letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
They must have seen those drawings on the back of a dirty napkin.
They must have seen those drawings on the back of a dirty napkin.Simon,
if you are still on here,
I am sure I remember that the Football League said, just before the return to the Ricoh, that they were satisfied with the evidence that they had seen of progress on the new stadium. Could they be reminded of this, as they are the ones who could most easily have stopped the whole mess of the last 2 years.
What evidence could they have possibly seen, if there is none? Or were they just taking what they though would be the path of least resistance?
They must have seen those drawings on the back of a dirty napkin.
No don't try to put words in my mouth, what I'm saying is that due to 'commercial sensitivity' they wouldn't receive a comment one way or the other. They're not obliged to, it all depends on how the question they asked was phrased!
Agree on that. Although I live over that way it wouldn't be right for CCFC to be over here.
Shame that not all people in Cov take the same view about RFC Franchise Wasps.
Shame that not all people in Cov take the same view about RFC Franchise Wasps.
Maybe we should send a FOI request to Sandra Garlick - she seems to know where it is
But if they cannot comment for commercial reasons but the answer is "yes" - how are they supposed to reply?
They cannot say "no comment" because that leads to speculation why they did not say "no"
Good point. I wonder if the Coventry and Warwickshire chamber of commerce are covered by FOI law?
Just because you believe everything you read in the CT, nothing to get out of by the way.
Anticipation is the key word, watch & wait!!!!!!!
Sensible solution is for the trust to approach the dean and ask him to approach fisher and waggott for the information and if he is satisfied accept his word
Granted - it's pretty similar, but there are a couple more organisations on the list now our FOIs have been included - Environment Agency and Dept for Culture, Media and Sport.
We have been submitting regular FOIs, and I believe the Trust have adopted a similar strategy. We ran a similar story last year.
About time for an update - and not everyone reads SBT. They should, but they don't.
That's the beauty of the FOI Act for us journalists.
This is how Nuneaton and Bedworth chose to respond last time: “From time to time the planning service receives confidential consultations on draft proposals prior to the receipt of formal planning applications. Often these enquiries do not reach formal planning application stage.“Except where it is in the public interest to do so, the service neither confirms nor denies the existence of such enquiries.
“This should not be taken as an indication that any particular enquiry has or has not been received.”
The FOI request eventually forced them to confirm they had held talks with the club, but they were at a very early stage and nothing came of them.
Coun Harvey said: “As per our previous statement, the council’s policy, along with data protection laws, mean that we never confirm or deny speculation on conversations that may or may not have taken place between officers and third parties.
“However, in this instance the third party developer has released information that has enabled the media to deduce through a process of elimination that we have been approached.“Under those circumstances I can confirm that an enquiry has been made by a developer to council officers, however this was of a very speculative nature and at an early stage.
“Since that initial exploratory contact we have received no further approach and we are therefore not considering any proposal for any particular location.”
Was there an FOI about the Wasps deal? What does 6 to 12 months mean? Either it was being discussed 12 months before or it was being discussed 6 months before. Or was it discussed between 12 and 6 months before and then nothing happened for 6 months? Make your mind up o knowledgeable one.
But it was not the FOI request that led to the disclosure but the developer doing so which meant the matter was no longer confidential
They're not.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But it was not the FOI request that led to the disclosure but the developer doing so which meant the matter was no longer confidential
Very nice. People forget that CCC did help CCFC to finish the Ricoh. Just a shame that a hedge fund then tried to weaken the company that the council set up to finish the project and get it on the very cheap. If they had been decent they could have got it just cheaply. Still good job they (SISU) weren't interested in it anyway. Bring on the new ground timmyboy ...Nice to hear a council is helping out its local football club though, isn't it?
WASPS first showed interest 2 years before the deal
Very nice. People forget that CCC did help CCFC to finish the Ricoh. Just a shame that a hedge fund then tried to weaken the company that the council set up to finish the project and get it on the very cheap. If they had been decent they could have got it just cheaply. Still good job they (SISU) weren't interested in it anyway. Bring on the new ground timmyboy ...
Of course if the caring council and Higgs didn't charge us £1.2m a year in rent we might never had needed to be 'rescued' by SISU.
Yes they should not have bothered taking over the stadium and left us homeless :facepalm:
Where did I say they should have done that? Pretty much any other solution anyone can think of would have been better for CCFC. CCC could have lent the club the few million they actually put in themselves so we would have retained full ownership. They could have given us a rent to buy deal. All sorts of options that didn't leave the football club paying for everything but getting nothing.
Pssst, option to buy back Highfield Road
Where did I say they should have done that? Pretty much any other solution anyone can think of would have been better for CCFC. CCC could have lent the club the few million they actually put in themselves so we would have retained full ownership. They could have given us a rent to buy deal. All sorts of options that didn't leave the football club paying for everything but getting nothing.
Where did I say they should have done that? Pretty much any other solution anyone can think of would have been better for CCFC. CCC could have lent the club the few million they actually put in themselves so we would have retained full ownership. They could have given us a rent to buy deal. All sorts of options that didn't leave the football club paying for everything but getting nothing.
They did
Where did I say they should have done that? Pretty much any other solution anyone can think of would have been better for CCFC. CCC could have lent the club the few million they actually put in themselves so we would have retained full ownership. They could have given us a rent to buy deal. All sorts of options that didn't leave the football club paying for everything but getting nothing.
Pssst, option to buy back Highfield Road
I think he meant that we paid rent and it was ours after x amount of time. Wasn't it a rental deal but had to buy it on top?
A bit like they have lent WASPS £14m ( £13m ? )
Of course if the caring council and Higgs didn't charge us £1.2m a year in rent we might never had needed to be 'rescued' by SISU.
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?