Surprise, surprise.... (3 Viewers)

Otis · Mar 3, 2016

chiefdave said:
I think I must be reading a different article to everyone else. People seem to be taking it as confirmation of a long term deal at the Ricoh. Doesn't read like that to me. Reads that a long term deal, on the right terms, is an option.

Thats no different to what he said the day he got here.

Not getting what everyone is getting so excited about, nowhere does it say the option of a new stadium has been ditched. What are others seeing that I'm not?

No it doesn't say it has been ditched. He's hardly going to say that is he. That would be a very daft thing to admit to. He is however distancing from the need to own our own stadium, which is exactly what Fisher kept saying we HAD to do and he is now talking more in terms of a relationship.

Seems very clear to me. All the talk has been about revenue streams and now we are at last talking about trying to obtain those revenue streams through the scenario of our staying here.

I think it is optimistic for once.

Calista · Mar 3, 2016

chiefdave said:
I think I must be reading a different article to everyone else. People seem to be taking it as confirmation of a long term deal at the Ricoh. Doesn't read like that to me. Reads that a long term deal, on the right terms, is an option.

Thats no different to what he said the day he got here.

Not getting what everyone is getting so excited about, nowhere does it say the option of a new stadium has been ditched. What are others seeing that I'm not?

Chris Anderson, managing director of CCFC, added that he was confident a mutually beneficial long-term deal could be agreed with Ricoh Arena landlords Wasps.

It's just a much stronger indication then we've had before. No doubt there's an element of putting pressure on Wasps by going public in this way, but it does seem like a big change of emphasis. I don't think anybody has said it's confirmation of a long-term deal?

The Gentleman · Mar 4, 2016

chiefdave said:
I think I must be reading a different article to everyone else. People seem to be taking it as confirmation of a long term deal at the Ricoh. Doesn't read like that to me. Reads that a long term deal, on the right terms, is an option.

Thats no different to what he said the day he got here.

Not getting what everyone is getting so excited about, nowhere does it say the option of a new stadium has been ditched. What are others seeing that I'm not?

If you read it again then you might see he say's he's confident a mutually beneficial deal can be done. And as others have said, nobody is taking it as gospel that a deal has been done but just some common sense is being said instead of bollocks out of Fisher's mouth.

Also, with the tone of his interview and what we've heard about the only 2 sites we were on the verge of buying (sorry just had to wipe away the laughter tears) now gone, do you think that we're looking for a new stadium?

chiefdave · Mar 4, 2016

italiahorse said:
The new news is that we 'can' survive and be successful at the Ricoh.

So he's reiterated the same thing he said on his first day here. For all we know it was part of a longer interview where he also talked guff about fantastic progress on a new stadium site. Too many times I've heard the right thing from SISU and their representatives only for the opposite to happen for me to get excited about this or see it as some huge change in direction.

Yes its good that he is saying sensible things but as ever actions speak louder than words.

italiahorse · Mar 4, 2016

chiefdave said:
So he's reiterated the same thing he said on his first day here. For all we know it was part of a longer interview where he also talked guff about fantastic progress on a new stadium site. Too many times I've heard the right thing from SISU and their representatives only for the opposite to happen for me to get excited about this or see it as some huge change in direction.

Yes its good that he is saying sensible things but as ever actions speak louder than words.

The trouble with a lot of you guys is that you can't get past the fact we are stuck with Wasps as our landlords.
It's almost as if nothing positive can happen if they are in Coventry and you would rather CCFC fail than except it.

Well they are in Coventry and we need to work with them. As I have said for over a year.

Sisu are now saying they need to work with them to enable CCFC to be 'successful' and the good news is it can actually be at the Ricoh.

Lets make it a joint home.

Sky Blue Kid · Mar 4, 2016

chiefdave said:
I think I must be reading a different article to everyone else. People seem to be taking it as confirmation of a long term deal at the Ricoh. Doesn't read like that to me. Reads that a long term deal, on the right terms, is an option.

Thats no different to what he said the day he got here.

Not getting what everyone is getting so excited about, nowhere does it say the option of a new stadium has been ditched. What are others seeing that I'm not?

