Meeting with Joy Seppala & Dave Boddy - Thursday 27th February 2020 (1 Viewer)

[shmmeee]

Over if a stadium will be built in their boundaries.

Not really. As I’ve said before they have to follow the NPPF and are subject to judicial review (lol) if they don’t. Councils don’t really set planning policy outside of the local plan, which is probably the real problem (Id imagine most suitable sites are earmarked for housing but haven’t checked). The local plan was adopted in late 2017 so in theory if we were actually looking to build back then we could’ve raised objections, but as it is I don’t think they’ll revisit for a few years. Looking at the map most places I’d imagine green belt is the bigger issue but I need to take a proper look.

 

---

[Nick]

Not really. As I’ve said before they have to follow the NPPF and are subject to judicial review (lol) if they don’t. Councils don’t really set planning policy outside of the local plan, which is probably the real problem (Id imagine most suitable sites are earmarked for housing but haven’t checked). The local plan was adopted in late 2017 so in theory if we were actually looking to build back then we could’ve raised objections, but as it is I don’t think they’ll revisit for a few years. Looking at the map most places I’d imagine green belt is the bigger issue but I need to take a proper look.

They can make things very easy or very difficult, let's not pretend otherwise. The Ricoh Hotel is a prime example.

 

[Grendel]

They can make things very easy or very difficult, let's not pretend otherwise. The Ricoh Hotel is a prime example.

Absolutely

 

[shmmeee]

They can make things very easy or very difficult, let's not pretend otherwise. The Ricoh Hotel is a prime example.

They can, but they can’t outright stop something that meets NPPF guidelines. I think something the size of the stadium has to be reviewed higher anyway but could be wrong about that.

Fact is your man at the Ricoh hotel managed to buy land and submit a planning app and if he thinks as you do that it was unfairly rejected then he has the right to appeal.

If Sisu did what he’d done we’d all be a lot better informed about where to direct our frustration than we are now.

Id also point out that this line of argument really doesn’t reflect well on Sisus strategy. I agree that it’s a lot easier to build a stadium with the council on board. That’s kinda why it’s a stupid idea to appoint a load of anti-council cranks to advise you and go out of your way to piss them off. We are certainly paying the price for Joys impulsiveness here.

 

[Nick]

They can, but they can’t outright stop something that meets NPPF guidelines. I think something the size of the stadium has to be reviewed higher anyway but could be wrong about that.

Fact is your man at the Ricoh hotel managed to buy land and submit a planning app and if he thinks as you do that it was unfairly rejected then he has the right to appeal.

If Sisu did what he’d done we’d all be a lot better informed about where to direct our frustration than we are now.

Like when they were trying at the Butts?

Of course SISU should be hammered about it, as should the Council / Duggins. The thing with Duggins is that he is guaranteed to slip up as well as he can't resist.

 

[shmmeee]

Like when they were trying at the Butts?

Of course SISU should be hammered about it, as should the Council / Duggins. The thing with Duggins is that he is guaranteed to slip up as well as he can't resist.

Thing is while Sisu have done nothing it’s very easy for the council to bat away any requests as “they aren’t serious” or even “what do you want from us?”. They aren’t about to act as land agents and planning advisors for free with no commitment from the other side. Especially when all trust is gone.

I think the new stadium stuff isn’t worth considering until Sisu show they’re serious TBH. Better to focus on the Ricoh for now and making sure the club is sustainable short term. Especially with hopeful promotion this season and a real chance to get this club back where it belongs as clearly the premier sports attraction in Coventry.

 

[usskyblue]

In the past, according to SISU, the council were actually an obstruction more than anything else. Taking months to answer even the simplest question over proposed sites. What’s changed that they’re suddenly going to assist?

Edit to add: Especially given the Council’s shitty attitude to SISU and subsequently, the clubs fans and the community.

 

[Nick]

Thing is while Sisu have done nothing it’s very easy for the council to bat away any requests as “they aren’t serious” or even “what do you want from us?”. They aren’t about to act as land agents and planning advisors for free with no commitment from the other side. Especially when all trust is gone.

I think the new stadium stuff isn’t worth considering until Sisu show they’re serious TBH. Better to focus on the Ricoh for now and making sure the club is sustainable short term. Especially with hopeful promotion this season and a real chance to get this club back where it belongs as clearly the premier sports attraction in Coventry.

Have a look at last time.

SISU said that they were trying to speak to CCC about the land as they were the landowners.

