Meeting with Joy Seppala & Dave Boddy - Thursday 27th February 2020 (3 Viewers)

[Nick]

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.

Which thread?

Go back to my post where I quote directly from them both.

 

---

[shmmeee]

Which thread?

Go back to my post where I quote directly from them both.

The only PM thread we are both in. Stop. It’s kinda pathetic.

 

[Nick]

The only PM thread we are both in. Stop. It’s kinda pathetic.

Can you copy and paste it if I have missed something?

As for pathetic I assume you are trying to be ironic?

It clearly states wanting to talk to the council about a long leasehold.

 

[mark82]

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.

They won't be approaching as Sisu/CCFC. They can be accused of a lot of things, I'm not sure stupidity is one of those. This will be exactly the reason they won't go public on details of land.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I have to say, I find the 'waiting an eternity for a response' to be maybe a little contrived anyway. I can safely say staffing levels are down, so it doesn't have to be an anti-SISU thing, it can be a general so overworked they don't answer anybody quickly thing. Might be as simple as they need more planning officers!

Now, I am all for a bit of encouragement ref: a new ground (the local plan point is well made btw - frustrating no momentum was put into pushing for something in it back then) and I do accept a bit of co-operation can smooth the process.

I do have visions of how the complaining about how long it takes for things to get answered, won't exactly help put SISU at the top of the priority list ahead of anybody else, mind you. And if they're not going in as SISU, they certainly aren't being victimised in that respect.

 

[Nick]

I have to say, I find the 'waiting an eternity for a response' to be maybe a little contrived anyway. I can safely say staffing levels are down, so it doesn't have to be an anti-SISU thing, it can be a general so overworked they don't answer anybody quickly thing. Might be as simple as they need more planning officers!

Now, I am all for a bit of encouragement ref: a new ground (the local plan point is well made btw - frustrating no momentum was put into pushing for something in it back then) and I do accept a bit of co-operation can smooth the process.

I do have visions of how the complaining about how long it takes for things to get answered, won't exactly help put SISU at the top of the priority list ahead of anybody else, mind you. And if they're not going in as SISU, they certainly aren't being victimised in that respect.

Staffing levels seem ok when wasps or student accomodation people are asking?

Maybe they were helped along by the top planning people's private company?

It was interesting that duggins skirted around the point made and reeled out a generic line. He didn't deny enquiries about a long lease hold.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

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.

Mark will answer for him and I’ve just re read our notes. This is the relevant part

As previously communicated, the search for stadium sites is ongoing and has been narrowed down to a shortlist of 6 sites. A further site has also recently been identified. Although all sites are suitable for a stadium, the new site is considered the ideal location. As the exact location of the sites is commercially sensitive, they couldn’t tell us where the sites were, however, it was confirmed that all sites on the shortlist have been approved by the EFL for their proximity to St Mary’s Guildhall in Coventry, which is a marker point for the EFL

It was clear there is a fear that if any sight is identified before the purchase has been completed that the price increase astronomically and that underhand things have been done previously to make things difficult. Whether these are perceived or paranoid or actually ccc actively being unhelpful I don’t know. It’s why the Peterborough situation is really interesting to sign a memorandum of understanding to work together. Why not do this? It means nothing but it means something doesn’t it? We didn’t follow up with questions at this point but would be looking to if there was no progress

 

[fernandopartridge]

The local plan thing is a misnomer, it doesn't go down to specifics like "We need to consider an application for a football stadium"

I've just had a look at the council's local plan. It really is rather odd how the application for the hotel at Rowleys Green was rejected:

Policy JE6: Tourism/Visitor Related Development 1. Proposals for development within Coventry city centre (as defined on the Policies Map) or on sites at or adjacent to the Ricoh Arena or the Coventry and Warwick University campuses which would contribute towards the city’s role as a tourist destination will be supported subject to compatibility with other Plan Policies.

 

[Nick]

The local plan thing is a misnomer, it doesn't go down to specifics like "We need to consider an application for a football stadium"

I've just had a look at the council's local plan. It really is rather odd how the application for the hotel at Rowleys Green was rejected:

They aren't compatible with wasps who haven't put an application in and have to keep getting extensions.