I'll tell you what I'm NOT seeing. I'm not seeing one brick being laid to start the build of a new stadium that will be built in three years. When was that said???....Oh yes!!! Three years ago !!!

standupforcity · Mar 4, 2016

Otis said:
No it doesn't say it has been ditched. He's hardly going to say that is he. That would be a very daft thing to admit to. He is however distancing from the need to own our own stadium, which is exactly what Fisher kept saying we HAD to do and he is now talking more in terms of a relationship.

Seems very clear to me. All the talk has been about revenue streams and now we are at last talking about trying to obtain those revenue streams through the scenario of our staying here.

I think it is optimistic for once.

Yes and the important thing is that the focus has shifted. Less pie in the sky thinking....I'm optimistic!

oldskyblue58 · Mar 4, 2016

I don't think anyone is getting excited by this, I am certainly not. As cd says above actions speak louder than words.

I do think it is a change of emphasis though. When Anderson came in he was ruling nothing in or out, was going to do some fact finding, but the stadium build plan was very much still on the table. Looks like he has taken a good look at the facts and has at least one potential solution mapped out

week or ten days ago he told fans that the two sites apparently under consideration had been discounted.

The accounts that were published this week talked of "a long term stadium solution" and not" the club must own its own stadium"

Yesterday we get this interview that says that in Andersons opinion it would be possible to have a viable successful football club at the Ricoh despite it being owned by someone else and that there were 17 or so areas he feels need to be negotiated to make that happen. What he is not saying, and from what I can see no one else is, is that a deal is there...... only that it could be possible and that it could work. Nor has he said that the stadium build idea is dead.

What is to be welcomed is the change in emphasis from the club, it doesn't mean it will turn in to anything tangible. As I mentioned in an earlier post there are a number of caveats (not an exhaustive list) to what he has said, not least as I understand, is the owner being prepared to work with Wasps - always said no in the past

Will Wasps be prepared to deal? No reason why they shouldn't explore what could be done on income streams. It doesn't mean it will happen because the deal will not mean that Wasps are giving away what they already have. The weak point for CCFC is that in reality they have no where else to go for the foreseeable future.

So early days but a more open thinking by Anderson than his predecessors - that is to be welcomed surely?

italiahorse · Mar 4, 2016

Sky Blue Kid said:
I'll tell you what I'm NOT seeing. I'm not seeing one brick being laid to start the build of a new stadium that will be built in three years. When was that said???....Oh yes!!! Three years ago !!!

It's almost as if it's a disappointment that we can be successful at the Ricoh with a bit of work.

We could have a plan here that we can relate too unlike a stadium plan that has been an embarrassment.

oucho · Mar 4, 2016

Otis said:
It's bleedin obvious news and the likes of OSB amongst others have been banging on about this for a couple of years now.

We all knew a new stadium was never going to happen. I know Italia has his detractors, but isn't this pretty much what he's been saying too? That we are stuck with where we are and we have to work with what we've got.

Mate, I've been saying this to anyone who'd listen since we got relegated to League One. A good faith and cordial negotiation leading to a long term rent deal, putting us in a position later on to buy a share in the stadium (as Bristol Rovers did) should have been the approach from the start.

Instead, Fisher completely misjudged the situation and thought he could get a better deal from an approach that was, to most observers, bullying and ball-breaking - trying to put your landlord and rent controller out of business might be the best way in the world of hard-headed land and property, but it was never going to work in the context of a relationship between a council and a football club. Goodwill was squandered in abusing an immovable opponent, leading to Tim's hissy fit when we flounced off to Northampton for a year.

steveecov · Mar 4, 2016

Makes you wonder what the FL were told regarding our future stadium was supposed to be. Timmy must be on borrowed time surely.

Nick · Mar 4, 2016

I don't mind the Ricoh and if it can be done so it is actually better off for the CLUB (Not SISU) then I am all for it. I just hope that something can be done with the branding going forward, maybe make it digital or something so it is just the flick of a button and it changes from Wasps to CCFC.

As I've said before on the "If Wasps owned us" threads, as long as they are CCFC and at a location I'd class as within reason I'd still go whether it was the Ricoh, Butts etc.

Captain Dart · Mar 4, 2016

Calista said:
Chris Anderson, managing director of CCFC, added that he was confident a mutually beneficial long-term deal could be agreed with Ricoh Arena landlords Wasps.

It's just a much stronger indication then we've had before. No doubt there's an element of putting pressure on Wasps by going public in this way, but it does seem like a big change of emphasis. I don't think anybody has said it's confirmation of a long-term deal?

Strange that the Wasps PR machine is silent, or course CA statements are not PR are they?

oldskyblue58 · Mar 4, 2016

Just a thought about that interview

Yes he is saying what many want to hear. Yes it comes over as a more open or conciliatory way of thinking. Yes it is a public invitation to Wasps to sit down and talk. But does it also puts public pressure on the CCFC owner to be more conciliatory, talk and consider forms of partnership to gain income at the Ricoh, to work with Wasps - not as now at best in parallel but very seperate?

italiahorse · Mar 4, 2016

Captain Dart said:
Strange that the Wasps PR machine is silent, or course CA statements are not PR are they?

CCFC need to make the first move on anything long term.
Wasps have already said they want to work with CCFC and we know they have worked together on several short term issues.

Something like a 10 year rolling agreement is something else and would require a lot of work. But at least it seems we have put our foot in the door now.

dongonzalos · Mar 4, 2016

Nick said:
I don't mind the Ricoh and if it can be done so it is actually better off for the CLUB (Not SISU) then I am all for it. I just hope that something can be done with the branding going forward, maybe make it digital or something so it is just the flick of a button and it changes from Wasps to CCFC.

As I've said before on the "If Wasps owned us" threads, as long as they are CCFC and at a location I'd class as within reason I'd still go whether it was the Ricoh, Butts etc.

Interesting idea about the branding.
It might cost a bit. But would be the most effective way.

I have never seen any viable alternative for CCFC than signing up long term or purchasing rights from Wasps.

Nothing else makes sense. It is also very important for Wasps as well.
The owners of Wasps will want to sell one day. A successful football team committed to Ricoh will have a big impact on that.

Let's just hope CA can negotiate a cracking deal

If a partnership could be drawn up there are so many areas to save costs

One marketing department
One PR department
One Ticket Office
Possibly one multipurpose training facility
Stewards
Catering costs
Advertising
Ect......

Nick · Mar 4, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Interesting idea about the branding.
It might cost a bit. But would be the most effective way.

I have never seen any viable alternative for CCFC than signing up long term or purchasing rights from Wasps.

Nothing else makes sense. It is also very important for Wasps as well.
The owners of Wasps will want to sell one day. A successful football team committed to Ricoh will have a big impact on that.

Let's just hope CA can negotiate a cracking deal

If a partnership could be drawn up there are so many areas to save costs

One marketing department
One PR department
One Ticket Office
Possibly one multipurpose training facility
Stewards
Catering costs
Advertising
Ect......

I think then you are pretty much a joint team... that might put some people off.

I'd still go, as long as it was coventry city and not Wasps FC and in black and yellow and the club wasn't "lost".

dongonzalos · Mar 4, 2016

Nick said:
I think then you are pretty much a joint team... that might put some people off.

I'd still go, as long as it was coventry city and not Wasps FC and in black and yellow and the club wasn't "lost".

I am more thinking if we are sharing a stadium surely we could share a lot of other departments who duplicate the same jobs.
I get the impression their marketing and PR seems pretty shit hot.
Why not tap into it if we can save money that can go on the team.
As long as you always still have a skyblues foot print

skybluetony176 · Mar 4, 2016

oldskyblue58 said:
Just a thought about that interview

Yes he is saying what many want to hear. Yes it comes over as a more open or conciliatory way of thinking. Yes it is a public invitation to Wasps to sit down and talk. But does it also put public pressure on the CCFC owner to be more conciliatory, talk and consider forms of partnership to gain income at the Ricoh, to work with Wasps - not as now at best in parallel but very seperate?

Didn't he also talk about pressure from the FL to find a long term solution to the stadium situation? It sounds to me like reality is finally catching up with SISU.

Nick · Mar 4, 2016

dongonzalos said:
I am more thinking if we are sharing a stadium surely we could share a lot of other departments who dublicate the same jobs.
I get the impression their marketing and PR seems pretty shit hot.
Why not tap into it if we can save money that can go on the team.
As long as you always still have a skyblues foot print

The way I see it with that it is that it is relying on 3rd parties for more isn't it?

If we use Wasps Ticket Office, Wasps PR, Wasps Physios, Wasps training centre then how much control do they have over the club? Look at the situation when the council / acl had a "hold" over us just because they were our landlord.

Captain Dart · Mar 4, 2016

Nick said:
The way I see it with that it is that it is relying on 3rd parties for more isn't it?

If we use Wasps Ticket Office, Wasps PR, Wasps Physios, Wasps training centre then how much control do they have over the club? Look at the situation when the council / acl had a "hold" over us just because they were our landlord.

You are spouting nonsense, joint sporting staff would never happen, can only see realistic synergy in back office functions,stewarding & catering.
I thought CCFC have tried to get something going (vis a vis catering/functions) at the Butts, but I doubt that was successful, has it not been quietly shelved?

will am i · Mar 4, 2016

Nick said:
The way I see it with that it is that it is relying on 3rd parties for more isn't it?

If we use Wasps Ticket Office, Wasps PR, Wasps Physios, Wasps training centre then how much control do they have over the club? Look at the situation when the council / acl had a "hold" over us just because they were our landlord.

You would do these as a joint venture you don't have to be subordinate.

dongonzalos · Mar 4, 2016

Nick said:
The way I see it with that it is that it is relying on 3rd parties for more isn't it?

If we use Wasps Ticket Office, Wasps PR, Wasps Physios, Wasps training centre then how much control do they have over the club? Look at the situation when the council / acl had a "hold" over us just because they were our landlord.

Yes get what you are saying. You then have to hope the relationship stays good. As there is always another party involved who at the end of the day at some point could have a different agenda.
Yes it's a good point I didn't think about. I am more thinking of the now whilst the relationship seems good.
Also JR2 would need to be gone.

I wonder if that will all come into the negotiations

Nick · Mar 4, 2016

will am i said:
You would do these as a joint venture you don't have to be subordinate.

I'd be more comfortable with that.

Maybe a 50/50 company for that stuff

chiefdave · Mar 4, 2016

italiahorse said:
The trouble with a lot of you guys is that you can't get past the fact we are stuck with Wasps as our landlords.
It's almost as if nothing positive can happen if they are in Coventry and you would rather CCFC fail than except it.

Well they are in Coventry and we need to work with them. As I have said for over a year.

Sisu are now saying they need to work with them to enable CCFC to be 'successful' and the good news is it can actually be at the Ricoh.

I think you're mixing up different issues. People can quite easily not want Wasps here and hope that at some point in the future they go while at the same time accepting we may have them as our landlords for the foreseeable future.

Most people have always accepted we don't actually need to own the stadium as long as we get full benefit from it. I think 'own the stadium' is just used as a shorthand rather than having to type out an explanation every time a post is made.

Really we're still at the same point. We need both options to be looked at and to be presented with credible evidence for what is the best way forward. Its not a black and white issue. It could be that we need x,y,& z from ACL or a new stadium becomes the most viable option. Get a good deal and staying becomes preferable, but if we don't get that we still need to look at other options.

Nick said:
I just hope that something can be done with the branding going forward, maybe make it digital or something so it is just the flick of a button and it changes from Wasps to CCFC.

Totally agree with this. There's simple things, why did Wasps put up a club crest that was so much bigger than ours. Its like a dick waving contest. Same with the crest around the pitch, why not put both or cover then on non-Wasps match days.

covcity4life · Mar 4, 2016

Skyblueweeman said:
Surely this is good news?? No??

it is indeed

lets hope wasps give us a good % of what we want and hopefully club still has a bright future of some sort IN COVENTRY

Otis · Mar 4, 2016

And that's such a huge factor! IN Coventry!

We get a relationship going now then who knows what the future might bring. Wasps may wish to go back to London and maybe we will be in a position to buy the stadium off them with some heavy financial backer. Who knows! Anything is possible.

Obviously we need success on the pitch first. Get up the leagues and make us a more attractive proposition.

Malaka · Mar 4, 2016

Just a thought
When the sponsorship of the stadium is due, surely having two clubs playing there would up the price of any sponsorship deal. Surely we could get a cut of that money with some good negotiation? having a football club there must have some value.

chiefdave · Mar 4, 2016

Malaka said:
When the sponsorship of the stadium is due, surely having two clubs playing there would up the price of any sponsorship deal. Surely we could get a cut of that money with some good negotiation? having a football club there must have some value.

This is the sort of thing that seems a huge hurdle to me. Wasps are never going to give up the money CCFC generate. Sure we might get some concessions like a bigger slice of the F&B but can you ever seeing them agree to handing over millions from naming rights?

olderskyblue · Mar 4, 2016

Maybe, if CCFC brought a sponsor to the table?

Otis · Mar 4, 2016

Maybe if CCFC bought a table.

Sick Boy · Mar 5, 2016

chiefdave said:
I think you're mixing up different issues. People can quite easily not want Wasps here and hope that at some point in the future they go while at the same time accepting we may have them as our landlords for the foreseeable future.

Most people have always accepted we don't actually need to own the stadium as long as we get full benefit from it. I think 'own the stadium' is just used as a shorthand rather than having to type out an explanation every time a post is made.

Really we're still at the same point. We need both options to be looked at and to be presented with credible evidence for what is the best way forward. Its not a black and white issue. It could be that we need x,y,& z from ACL or a new stadium becomes the most viable option. Get a good deal and staying becomes preferable, but if we don't get that we still need to look at other options.

Totally agree with this. There's simple things, why did Wasps put up a club crest that was so much bigger than ours. Its like a dick waving contest. Same with the crest around the pitch, why not put both or cover then on non-Wasps match days.

Their ultimate aim is to become the biggest sporting club in Coventry, we are their competition but they can't be too harsh at the moment as it would be a massive PR mistake.

It's disturbing that there are some who advocate ever closer links with a franchise club owned by a hedge fund. Some people will never learn from mistakes.

Astute · Mar 5, 2016

Sick Boy said:
Their ultimate aim is to become the biggest sporting club in Coventry, we are their competition but they can't be too harsh at the moment as it would be a massive PR mistake.

It's disturbing that there are some who advocate ever closer links with a franchise club owned by a hedge fund. Some people will never learn from mistakes.

And the alternative is?

chiefdave · Mar 5, 2016

Sick Boy said:
Their ultimate aim is to become the biggest sporting club in Coventry, we are their competition but they can't be too harsh at the moment as it would be a massive PR mistake.

Very true. People talk about the value of us to Wasps but don't consider the downside for them. Most people have a limited amount of disposable income and for that matter a limited amount of free time.

If we got to the PL and had weekly sell outs there is no way that wouldn't impact on Wasps attendances. So the question is would the extra revenues in terms of F&B etc be greater than their lost ticketing revenues.

If the answer is no then it is not in their best interests for us to be too successful.

The Gentleman · Mar 5, 2016

Sick Boy said:
Their ultimate aim is to become the biggest sporting club in Coventry, we are their competition but they can't be too harsh at the moment as it would be a massive PR mistake.

It's disturbing that there are some who advocate ever closer links with a franchise club owned by a hedge fund. Some people will never learn from mistakes.

So how will they become 'harsh'?

I think they will want to become the biggest Rugby club in Coventry. I don't know many or even if any CCFC fans have said that they will not go to CCFC games anymore and instead solely go to Wasps. I cannot see how Wasps can grow in terms of status and size in Coventry. Whereas CCFC are now in League 1 and will naturally grow and gather more fans should we get promotion. Success for CCFC makes us a more attractive proposition in lots of areas and should we still be at the Ricoh, then Wasps will benefit from that too, so again I'll ask why would Wasps become harsh and alienate further potential profits?

Surprise, surprise.... (3 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

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

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency