Statement from Cov Rugby (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter gruffskyblue
- Start date
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Just reading back this quote again and if understand it correctly it seems Tim has the finances in place, depending who you want to believe there are plans in place for anything between 12-25k stadium but what doesn't seem to be in place is any such agreement with CRL/BPAL of a way forward. That seems odd on it's own doesn't it? Thats a lot of outlay and time spent on something that seems nothing more than a friendly chat with an idea attached to it.
The more you dig the more holes you find. This thing has more holes in it than my lucky underpants.
Nick
Administrator
There isn't though, is there?
While SISU are attached to the club we as fans and club are going to suffer, plain and simple. Tim again got his words out before any real statement came out from CRFC, i suppose so he could get out the room with his head still attached during Mondays farce. I bet Sharp is thinking that bastard again has put me in a position where i have to explain his words, as is not a straight forward as Tim spouting "ITS ON" and 25,000 capacity once all done.
Lets face it Tim could not say NO ground, NO talks with Wasps oh and by the way CRFC will not deal with SISU, but he again brings a distortion of the truth to bide time for him and his bosses. He is a true manipulator on words, and will defend his interests till he walks with SISU. Sharp has covered his and the rugby clubs arse and without doubt has stated the football club will own nothing if any deal is worked out.
We are no further along in the real truth about our club if we are honest, even after Tim Butts statement far too many questions and not enough answers, but we are used to this under this current ownership.
Lets face it Tim could not say NO ground, NO talks with Wasps oh and by the way CRFC will not deal with SISU, but he again brings a distortion of the truth to bide time for him and his bosses. He is a true manipulator on words, and will defend his interests till he walks with SISU. Sharp has covered his and the rugby clubs arse and without doubt has stated the football club will own nothing if any deal is worked out.
We are no further along in the real truth about our club if we are honest, even after Tim Butts statement far too many questions and not enough answers, but we are used to this under this current ownership.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
"any costs associated with the project would not be borne by CRL or BPAL"
This for starters and then you have the build cost on top of that. Hows that going to be funded? Where's the split in sharing that cost? Where is our share going to come from? Tim says his has the investors in place are these investors outside of SISU? If so why do we need SISU again?
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
Fisher dropped out the Butts issue at Mondays meeting simply to deflect the more searching questions he was worried about and buy time to waste time he was successful I'll give him credit for that. He knew the chair was weak and exploited it.
NortonSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
Unless I am mistaken IT is the only game in town at present and we do t have any money, some believe we are doomed anyway. BPA is not a solution until too many pieces of the jigsaw come together.
Nick
Administrator
So what's in it for Sharp?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Honestly CD it doesn't matter that he only speaks with Fisher & Venus they don't have the real power so even if indirectly he has to deal with SISU. The major decision makers in Coventry know that
CCC are not entirely stupid, the words wont fool them or make them feel better. Given all the headlines and requests for comment they know that CCFC could be involved and what that means. They have been dealing with CCFC for decades and with SISU for 9 years they know who makes CCFC decisions
Anyway Council despite knowing of CCFC involvement is "most supportive" in any case, it would seem he doesn't need to play clever words with them.
Personally I think those comments are aimed at CRFC own members and supporters who no doubt have concerns about SISU being involved
Last edited:
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Lot of wishful thinking on this site. Over the last 9 years the wish list had zero fulfilment.
Although i agree with the reason, to be fair to the chair Tim has exploited a far bigger numbers than one man sitting on a chair like a condemned man..Tim is a master at the shift and pivot, answering question with a question, what would you do i heard him say a few times., horrible person to deal with if he is in deflect mode, which is 99% of the time.
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
There is no game in town other than the Ricoh and I don't believe there is a game in any other town. The answer is simple drop JR2 or go and play at Sowe Common or the Memorial Park. This is the straw that's going to break the camels back but whose back our clubs or sisu?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Nothing at this stage. It's one of several options he is looking at that's all. He will either decide there is something in it for CRFC and pursue this line or decide there isn't and not pursue it in which case there will never be anything in it for him. Not where the BPA and CCFC are concerned.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
So more lies from fisher
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
I guess he has also let any potential bidders for CCFC know there is an option to play there, with CCC backing...
When Tim talks about his investors, it doesn't have to be a SISU company - at least theoretically. The main aim is to get CCFC self reliant and not a worry for Joy. If they get a home with an income stream that allows them to compete at least to League 1 standard, then Joy's asset has increased in value without necessarily taking more risk. She is not forced to own the prop company. Not saying that is the case, but SISU don't have to be partners in a joint venture prop co.
colin101
Well-Known Member
Sharp also said the club has offered to act as a mediator between CCFC and various other parties and was clear that a ground share would only be agreed if there was “an end to the current disputes involving the owners of CCFC and the city council and other parties.”
So how does Fisher and CCFC get around this comment
So how does Fisher and CCFC get around this comment
Posters saying that dealing purely with Fisher and Venus is not dealing with SISU.
[URL='http://forum.football365.com/posting.php?mode=smilies&f=4#']
[URL='http://forum.football365.com/posting.php?mode=smilies&f=4#']
[/URL][/URL]
[URL='http://forum.football365.com/posting.php?mode=smilies&f=4#']
[URL='http://forum.football365.com/posting.php?mode=smilies&f=4#']
[/URL][/URL]
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Side step, shuffle shuffle shuffle, side step.
Seriously though that could be interpreted as drop the legal action. Not saying that is what he means but it could be taken that way.
Brylowes
Well-Known Member
Where did the, CCFC get revenue streams when we play, CRFC get revenue streams when
They play, and everything else gets split 50/50, it's not mentioned here at all.
There is absolutely nothing in his tone that suggests this would ever be the case, if we were
To go there we would be a lowly tenant, any plans there are all about the rugby club.
And who can blame them.
They play, and everything else gets split 50/50, it's not mentioned here at all.
There is absolutely nothing in his tone that suggests this would ever be the case, if we were
To go there we would be a lowly tenant, any plans there are all about the rugby club.
And who can blame them.
Voice_of_Reason
Well-Known Member
In my opinion this is a ploy in SISU's game. When mediation fails, they can use this to their advantage, surely?
Does any one have the transcript of Monday ? I thought he said there are investors?
I do not believe anyone says SISU are the investors except the speculators on here
Why should it fail ? It cannot start unless Duggins decides to talk?
I think as part of mediation he will propose to CCFC's owners that is a route and in return CCC give/agree to ???
Voice_of_Reason
Well-Known Member
And if Duggins refuses they can blame the Council?
Sharp has said SISU will not be involved end of , full stop
And is that not reasonable? ( not a pun honest )
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
Fisher
There could a range of incomes from the stadium and a capacity from 12,000 to 25,000 could be possible at the BPA, plus a long term lease and non-match day revenues
.........................................
Sharp
In brief, the plan is to develop improved match day and training facilities – for the use of Coventry Rugby and the greater community – mixed with some retail outlets designed to provide ongoing revenue for the club as we push for full sustainability at the higher echelons of the league system. we prefer a stadium of not more than 12,000 capacity
...........................................
Who would have thought non match day revenues at the Butts would be so much they could help sustain 2 local teams !!!
There could a range of incomes from the stadium and a capacity from 12,000 to 25,000 could be possible at the BPA, plus a long term lease and non-match day revenues
.........................................
Sharp
In brief, the plan is to develop improved match day and training facilities – for the use of Coventry Rugby and the greater community – mixed with some retail outlets designed to provide ongoing revenue for the club as we push for full sustainability at the higher echelons of the league system. we prefer a stadium of not more than 12,000 capacity
...........................................
Who would have thought non match day revenues at the Butts would be so much they could help sustain 2 local teams !!!
Brylowes
Well-Known Member
Why would you need investors to rent somewhere.
I think that is a possibility and one i would not put past Sisu trying to do, the only thing i see them doing at the minute is stalling for time everything they do is to deflect and delay what is we all know the inevitable. The business they are running is no viable in the long term, because to survive you have to sell players for a big fee, sooner or later you as a club drop that far in levels that the big fees are no longer there. Which is what Tim said at the meeting when talking about Ben Stevenson, its not that they are thinking of the future its they didn't get the price they wanted, which is ok for now as Wembley will cover some costs, but over time his value will go down unless he stands head and shoulders above anyone in L2.
I was eleven in 87
Well-Known Member
Coventry City have already taken part in preliminary discussions and have set a three-point remit in notifying the MP they are calling for “active not passive support from Coventry City Council” regarding…
Can someone please clear this up for me.
What do CCFC have to enter mediation talks with CCC for?
Yes I know there is a legal dispute with CCC about the Ricoh, but that's got nothing to do with CCFC now saying they want to ground share at the BPA.
If CCFC put something forward in relation to development at the BPA and CCC refused, then that might lead to the need for mediation, but there are no concrete plans or planning applications to consider or refuse.
CCFC say they want to groundshare at the BPA and not the Ricoh anymore, so we don't need to mediate with Wasps/CCC about that either do we?
No concrete plans in place regarding the Academy as yet but only confirmation that talks are ongoing and with much work to do apparently, but again no current need for mediation.
If the Academy plans were refused by CCC then again this might lead to the need for mediation, but we are not at that stage yet so why do we need to enter mediation talks?
Can anyone clear this up?
- “Putting Coventry City front and centre-stage in the community.”
- A future stadium solution for the football club, with the club’s preferred option remaining a return to an inner-city home at an expanded Butts Park Arena, groundsharing with Coventry rugby club in a stadium of potentially 15,000 to 25,000 capacity.
- A future home for the club’s ‘lifeblood’ youth academy, with one potential aim of relocating it next to a new training facility.
Can someone please clear this up for me.
What do CCFC have to enter mediation talks with CCC for?
Yes I know there is a legal dispute with CCC about the Ricoh, but that's got nothing to do with CCFC now saying they want to ground share at the BPA.
If CCFC put something forward in relation to development at the BPA and CCC refused, then that might lead to the need for mediation, but there are no concrete plans or planning applications to consider or refuse.
CCFC say they want to groundshare at the BPA and not the Ricoh anymore, so we don't need to mediate with Wasps/CCC about that either do we?
No concrete plans in place regarding the Academy as yet but only confirmation that talks are ongoing and with much work to do apparently, but again no current need for mediation.
If the Academy plans were refused by CCC then again this might lead to the need for mediation, but we are not at that stage yet so why do we need to enter mediation talks?
Can anyone clear this up?
MatthewWallis
Well-Known Member
I'm a bit confused about him saying he'll never deal with SISU but they agreed to have us run a ticket office from the BPA?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
No I definitely don't think he is an idiot. I think he is one of the few people who comes out of this very well. Only you have pointed out that he is not an idiot. Not sure why you would think anyone would think he is?
"The most important and early step would be to lay down a new, artificial pitch which would be suitable for a variety of sports, in order to gain more usage of the site and so to generate more revenue for the club whilst fulfilling our community ambitions. "
He is very correct on this, a rugby union, a rugby league, 3 football teams and the pitch to be used for the community. He knows it will need to be artificial.
Or as my point above we must assure him that we will pay for it to be relayed 3 times a year. Or like with the capacity for the stadium our (SISU's) ambitions are just division 4?
Unless of course our only intention is to use it for training and academy purposes. Yet we provide investment to benefit from the revenues all year round when everyone else uses it?
Which I happen to think would be a good idea.
Fund it, use it for training and for the academy's main pitch (rent free).
Get 50% of the revenues for helping to fund it.
Get a rent deal at the Ricoh for the long term where the first team play.
Last edited:
Nick
Administrator
Because the agreement is with CCFC.....