I suggest we don't really know much of what has actually gone on at this stage, so we don't know what the club has spoken to the council about.
One thing we do know a little of is the goings on at The Butts and this suggests the council hasn't been acting terribly professionally. It seems the council sought information about what the football club had been talking to Coventry Rugby Club about, commercially sensitive information the council had no right to. It also seems the council tried to get a ban on professional football being played at The Butts, something that seems dangerously like an attempt to restrict trade.
But you haven't shown anything?
How are Cov United playing there?
Nail on head. SISU had two choices - prove their good intentions, and work to build from the inside (on terms that knew about when they took over). Or try to be clever by attempting to bring the whole thing down from the outside.
Where's that mentioned in the stuff he keeps posting saying rugby only?Not a professional outfit.
Where's that mentioned in the stuff he keeps posting saying rugby only?
Where's that mentioned in the stuff he keeps posting saying rugby only?
They aren't a rugby club either are they?Coventry United are not a Pro outfit Nick.
Yes, the one that says it can only be used by a rugby club. Can't be true can it if cov United are going to play there?Have you read my post #457 yet?
I think the stumbling block could well have been Chris Millerchip having something to do with blocking Pro Football at the Butts, but I'm only reading between the lines.
Who the f**k are you? Judge Rinder, read the article it might tell you
Just putting it out there mate. same applies to you.. Don't shoot the messenger.
No you are just wrong. The sub lease owned by the rugby club cannot prevent football played there. It was nothing to do with football at professional or non professional either.
Isn't that what you're doing?
I think Judge Rinder's a man :jawdrop:
The isn't any restriction that specifically mentions football mentioned in the CT article, that's why I asked you where it had been published.
If you don't know, just say. :cat:
That says only rugby can be played there, it doesn't prove anything does it?Read my post #457Then if you don't understand just say
But A) The club hasn't applied to have any covenant changed or applied for planning permission. B) Commercially Sensitive information? Isn't the covenant a matter of public record available to anyone at request to the LRO? C) If the club ever did look to change the covenant (no indication as yet that they're even considering it) is the final decision CCC's? Wouldn't that be central government as presumably any change of use and therefore covenant is a planning matter?
That says only rugby can be played there, it doesn't prove anything does it?
That says only rugby can be played there, it doesn't prove anything does it?
Read my post #457Then if you don't understand just say I'll try my utmost to explain each word so you can.
Not a professional outfit.
...and I've already shown how the supposed restriction in the lease is being flouted. If you don't understand the difference between women's football and rugby, or American football and rugby, or a beer festival and rugby, or a wedding and rugby just say and I'll try my best to explain them to you in words of less than three syllables.
I think we've reached an impasse and should agree to disagree on this one... unless you've got all night to row about it... I have!I could say something to you in two syllables, but you might not like it.
You posted saying only rugby can be played, Coventry United don't play rugby as well as the other non rugby examples there.I've shown you all a report from the Telegraph dated December 2015, you've shown us a report from the Observer dated May 2016 Yet we are all supposed to believe what you say?.. I'm not asking anyone to believe fook all. I've already said that I'm "Just putting it out there"
I think we've reached an impasse and should agree to disagree on this one... unless you've got all night to row about it... I have!
You posted saying only rugby can be played, Coventry United don't play rugby as well as the other non rugby examples there.
It still doesn't explain why they would want to put a very specific clause in for pro football if it was there already?
Wrong!!! I posted a report that said only Rugby could be played there... I also said Don't shoot the messenger, I also said I'm not asking anybody to believe fook all. Do I need a hammer to knock it into your brain or what?
Yes, and now Coventry United are going to be playing there. So it proves the report you keep mentioning wrong doesn't it?Wrong!!! I posted a report that said only Rugby could be played there... I also said Don't shoot the messenger, I also said I'm not asking anybody to believe fook all. Do I need a hammer to knock it into your brain or what?
Now stop bickering !
Coventry City Council have responded to a leaked email saying that it was attempting to block Coventry City from playing at the Butts Park Arena.
According to the Coventry Telegraph's Simon Gilbert, "Coventry City Council can't block change in Butts Park Arena lease to allow Coventry City to ground share with Coventry Rugby Club but changes in rent between leases would have to be approved by councillors"
A leaked email to the rugby club in January 2016, said the council wanted a new clause inserted which would specifically prevent “professional association football or training associated therewith” in exchange for making other changes to the sub-lease.
The Coventry Telegraph asked Nigel Clews, assistant director of property and asset management at Coventry City Council, why they had tried to insert the clause at that time and he said: “No, it doesn’t look good. But we were trying to flush out details.
I have just shown you the report was wrong - that's all
CCC ran the line the lease only allowed rugby to delay the transfer. But the line was of the fishing sort not a valid legal position
CCC mislead everyone including the reporter
I've already said i've shown one account of goings on at the Butts. I really couldn't give a f**k what anyone believes I stated (Don't shoot the messenger for the fifth time) but it seems you're all good at oneupmanship eh
Who said it was?
I have posted that answer several times over several threads but it continues to be ignored
Some people do not like the idea the Council were caught lying - which is what it was
I
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?