The Butts - CRFC Confirms it is willing to join mediation talks (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ccfc92
- Start date
Wasps have way too much debt loaded on the arena. Eventually this will catch up on them and they will default and be in serious trouble.
So you believe the Butts is a better option to make us competitive than the Rioch?
Simple yes or no question, nothing sinister
If there is revenue at the butts that we couldn't get at the ricoh then yes surely. How could you disagree?So you believe the Butts is a better option to make us competitive than the Rioch?
Simple yes or no question, nothing sinister
So you believe the Butts is a better option to make us competitive than the Rioch?
Simple yes or no question, nothing sinister
Whilst Wasps are there; yes.
Your stadium cuts into the car Park of the retirement village
Don't we have a better financial deal there now, than several years ago before the Sixfields move?
Agree about Wasps but highlights a serious point. If they can't make enough out of the Ricoh to repay their debt, how could we possibly make enough out of sharing the much smaller BPA?
Well thats something we as fans can't answer as we won't know what the funding is or what we would generate from it. Another reason we should be putting pressure on all sides to put something forward. Staying at the Ricoh on the sort of rental deal Wasps want will be the death of us.
Yeah, it isn't perfect but that isn't the point.
You can shift the land I highlighted further towards the main road and the 28,000 seater fits easily.
That's not really the concern for you though is it?
A realistic plan is my concern, which is something I do not see this as being.
Well we as fans blindly followed the club and got behind the Ricoh deal and pressed the council to go ahead with building it.
I would hope the fans take a more sober approach to it this time.
We should be supporting nothing that anyone proposes until it has been explained to us in explicit detail as to how it will benefit us.
Maybe CRFC have their own ambitions and want to be a far bigger club then they currently are. Maybe they want to get into the RUFC prem league so would want a bigger ground to expand??
Completely agree, pressure on all sides to get something reasonable put forward that would benefit the club.
Dear Mr Fisher, Can I buy my own retirement village flat and watch the games for free from my armchair?
Thanks Tony. I used to work in Planning years ago, but changed career path as it wasn't for me, and was referring to an Outline Planning Application, but didn't explain it very well.
I wasn't aware one was in for the project in relation to the 'alleged' CCFC plans, and so this was what I referring to. If there is one I stand corrected and will have a nose at it. If not I believe what was originally referred to was architects plans, but then how do we know what exactly that is catering for?
Pretty sure he said he didn't want the stadIum bigger than what the planning permission that is already in place, as that would affect negatively on the rugby club atmosphere wise.
Pretty sure he said he didn't want the stadIum bigger than what the planning permission that is already in place, as that would affect negatively on the rugby club atmosphere wise.
As far as I know there isn't. Sorry I misunderstood the point you were making and was actually thinking I was correcting you.
Some will have you believe that there is planning approved for 15k when in actual fact there only seems to be a lapsed detailed approval for 3 stands which is now expired (in 2008 I think).
As you seem to have some actual experience in this field perhaps you could confirm if they could still build off the back of this application or was 2008 the deadline for work to start and any new development would have to start the planning process again from the beginning?
Also someone else would have you believe that an architect has drawn up plans for a 25k stadium on the site. If that's the case would you think it would be prudent to put in an outline application for this to see how the land lies with a view to future proofing the site for future further development?
In other words you hedge your bets before putting in a detailed application for a smaller stadium stadium wether that be 12 or 15k? Surely any promise of building a smaller stadium with view to expanding to 25k is pie in the sky and committing to never having a bigger stadium than the one you originally build.
Now you've just blocked all the traffic!!
Fuck the traffic.
North Ferriby United at home is more important!
The thing that is worrying me is this. Fisher stated we need access to matchday and non matchday revenues stating that the last season at Highfield Road profit was 1.5 million. How much of this would be spent on the team really, I suspect it would be used to pay for build costs and interest charges on loans used to make it happen. It's only worth doing if the extra income is used to put product on the pitch, this is something Sisu don't have a track record of.
If permission is granted | The decision-making process | Planning Portal
Interesting link. If the planning that people want you to believe is already in place is the expired one that people have linked on here then no the site doesn't currently have planning agreed. It will have to be applied for again.
Has anyone else found any that haven't expired or been withdrawn on the site? I can't. If there is it's a matter of public records so it will be available.
Interesting link. If the planning that people want you to believe is already in place is the expired one that people have linked on here then no the site doesn't currently have planning agreed. It will have to be applied for again.
Has anyone else found any that haven't expired or been withdrawn on the site? I can't. If there is it's a matter of public records so it will be available.
LOL, the club posted a £1.4M loss in 2005 after player sales,a £7M loss before sales, turnover on commercial activities was £3.7M, catering turnover was £911,265. You can get the accounts from companies house.
Coventry City Council: Planning Application Search
So where is these approved plans that are in place for anything resembling future development at the BPA?
Sorry. The link doesn't seem to keep the search criteria that's entered. Put in Butts park in the address box and hit search. I can't see anything resembling what we've been told already exists. Maybe I'm not using the search correctly.
So where is these approved plans that are in place for anything resembling future development at the BPA?
Sorry. The link doesn't seem to keep the search criteria that's entered. Put in Butts park in the address box and hit search. I can't see anything resembling what we've been told already exists. Maybe I'm not using the search correctly.
Last edited:
Old fiver did on here, grendull agrees with him (so it must be right) and looking at twitter it looks like LR has made the same claim while having a spat with Stuart Linnell after SL dared question the feasibility of it. Not sure if TF has made the claim personally himself but how are you supposed to remember every version of everything TF has ever said.
Like I said pages ago, the fact the site has had permission for a stadium in the past is enough to suggest it could get such again (up to around 10K or so). It would need a new planning application of course but the fact that a previous one had been approved would support a new one. You do try too hard.
*suggest* and *could* is quite different to *has*
Is this a wind up ?
Tim Fisher is certainly winding people up. I didn't think anyone actually believed him.