Duggins kept saying over and over that they would work with them about planning to the laws. He wasn't saying "We have had no discussions as land owners or any approaches to sell the land". He was batting it away anyway. It started off that the Council hadn't heard anything from SISU and then Duggins slipped up on the radio saying they had.

It was also said that the council were taking weeks and months to reply to things and being obstructive. Duggins just came out with a random generic line again about working to the law or something like that.

SISU - NEWS: Club Owners SISU make statement following Coventry City Council media comments

• Our discussions with the Council since March 2018 have been focused on two key aspects:

1. in the Council's capacity as landowner, to understand if the site was available for a long leasehold, and
2. in the Council's capacity as planning authority, to work with the Council to create a suitable planning application.

• The Council has to date provided no indication as to whether it is willing to enter into a long leasehold agreement with us. This is crucial; there is no point progressing a planning application if there is no agreement in place for its sale should planning be permitted.

DUGGINS - Council open letter to SISU | Coventry City Council

Any accusation that the Council is being obstructive or treating them differently is unfounded and untrue. We met agents acting on their behalf only last week but details remain extremely high level with no sign of any solutions or detailed plans that would be needed for such a sizeable development. Any planning application for a new stadium is about far more than just the structure, as it would need to address a multitude of issues from ensuring sufficient transport infrastructure through to addressing potential hurdles with an identified site.

SISU - NEWS: Club Owners SISU respond to Coventry City Council letter and release supporting documents

Yet, it has taken our advisors almost 6 months to get a meeting in order to discuss such a development. The Council's response times even to simple questions can be as long as six weeks, despite regular chasing.

The Council is the owner of the site in question. Councillor Duggins skates around this point referring only to the Council's position as planning authority.

SISU is trying to engage with it as the owner of the target site. The Council, however, has dragged its feet for a year now and little progress has been made.

If the landowner of the site – a site that would appear to offer many opportunities for re-development – is not interested in engaging commercially with SISU, then there is little that SISU by itself can do.

All Duggins kept saying was "We will treat their planning application as we do everybody else". If he had said "We have had no mention of Leases or anything" it would sound better, he didn't though. He totally ignored it and reeled out the same lines as the time before.

 

[shmmeee]

Have a look at last time.

SISU said that they were trying to speak to CCC about the land as they were the landowners.

Duggins kept saying over and over that they would work with them about planning to the laws. He wasn't saying "We have had no discussions as land owners or any approaches to sell the land". He was batting it away anyway. It started off that the Council hadn't heard anything from SISU and then Duggins slipped up on the radio saying they had.

It was also said that the council were taking weeks and months to reply to things and being obstructive. Duggins just came out with a random generic line again about working to the law or something like that.

SISU


DUGGINS



SISU


All Duggins kept saying was "We will treat their planning application as we do everybody else".

I mean why pick CCC as the landowner you want to deal with? It was never going to go well was it?

This is my issue with Sisu. Never play with a straight bat. “What more can we do?” Maybe look elsewhere?

Council land will be earmarked generally and they don’t sell land as a rule. Everyone in property knows this. It’s standard when I do land searches to filter out council owned stuff cos the developer knows it’s not worth trying.

 

[mr_monkey]

I mean why pick CCC as the landowner you want to deal with? It was never going to go well was it?

This is my issue with Sisu. Never play with a straight bat. “What more can we do?” Maybe look elsewhere?

Council land will be earmarked generally and they don’t sell land as a rule. Everyone in property knows this. It’s standard when I do land searches to filter out council owned stuff cos the developer knows it’s not worth trying.

But then we wouldn't be in Coventry......

 

[olderskyblue]

Pete & Mark

It's taken awhile to trawl through this thread, but great work guys. My message would be to keep focussed on the end game, and not get distracted by the rhetoric you will receive, or sucked in by how "friendly and open" it all seems. That's great, but as we all know, can and is used to sway people's opinions.

For info

NW and I decided last year to try to approach the Trust, Eastwood, Boddy and Duggins. The trust meeting has been well documented on here, and if you want a summary of the outcome, ask usskyblue

We had meetings with Boddy and Eastwood, and, as pleasant as they both were to us, we really got nothing from them other than platitudes and PR and the NDA mentioned a lot. On that basis, we decided not to document it on here, as it served no value. The last thing we wanted to do was be part of their PR for them, and we didn't get anything really that we already hadn't heard and discussed on other threads on here. We didn't feel it was worth trying to take it any further, as we felt we would just hear the same things over and over.

