The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
I take it by your last line then that you do believe them?
By all means don't accept their word I won't force you too.
Well they said they'd move us out of the Ricoh and guess what........
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So what did you expect to happen in nearly 12 months? I am a building surveyor and know how long these things can take but to not even speak to a local council with serious discussions is all the proof you need. If they were serious then I would have expected a serious discussion with a council, a land purchase (you know what you want and need so therefore easily identified), full plans drawn and submitted for planning permission and more accurate costs based on the build and what infrastructure is going to be needed. Don't forget we only have a time frame of 3-5 years and nearly 1 year in and nothing, people will be taking notice.
Well you beat me too it.
I was going to bet that someone would get their arse in their hand and slag off some other posters, without them even having posted, instead of just focusing on their own opinion. :facepalm:
The only thing here on the Sphinx thing though Michael, is that many, many people will say Coventry Sphinx are not our club. A new AFC Coventry would be.
I must admit I hoped land would be purchased in the first season at the very least.
So in your professional opinion how long should this take?
Know what you mean Otis but part of the reality check is - the deadline for setting up an AFC for the 2014/15 season has now passed; anyone can phone ACL and ask if they want an AFC playing at the Ricoh so people on here could do that but the only response I'm aware of is 'yes, on a commercial basis'; setting up an AFC while CCFC still exists is only supported by a minority of fans. Working with Sphinx is not about seeing them as an AFC or alternative to CCFC - it provides a focus for doing something positive for football in Coventry (it would be really nice if we could help them get the funding to improve facilities so they could get promoted - at least one positive would then have come out of the CCFC mess) and I just enjoy meeting a couple of mates, taking just 10 mins to get there, having a drink and seeing a fairly decent level of football.
where am i slagging them off just mentioned the obvious. and my opinion is well known
You wonder how many it times it has to be stated before people understand.. The owners of CCFC will not bring the Club back to the Ricoh under the tenancy agreement with the landlord being ACL.
It's not a Pro-Sisu or Pro-ACL argument but considering we are in Northampton with no likely looking return, coupled with the statements on the subject coming out of CCFC regarding no return as tenant then really it would seem pretty obvious.
Michael you're regurgitating an option which the Football Club have previously stated is not an option.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I take it by your last line then that you do believe them?
Know what you mean Otis but part of the reality check is - the deadline for setting up an AFC for the 2014/15 season has now passed; anyone can phone ACL and ask if they want an AFC playing at the Ricoh so people on here could do that but the only response I'm aware of is 'yes, on a commercial basis'; setting up an AFC while CCFC still exists is only supported by a minority of fans. Working with Sphinx is not about seeing them as an AFC or alternative to CCFC - it provides a focus for doing something positive for football in Coventry (it would be really nice if we could help them get the funding to improve facilities so they could get promoted - at least one positive would then have come out of the CCFC mess) and I just enjoy meeting a couple of mates, taking just 10 mins to get there, having a drink and seeing a fairly decent level of football.
Do you mean just a land purchase or the whole package?
but it bloody well should be an option because it's quite clearly the best option available (other than perhaps buying ACL), the club and acl being together is the ideal solution however though if buying acl involves borrowing say 10 extra million from arvo at 10% interest then that is quite possibly worse than the renting option, but either way 1 of these 2 are the only good options.
For some reason you seem to think we should be criticising people who suggest renting because the club have said no to it and therefore it's unworkable, you've got it completely backwards. WE SHOULD BE CRITICISING SISU FOR SAYING NO TO A FANTASTIC RENTAL DEAL!!! Sorry to shout but it's necessary. The problem isn't with people suggesting we take the best option the problem is with the club not being willing to take the best option, while slowly strangling the club.
we shouldn't say oh the club have said no well thats that then, we should be demanding to know why the club is saying no when its clearly in the clubs best interests to take it.
