Les Reid Twitter (1 Viewer)

samccov1987 · Oct 6, 2014

It's not ideal that a club has to move to survive and its a sad reflection of modern sport. I might have been brought up in Finham but due to hard times I can't afford my mortgage so I move to nuneaton, I'd rather not as I'd like to stay close to my roots but i can't afford to - is that right or wrong?

Is the fury on here because of a moral opposition to 'franchise' or self interest that the Sky Blues won't own the stadium? If your the council and you've been dragged through the courts and spent 18 months dealing with non paying tenants would you not consider accepting an offer in line with market rates? Especially at a time when your dealing with cuts to frontline services for your citizens?

covmark · Oct 6, 2014

The Lurker said:
Most fans thought we'd never return to Cov. The plan of leaving the Ricoh was for 5 years. You seem to justify that.

The ones that went to sixfields thought it was temporary otherwise they wouldn't have gone. It's not rocket science.

The Lurker · Oct 6, 2014

covmark said:
The ones that went to sixfields thought it was temporary otherwise they wouldn't have gone. It's not rocket science.

Jesus Christ. I've read some rubbish but that's up there with the best.

I can't help but lol at that comment.

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 6, 2014

samccov1987 said:
It's not ideal that a club has to move to survive and its a sad reflection of modern sport.

I'm already practising my irish accent, so I am, and having my words spoken through an interpretor.

Flights are cheap too, it's a win-win!

torchomatic · Oct 6, 2014

You seem to be a little obsessed with my posts, but still. When I went to Sixfields (and I still make no apology for it), I was following MY team, the team I have supported for 40 years on a temporary basis. You, samccov and quite a few others are endorsing a permanent move for a rugby team that has absolutely nothing to do with the Ricoh, Coventry or even the Midlands. They are moving 75 miles permanently. So yes, you and others on here are being hypocritical. And so is ACL who tried to sue NTFC for exactly the same thing.

The Lurker said:
Hypocrites keeps getting mentioned. I'd put you in that bracket. You were sticking up for sixfields and now you against a Rugby team moving to Cov. Double standards for the pro sisu lot

Warwickhunt · Oct 6, 2014

Limey said:
Les Reid @Lesreidpolitics · 3h3 hours ago

2/2 Two Ricoh Wasps games in December. #CCFC concerns over pitch & future use of academy pitches. Cov Rugby still opposed
Reply0 replies
Retweet8 retweets8
Favorite0 favorites
More

Les Reid @Lesreidpolitics · 3h3 hours ago

1/2 More Wasps Ricoh deal, unconfirmed: #CCFC rent quadruple after 2years to £400k; Wasps use academy pitches at Higgs centre

That would stack up with TF comment on the day of announcing going back to the Arena, he said the deal was unnaceptable after two years! however that was struck with ACL who will not exist after the deal goes through so CCFC will have to renegotiate the deal after two years with the WASPS who will be keen to keep as much income coming in as possible. As they will recognise that even with their gates (if their supporters follow that is) that they will not generate enough to keep the RICOH going. Intresting times ahead

Council presentation tomorrow apparently. I feel sick.

theferret · Oct 6, 2014

samccov1987 said:
It's not ideal that a club has to move to survive and its a sad reflection of modern sport. I might have been brought up in Finham but due to hard times I can't afford my mortgage so I move to nuneaton, I'd rather not as I'd like to stay close to my roots but i can't afford to - is that right or wrong?

Is the fury on here because of a moral opposition to 'franchise' or self interest that the Sky Blues won't own the stadium? If your the council and you've been dragged through the courts and spent 18 months dealing with non paying tenants would you not consider accepting an offer in line with market rates? Especially at a time when your dealing with cuts to frontline services for your citizens?

The council stance is idiotic and wreaks of short-termism. It makes no commercial sense. Council's in places like Swansea and Southampton talk endlessly of the wider economic benefits of having a top-flight football team. It is fantastic PR and can change perceptions and encourage inward investment, particularly from overseas.

The Ricoh is not loss making, and ACL are meeting their repayment obligations. There is no reason to sell at this point. The football club has the potential to be a huge asset and the council are on the brink of shafting it for a quick buck. Shame on all of them.

covmark · Oct 6, 2014

The Lurker said:
Jesus Christ. I've read some rubbish but that's up there with the best.

I can't help but lol at that comment.

Are you for real?

torchomatic · Oct 6, 2014

Eh? "never return", "plan of leaving the Ricoh was for 5 years". Is five years permanent then? It obviously way too long but it's not permanent.

The Lurker said:
Most fans thought we'd never return to Cov. The plan of leaving the Ricoh was for 5 years. You seem to justify that.

Sick Boy · Oct 6, 2014

torchomatic said:
Doesn't dispel anything. Of course, those instigating the move will say it's great.

Similarly, I don't understand the outrage from some for moving to Sixfields now. As you, and quite a few others, seem to think moving a team 75 miles permanently is a good thing.

Probably because these posters aren't actual ccfc fans!

torchomatic · Oct 6, 2014

Sadly, I think he is. There seems to be a lot of "excitement" and high-fiving over this.

covmark said:
Are you for real?

samccov1987 · Oct 6, 2014

theferret said:
'7500 Ricoh attendees'. We get a crowd that low for the first time in 2 generations and suddenly you are using it to make a lame point? This club means a great deal to a great many people. 250,000 welcomed the team home in 87. Nothing, NOTHING, comes close to bringing this city together than the football club can (and has) through 131 YEARS . How can you be so flippant? Your post is an absolute fucking disgrace. Shameful.

It means a great deal to me but the Coventry today is very different to the coventry of 1987. If we were to win the fa cup don't doubt those numbers would be on the streets again but as a coventry fan you know as well as I do we don't have 250,000 fans in the city if we did we wouldn't be in the mess we're in.
The council shouldn't be having to spend this much time on a football pitch and football team. It's time they moved on ideally by selling the stadium to the club but the club doesn't want to pay for it so they have to examine other options.

torchomatic · Oct 6, 2014

I think you're right, they can't be. I think it's the ones on the CT forum with their "good ole ACL" type posts.

Sick Boy said:
Probably because these posters aren't actual ccfc fans!

skybluetony176 · Oct 6, 2014

torchomatic said:
Eh? "never return", "plan of leaving the Ricoh was for 5 years". Is five years permanent then? It obviously way to long but it's not permanent.

It was permanent according to SISU, they were building their own stadium remember.

The Lurker · Oct 6, 2014

torchomatic said:
You seem to be a little obsessed with my posts, but still. When I went to Sixfields (and I still make no apology for it), I was following MY team, the team I have supported for 40 years on a temporary basis. You, samccov and quite a few others are endorsing a permanent move for a rugby team that has absolutely nothing to do with the Ricoh, Coventry or even the Midlands. They are moving 75 miles permanently. So yes, you and others on here are being hypocritical. And so is ACL who tried to sue NTFC for exactly the same thing.

I found your posts laughable. Love how you bold certain aspects of your post. Mr super fan cause you went sixfields. Do you want a blue peter badge? The return to Cov looked very unlikely at one point. I couldn't give a fuck about a rugby team. I care about ccfc and nothing else. If it means the Ricoh still exists for Cov to play then I don't care. The high horse posters on here could have made more noise when Cov were playing at sixfields then justifying

torchomatic · Oct 6, 2014

It's conveniently trotted out (both ways) when it backs up an argument. I don't think many believed it then or now.

skybluetony176 said:
It was permanent according to SISU, they were building their own stadium remember.

The Lurker · Oct 6, 2014

covmark said:
Are you for real?

If every Cov fan thought it was temporary we would have sold sixfields every week.

Sick Boy · Oct 6, 2014

torchomatic said:
I think you're right, they can't be. I think it's the ones on the CT forum with their "good ole ACL" type posts.

They aren't very good at it, it's pretty obvious! No football fan would come out with the sort of crap they do.

Considering that a lot of long term posters are now seeing eye to eye more than ever, it's hard to believe that these jokers are actually genuine.

Sick Boy · Oct 6, 2014

The Lurker said:
If every Cov fan thought it was temporary we would have sold sixfields every week.

What utter shite.

The Lurker · Oct 6, 2014

Sick Boy said:
What utter shite.

How? So tell me why only 1,000 went to most games last season?

theferret · Oct 6, 2014

The Lurker said:
I found your posts laughable. Love how you bold certain aspects of your post. Mr super fan cause you went sixfields. Do you want a blue peter badge? The return to Cov looked very unlikely at one point. I couldn't give a fuck about a rugby team. I care about ccfc and nothing else. If it means the Ricoh still exists for Cov to play then I don't care. The high horse posters on here could have made more noise when Cov were playing at sixfields then justifying

What are you waffling on about? You have contradicted yourself so many times in order to justify your indefensible position that you are beginning to make a tit of yourself.

"If it means the Ricoh still exists for Cov to play then I don't care"...give me strength. Why, are ACL about to go under? Is it not profitable anymore? The "I don't care" bit was spot on though, because you clearly couldn't give a toss.

torchomatic · Oct 6, 2014

Absolute bollocks. If you cared for "ccfc and nothing else" then your endorsement of Wasps, ACL and CCC wouldn't be so bloody obvious.

The Lurker said:
I found your posts laughable. Love how you bold certain aspects of your post. Mr super fan cause you went sixfields. Do you want a blue peter badge? The return to Cov looked very unlikely at one point. I couldn't give a fuck about a rugby team. I care about ccfc and nothing else. If it means the Ricoh still exists for Cov to play then I don't care. The high horse posters on here could have made more noise when Cov were playing at sixfields then justifying

skybluetony176 · Oct 6, 2014

torchomatic said:
It's conveniently trotted out (both ways) when it backs up an argument. I don't think many believed it then or now.

I certainly don't believe it but that's what SISU was and still are saying so there is always the chance. I didn't believe them when they said they were moving out either and looked what happened.

Warwickhunt · Oct 6, 2014

oldskyblue58 said:
not being funny duffer but when was the last time CCFC showed real ambition to be a mid table Championship club? Our own crowds are nothing to shout about and I suspect fall well short of any breakeven for either the club or ACL

OSB did they signing of CCFC on a two contract + 2 year additional option imflate the ACL books that WASPs would use for Due Diligence?

The Lurker · Oct 6, 2014

torchomatic said:
Absolute bollocks. If you cared for "ccfc and nothing else" then your endorsement of Wasps, ACL and CCC wouldn't be so bloody obvious.

I'm not endorsing anything. I go home and away because I support ccfc. Wasps moving to the Ricoh doesn't impact that so why should I be bothered?

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 6, 2014

The Lurker said:
I'm not endorsing anything. I go home and away because I support ccfc. Wasps moving to the Ricoh doesn't impact that so why should I be bothered?

It does impact that.

torchomatic · Oct 6, 2014

Nonsense. You miss the point. Fans boycotted because they felt it was wrong, nothing to do with temporary. I was weak, I gave in, there you go, but I still didn't think it was right or permanent.

The Lurker said:
If every Cov fan thought it was temporary we would have sold sixfields every week.

samccov1987 · Oct 6, 2014

theferret said:
The council stance is idiotic and wreaks of short-termism. It makes no commercial sense. Council's in places like Swansea and Southampton talk endlessly of the wider economic benefits of having a top-flight football team. It is fantastic PR and can change perceptions and encourage inward investment, particularly from overseas.

The Ricoh is not loss making, and ACL are meeting their repayment obligations. There is no reason to sell at this point. The football club has the potential to be a huge asset and the council are on the brink of shafting it for a quick buck. Shame on all of them.

It does have potential to be an asset but not with our current owners who have made no attempt to grow the club but who also won't walk away from it. So we're stuck in Groundhog Day until there's a game changer.
Could this be it?
My hope is that the consortium trying to buy acl will bid for the club as although the running costs of a football club outstrip rugger so do the rewards. Two top sports teams playing in the city with an entertainment complex which operates 24/7. If sisu had brought the Ricoh when they had the opportunity do you think they would pass up the chance of wasps playing there too?

Sick Boy · Oct 6, 2014

The Lurker said:
How? So tell me why only 1,000 went to most games last season?

Maybe they weren't comfortable with the situation of playing home games outside Coventry?

The Lurker · Oct 6, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
It does impact that.[/QUOTE
How exactly does it impact Cov playing at the Ricoh?

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 6, 2014

samccov1987 said:
My hope is that the consortium trying to buy acl will bid for the club as although the running costs of a football club outstrip rugger so do the rewards. Two top sports teams playing in the city with an entertainment complex which operates 24/7. If sisu had brought the Ricoh when they had the opportunity do you think they would pass up the chance of wasps playing there too?

What we need is owners prepared to move clubs to whichever ground offers the best financial deal...

Otis · Oct 6, 2014

The Lurker said:
If every Cov fan thought it was temporary we would have sold sixfields every week.

Must confess, I was one who felt it could well have ended up permanent. Fisher was adamant that they were not returning to the Ricoh and that fact that pretty much everyone of us to a man did not believe they would build a new stadium, pointed in many ways to us very much staying in Northampton for way past the 5 years.

At one point I very much thought it could end up permanent and I'm sure many other supporters thought the same. Basically down to case of believing the new stadium to be pure fantasy and the intransigence from Fisher and co in saying the Ricoh boat had long since sailed.

torchomatic · Oct 6, 2014

Somewhere by the sea would be nice.

Deleted member 5849 said:
What we need is owners prepared to move clubs to whichever ground offers the best financial deal...

The Lurker · Oct 6, 2014

torchomatic said:
Nonsense. You miss the point. Fans boycotted because they felt it was wrong, nothing to do with temporary. I was weak, I gave in, there you go, but I still didn't think it was right or permanent.

Double standards. And you seem to miss one massive point here. Cov playing at sixfields indirectly has caused this whole mess in the first place.

Nick · Oct 6, 2014

The Lurker said:
Deleted member 5849 said:

It does impact that.[/QUOTE
How exactly does it impact Cov playing at the Ricoh?

Click to expand...

Pitch for starters

Les Reid Twitter (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency