Tims latest missif (2 Viewers)

[dongonzalos]

Yeah, you hate sisu and are then extremely negative of everything the club do. I can can differentiate between sisu and the club, many can't.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Oops you clearly didn't read my post on positive things about SISU,
Posted well before this little debate.
I suggest you have a Little read.
I would say my post was probably the most positive post about SISU at that point.
I just say it as it is Stu, as oppose to you, where your biased stops you to seeing anything other than the view that the council and wasps are out to get us.

 

---

[fernandopartridge]

Well Tim has failed on this one too according to Simon Gilbert.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/wasps-plan-redevelop-home-coventry-11831656

You sound gleeful

 

[duffer]

An agreement to share facilities isn't anything to do with planning.

Let's be careful that opinion doesn't trump facts here. Sport England are a statutory consultee for this kind of development. This means that the council are legally obliged to take into account their comments with regard to awarding planning permission.

https://www.sportengland.org/facili...ent/planning-applications/playing-field-land/

An agreement to share facilities, or evidence that the academy is still viable at the Higgs centre is likely to be key to Sport England's considerations, and therefore has everything to do with planning.

The council can't hide behind the "we don't want to talk to CCFC until they pay us £325k" on this one I'm afraid, they'll need to come up with the further information requested by Sport England.

If anyone but SISU owned CCFC, most people would be outraged that the Council was seemingly trying to subvert due process here by not answering the questions posed by the club and ignoring Sport England. But hey, anything to get one over the owners, eh.

 

[dongonzalos]

Let's be careful that opinion doesn't trump facts here. Sport England are a statutory consultee for this kind of development. This means that the council are legally obliged to take into account their comments with regard to awarding planning permission.

https://www.sportengland.org/facili...ent/planning-applications/playing-field-land/

An agreement to share facilities, or evidence that the academy is still viable at the Higgs centre is likely to be key to Sport England's considerations, and therefore has everything to do with planning.

The council can't hide behind the "we don't want to talk to CCFC until they pay us £325k" on this one I'm afraid, they'll need to come up with the further information requested by Sport England.

If anyone but SISU owned CCFC, most people would be outraged that the Council was seemingly trying to subvert due process here by not answering the questions posed by the club and ignoring Sport England. But hey, anything to get one over the owners, eh.

Sport England will be at the talks
Hopefully when people are altogether talking face to face this will get sorted.
Much better way of sorting it than these letters.

 

[skybluebeduff]

You sound gleeful

You expected something different from Tim? Can you name anything he's ever done right for this club?
How is it possible to sound gleeful from these words "Well Tim has failed on this one too according to Simon Gilbert."?
:yawn:

 

[stupot07]

Oops you clearly didn't read my post on positive things about SISU,
Posted well before this little debate.
I suggest you have a Little read.
I would say my post was probably the most positive post about SISU at that point.
I just say it as it is Stu, as oppose to you, where your biased stops you to seeing anything other than the view that the council and wasps are out to get us.

Ah, the old "you're hatred of wasps....."

SBT bingo, where do I claim my prize. Its your go to, when you know you're wrong

I blame sisu, but I also can see when other parties are doing wrong, never seen you say one bad thing about wasps or the council or CSF or Higgs. You're too proud of them.

Why haven't wasps sent the stuff to sport England yet? Its been a month, what's the hold up?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Raggs]

How exactly are Sport England expected to force the Higgs centre to renew CCFC's preferential booking arrangement (let's not even talk about a tenancy)?

Sport England have to be consulted because playing fields are being removed. They need to decide if usage of the new facilities will be beneficial overall (or at least not negative) compared to current usage. They will consider it from the point of view of the public, and seeing as CCFC are now effectively less than a short term tenant, I doubt the academy will be that big of a consideration. They will not be in CCFC's corner as such.

This letter, and the previous ones, all seem to have a tone that CCFC are a long term sitting tenant, with 10 years left on a contract, or a partial owner in the facility, rather than a group with 9 months or so of getting preferential booking treatment. How are the other groups going to accommodate them etc etc, whereas the current facts are that they will be out of the place at the end of this season. No one can force Higgs or Wasps to accommodate them, and Sport Englands prerogative is about usage for the whole of Coventry (public etc) and not the football club. Yes they have the right to deny it, but I don't see why any communication between Sport England and Wasps should be made public to CCFC? Surely the only significant part that needs to be published with regards to planning is the final decision (which would probably come with backing documents.

 

[stupot07]

Raggs the wasps fan off drunken wasps?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[dongonzalos]

Ah, the old "you're hatred of wasps....."

SBT bingo, where do I claim my prize. Its your go to, when you know you're wrong


Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Sorry struggling to find your answer to could those points in the letter be made without the sarcasm, also would have it been better if it was missing the sarcasm?

Did you have a read of my post praising SISU well before you saying how anti I am about them and extremely negative about them and the club?

I am struggling to find anything remotely positive you have ever posted about Wasps or CCC.
I am sure I am just not looking hard enough with such a balanced unbiased man like yourself

 

[stupot07]

Sorry struggling to find your answer to could those points in the letter be made without the sarcasm, also would have it been better if it was missing the sarcasm?

Did you have a read of my post praising SISU well before you saying how anti I am about them and extremely negative about them and the club?

I am struggling to find anything remotely positive you have ever posted about Wasps or CCC.
I am sure I am just not looking hard enough with such a balanced unbiased man like yourself

The onkt positive thing i habe to say about wasps is they are masters of spin and PR, the council do lots of good things in the city, doesn't mean helping screw ccfc is one of them.

No I hadn't seen the post, well done, take a bow.

Yes, there was a hint of sarcasm, it doesn't really bother me, and it shouldnt bother the planning officer, unless they have something to hide.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[dongonzalos]

The onkt positive thing i habe to say about wasps is they are masters of spin and PR, the council do lots of good things in the city, doesn't mean helping screw ccfc is one of them.

No I hadn't seen the post, well done, take a bow.

Yes, there was a hint of sarcasm, it doesn't really bother me, and it shouldnt bother the planning officer, unless they have something to hide.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

But 'as a cov fan' I am sure you should understand that the negotiations are vital. So 'as a Cov fan' I am surprised you are surprised that any 'Cov Fan' doesn't point out that the tone of the letter could and should have been better. Also that 'any cov fan' would rather we just get on with arranging it rather then writing about it.

But then we always have stu

Oh and I don't need praise for praising SISU. Just pointing it out to highlight to you the bollox you are speaking and the irony.

 

[Grendel]

How exactly are Sport England expected to force the Higgs centre to renew CCFC's preferential booking arrangement (let's not even talk about a tenancy)?

Sport England have to be consulted because playing fields are being removed. They need to decide if usage of the new facilities will be beneficial overall (or at least not negative) compared to current usage. They will consider it from the point of view of the public, and seeing as CCFC are now effectively less than a short term tenant, I doubt the academy will be that big of a consideration. They will not be in CCFC's corner as such.

This letter, and the previous ones, all seem to have a tone that CCFC are a long term sitting tenant, with 10 years left on a contract, or a partial owner in the facility, rather than a group with 9 months or so of getting preferential booking treatment. How are the other groups going to accommodate them etc etc, whereas the current facts are that they will be out of the place at the end of this season. No one can force Higgs or Wasps to accommodate them, and Sport Englands prerogative is about usage for the whole of Coventry (public etc) and not the football club. Yes they have the right to deny it, but I don't see why any communication between Sport England and Wasps should be made public to CCFC? Surely the only significant part that needs to be published with regards to planning is the final decision (which would probably come with backing documents.

I've read none of your shite. Fuck off back to London where you belong.

 

[TheRoyalScam]

I've read none of your shite. Fuck off back to London where you belong.

As eloquent and reasoned as ever!

 

[stupot07]

But 'as a cov fan' I am sure you should understand that the negotiations are vital. So 'as a Cov fan' I am surprised you are surprised that any 'Cov Fan' doesn't point out that the tone of the letter could and should have been better. Also that 'any cov fan' would rather we just get on with arranging it rather then writing about it.

But then we always have stu

Oh and I don't need praise for praising SISU. Just pointing it out to highlight to you the bollox you are speaking and the irony.

Yes, negotiations will happen, hopefully the week beginning the 19th September, in an open and transparent process with Sport England, FL and FA present along with ccfc, CSF, wasps and the council.

This way it gives ccfc, wasps and CSF little wriggle room to go back on any arrangements and we know (as the FL and FA are present) that they meet cat 2 status.

In the meantime the club are right to challenge the planning process, and that means putting it in writing, I really don't care about the tone of the letter, as it won't impact on negotiations.

Right I'm leaving it there now and not responding any further.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[albatross]

It is unlikely likely that negotiations will start until both the Government and Sports England have made a ruling. The Govt have already made their stance known. Tim's private / public email is just an attempt to shake the tree as it is clear that they are currently outside any discussion between the parties that are making a decision, CCFC being only a short term tenant.

I fully expect that Sports England will look at the impact of sports facilities across the city, consider all sports and participation opportunities and will then offer no objection as with the plans for the AHC there seems to be at least a vision for development, improvement inclusion and an olympic sized pool given that there are only two I believe in the midlands Coventry and Birmingham university (not counting Loughborough or corby) and the high profile of swimming given the olympics, the well documented health benefits and lack of world class facilities.

when promoting the overall city wide agenda of a city that on paper is pursuing a cross sport agenda that promotes multi sports interest / participation / public access to new facilities its difficult to argue that is does not outweigh a single issue agenda pursued by the football club which really is in the sole interest of the football club.

I believe TF's latest strategy will leave the club with no cards (other than court action) to play going forward.

 

[skybluetony176]

You expected something different from Tim? Can you name anything he's ever done right for this club?
How is it possible to sound gleeful from these words "Well Tim has failed on this one too according to Simon Gilbert."?
:yawn:

I'll give credit where credit is due and this letter is bang on. I also agree with Duffers comments above. This is the fight I wanted to see from the club and why I was so disappointed with Tim performance at the planning meeting but the letter like I say is bang on and probably the first thing IMO that TF has got right for the club but I'm not going to rob him of that praise.

 

[Hobo]

I've read none of your shite. Fuck off back to London where you belong.

Perhaps you should he makes a couple of interesting points.

 

[Hobo]

It is not being blocked by the Government. Just announced.

 

[sbadey]

Serious question here? Is the new pool facility at the waterpark for public recreation use, and the higgs centre pool intended for serious competition training?

Sent from my Versus TouchPad 9 using Tapatalk

 

[Nick]

Serious question here? Is the new pool facility at the waterpark for public recreation use, and the higgs centre pool intended for serious competition training?

Sent from my Versus TouchPad 9 using Tapatalk

I think it is open to the public, but it is going to be an Olympic Pool rather than one you take your kids for a mess about in!

 

[italiahorse]

People keep going on about the way forward document, maybe we should just refer to wasps wanting to stay in London every time the academy is mentioned?

It's as if it's a method to divert.

Could refer back to the council conditions of sale too?

It's still on the web site so I assume it's still current ?
Mind you the whole web site seems out of date, as I found out trying to get up to speed on our players.

 

[italiahorse]

Yeah, you hate sisu and are then extremely negative of everything the club do. I can can differentiate between sisu and the club, many can't.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

The club is controlled by Sisu. Tim Fisher seems firmly in the Sisu camp.
It's difficult.

 

[Hobo]

Like

I think it is open to the public, but it is going to be an Olympic Pool rather than one you take your kids for a mess about in!

Like we had at Coventry baths when I was growing up an Olympic size pool? It was what I learnt to swim in.

 

[Nick]

Like

Like we had at Coventry baths when I was growing up an Olympic size pool? It was what I learnt to swim in.

Yeah, I just meant for "social" rather than actually learning to swim or swimming up and down.

 

[Hobo]

Yeah, I just meant for "social" rather than actually learning to swim or swimming up and down.

Yes you could do that as well.

 

[chiefdave]

There's a 25m pool at the new one in town. When it was first talked about shutting Fairfax St the council claimed we didn't need a 50m pool and it wasn't down to Coventry to supply training facilities for the whole of the West Midlands.

Can't imagine the Higgs one will be closed off to the public as they're using public money to build it. If needed they'll probably just close off a couple of lanes.

 

[Nick]

Yes you could do that as well.

It might have just been different since the splashpool has been in town

Not saying they won't let people in to mess about, but if they were going for "fun swimming" they would use the one with slides etc.

 

[sbadey]

It might have just been different since the splashpool has been in town

Not saying they won't let people in to mess about, but if they were going for "fun swimming" they would use the one with slides etc.

Wonder if there will be a dedicated diving pool like cov baths used to have, I was taught to dive there as a youngster and achieved many county medals

Sent from my Versus TouchPad 9 using Tapatalk

 

[Grendel]

The 50 metre pool is an abject waste of taxpayers money. I believe the current figure quoted is £10 million and it will lose money every week.

It's a joke with no commercial value at all.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Sadly I cant help thinking that the release of these letters is to be able to say to the fans we tried. The retention of the Cat 2 Academy is not so much a planning issue but one of logistics, flexibility and finance in my opinion. Plus commitment

 

[Captain Dart]

The usual openness & standard of integrity from SISU applies.

 

[duffer]

Sadly I cant help thinking that the release of these letters is to be able to say to the fans we tried. The retention of the Cat 2 Academy is not so much a planning issue but one of logistics, flexibility and finance in my opinion. Plus commitment

Yep, I think that's a legitimate concern OSB. Personally I get the impression that all sides are playing this game to a greater or lesser degree. However it is the council that need to come up with something that satisifies Sport England, and it's fair enough for other parties to point that out.

Having said that, I've no doubt that eventually the planning goes through regardless. It's probably just a bit more for SISU's lawyers to drag up in court at some later point in time...

 

[oldskyblue58]

I think the Sports England aspect is being over played. My understanding, and I might be wrong, is that they are concerned that the overall sporting offer of the City of Coventry is not diminished. Not whether a professional club has been negatively affected by a decision of a sports venue supplier (be it CCC or CSF) to go in a different direction. I would not think that it would be that hard to argue that there is a greater diversification of sport on offer. With the development of Warwick Uni is there any less pitches in total for instance?

Now the Secretary of State hasn't called the planning in I suspect Sports England will be onside with the proposal quite soon. Somehow cant see them going contrary to the decisions taken already. Also it is quite normal for CSF and CCC to work closely with Sports England so I wouldn't take no news from that side to necessarily be a problem.

Going back to the TF letters - I cant help thinking that the professional planning advice they would have got would have given them the expected outcomes as far as Sec of State and Sports England were concerned. So the purpose of making such a letter public, especially when they have chosen before to be private on nearly all matters, was?

Then it is pretty much down to the club to do a deal that retains its Cat 2 status or not - but they need to form positive relationships (which must be reciprocated by the other parties) to achieve it if they do. The best they can hope for is that they are not over charged because no one it seems is likely to do them any favours. That is if the Academy is still financially viable for the owners

 

[Captain Dart]

@oldskyblue58 & @duffer

My gut feeling was always that SISU want to close the academy to reduce overheads/cashflow/risk and they they are moving to bringing in scouted players from various sources. e.g.non-league, ex-premier academy and other local academies like SFF etc. As OSB implies out the open letters are really only PR to show 'effort', but you notice they all have conditions or blame towards other parties attached. If any real resolution was sought I think this would be happening in private.

 

[duffer]

I think the Sports England aspect is being over played. My understanding, and I might be wrong, is that they are concerned that the overall sporting offer of the City of Coventry is not diminished. Not whether a professional club has been negatively affected by a decision of a sports venue supplier (be it CCC or CSF) to go in a different direction. I would not think that it would be that hard to argue that there is a greater diversification of sport on offer. With the development of Warwick Uni is there any less pitches in total for instance?

Now the Secretary of State hasn't called the planning in I suspect Sports England will be onside with the proposal quite soon. Somehow cant see them going contrary to the decisions taken already. Also it is quite normal for CSF and CCC to work closely with Sports England so I wouldn't take no news from that side to necessarily be a problem.

Going back to the TF letters - I cant help thinking that the professional planning advice they would have got would have given them the expected outcomes as far as Sec of State and Sports England were concerned. So the purpose of making such a letter public, especially when they have chosen before to be private on nearly all matters, was?

Then it is pretty much down to the club to do a deal that retains its Cat 2 status or not - but they need to form positive relationships (which must be reciprocated by the other parties) to achieve it if they do. The best they can hope for is that they are not over charged because no one it seems is likely to do them any favours. That is if the Academy is still financially viable for the owners

In truth, I think there's more to Sport England than we're perhaps giving them credit for. Again going back to that link they've got a wide brief, and as statutory consultees the council can't ignore them. The point of referring to Sec of State is (as I understand it) related to the development of green belt land and whether that's contentious; the point of Sport England is to determine whether proposed developments will have a negative impact on the provision of sport overall. Sec of State not getting involved doesn't necessarily mean that Sport England won't.

https://www.sportengland.org/facili...ent/planning-applications/playing-field-land/

One phrase that caught my eye was this...

"Sport England may still object to an application if the application is on a site which is of special significance to the interests of sport in the locality. This may include sites that accommodate the highest level of competitive play within an area and/or are well established as a focal point for sports development activities that cannot be easily transferred to an alternative site."

and...

"Is the proposed facility supported by the existing and potential future users of the site e.g. local sports clubs?"

I still think it goes through, but I also don't see any reason for TF not to make the letter public. It highlights how the council have avoided a key piece of the planning requirements up until now, and it's clearly in the club's interests to prevent PP going through if at all possible. PP is a public process, why shouldn't the club highlight their concerns? The easiest way to call Fisher's bluff is to answer the questions and get the various meetings going.