 

[fernandopartridge]

It was clear there is a fear that if any sight is identified before the purchase has been completed that the price increase astronomically and that underhand things have been done previously to make things difficult. Whether these are perceived or paranoid or actually ccc actively being unhelpful I don’t know. It’s why the Peterborough situation is really interesting to sign a memorandum of understanding to work together. Why not do this? It means nothing but it means something doesn’t it? We didn’t follow up with questions at this point but would be looking to if there was no progress

The answer to this is that Coventry City Council has zero interest in CCFC being anything other than tenants to Wasps, for that is what the deal with Wasps was reliant on. The sequence of events in 2014 may show that.

 

[clint van damme]

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 think his point is along those lines, if they were genuinely looking for land and coming up against obstacles they'd be shouting it from the rooftops.
I think Esotericas suggestion is they aren't really looking that hard.

 

[clint van damme]

The local plan thing is a misnomer, it doesn't go down to specifics like "We need to consider an application for a football stadium"

I've just had a look at the council's local plan. It really is rather odd how the application for the hotel at Rowleys Green was rejected:

who was it who submitted the rejected hotel plan FP?

 

[Nick]

I think his point is along those lines, if they were genuinely looking for land and coming up against obstacles they'd be shouting it from the rooftops.
I think Esotericas suggestion is they aren't really looking that hard.

What happened when they did release things though? Duggins was still walking around smug about public opinion because the trust, telegraph etc were all doing a job for him. The trust went to have pictures taken shaking his hand.

He got a bit of pressure and was bumbling and stuttering.

I'm sure something came out just after making everybody angry again.

It's why all sides should be hammered on things that come out. He got away with a shocker.

 

[fernandopartridge]

who was it who submitted the rejected hotel plan FP?

Think it was a local fella that owned the land but with support from one of the big hotel groups, Marriott possibly can't recall. It's in one of the threads on here.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I think his point is along those lines, if they were genuinely looking for land and coming up against obstacles they'd be shouting it from the rooftops.
I think Esotericas suggestion is they aren't really looking that hard.

Yep that’s a fair challenge

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Staffing levels seem ok when wasps or student accomodation people are asking?

Maybe they were helped along by the top planning people's private company?

It was interesting that duggins skirted around the point made and reeled out a generic line. He didn't deny enquiries about a long lease hold.

Are they? How long do their questions get to be answered? Do they chase, or just wait so they can complain?

If it ain't SISU asking, it's not anti SISU

 

[Nick]

Are they? How long do their questions get to be answered? Do they chase, or just wait so they can complain?

If it ain't SISU asking, it's not anti SISU

Judging by their plans for the higgs they have a lot of the hard work done for them

Duggins seemed to know it was sisu for woodlands, as they did with the butts when they had an issue.

I guess if somebody is talking about land for a stadium it's harder to disguise than houses etc.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Duggins seemed to know it was sisu for woodlands
.

Aren't non disclosure agreements annoying.

 

[chiefdave]

If it ain't SISU asking, it's not anti SISU

Think you're mixing up two things. Agents, such as CBRE who were previously engaged by the club - not sure if they still are, will approach land owners with a view to purchasing land. That is where SISU / CCFC wouldn't be mentioned.

Conversations with the council will be around things such as the likelihood of obtaining planning permission. Unless of course, as with Woodlands, it is council owned land which the club wish to lease.

 

[tisza]

Mark will answer for him and I’ve just re read our notes. This is the relevant part

As previously communicated, the search for stadium sites is ongoing and has been narrowed down to a shortlist of 6 sites. A further site has also recently been identified. Although all sites are suitable for a stadium, the new site is considered the ideal location. As the exact location of the sites is commercially sensitive, they couldn’t tell us where the sites were, however, it was confirmed that all sites on the shortlist have been approved by the EFL for their proximity to St Mary’s Guildhall in Coventry, which is a marker point for the EFL

It was clear there is a fear that if any sight is identified before the purchase has been completed that the price increase astronomically and that underhand things have been done previously to make things difficult. Whether these are perceived or paranoid or actually ccc actively being unhelpful I don’t know. It’s why the Peterborough situation is really interesting to sign a memorandum of understanding to work together. Why not do this? It means nothing but it means something doesn’t it? We didn’t follow up with questions at this point but would be looking to if there was no progress

Just don't see the council signing anything with the club or genuinely being interested in working with these (or probably any other) owners in a site for a new stadium.
Their position seems to be there is no need for a 2nd stadium and that CCFC should just go back to the Ricoh.
Aren't concerned with the financial requirements of a club looking to move up the leagues and that the club should just suck it up and settle for being Wasps's tenants.