Latest kcic mailout -
Time for plain speaking
- sisu are now claiming CCFC were ‘Frogmarched’ out of Highfield Road
- the truth is CCFC sold HR despite not having a new ground to move to
- listen to the interview for yourself at http://tinyurl.com/npu84zg
- with sisu now openly reinventing history it’s time for a reality check and some plain speaking
- We could be back at the Ricoh tomorrow on the most recent rental offer which would be good for the team, good for the fans and better financially than playing at Northampton Town FC
- There is not a scrap of evidence to suggest the ‘new ground’ is anything but a smokescreen – a feasible site has not been identified, no land has been purchased, no planning application has been submitted, not even a serious discussion with a local council
- There seems to be only one rational explanation for sisu’s actions - they want ownership of the Ricoh, and they want it on the cheap
- No realistic way forward is offered by those whose main interest is being pro/anti acl/sisu, those who advocate the currently unachievable ‘AFC’ option and those who call for disrupting matches (what would SP say to that!)
So kcic will continue to
- be pro team and pro fans
- boycott City games at Northampton Town FC as without a shadow of a doubt the boycott has attracted most attention and support for our plight
- support football in Coventry by working with Coventry Sphinx, the senior team now playing in the City
- promote the epetition at www.FixFootball.co.uk to call to account all those responsible for the mess we are in
- shortly undertake a fan survey on what to do next season
And we’ll continue to call things just as we see them…
Noggin we have discussed this topic in it's entirety numerous of times and we have both agreed that CCFC should purchase 50% or 100% of ACL, there is no reason why this shouldn't be an option and I even laid this out perfectly recently on another thread.
The problem being is, neither you, I or anyone else are involved in the dealings of Sisu or the Football club and therefore can have no say on the matter or suggest otherwise. Now while the Club are saying they won't return to the Ricoh despite it being a very good deal, there is no need to continue dragging it up, CCFC wanted a rent deal surel they'd of taken it, so why the need to bring it up at every opportunity when the need for it ISN'T THERE!!!
Robo you are wrong, the need is clearly there for all to see, rental deal at Sixfields or rental deal at Ricoh? The club need to be playing at the Ricoh. If Sisu do plan to build a new stadium then why not rent the Ricoh whilst the new stadium is built. You say if Sisu wanted a rental deal they would have taken it, they did want one but unfortunately it was at Sixfields.
Noggin we have discussed this topic in it's entirety numerous of times and we have both agreed that CCFC should purchase 50% or 100% of ACL, there is no reason why this shouldn't be an option and I even laid this out perfectly recently on another thread.
The problem being is, neither you, I or anyone else are involved in the dealings of Sisu or the Football club and therefore can have no say on the matter or suggest otherwise. Now while the Club are saying they won't return to the Ricoh despite it being a very good deal, there is no need to continue dragging it up, CCFC wanted a rent deal surel they'd of taken it, so why the need to bring it up at every opportunity when the need for it ISN'T THERE!!!
Lets just say I am cautious based on some of their previous actions.
The whole package.. Obviously it can differ on every situation, but an average would be acceptable.
Gent, the Club does need to be playing at the Ricoh I agree with you but the Club does not want to be a tenant for ACL. Now they have taken a deal at Sixfields simply because they did not want to rent at the Ricoh and wanted to build their own Stadium or purchase the Ricoh. Question is why did ACL reject that three year run off period that the Club went to ACL with while they built their new Stadium?
There is no need to continue to drag it up, FACT is that CCFC don't want to be a tenant of ACL, of whom is the landlord at the Ricoh, A + B = C meaning that the Club will not return to the Ricoh under that agreement, now we can all discuss what we have been told is not going to happen until we are all blue in the face or we can look at other options and see if they're viable.
Gent, the Club does need to be playing at the Ricoh I agree with you but the Club does not want to be a tenant for ACL. Now they have taken a deal at Sixfields simply because they did not want to rent at the Ricoh and wanted to build their own Stadium or purchase the Ricoh. Question is why did ACL reject that three year run off period that the Club went to ACL with while they built their new Stadium?
There is no need to continue to drag it up, FACT is that CCFC don't want to be a tenant of ACL, of whom is the landlord at the Ricoh, A + B = C meaning that the Club will not return to the Ricoh under that agreement, now we can all discuss what we have been told is not going to happen until we are all blue in the face or we can look at other options and see if they're viable.
Thanks mate but I just fundamentally disagree, I don't think we should stop bringing it up because the club have said it isn't an option, quite honestly I feel the complete opposite, I don't think Labovitch or Fisher should have a single interview where someone doesn't demand to know why we are paying rent in sixfields with 2k crowds rather than taking up the costs rent deal at the ricoh. When in every way the later is the better option weather or not they plan to build their own stadium.
