do you think that they won't talk to us about it?

bigfatronssba · Apr 26, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
If the Ricoh was the other side of Rowleys Green Lane?

But its not so its an irrelevant question

In or around Coventry....does it matter? (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New 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

Jack Griffin

Guest

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

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency