Latest CCFC letter on planning application - Planning Meeting (16 Viewers)

Nick · Aug 4, 2016

What does everybody think will happen now?

I think:

The trust will come out later saying everybody needs to talk, but mainly aiming everything at CCFC.
Wasps and CSF will say their door is open
CCFC will try and get sport england onside but fail

Wasps and CSF will just say "the door is open" until 2017 and goodbye.

Wasps and CSF fantastic, tried to help.

Ricoh talks will stay the same, refusing to talk with the odd statement "door is open" here and there until that runs out as well.

Meanwhile.....

Nobody questions Paul Breed on the things he said in that letter, I bet most have forgotten already. ie about CCFC stressing to him they were leaving not long ago.

Everybody just goes bat shit mental at the club.

People demand CCFC go and meet Wasps, which I think after some pressure they will go for a "discussion" which won't go far anyway for something like the JR against the council or something like the dispute over the equipment a few years ago.

albatross · Aug 4, 2016

ashbyjan said:
Just seen caveat on the approval - it is subject to Sec of State not wishing to intervene and the resolution of the concerns of Sport England over future use. So there is some hope that academy could continue - no thanks to CCC. Club need to get Sport England on side and get some clarity over HIggs centre future plans etc now and secure future for academy, maybe a meeting of CSF, Wasps, CCFC and Sport England? .

I dont see it like that, there is every hope that the academy can continue , just that our owners have got to start talking and looking to move this forward. As it stands they have not given it a chance

ashbyjan · Aug 4, 2016

Nick said:
I thought the Trust had a meeting with Wasps to get the clarity about the academy, which is what sport england want? Surely they can just put down what was said and send it over to Sport England?

Did Wasps / CSF give any sort of clarifications when you met them or was it "our door is open"?

There was a degree of discussion around the loss of the U21 pitch to the "kicking Barn" and the relocation of it, the loss of 1.5 other pitches to Wasps, the loss of classrooms when swimming pool is built on current indoor pitch etc - no minutes were taken but it is amazing what you can achieve if you just talk. The problem seems to be that the whole situation is going to be fluid for a while whilst various bits of the development are built - ie during the construction of the pool certain classrooms will be lost but may be reinstated later so its not just a simple list. Sick of saying it but if they all sit down a solution can be arrived at but too many seem to be seeing this as a win / loss / blame / complain / finger point situation and forget the over-riding issue is the preservation of the Academy.

oldskyblue58 · Aug 4, 2016

Think you missed the usual suspects and legal action out of that Nick.

And I would have thought the first statements would have been from CCFC, CSF, Wasps before the Trust

stupot07 · Aug 4, 2016

Nick said:
What does everybody think will happen now?

I think:

The trust will come out later saying everybody needs to talk.
Wasps and CSF will say their door is open
CCFC will try and get sport england onside but fail

Wasps and CSF will just say "the door is open" until 2017 and goodbye.

Wasps and CSF fantastic, tried to help.

Ricoh talks will stay the same, refusing to talk with the odd statement "door is open" here and there until that runs out as well.

Nail on head.

Personally I think the Ricoh talks is just bollocks to force the club to accept a substantially more expensive rental deal, but delaying it until the club have no choice - pay £x or leave.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Nick · Aug 4, 2016

ashbyjan said:
There was a degree of discussion around the loss of the U21 pitch to the "kicking Barn" and the relocation of it, the loss of 1.5 other pitches to Wasps, the loss of classrooms when swimming pool is built on current indoor pitch etc - no minutes were taken but it is amazing what you can achieve if you just talk. The problem seems to be that the whole situation is going to be fluid for a while whilst various bits of the development are built - ie during the construction of the pool certain classrooms will be lost but may be reinstated later so its not just a simple list. Sick of saying it but if they all sit down a solution can be arrived at but too many seem to be seeing this as a win / loss / blame / complain / finger point situation and forget the over-riding issue is the preservation of the Academy.

What I don't get, is why if you have been told it why they haven't told the club, sport england or put it in the proposal?

Did you ask why if they were telling you it all, why they didnt write it down and shut CA up?

skybluetony176 · Aug 4, 2016

fernandopartridge said:
Because he's not a planning lawyer, he was making the case as CCFC about the loss of its academy's home. Not as a planning consultant concerned with green belt issues etc. That will probably come later and clearly needs more than 3 minutes to explain.

That's no excuse. They've took independent advice and written a second letter based on it with some valid points regarding the approval of the original development and how the application potentially contravenes this. Why didn't he concentrate on those specific's? It not like we're not aware of them. If you're going to go into a planning approval meeting with a reason for it to be turned down it has to be based on planning regs to be seriously considered. Going in all woe us was pointless. If that was the plan we were always fucked as it simply doesn't have to be considered.

Nick · Aug 4, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
That's no excuse. They've took independent advice and written a second letter based on it with some valid points regarding the approval of the original development and how the application potentially contravenes this. Why didn't he concentrate on those specific's? It not like we're not aware of them. If you're going to go into a planning approval meeting with a reason for it to be turned down it has to be based on planning regs to be seriously considered. Going in all woe us was pointless. If that was the plan we were always fucked as it simply doesn't have to be considered.

They had the result and conditions printed out to hand out didn't they? I doubt half of the people would have known what he was talking about anyway would they?

Captain Dart · Aug 4, 2016

Gosh, I thought it would be delayed pending Sport England response & the 2 clubs & CSF would be asked to sit & talk in the meanwhile.
Similar result, just its been waved through unless Sport England say no, I think they want an agreement also.
Well SISU will be silly not to work a compromise out, I'm certain it can be done, question is will they do it?
If they can't they'll have to lay off some Academy Staff fairly soon I'd have thought.

stupot07 · Aug 4, 2016

I do agree with you, the points should have included thr planning stuff, but let's not see this as anything other than a tick box excercise for the planners. Those objections should have been tabled by thr planning officer, its his job to ensure due process is being followed.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

chiefdave · Aug 4, 2016

oldskyblue58 said:
So assuming there were no legals resulting from this

Is this your first day as a Coventry supporter?

skybluetony176 · Aug 4, 2016

Nick said:
Exactly, I doubt he could have said what was on that letter (where they got advice) within 3 minutes.

He could have outlined it and unlike what he did say would have had some relevance to the planning application.

Astute · Aug 4, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Going in all woe us was pointless. If that was the plan we were always fucked as it simply doesn't have to be considered.

It makes it look as though he is more interested in starting more legal action than making a point on what could have at least delayed a decision.

albatross · Aug 4, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
That's no excuse. They've took independent advice and written a second letter based on it with some valid points regarding the approval of the original development and how the application potentially contravenes this. Why didn't he concentrate on those specific's? It not like we're not aware of them. If you're going to go into a planning approval meeting with a reason for it to be turned down it has to be based on planning regs to be seriously considered. Going in all woe us was pointless. If that was the plan we were always fucked as it simply doesn't have to be considered.

lack of preparation on his part I would imagine. If you look at the second letter it does not even use the same font from page 1 to page 2. Small point I know but typifies his approach as not looking or sounding professional. He should have been rehearsed for 3 minutes of concentrated fact not emotion if he was to mount any serious objection... still don't think they want the academy just want to blame others

fernandopartridge · Aug 4, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
He could have outlined it and unlike what he did say would have had some relevance to the planning application.

It would have been equally as pointless though Tony. He could have said anything and it would have had zero relevance. The committee were recommended to approve it, councillors will do as their officer instructs as they trust the officer has taken appropriate legal advice. (Apart from when they had the EGM to approve a £14.4m loan that is).

chiefdave · Aug 4, 2016

Tend to agree with Nicks forecast of what will happen over the next few years. As much as they go on about open doors its very clear CCC, Wasps, Higgs and CSF don't want CCFC to continue. Think the best we can hope for is a move to a new facility just over the boundary. Where that could be and how the hell we could pay for it I have no idea.

Sharing the Butts and a lower category facility at Warwick Uni might be the best we can hope for.

Have to say I'm surprised it was approved today. Thought it would go through eventually but at the very least there would be a delay.

Nick · Aug 4, 2016

Astute said:
It makes it look as though he is more interested in starting more legal action than making a point on what could have at least delayed a decision.

It was never, ever going to delay any decision.

chiefdave · Aug 4, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
He could have outlined it and unlike what he did say would have had some relevance to the planning application.

Did it really matter what he said? It was all put in writing anyway so the information was there.

stupot07 · Aug 4, 2016

What a c..

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

oldskyblue58 · Aug 4, 2016

chiefdave said:
Is this your first day as a Coventry supporter?

nope but always happy to be surprised and just covering all the bases however unlikely or remote

ashbyjan · Aug 4, 2016

Nick said:
What I don't get, is why if you have been told it why they haven't told the club, sport england or put it in the proposal?

Did you ask why if they were telling you it all, why they didnt write it down and shut CA up?

At the time we were talking to them they were still trying to get a sit down meeting with CA and the issue of a list of demands hadn't come up. Subsequently in conversation with Breed he stated that the matter was best resolved with open dialogue involving all stakeholders to come up with solutions. I agree that giving CA a simple list would shut him up but will it actually move us any closer to saving the academy? Personally I don't give a rats bollock that in the past Fisher spouted about moving the academy, or CA talked about moving to the Butts or that Breed said the club wanted to move out - I am bothered with what is being said now and sadly that is nothing constructive. "I want a list." "I want a meeting." Its all childish bollocks and unless the circle is broken the result will be no academy. There are alternatives to the lost pitches and the lost classrooms - when Trust asked Warwick Uni they confirmed that they would be happy to talk to club about them using some of their facilities. It all comes down to who wants to save the academy? At the moment there seems to be a lot of dick waving going on and nothing constructive being achieved but hey ho its only the fans and the young footballers of Coventry who lose out so who cares.

chiefdave · Aug 4, 2016

stupot07 said:
What a c..

It amazes me. I can't imagine the fans of any other club reacting to this sort of news the way ours do.

chiefdave · Aug 4, 2016

ashbyjan said:
At the time we were talking to them they were still trying to get a sit down meeting with CA and the issue of a list of demands hadn't come up.

Didn't the list of requirements from CA first come into play months ago when CSF refused to engage with the club? Don't think its something he's just come up with at the last minute.

Nick · Aug 4, 2016

stupot07 said:
What a c..

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Reap what they sow, that is going to be thrown about a fair bit... Already been said on here today a couple of times!

skybluetony176 · Aug 4, 2016

oldskyblue58 said:
Think you missed the usual suspects and legal action out of that Nick.

And I would have thought the first statements would have been from CCFC, CSF, Wasps before the Trust

That's the problem. The parties that need to sit in a room and talk won't instead choosing media as a forum for talks. The trust suggest that all parties need to get in the same room and talk and it's the trust who get abused for daring to suggest such a drastic course of ACTION get called wasp fan boys, being accused of not being fit for purpose etc. when in actual fact all they're doing is suggesting the only course of action that might actually resolve something for the academy. The mocking finger pointing in a roundabout sort of way at the trust has already started on this very thread. Pretty pathetic really. If people concentrated on giving none of the parties that can find a resolution for the academy a hiding place with excuses for not progressing talks they might actually feel some pressure to get it sorted.

Nick · Aug 4, 2016

ashbyjan said:
At the time we were talking to them they were still trying to get a sit down meeting with CA and the issue of a list of demands hadn't come up. Subsequently in conversation with Breed he stated that the matter was best resolved with open dialogue involving all stakeholders to come up with solutions. I agree that giving CA a simple list would shut him up but will it actually move us any closer to saving the academy? Personally I don't give a rats bollock that in the past Fisher spouted about moving the academy, or CA talked about moving to the Butts or that Breed said the club wanted to move out - I am bothered with what is being said now and sadly that is nothing constructive. "I want a list." "I want a meeting." Its all childish bollocks and unless the circle is broken the result will be no academy. There are alternatives to the lost pitches and the lost classrooms - when Trust asked Warwick Uni they confirmed that they would be happy to talk to club about them using some of their facilities. It all comes down to who wants to save the academy? At the moment there seems to be a lot of dick waving going on and nothing constructive being achieved but hey ho its only the fans and the young footballers of Coventry who lose out so who cares.

