Latest CCFC letter on planning application - Planning Meeting (36 Viewers)
- Thread starter oldskyblue58
- Start date
Nick
Administrator
Where did I say that? I said that ccfc have paid more in rent.
Where did I mention sisu? I said ccfc.
I'm not sure what you are reading. People are saying ccfc have paid more in rent and you are going off about something else.
You said they had put more money into the ricoh than ccfc... You were questioned on it and threw a tantrum. What's with that?
Nobody mentioned sisu in the chain of posts. It was you making it wasps were better on a ccfc forum and getting questioned and then having a hissy fit.
Ha cet comments not blinkered, that's funny. Obviously suited though, throw statements out and cry if people question it. Most people would just reply and debate it rather than "Omfg close my account, it's so pro sisu and anti wasps"'. When nobody even mentioned sisu, your original post said ccfc....
The comment was about ccfc putting money into the ricoh, then you keep moving the goalposts to something else randomly?
Nice flounce. Calling people pricks because they dared to question you, I'd say you then having a rant about things nobody said puts you closer there.
For example if Tony or dongo got asked that, they would have calculated rent to see how much and have their point. Not flounce, not that I have favourite council lovers*
* that's a joke
What happens is people like to make statements and not get questioned, just back pats and coloured thumbs and lots of agreed comments.
Last edited:
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Did you actually manage to type that last sentence with a straight face?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
that's the first flounce for a while
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
That's what happens when you use your face and not your fingers
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
We'll have paid over £8m in rent by the end of this season. That doesn't include the amount the club put in to the project before selling to Higgs.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
I'd be surprised if the decision wasn't delayed whilst more answers are sought.
General question - when the original planning was given were the Academy related requirements specified, it can't surely have specified Cat 2 requirements, so could they offer the bare minimum that could get the lowest Academy status to cover off some of the disputed bits?
Nick
Administrator
Weren't there match day fees too?
Nick
Administrator
I think it's only been cat 2 for a little bit hasn't it? Like 4 or so years?
Without checking!
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Yep, roughly £400K a year pre-Sixfields, I was told 'significantly more' since the return.
There was also some bizarre things like us being responsible for pitch maintenance but getting nothing when the pitch was hired out to others.
But at its most basic we've paid more in rent to date than Wasps paid to buy the whole thing.
Nick
Administrator
So you think sisu are investing millions into ccfc then?....
Calista
Well-Known Member
Although you can’t appeal against a permission, there is still a way for it to be reviewed. From the links OSB provided (post #6), if the Council give permission in the Green Belt, the Government (Secretary of State) will have 21 days to decide whether to call it in. If so, it would result in a Public Inquiry – based mainly on Planning issues rather than legals. I’d like to think that if the Council have made mistakes or wrongly granted permission, it would be rectified at that stage.
The Government’s criteria for calling in are here … http://planninghelp.cpre.org.uk/pla...lications/call-ins/how-the-government-decides, but unfortunately I’m not sure that a local spat about sports facilities would be sufficient for it to happen.
singers_pore
Well-Known Member
Well, that shows two things:
1. SISU are terrible at business
2. We've been at the Ricoh for much longer than Wasps
Calista
Well-Known Member
I agree - I'm a bit surprised that CCFC haven't made any reference to the combined effect of the two developments i.e the Wasps plan and the swimming pool plan, which is separate and hasn't been submitted yet, but is in the public domain. Not sure about the procedures around that, but no doubt CCFC's planning consultants will know.
Calista
Well-Known Member
Yes, when reading this letter I found myself agreeing with just about everything, although as someone pointed out, it could have been 90% shorter
It’s one of the rare occasions when I feel that the owners of the club may actually be standing up and fighting for our legitimate interests, rather than pursuing financial gains on dodgy grounds.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I think it will be delayed not rejected but definitely can't be approved, unless there's something fishy going on.
EPPP has only been going for around 4-5 years so the term Cat 2 is relatively new, the more pertinent question is how long have the club being delivered an academy which would be equivalent to cat 2 in old money.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Nick
Administrator
I love how it is SISU terrible at business for our high rent, that was set before they were here...
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
I thought he meant they should have bought the Higgs share earlier, certainly would have been cheaper even at between £5.5m to £8m (even if deemed a higher price than anyone might pay) than the money we have lost moving around, with more rental costs to come in the future.
Nick
Administrator
Would buying Higgs share mean we could have stopped paying rent? Wouldn't have made too much difference would it?
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Losing 9,000 supporters for a season must have cost a lot, and the lost sponsorship, and supporters that haven't returned. At least you'd have a say in what the rent charge would be, pretty good negotiation tool owning 50% of the company compared to owning 0%, and we'd be benefitting from the pies etc.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I think he means the lack of due diligence. Which is indeed terrible business.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
I think there is probably a very good reason the changes at Higgs have been separated into two different projects and will form two different applications.
Any mention of the pool now, and the loss of facilities it will bring, can be dismissed as nothing has even been submitted for planning. It won't be submitted until Wasps have built their facility (assuming they will eventually get permission which seems likely the way the red carpet is rolled out for them).
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Just as well though or we'd have ceased to exist.
Nick
Administrator
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
No. We'd have gone into admin, actually shed a load of debt and got an owner who didn't buy us because of distress debt. Let's not try and pedal the SISU saved us line.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
KMPG ran us through an administration process in all but name. SISU were the only option left when it became clear CCC wouldn't sell the ground to the club. SISU said they weren't interested if the club had gone into formal administration. Who do you think was going to take their place if that happened?
1940oldfive
Active Member
YES VERY TRYING
Tney are terrible at business they should have negotiated a better deal or walked away
ccfctommy
Well-Known Member
http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/...jection-letter-alan-higgs-centre-3222442.aspx
much more like it
Downside is CSF just wait for user agreement to end
The Club realises that the fucking planning comittee is tomorrow right?
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Sorry if this has already been posted, haven't seen it on any thread. This is a mail from CSF to Wasps based on the club's original objection letter.
Obviously there are differing views on who is to blame, but it seems very clear from the mail (if it wasn't already) that they are prepared, and are preparing, regardless of this Wasps planning application, to move on without the club being there.
http://planning.coventry.gov.uk/portal/servlets/AttachmentShowServlet?ImageName=1292194
Obviously there are differing views on who is to blame, but it seems very clear from the mail (if it wasn't already) that they are prepared, and are preparing, regardless of this Wasps planning application, to move on without the club being there.
http://planning.coventry.gov.uk/portal/servlets/AttachmentShowServlet?ImageName=1292194
Last edited:
Calista
Well-Known Member
Earlier on, I was largely persuaded by Fisher’s letter to the Council, and taken on its own it made perfect sense. But reading that correspondence from CSF, the mind boggles at how badly CCFC have handled all the important decisions and relationships. It’s mental. We seem to bend over backwards to shoot ourselves in the foot (is that physically possible?).
Our best argument is that losing the Academy from the site would make a mockery of the original planning permission. But as the club itself stated its intention to take the Academy away, contributing to the chain of events, that argument is badly weakened.
I still desperately want the Academy to continue, and from what I can see CSF are happy to facilitate constructive talks around that, but not at the expense of their wider responsibilities. Meanwhile, the football club is trying to make demands from a hopelessly weak position of its own making.
To make any progress as a club, we need people to deal with our owners. But (I think even by common consent on here) they are ****ing hard to deal with.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
- The extract below reads to me that they have pretty much decided that at the end of the current agreement they are moving on without the club being on the site. They do not want to deal with our owners. (The numbering doesn't match the email, I can't figure out how to change it).
Following on from this, the Directors of CSF are currently deliberating some key strategic factors at length, being that:
- i) there would potentially be limited scope for delivering water (swimming) space on the site, if there were not to be a re‐provisioning of the indoor playing pitch facility as proposed by Wasps within the planning application;
- ii) there is absolutely no assurance that the existing user relationship with CCFC would continue beyond June 2017, regardless of the outcome of the Wasps Training Ground planning application, subject to the considerations of the relative demands of indoor dry side space versus wet side pool space; and the commercial and objective judgement of the Directors / Trustees as to a continuing business relationship with any organisation that would be looking to effectively stifle or dictate its charitable and strategically important community ambitions.
- i) there would potentially be limited scope for delivering water (swimming) space on the site, if there were not to be a re‐provisioning of the indoor playing pitch facility as proposed by Wasps within the planning application;
singers_pore
Well-Known Member
SISU had the opportunity to buy 50% of the Ricoh. Straight after SISU bought the club many on here (including myself) were expecting SISU to buy at least half of ACL because it was obviously the correct business decision. However, Ranson and the rest of SISU were not interested. As I say, SISU have been incredibly stupid.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
They know full well they can't offer what the club needs, which is why they keep banging on about negotiations. As soon as this application is approved they will give ccfc the 2 fingered salute.
I wonder how much of that letter he can back up with minutes or notes from meetings.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
I wonder how much of that letter he can back up with minutes or notes from meetings.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Pay more than wasps paid for the lot - no veto, still paying £1.3 million rent, no dividends, no voting rights
Amazed they didn't when you think about it.