We need to keep bringing it up because the directors of Otium are not as they are required to do by law acting in the best interests of Otium (and thus ccfc) they are acting in the best interests of sisu. It is in every way in the interests of Otium(ccfc) to take the free rent deal at the ricoh and that is the case weather or not the costs are a bit inflated.
But with ACL offering the latest rental deal does that not give CCFC the 3 year period they wanted, if ACL asked for a 10 year rental agreement then the club should have snapped their hand off because as I have said in my other post to you, that is how long it is likely to take for the new stadium (not that it will ever be built). Unlike the constant dragging up of the original rental deal that seems to happen from time to time, the FACT is that it needs to be constantly dragged up because at present and for the foreseeable future it is the only viable option for CCFC (rather than playing at Sixfields) other than if Sisu stop pissing about and get serious about buying the Ricoh and start to make the right approaches (because it is their responsibility at the end of the day).
I have highlighted something at which point might be prudent, it's not about the finances why CCFC are not back at the Ricoh, it's because of the animosity between Sisu and ACL/CCC.
The whole package does differ wildly for each case but some things are similar and do apply. To identify land is fairly easy because you know exactly what you want in terms of size. Location doesn't appear to bother Sisu so that is a hurdle to easily overcome too. To identify a site, have serious discussions with relevant local council and make an offer on land should only take 1-2 months. Land purchase shouldn't take much longer but ours is slightly different in that because it is not likely to be in the city boundary then lots of other problems are thrown up such as conservation areas, greenbelt, planning, resident objections, infrastructure, ground conditions due to topography and impermeability of the ground and potential effect on surrounding areas, potential cost to local business such as farms etc and the need for something that an adjacent city already has. To look at our situation then you could be looking at the Shrewsbury model in terms of time frame and that was 8-9 years at least. This is all my opinion of course but I always thought that the first prediction of 3 years was more disney than reality and even 5 years is extremely hopeful at best.
I have highlighted something at which point might be prudent, it's not about the finances why CCFC are not back at the Ricoh, it's because of the animosity between Sisu and ACL/CCC.
I don't believe that, out of everyone ACL have the biggest reason to hate yet they have still offered up an excellent rent deal because they are desperate and that is best for themselves even if they are losing greatly to sisu. I don't believe for a second that Joy whose hardly ever even met with the council or acl would hurt herself and her investors to the tune of millions of pounds a year because she doesn't like the council.They are meant to be hard nosed business people, not even mardy children behave that way for more than a few minutes.
The only thing that makes sense is somehow this is part of the plan with the JR.
As I said below:
I never said once in this thread that any deal from ACL is bad, actually quite the opposite, but like I have also said recently, it's not as simple as the finances, when I say CCFC don't want to be a tenant under the landlord under ACL it is because Sisu don't trust ACL/CCC, they have said this themselves, would you work with someone you don't trust?
It is in my suspicion that is only the reason the JR exists, but the problem I have is I can't figure out to what end.
I don't think we should stop bringing it up because the club have said it isn't an option, quite honestly I feel the complete opposite
Ok, perhaps slagging off was a bit strong, and for that I apologise.
I guess what i was trying to convey was why dont you let them disagree first before you start stating that they will disagreed. You are pre-empting their opinion before they have given it.
their opinion is as well known as mine if i say one thing they will disagree because its me
their opinion is as well known as mine if i say one thing they will disagree because its me
Michael I wouldn't say it was CCFC who wanted to move out of HR I would say it was Bryan Richardson. He was the one with the "vision" and the one we can thank for the soulless Ricoh disaster. We should never have left.
Agree with a lot of what you say until the limp ending of "shortly undertake a fan survey..." And then what? Have a meeting and discuss the results? I'm please you've finally dropped any ambiguity and are now solely blaming everything on SISU. At least there's some honesty now.
It doesn't blame everything on sisu.
Survey will be about strategy - I know what I think should happen but am interested to see what larger numbers think.
Here's a challenge:
My suggestion for how we get back to the Ricoh is - sisu pick up the phone and say 'we accept the latest rental offer' (because it's better for the team, better for the fans, and financially better than playing at NTFC), we move back to the Ricoh and then as much time as is needed can be taken to reach a long-term agreement.
If you disagree with my suggestion then I'd be really interested to hear an equally concise sentence stating your view as to how we get back to the Ricoh.
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?