SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
What was the alternative?
But you're right no need to rehash old arguments, it's universally accepted that the previous agreement was crippling the club.
What was the alternative?A secure tenancy that the tenant signed up for and here we go again......round and round
The current lease is rugby only, that is being changed (if it wasn't Cov Utd wouldn't be able to play there). The suggestion from the council was that as part of the change a clause was inserted to allow other uses but specify that professional football couldn't be played there.I thought the clause already existed. Originally put in to protect the rugby club?
Yes. BPA was a non-starter, but we as City fans so wanted it to be true.Yep. Problem is, as a support, we are so desperate for and end to our problems we tend to jump on anything that gives us a glimmer of hope and blow it our of all proportion, (I include myself in that).
BPA, Malakas investment post, Simon Jordan.
There are a myriad of reasons why BPA won't happen but I think you've hit upon the main one, CRFC wouldn't touch CCFC with a barge pole, (at least with sisu at the helm).
BPA was a complete non starter, Fisher had to be seen as at least trying to be doing something new ground related after being exposed by that freedom of information request.
Fisher can blame fans and CCC as much as he likes but CRFC would not touch SISU with a barge pole. Yes it's blame SISU again but they are the common denominator in all CCFC problems.
If you caught Fisher with his tongue up Joy's arse I don't think he would be embarrassed.How would Fisher worm his way out of that? It would be good to see him really embarrassed if that were possible.
If you do the corporate thing at BPA the chairman or other club senior apparatchiks often work the room and take questions, the SISU was asked quite often.
CRFC are performing well on the pitch and interest In the sport is increasing since "you know who" arrived and gates are increasing.
Coventry people see the club as their own and with the BPA secure the club is looking to expand in several ways.
In other words look how SISU have tainted and almost destroyed the city's football club do you really think we want to have any of that?
The FOI requests seems to me to be the conclusive proof that Fisher has been lying all along. In one of his "two sites down to one site soon" interviews I am sure he actually stated that the local authority of which the "favoured" site was in were thrilled about the proposed plans and would look favourably on a planning application. I am sure this was in the CT. The FOI requests seem like the ideal stick to beat him with and yet whenever he is interviewed, Talksport, or Cov and Warwicks, none of the interviewers bring it up. I am no expert, but surely one of the first things that you would do when you identify a site for a building, let alone one as big as a football stadium, is to contact the LA to see what their initial views on the site would be.The FOI requests show that no local council, I think the requests went out to 12 of them, have had any conversation with CCFC about a new ground. How would Fisher worm his way out of that? It would be good to see him really embarrassed if that were possible.
A whistle that causes the opposition to score you mean? Amazing how things sound so different when you miss bits offMost people would resign just on the basis of that.
It's hardly mentioned on here either, now if a fan blows a whistle?
A whistle that causes the opposition to score you mean? Amazing how things sound so different when you miss bits off
Chairman of the club outed as a serial bulkshiter, no ground deal after summer 2018. Blame Wasps/ council/ Higgs/CT or no comment on the matter.
Fan with whistle is seen as the reason we drew game draws a comment in seconds.
I think that explains where we are at with Nick. No more words are needed.
He has hardly only just been outed as a Serial Bullshitter has he?
Wasn't it Cov Rugby who first said it at their fans meeting?
Still, Fisher is full of shit so it means it's perfectly fine for others to be dicks right?
Chairman of the club outed as a serial bulkshiter, no ground deal after summer 2018. Blame Wasps/ council/ Higgs/CT or no comment on the matter.
Fan with whistle is seen as the reason we drew game draws a comment in seconds.
I think that explains where we are at with Nick. No more words are needed.
Pretty sure it came from Les Reid at the Observer first.Not sure and not bothered as it's a none story whipped up mainly by the CT oddly.
All I recall is CCFC making noise and apportioning blame on the council before anything even got off the ground,
Fisher hinted the pitch invasion would damage a deal/talks. CRFC then issued a denial about any such thing. Here lays the problem with CCFC, totally awful management, not the fans.
you're actually the one bullshitting now.
There were whole threads devoted to calling fisher out, I started one of them.
I also called out the fuckwit who blew the whistle.
Some of us can think about two different hings at the same time, that also doesn't mean we give them parity of importance.
You could always try reading what I said.
I was referring to this sites esteemed admin and owner not the site in general.
I can't recall him mount mounting such a concerted tirade against Fisher as I did towards a pissed fan with a whistle.
My mistake, I've quoted the wrong post, in post 76 you said:You could always try reading what I said.
I was referring to this sites esteemed admin and owner not the site in general.
I can't recall him mount mounting such a concerted tirade against Fisher as I did towards a pissed fan with a whistle.
Ah, a stretched metaphor, you should perhaps warm up properly before you post. Still, makes a change from your usual straw man arguments I suppose.
Basically then, you've got one bloke who gets paid by Wasps and it's easy enough to understand why he supports them.
Fans like you supporting the deal with them is mystifying however - your hatred of SISU has blinded you to the obvious and you've done so many somersaults to try to justify it that you've just ended up with your panties in a fucking huge knot.
The only point you can ever make is that we've got shit owners - who here doesn't get that? Using it to disregard everything else that's been done to the club is just lazy one-eyed idiocy though, I'm afraid.
Duffer, you’ve taken a principled stance and said some pretty harsh things about those who disagree - stupid, immoral, lazy idiocy etc.
The Council flogged the stadium business to Wasps, who moved from the London area to Coventry, and as a result Coventry City lost any chance to have a stake in the venue which was built for them. It’s a no-brainer, you have to oppose it don’t you?
So I ask myself why in reality I didn’t (and can’t) oppose the move? And then I remember …
- Their fans didn’t mount any meaningful opposition. No marches to Twickenham, no questions in Parliament, no appeal to Sky Blues fans to help them – just a bit of angst on Twitter and a poorly-supported petition. There was never a cause to support, because they moved to a dormitory town for so long and their identity had been weakened too much.
- People who follow rugby around here seem to love what’s happened. They’ve brought top sport to the city, with all that entails including sponsors, and I really don’t see much controversy about it in the press or the sports world in general. Are they really all stupid and immoral, and is it right to criticise their enjoyment and success?
- Crucially, the Council didn’t have the ideal alternative of working constructively with the local football club. The inevitable consequence of turning Wasps away would have been, at great cost to the public purse, to submit to the demands of SISU – the very people everyone agrees are useless and impossible to deal with. What a huge call that would have been.
I think Councillors of all parties were pitched into a difficult moral and financial maze, and took the decisions they felt they had to take. Fair play to anyone who’s 100% certain they did the wrong thing, but at least respect the other ways of looking at it.
The current lease is rugby only, that is being changed (if it wasn't Cov Utd wouldn't be able to play there). The suggestion from the council was that as part of the change a clause was inserted to allow other uses but specify that professional football couldn't be played there.
Woman at work this morning saying her husband went to a fans forum for Coventry rugby club earlier this week and the chairman said they have agreements in place with a rugby league team, Coventry City Ladies FC and Spartans (aka Cov Utd, the poor mans franchise) to install an artificial pitch which all four teams can use but CCFC are definitely not involved and the whole land lease thing is so the rugby club can build shops on the site as a money spinner.
You could always try reading what I said.
I was referring to this sites esteemed admin and owner not the site in general.
I can't recall him mount mounting such a concerted tirade against Fisher as I did towards a pissed fan with a whistle.
What was the suggestion about specifically pro football about?Yes but it is an old clause. You suggested the council had an emergency meeting to make it to spite SISU.
It was an original clause inserted to protect the site for Coventry Rugby Club. Stop your spin mate, the situation is clouded enough.
Really? Have a look at the lengthy posts about chairman etc.
It wasn't just a fan with a whistle, you really should explain things fully.
Somebody who blew a whistle which then caused us to concede and not win a game. Strange that a football fan would be annoyed
It's almost like you want to justify it because Fisher talks rubbish.
What was the suggestion about specifically pro football about?
The clause in place doesn't allow any sport apart from rugby. There was a requirement to change it as part of CRFC purchasing the lease. When it became know CCFC were talking to CRFC about a groundshare CCC wanted to get the clause amended to forbid professional football.The clause was in place before SISU showed any interest. The poster suggests CCC implemented the clause once SISU showed an interest in the site. I know you hate incorrect facts and like balance so you owe me a like.
What was the clause in place and why did they suggest adding one specifically about pro football?Reply with something that makes sense.
The clause was in place before SISU showed any interest. The poster suggests CCC implemented the clause once SISU showed an interest in the site. I know you hate incorrect facts and like balance so you owe me a like.
I didn't bring it up did I?Why are you still flogging this dead horse Nick? Most of us have moved on. No player involved has said it affected them. Therefore no proof. Other bystanders perception is not proof, just conjecture.
The clause in place doesn't allow any sport apart from rugby. There was a requirement to change it as part of CRFC purchasing the lease. When it became know CCFC were talking to CRFC about a groundshare CCC wanted to get the clause amended to forbid professional football.
I didn't bring it up did I?
There was video proof, a player on his debut isn't going to come out and say that.
Aren't managers and senior players there for that? You will still be bleating about this at the end of the season.
As I said last week..ditch the whistles it is a really crap form of protest. But I am not convinced it cost us a goal. But the point is it could cost someone a goal and either way that would be wrong. The fact it pisses fans off is wrong. But poor defending cost us the goal.
But posting on the back of itAgain, you do realise I didn't bring it up don't you?
As you are you mean? What you should really do is make comment at it being brought up then rather than moan at me for replying to it, when you are also.But posting on the back of it
There's no such team as Coventry City Ladies FC.
exactlyIts Coventry City Girls. 1st Team - Coventry City Girls FC Official Website
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?