However, you guys have done really good work in advance of your meeting, and now have a platform where it isn't "just" 2 fans, and you also got Joy to attend, so please continue your work on this. You also got a lot of PR and rhetoric in your first meeting but keep going and do not lose focus on your goals, same with any future meetings with other parties involved. You can be polite, and still ask the difficult questions, and challenge any responses given. I know that even with 3 hours of talks, there can still be lots of questions you didn't get to ask, and that's understandable, and gives you more reason to meet again.

Add my name to the others on here offering full support to your efforts.

PS
Eastwood came over as very business like, Boddy came over as very friendly

Duggins never responded to requests to meet....

 

[shmmeee]

But then we wouldn't be in Coventry......

CCC don’t own every inch of Coventry dude.

 

[Nick]

I mean why pick CCC as the landowner you want to deal with? It was never going to go well was it?

This is my issue with Sisu. Never play with a straight bat. “What more can we do?” Maybe look elsewhere?

Council land will be earmarked generally and they don’t sell land as a rule. Everyone in property knows this. It’s standard when I do land searches to filter out council owned stuff cos the developer knows it’s not worth trying.

So it is said that CCC were being obstructive and then it moves to "Why pick land CCC own?"

Doesn't it reference the "selling"?

The Council has to date provided no indication as to whether it is willing to enter into a long leasehold agreement with us.

It's interesting that when SISU did disprove something Duggins was saying it kind of goes under the radar and gets forgotten.

You are even acknowledging now that CCC Will make things difficult:

I mean why pick CCC as the landowner you want to deal with? It was never going to go well was it?

 

[Grendel]

I mean why pick CCC as the landowner you want to deal with? It was never going to go well was it?

This is my issue with Sisu. Never play with a straight bat. “What more can we do?” Maybe look elsewhere?

Council land will be earmarked generally and they don’t sell land as a rule. Everyone in property knows this. It’s standard when I do land searches to filter out council owned stuff cos the developer knows it’s not worth trying.

What is the status on the car park c hotel proposal - I can’t find a reference number on the council planning website

 

[mr_monkey]

CCC don’t own every inch of Coventry dude.

True but I'm sure enough of it to scupper anything we try to do outside of them, I'm sure if it was an option sisu would have done it by now even if it was just for childish one up man ship on the council

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Pete & Mark

It's taken awhile to trawl through this thread, but great work guys. My message would be to keep focussed on the end game, and not get distracted by the rhetoric you will receive, or sucked in by how "friendly and open" it all seems. That's great, but as we all know, can and is used to sway people's opinions.

For info

NW and I decided last year to try to approach the Trust, Eastwood, Boddy and Duggins. The trust meeting has been well documented on here, and if you want a summary of the outcome, ask usskyblue

We had meetings with Boddy and Eastwood, and, as pleasant as they both were to us, we really got nothing from them other than platitudes and PR and the NDA mentioned a lot. On that basis, we decided not to document it on here, as it served no value. The last thing we wanted to do was be part of their PR for them, and we didn't get anything really that we already hadn't heard and discussed on other threads on here. We didn't feel it was worth trying to take it any further, as we felt we would just hear the same things over and over.

However, you guys have done really good work in advance of your meeting, and now have a platform where it isn't "just" 2 fans, and you also got Joy to attend, so please continue your work on this. You also got a lot of PR and rhetoric in your first meeting but keep going and do not lose focus on your goals, same with any future meetings with other parties involved. You can be polite, and still ask the difficult questions, and challenge any responses given. I know that even with 3 hours of talks, there can still be lots of questions you didn't get to ask, and that's understandable, and gives you more reason to meet again.

Add my name to the others on here offering full support to your efforts.

PS
Eastwood came over as very business like, Boddy came over as very friendly

Duggins never responded to requests to meet....

Thank you not just for the words but for trying too. Aims being coventry in Coventry, sustainable short or medium term deal.

 

[Colin Steins Smile]

CCC don’t own every inch of Coventry dude.

But they do oversee the process for approving planning permission

 

[shepardo01]

Have a look at last time.

SISU said that they were trying to speak to CCC about the land as they were the landowners.

Duggins kept saying over and over that they would work with them about planning to the laws. He wasn't saying "We have had no discussions as land owners or any approaches to sell the land". He was batting it away anyway. It started off that the Council hadn't heard anything from SISU and then Duggins slipped up on the radio saying they had.

It was also said that the council were taking weeks and months to reply to things and being obstructive. Duggins just came out with a random generic line again about working to the law or something like that.

SISU - NEWS: Club Owners SISU make statement following Coventry City Council media comments


DUGGINS - Council open letter to SISU | Coventry City Council



SISU - NEWS: Club Owners SISU respond to Coventry City Council letter and release supporting documents


All Duggins kept saying was "We will treat their planning application as we do everybody else". If he had said "We have had no mention of Leases or anything" it would sound better, he didn't though. He totally ignored it and reeled out the same lines as the time before.

"Obliged to do the minimum required by law" was I'm pretty sure what Duggins response was to questions related to the council supporting the clubs possible planning applications. Stank then but nobody seem to pick it up (or want to pick it up)

 

[chiefdave]

What is the status on the car park c hotel proposal - I can’t find a reference number on the council planning website

Wasps have probably decided not to bother seeing as its council land.

Council land will be earmarked generally and they don’t sell land as a rule. Everyone in property knows this. It’s standard when I do land searches to filter out council owned stuff cos the developer knows it’s not worth trying.

 

[mark82]

appropriate you should mention Disney in a post about sisu building a stadium!

 

[olderskyblue]

 

[Godiva]

IMO it is imperative that the Club give the fans a little bit more information in relation to a new stadium.

For me and I’m sure many others, the talk of a new stadium cannot be taken seriously unless the Club has taken steps to progress these plans.

> Is there designs for a new stadium, based on the clubs vision of the new stadium?
> Has an offer been submitted for the land that has been identified as preferred?
> What is the Clubs timescale for proceeding with their preferred site option, can the timescale be shared and what is the alternative should the timescale not be met?
> How is the new stadium being funded?

While I wish to believe that Joy and Dave are being honest with Mark and Pete the fans demand more information than what is currently available.

Telling fans that the Club plans to stay at the Ricoh with an expectation to move into a new stadium afterwards doesn’t wash, a new stadium has been talked about for years and to this point, not delivered.

I think we could simply ask the club why we should believe them this time - what has changed? What makes it more likely to happen now?

 

[mark82]

If it were me personally I’d bang Nick Eastwood, Joy and Dave all one e-mail, give a short and factual introduction from a CCFC fans point of view, before sending it out to all of them and promoting a talking point. You will of essentially lit the fuse at that point. By all means send an email to each party beforehand to outline your intentions, not for any personal gain, but to mediate and remove the stand off.

Outline what the fans are looking for from this and ask whether you can act as mediator to the point of;

> Establishing what obstacles are on each side to approach the table.
> What can be done by all parties to remove the obstacles, in order for talks to begin.
> Promote the cons that would benefit from each party talking to the other, I.e CCFC back in Coventry for potentially a season in the Championship, therefore increased revenues, potential for greater success. From a Wasps perspective additional support in terms of the Ricoh and it’s financing through a tenant, the prospect of greater stability for Wasps group short term.

The worst case is no one responds and as has been worried by many, both parties are not serious about discussions, despite publicly stating different.

Best case you promote discussions for the good of both parties, the benefit of the Ricoh Arena itself, the people of Coventry and local businesses.

I admit, probably won’t be deemed as the most professional way of handling this situation, but the professionals who own each club have failed for so long, what’s the worst thing that can happen in trying to get to a point where you’ve got Wasps and City talking?

I do have this in plan. To their credit CCFC & Sisu have responded to pretty much everything so far. What we really need is the contact at Wasps who can make decisions (Derek Richardson). Haven't got that yet.

 

[mark82]

A deal for the Ricoh is the only Coventry-in-Coventry option for the foreseeable future...unfortunately.

The question I’d like answering regarding long term is; Are the Council doing anyfuckingthing to assist with prospective sites for a new stadium?

The simple answer is No.

 

[Esoterica]

The simple answer is No.

I wonder why SISU aren't more forthcoming with any resistance or obstruction they are getting over land though? They've not been shy in recent times to drop out statements or titbits of evidence that insinuate that other parties are causing 'complications' and in a lot of fans eyes the blame has been spread a bit more evenly as a result.

So why are they, in the case of building a new stadium, still making the same old vague references to identifying sites and alluding to stadium sizes and shapes? After 7 years, or whatever it is now, it just drives a mix of ridicule or anger.

It smacks of 'Old' SISU, not 'Recent' SISU, which has seemed a bit more savvy with the info they've allowed into the public domain. e.g. if they were to drop out a couple of emails or land enquiries that they have made and received an extremely delayed or no response on, it is only going to garner them more support and put pressure on the council to provide better assistance to CCFC if they are shown to be impeding one method of us getting back permanently to the City. As it is, no-one believes a word of it and that detracts from the credibility of the rest of their statement.

 

[shmmeee]

I wonder why SISU aren't more forthcoming with any resistance or obstruction they are getting over land though? They've not been shy in recent times to drop out statements or titbits of evidence that insinuate that other parties are causing 'complications' and in a lot of fans eyes the blame has been spread a bit more evenly as a result.

So why are they, in the case of building a new stadium, still making the same old vague references to identifying sites and alluding to stadium sizes and shapes? After 7 years, or whatever it is now, it just drives a mix of ridicule or anger.

It smacks of 'Old' SISU, not 'Recent' SISU, which has seemed a bit more savvy with the info they've allowed into the public domain. e.g. if they were to drop out a couple of emails or land enquiries that they have made and received an extremely delayed or no response on, it is only going to garner them more support and put pressure on the council to provide better assistance to CCFC if they are shown to be impeding one method of us getting back permanently to the City. As it is, no-one believes a word of it and that detracts from the credibility of the rest of their statement.

What have the council got to do with it? I’m not sure land owners are going to go “oh alright then we’ll sell it cheap because a load of internet weirdos are complaining”. If they’re smart (debatable) they aren’t approaching as Sisu/CCFC anyway and going public would just drive the price up.

They are taking way to long to find land which suggests they either aren’t looking or have set their budget way too low.

 

[fernandopartridge]

What is the status on the car park c hotel proposal - I can’t find a reference number on the council planning website

According to Wasps it's been submitted, must be using the same agent as the the one for the WCG site.

They presented it at MIPIM the property show, it suggests to me there is no backer for it yet and they're hawking it around looking for one. If you were a backer how much confidence would you have in Wasps' ability to deliver this?

 

[Esoterica]

What have the council got to do with it? I’m not sure land owners are going to go “oh alright then we’ll sell it cheap because a load of internet weirdos are complaining”. If they’re smart (debatable) they aren’t approaching as Sisu/CCFC anyway and going public would just drive the price up.

They are taking way to long to find land which suggests they either aren’t looking or have set their budget way too low.

I'm not getting drawn into a discussion with you on this topic, sorry. Your last 72 hours has been the internet equivalent of running around in the street in your Y-fronts, screaming at pigeons, howling at the moon and eating the soil out of your pot plants.

 

[Nick]

What have the council got to do with it? I’m not sure land owners are going to go “oh alright then we’ll sell it cheap because a load of internet weirdos are complaining”. If they’re smart (debatable) they aren’t approaching as Sisu/CCFC anyway and going public would just drive the price up.

They are taking way to long to find land which suggests they either aren’t looking or have set their budget way too low.

Did you miss my last reply to you about "selling" it on purpose because it didn't fit your narrative?

 

[shmmeee]

According to Wasps it's been submitted, must be using the same agent as the the one for the WCG site.

They presented it at MIPIM the property show, it suggests to me there is no backer for it yet and they're hawking it around looking for one. If you were a backer how much confidence would you have in Wasps' ability to deliver this?

Cant find anything in my database for “hotel” around the Ricoh other than the one with a Maccys drive through that was rejected. Might not have gone in yet.

@Grendel this was supposed to be a reply to you but couldn’t find your post and the link wasn’t working.

 

[shmmeee]

I'm not getting drawn into a discussion with you on this topic, sorry. Your last 72 hours has been the internet equivalent of running around in the street in your Y-fronts, screaming at pigeons, howling at the moon and eating the soil out of your pot plants.

Random but OK. Will aim for the sanity of blaming the council for private land owners not selling cheaply in future.

 

[Nick]

Random but OK. Will aim for the sanity of blaming the council for private land owners not selling cheaply in future.

Who has said anything about selling land cheaply?

 

[Grendel]

Who has said anything about selling land cheaply?

No one

 

[Nick]

No one

Purposely ignored me quoting from both sides about it.

 

[shmmeee]

Who has said anything about selling land cheaply?

You are in that PM thread as well Nick. Don’t play dumb. The issue was stated that land owners keep asking for too much. If you’ve spent six and a half years looking for land and not finding it you’re either not looking, land doesn’t exist, or your budget is too low.

(and you’ve been on mute since you started shitting yourself the other day, will take you off now)