 

[chiefdave]

Their position seems to be there is no need for a 2nd stadium and that CCFC should just go back to the Ricoh.

In which case they should come out and say that.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

In which case they should come out and say that.

Rather than that they are saying Sisu caused it they should sort it

 

[shmmeee]

In which case they should come out and say that.

Duggins kinda did. He doesn’t get it both ways though, either CCC has a say and CCFC are special and important or they’re just another business and should be able to do what they want within the law. Frankly he can think the Ricoh is fine but it’s not his decision.

At least he’s given us a nice target though. There’s a clear political choice here to either make the most of a new ground (city centre!!!) or set himself up against the club. If I were the leader of the Conservatives in CCC I’d be making this point to anyone who will listen.

 

[shmmeee]

Rather than that they are saying Sisu caused it they should sort it

And Sisu should be making the running, especially with their past actions, but the question of where CCFC should play isn’t his to answer. Just whether CCC will help or hinder.

 

[tisza]

In which case they should come out and say that.

Hasn't Duggins basically said that on several occasions? Perfectly good stadium available and should be there, not in Birmingham etc. CCFC Ownership the problem, nothing else....

 

[shmmeee]

Hasn't Duggins basically said that on several occasions? Perfectly good stadium available and should be there, not in Birmingham etc. CCFC Ownership the problem, nothing else....

Without seeing his quote, that’s a slightly different question between Brum and Ricoh. But even if Wasps weren’t in the picture and we just wanted to build a new ground and aren’t asking the council for financial support frankly it’s none of his business.

 

[Grendel]

Hasn't Duggins basically said that on several occasions? Perfectly good stadium available and should be there, not in Birmingham etc. CCFC Ownership the problem, nothing else....

Duggins is like Mutton and Lucas. Old school, uneducated, one dimensional - anyone with any brain whatsoever would realise the football club is an asset to protect for the community and that no new owner would play second fiddle to a bankrupt rugby club

 

[mark82]

Duggins kinda did. He doesn’t get it both ways though, either CCC has a say and CCFC are special and important or they’re just another business and should be able to do what they want within the law. Frankly he can think the Ricoh is fine but it’s not his decision.

At least he’s given us a nice target though. There’s a clear political choice here to either make the most of a new ground (city centre!!!) or set himself up against the club. If I were the leader of the Conservatives in CCC I’d be making this point to anyone who will listen.

100% right.

 

[olderskyblue]

Duggins is like Mutton and Lucas. Old school, uneducated, one dimensional - anyone with any brain whatsoever would realise the football club is an asset to protect for the community and that no new owner would play second fiddle to a bankrupt rugby club

but it’s nowt to do with the football club in their eyes, it’s all about Them and Joy. Disgusting. CCFC is just a pawn in their war.

 

[chiefdave]

Hasn't Duggins basically said that on several occasions? Perfectly good stadium available and should be there, not in Birmingham etc. CCFC Ownership the problem, nothing else....

He said it was SISU's problem to sort out and nothing to do with the council. Of course we also don't know if that's his opinion or the council's official stance.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

He said it was SISU's problem to sort out and nothing to do with the council. Of course we also don't know if that's his opinion or the council's official stance.

He speaks on behalf of all Coventrians

 

[skyblueinBaku]

He speaks on behalf of all Coventrians

:emoji_smile:

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

:emoji_smile:

Or should that be all True Coventrians

 

[Flying Fokker]

Is anyone able to identify 6 commercial sites currently for sale within 10 miles of The city centre?

 

[SkyBlueDom26]

Is anyone able to identify 6 commercial sites currently for sale within 10 miles of The city centre?