CA has said from the start about it being in writing hasn't he? Even back before the Wasps stuff came out.

I think putting things down in writing would of course help move things forward, it would satisfy sport england too wouldnt it?

Might be worth calling him out on some of the stuff said in his email, about CCFC assuring him recently they were going. Ask if he is going to prove it or if it was only said in a "face to face"...... It is just co-incidence he didn't link to emails / letters where they said it?

Might be worth pressuring everybody now, CCFC / CCC / Wasps / CSF surely?

Senior Vick from Alicante · Aug 4, 2016

The whole story is just symptomatic of where the whole litigation management mentality of our owners has got us too. It's all well and good Jan talking about face to face talks but our owners only know how to do this when the odds are stacked in their favour, the longer you litigate and procrastinate the less chance you have of doing any deal that's suitable to the club. Let's face facts folks, Sisu haven't got a pot to piss in else they would have bought the Ricoh at a sensible price, the council and csf are not beholden to them although what they are doing is sailing close to the wind. Wasps are clearly better operators than Sisu, although you can't blame them for our owners committing commercial suicide however much their cause has been helped. The thing that fucks me off the most is this long lingering death spiral were in I would much rather someone gave us the bullet to the head and let us start a fresh. Pusb

letsallsingtogether · Aug 4, 2016

fernandopartridge said:
It would have been equally as pointless though Tony. He could have said anything and it would have had zero relevance. The committee were recommended to approve it, councillors will do as their officer instructs as they trust the officer has taken appropriate legal advice. (Apart from when they had the EGM to approve a £14.4m loan that is).

We if it is all pointless why even bother discussiong it.
Let's close the door throw away the key and forget about CCFC.

Some people are just defeated to easily our owners should be fighting and screaming, getting help wherever they can to get their voice heard.
And I don't mean all that we will go to court bollocks, get the supporters on side show them you care about the club we will follow.

chiefdave · Aug 4, 2016

Maton tweeting that there is no emotional argument for the academy to stay.

Astute · Aug 4, 2016

Nick said:
It was never, ever going to delay any decision.

Why did he bother turning up then if he wasn't going to say anything that could change things or even say what he was supposed to?

skybluetony176 · Aug 4, 2016

fernandopartridge said:
It would have been equally as pointless though Tony. He could have said anything and it would have had zero relevance. The committee were recommended to approve it, councillors will do as their officer instructs as they trust the officer has taken appropriate legal advice. (Apart from when they had the EGM to approve a £14.4m loan that is).

Of course it would have been relevant and on many levels. Even if we're heading for JR3 it would be relevant to the case. They could say that we stood up in the meeting and pointed out where it contravenes the original planning approval and was ignored. All they've got now is that we stood up in the meeting and said a load of stuff that isn't relevant in any way shape or form to the application itself. Nothing he said had to be taken into consideration. Going back to the conditions on the original application approval would have at least been one run further up the ladder not one step down. A complete waste of time even attending. It was PR and nothing else IMO.

Nick · Aug 4, 2016

letsallsingtogether said:
We if it is all pointless why even bother discussiong it.
Let's close the door throw away the key and forget about CCFC.

Some people are just defeated to easily our owners should be fighting and screaming, getting help wherever they can to get their voice heard.
And I don't mean all that we will go to court bollocks, get the supporters on side show them you care about the club we will follow.

They got CCFC there to tick a box to say they had listened...Nothing more.

Nick · Aug 4, 2016

Astute said:
Why did he bother turning up then if he wasn't going to say anything that could change things or even say what he was supposed to?

Is that a serious question?

Astute · Aug 4, 2016

chiefdave said:
Maton tweeting that there is no emotional argument for the academy to stay.

And there isn't. It has been said on here enough what can and can't be used. And it doesn't change just because you don't like who said it.

letsallsingtogether · Aug 4, 2016

Nick said:
They got CCFC there to tick a box to say they had listened...Nothing more.

If you say so have you a link to that
What pisses me off is we have offered to demonstrate on behalf of the club put pressure on councilors but all has been turned down by our owners.

Latest CCFC letter on planning application - Planning Meeting (16 Viewers)

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency