Latest CCFC letter on planning application - Planning Meeting (18 Viewers)

[rondog1973]

Yes, you probably would be.

The bullying hedge fund etc.

What I don't get is people go on about SISU being bullies (which I dont disagree with, based on some of their tactics) but why does it make it OK for Wasps / CCC and CSF to then go all out on CCFC (not SISU).

The fundamental difference Nick is that Wasps/ACL are in possession of an asset so are entitled to call the shots whether you or I like it or not.

Sisu really are the business world's Black knight of Monty Python fame.

CCC/ACL: "We're selling the stadium to Wasps"
Sisu: "tis but a scratch!"

Wasps: "We are developing the Higgs centre, impacting on your clubs acadamy"
Sisu: "Right, I'll do you for that!"

 

---

[Nick]

If he hadn't have given that answer would the media have even picked up on it and reported it in the first place. It was either deliberately answered in the way it was for effect or it was incompetence. Either way it's switching focus from where it should be at this moment in time. That's why he shouldn't have answered it.

Of course the media would have picked up on it. The media didn't make a big headline out of it in the BBC did they? As it was an answer to a general question, an answer which is obvious.

If he had said "I suggest CSF and Wasps do as we say, as we will just move away" then I agree it is insane and a clear threat.

 

[Nick]

The fundamental difference Nick is that Wasps/ACL are in possession of an asset so are entitled to call the shots whether you or I like it or not.

Sisu really are the business world's Black knight of Monty Python fame.

CCC/ACL: "We're selling the stadium to Wasps"
Sisu: "tis but a scratch!"

Wasps: "We are developing the Higgs centre, impacting on your clubs acadamy"
Sisu: "Right, I'll do you for that!"

No of course, if Wasps wanted to they could say "fuck off out of the stadium" as could csf at the academy. They are well within their rights and to be honest I'd probably have more respect for them doing it that way as people could see what's happening. Rather than the "door is open", "door is open" stuff.

 

[Captain Dart]

No of course, if Wasps wanted to they could say "fuck off out of the stadium" as could csf at the academy. They are well within their rights and to be honest I'd probably have more respect for them doing it that way as people could see what's happening. Rather than the "door is open", "door is open" stuff.

No I don't think you would. I think you'd be up in arms and screaming 'unfair'.
PS That's my opinion on your statement, it is up to others to believe you if they will, I don't.

 

[rondog1973]

No of course, if Wasps wanted to they could say "fuck off out of the stadium" as could csf at the academy. They are well within their rights and to be honest I'd probably have more respect for them doing it that way as people could see what's happening. Rather than the "door is open", "door is open" stuff.

Exactly. So you would think the responses from Sisu would be more conciliatory given their bargaining position.

 

[Nick]

No I don't think you would. I think you'd be up in arms and screaming 'unfair'.
PS That's my opinion on your statement, it is up to others to believe you if they will, I don't.

Did you reply about my stupid questions?

If they came out and said "fuck off" then I would hope that most of the fans would rally behind CCFC (not sisu) and it would mean CCC wouldn't be able to get away with playing their "try and block things" games...

Instead, they say "door is open" to the press so ccfc fans get upset and have a flounce when people say nasty things about those helpful lovely Wasps.

 

[Otis]

Did you reply about my stupid questions?

If they came out and said "fuck off" then I would hope that most of the fans would rally behind CCFC (not sisu) and it would mean CCC wouldn't be able to get away with playing their "try and block things" games...

Instead, they say "door is open" to the press so ccfc fans get upset and have a flounce when people say nasty things about those helpful lovely Wasps.

Has anyone truly said they believe that Wasps are lovely and helpful though?

I know you sort of jest, but there has to be a middle ground between Grendel's 'they have set out to destroy us' and people thinking Wasps have done nothing wrong.

I have said a number of times, I think Wasps don't mind having us here as long as it is on their terms and it suits their need.

We will only know how much they want us here when we come to renew at the Ricoh and we see what the rent is set at.

 

[skybluetony176]

The difference is, Wasps were halfway through negotiations and stopped weren't they? So they were obviously happy and the fact there were "17 points written down" suggest things were being written down also? Wasps also said they were happy with how the negotiations were going, before they stopped.

Ca said from the start he had requested info in writing for the academy (along with CCC advising for it)

There's no difference. A refusal to talk is just that, a refusal to talk. It doesn't matter at what stage negotiations were at the nett result is always the same. No progress and no agreement.

Like I said, pick a set of principles and stick to them.

 

[skybluetony176]

Not sure why we need to talk to Wasps about a facility they don't own based on a plan they haven't had accepted yet.

Unless of course it's a stitch up.

Because any successful well run business will always cover the angles.

 

[Nick]

There's no difference. A refusal to talk is just that, a refusal to talk. It doesn't matter at what stage negotiations were at the nett result is always the same. No progress and no agreement.

Like I said, pick a set of principles and stick to them.

If CA had got halfway through saying how happy he was with negotiations and then changed his mind, then it would be the same and I would agree with you.

If Wasps had said from the start they wouldn't talk because of legal noise then it would be the same.

Of course it matters what stage of the negotiations, as well as the reasons.

 

[skybluetony176]

Of course the media would have picked up on it. The media didn't make a big headline out of it in the BBC did they? As it was an answer to a general question, an answer which is obvious.

If he had said "I suggest CSF and Wasps do as we say, as we will just move away" then I agree it is insane and a clear threat.

The media would have picked up on what? If he had have refused to answer it what would there have been to report? If he had have simply replied that he won't be drawn on that at this moment in time as there's currently more pressing issues, that would have been the correct reply as it refocuses the attention back on the academy. Was it a deliberate reply to draw attention to another matter or was it incompetence/naivety?

 

[Captain Dart]

Has anyone truly said they believe that Wasps are lovely and helpful though?

Not me, who was it? I have said they're a well run business, that is my opinion.

 

[Astute]

One thing that does confuse me, if it was absolutely clear that CCFC weren't going to be there. Why did they shell out on a new indoor pitch being laid?

And why did they pay for the new pitch to be laid in Northampton?

 

[Nick]

The media would have picked up on what? If he had have refused to answer it what would there have been to report? If he had have simply replied that he won't be drawn on that at this moment in time as there's currently more pressing issues, that would have been the correct reply as it refocuses the attention back on the academy. Was it a deliberate reply to draw attention to another matter or was it incompetence/naivety?

They would have reported on the rest of the things they did.

They would have said "Mr Anderson refused to answer". Which then, people would have gone mental.

 

[skybluetony176]

Has anyone truly said they believe that Wasps are lovely and helpful though?

I know you sort of jest, but there has to be a middle ground between Grendel's 'they have set out to destroy us' and people thinking Wasps have done nothing wrong.

I have said a number of times, I think Wasps don't mind having us here as long as it is on their terms and it suits their need.

We will only know how much they want us here when we come to renew at the Ricoh and we see what the rent is set at.

No one has but some like to spin it that way. For example I suggested a couple of seasons ago that the club should approach our landlords about a kiosk at the ground for a club shop and promptly got accused of saying all we have to do is ask and Wasps and they will provide. Which of course wasn't what I said at all.

Anyway, we did approach them and we did reach an agreement for a kiosk. Still doesn't stop the odd (in both sense of the word) poster still throwing the "I said all we have to do is ask" line at me as if it's a fact I said. Which I didn't.

 

[Captain Dart]

If CA had got halfway through saying how happy he was with negotiations and then changed his mind, then it would be the same and I would agree with you.

If Wasps had said from the start they wouldn't talk because of legal noise then it would be the same.

Of course it matters what stage of the negotiations, as well as the reasons.

They've simply shown CA the carrot, then as he thought all was going well they've pulled out the stick.

Its really not that complicated Nick, they're saying give us what we want (cease legal action, accept Wasps own the Ricoh and start building a partnership) and we will give you what you need (long term stability and a good deal).

CCFC haven't much leverage, having a flounce about moving to a new stadium is even more laughable now than it was 3 years ago.

 

[Grendel]

Lot of fuss about nothing. Wasps have postponed discussions staying after the two years - who cares really.

 

[Brylowes]

Think we've been here before. Can't enter into discussions so I'm off and taking the ball with me . If any one knows what SISU really want can you let the rest of us in on it .

They own the ball !
When did we agree a formula to buy the ball.

 

[Nick]

They've simply shown CA the carrot, then as he thought all was going well they've pulled out the stick.

Its really not that complicated Nick, they're saying give us what we want (cease legal action, accept Wasps own the Ricoh and start building a partnership) and we will give you what you need (long term stability and a good deal).

CCFC haven't much leverage, having a flounce about moving to a new stadium is even more laughable now than it was 3 years ago.

Have they said they would give us a good deal then?

Maybe that is why he wants things in writing for the academy then, if they are playing games with the Ricoh.

Sorry, feel free to ignore my stupid questions. Like the other one

 

[skybluetony176]

If CA had got halfway through saying how happy he was with negotiations and then changed his mind, then it would be the same and I would agree with you.

If Wasps had said from the start they wouldn't talk because of legal noise then it would be the same.

Of course it matters what stage of the negotiations, as well as the reasons.

So if Wasp hadn't got around the table regarding the Ricoh in the first place we'd be in a different position to what we are now? No of course we wouldn't, we'd be in exactly the same place. Refusing to talk only has the one outcome, regardless.

 

[chiefdave]

I know you sort of jest, but there has to be a middle ground between Grendel's 'they have set out to destroy us' and people thinking Wasps have done nothing wrong.

It increasingly looks like they don't want us around but also don't want to state that as it would be bad PR.

When they first came in there was lots of talk of being good landlords as they had been in our position but there actions to date indicate otherwise. Since they've come in they've started rebranding the stadium (I understand them wanting to make their mark but there's no need to be so overbearing, particularly in areas like the players tunnel), removed us from our dressing room, removed our access to the indoor warm up area, removed all signs of the club in the corporate areas, renamed other areas so they are no longer linked with CCFC, stopped talking to us about extending our Ricoh deal and are attempting to move in to our academy which may well lead to the loss of our Cat 2 status if not the academy completely.

If you look away from the PR and just look at their actions it doesn't look like we're getting close to a middle ground.

 

[Nick]

It increasingly looks like they don't want us around but also don't want to state that as it would be bad PR.

When they first came in there was lots of talk of being good landlords as they had been in our position but there actions to date indicate otherwise. Since they've come in they've started rebranding the stadium (I understand them wanting to make their mark but there's no need to be so overbearing, particularly in areas like the players tunnel), removed us from our dressing room, removed our access to the indoor warm up area, removed all signs of the club in the corporate areas, renamed other areas so they are no longer linked with CCFC, stopped talking to us about extending our Ricoh deal and are attempting to move in to our academy which may well lead to the loss of our Cat 2 status if not the academy completely.

If you look away from the PR and just look at their actions it doesn't look like we're getting close to a middle ground.

Exactly.

Meanwhile telling the press how helpful they want to be. Dont get me wrong, they own it so they can do it.

 

[chiefdave]

And why did they pay for the new pitch to be laid in Northampton?

Because we were expecting to stay at Sixfields. Would indicate that, once the Wasps deal was agreed, there was a desire by Wasps to ensure we were back at the Ricoh before they moved in as it would be better PR for them.

 

[Nick]

Because we were expecting to stay at Sixfields. Would indicate that, once the Wasps deal was agreed, there was a desire by Wasps to ensure we were back at the Ricoh before they moved in as it would be better PR for them.

And the fact we moved about 2 games into the season, rather than through the summer...

 

[Captain Dart]

Have they said they would give us a good deal then?

Maybe that is why he wants things in writing for the academy then, if they are playing games with the Ricoh.

Sorry, feel free to ignore my stupid questions. Like the other one

I think nature of the deal is implied, it isn't in quotes. Dear oh dear, this 'I must have the last word' interplay is tiresome.

 

[Nick]

I think nature of the deal is implied, it isn't in quotes. Dear oh dear, this 'I must have the last word' interplay is tiresome.

Nah, I am just finding it hilarious you keep ignoring the PM comments

They aren't going to imply they will give us a bad deal are they???

 

[Bruce the Boot]

Sisu have said they are building a new stadium , and would move the academy. Do you not think people are taking them at face value and see no pouint in spending time and money dealing with the club , when the club has clearly stated many times it has its own agenda .

 

[oldskyblue58]

Some questions on CSF doc (take it as read I would like to see emails, minutes etc to confirm). The questions might say one party but I am looking for both sides confirmation

- when did the first consultation on future developments at AHC with CCFC take place( consultation para 1.1.) What was said confirmed agreed. Who attended
- when did CCFC first tell CSF/AHCT they wanted a new deal
- when did CSF/AHCT first tell CCFC that there were developments going to happen and a new different deal needed to be negotiated. Did they tell them.
- when was the conversation between CSF and Sports England. What was confirmed. Was it after the recent disclosed Sport England comment
- were CCFC aware that the agreement they signed in December 2013 was not a tenancy and not renewable. Do they agree it wasn't a tenancy If so why was it termed in that fashion. Why did they accept it.
- why wasn't a longer term arrangement at AHC agreed that gave CCFC Academy security there.
- Can CCFC confirm what CSF have said that present facilities do not match a tick box approach to Cat 2 audit, where do they not meet the rules, and does the latest info sent to CSF by CCFC reflect the rules 100% or something different

You would think that these questions would already have been asked by the reporters covering the story and things like dates would be easy to give. Seems easy to get emails etc when it suits

 

[Captain Dart]

Some questions on CSF doc (take it as read I would like to see emails, minutes etc to confirm). The questions might say one party but I am looking for both sides confirmation

- when did the first consultation on future developments at AHC with CCFC take place( consultation para 1.1.) What was said confirmed agreed. Who attended
- when did CCFC first tell CSF/AHCT they wanted a new deal
- when did CSF/AHCT first tell CCFC that there were developments going to happen and a new different deal needed to be negotiated. Did they tell them.
- when was the conversation between CSF and Sports England. What was confirmed. Was it after the recent disclosed Sport England comment
- were CCFC aware that the agreement they signed in December 2013 was not a tenancy and not renewable. Do they agree it wasn't a tenancy If so why was it termed in that fashion. Why did they accept it.
- why wasn't a longer term arrangement at AHC agreed that gave CCFC Academy security there.
- Can CCFC confirm what CSF have said that present facilities do not match a tick box approach to Cat 2 audit, where do they not meet the rules, and does the latest info sent to CSF by CCFC reflect the rules 100% or something different

You would think that these questions would already have been asked by the reporters covering the story and things like dates would be easy to give. Seems easy to get emails etc when it suits

I'd say both parties are hiding the details they'd rather didn't come out, yeah, the press need to take CCFC/CSF etc. up on these issues.

 

[AFCCOVENTRY]

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/higgs-centre-boss-says-coventry-11703313

 

[Captain Dart]

CT article on CSF response to CCFC planning objections (their first one that is, not the letter they just sent to planning committee)
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/higgs-centre-boss-says-coventry-11703313

What is implies is that CCFC say one thing in private meetings and something quite different to the public.

 

[Nick]

CT article on CSF response to CCFC planning objections (their first one that is, not the letter they just sent to planning committee)
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/higgs-centre-boss-says-coventry-11703313

What is implies is that CCFC say one thing in private meetings and something quite different to the public.

They will have it in writing won't they?

 

[italiahorse]

Already known but now from a different source.
Sisu please go.

 

[Deleted member 2477]

More evidence of sisu cutting costs before leaving us the shit once theyve squeezed every last penny out the club

 

[Kingokings204]

Haven't they said medium- long term though? We all know sisu have been saying a new stadium and academy together for years now. It's nothing new is it? Sounds a good idea to me.

Although to be fair if you want to stay there short term don't piss off the landlords.