To Stay or Go (2 Viewers)

[Otis]

Why would be attractive to an investor? We are just a name and a golden share. We don't have anything tangible that would want to make anyone want to pump in a ton of money, have we?

I still think the ultimate goal would be the Ricoh and especially the land surrounding it. A lot of money to be made there and if you recall, the supposed Chinese lot wanted the rail links and the surrounding land.

Everything is rosy in the Wasps garden at the moment, but let's see what happens once the sheen wears off and the novelty factor has gone. I know for sure that some people have been up who don't even like rugby, just to give it a go as a one off.

Nothing is unmovable.

 

---

[cloughie]

who is to say the owners of said stadium will not retain all match day revenues as CCFC will only be renting the place. What would be different?

 

[stupot07]

who is to say the owners of said stadium will not retain all match day revenues as CCFC will only be renting the place. What would be different?

Who's to say the owner of said stadium will retain all matchday revenues?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Otis]

Who's to say the owner of said stadium will retain all matchday revenues?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

As with most stuff on this site, it comes down to guesses and personal opinions and very little fact.

We can't take anything Wasps say, or CCC say or CCFC say, as anything like gospel and we have no idea if a stadium would ever be built, where it would be built and how the rental system of that new stadium would work.

Everything is just guesses for the most part.

Can't see anything remaining in stone forever, myself and either CCFC, or CCC or Wasps may well possibly move from their positions at some point, especially the council, with their no land available stance. Who knows!

Let's all just concentrate on getting the product right on the pitch for now, rather than worrying about something 5 years down the line that might never ever happen.

 

[tommydazzle]

If we stay it will be trouble and if we go it will be double......

 

[The Gentleman]

Who's to say the owner of said stadium will retain all matchday revenues?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

I wanna play this game!

Who's to say there is a said stadium?

 

[Otis]

You know, there is one thing I really, really want to happen and that is if a new stadium was ever granted in Coventry in the future, that the city boundary gets re-drawn and that the Ricoh Arena is made to be just one millimetre outside the city limits, so we can proudly say Wasps are no longer in Coventry.

 

[stupot07]

I wanna play this game!

Who's to say there is a said stadium?

Who's to say there isn't a said stadium?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[cloughie]

Who's to say the owner of said stadium will retain all matchday revenues?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

It's sisu we are talking about. I will let you trust them not to grab what they can.

I wouldn't on past history

 

[ccfcway]

How do you know there aren't discussions taking place?

just like discussions for the news stadium ?

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

It's sisu we are talking about. I will let you trust them not to grab what they can.

I wouldn't on past history

Its a fair point, you're right to be sceptical.

Firstly, and this may be hard to believe. I don't think SISU want us to be shit, and taking all the revenues from a new stadium would work against that aim.

Secondly we're (or at least I am) pretty certain we won't get access to any significant revenues under Wasps at the Ricoh, so the argument we might not at a new stadium whilst its a valid question to have it would just leave us in the same situation we are in now. Should we not try then because it might fail?

 

[Nick]

It's sisu we are talking about. I will let you trust them not to grab what they can.

I wouldn't on past history

But you would Wasps? Who just took money in bonds from fans to give himself a bit of cash back?

 

[The Gentleman]

Who's to say there isn't a said stadium?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Anyone with more than 5 brain cells, so not you then?

 

[The Gentleman]

Its a fair point, you're right to be sceptical.

Firstly, and this may be hard to believe. I don't think SISU want us to be shit, and taking all the revenues from a new stadium would work against that aim.

Secondly we're (or at least I am) pretty certain we won't get access to any significant revenues under Wasps at the Ricoh, so the argument we might not at a new stadium whilst its a valid question to have it would just leave us in the same situation we are in now. Should we not try then because it might fail?

Would Sisu care a dot if we were shit, as long as we were making them money?

Yes, we should try. The problem is that Sisu aren't trying and haven't come up with a single shred of hard evidence that they will

 

[The Gentleman]

But you would Wasps? Who just took money in bonds from fans to give himself a bit of cash back?

But Wasps don't own us so I couldn't give a shit about bonds and their fans and who gets their cash. Seems that you and some others are more bothered by Wasps and their actions, rather than Sisu and their inactions. After all, who owns us?

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Would Sisu care a dot if we were shit, as long as we were making them money?

Yes, we should try. The problem is that Sisu aren't trying and haven't come up with a single shred of hard evidence that they will

No they wouldn't but I don't think we could make them money and be shit at the same time, if it was there master plan to build a stadium which then SISU would use to fleece us with on high rent and taking stadium profits then the club would just continue to struggle in L1/2 and thus lose more money each season which would be more debt SISU would never have a chance of getting back.

 

[stupot07]

Anyone with more than 5 brain cells, so not you then?

I have more than 5 brain cells thanks. Well done for lowering yourself to insults though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[skybluelee]

Viable option - that's very subjective. 'Viable' in my eyes will differ from others. So, yes if there is an option that I deem viable, ie a 20,000 seat minimum stadium within 5 miles of Coventry city centre. Which we all no isn't going to be the case.

 

[Otis]

Viable option - that's very subjective. 'Viable' in my eyes will differ from others. So, yes if there is an option that I deem viable, ie a 20,000 seat minimum stadium within 5 miles of Coventry city centre. Which we all no isn't going to be the case.

Exactly, Lee.

It is all very subjective.

I am in total agreement with you. 20,000 seater with 5 miles of Coventry city centre and I'm onboard. 15,000 seater in Rugby, not a cat in hell's chance of my support.

 

[kg82]

Viable option - that's very subjective. 'Viable' in my eyes will differ from others. So, yes if there is an option that I deem viable, ie a 20,000 seat minimum stadium within 5 miles of Coventry city centre. Which we all no isn't going to be the case.

That's the point. It's your opinion. You make up your mind what viable is. I'm not here to bottle feed you.

 

[Hobo]

Like most polls and surveys, the question/options are poor. Usually because they are vague or ambiguous.
So I can't give an opinion in this case.

 

[kg82]

Like most polls and surveys, the question/options are poor. Usually because they are vague or ambiguous.
So I can't give an opinion in this case.

See statement above. Not thinking for yourself is poor, in my opinion.

 

[Noggin]

See statement above. Not thinking for yourself is poor, in my opinion.

If you let people decide for themselves what viable means then everyone is answering a different question and thus your results are meaningless.

You've got 40% of people saying no at the moment, so lets say a new stadium popped up near the Ricoh, similar size and quality but ours would people be willing to move, of course all of those 40% of people who have said they arn't willing to leave the Ricoh would jump at the chance. So you arn't getting the information you seek with such a poorly written question.

 

[kg82]

If you let people decide for themselves what viable means then everyone is answering a different question and thus your results are meaningless.

You've got 40% of people saying no at the moment, so lets say a new stadium popped up near the Ricoh, similar size and quality but ours would people be willing to move, of course all of those 40% of people who have said they arn't willing to leave the Ricoh would jump at the chance. So you arn't getting the information you seek with such a poorly written question.

Christ, it's about thinking for yourself. I'm not going to write every detail. So what if viable means something different to everyone, it's meant to be ambiguous. I think most people realise though that viable, in this case, means close enough to the city to not make much difference. Like I said, I'm not here to bottle feed you.

 

[oldskyblue58]

viable doesn't necessarily mean better though does it. It could mean smaller budget and no losses in L2 for example.

What is important is the survival of CCFC

If the alternative is better for CCFC (and by relationship its fans) then there is no decision other than to go surely?

Trouble is as things stands we have no proper details as to what a viable or even a better alternative is (no one at CCFC appears willing to detail and quantify the additional incomes and costs of an alternative to make any sort of proper assessment or judgement)

Currently there is no viable alternative it seems other than to ensure survival as a club

 

[skybluelee]

That's the point. It's your opinion. You make up your mind what viable is. I'm not here to bottle feed you.

But surely in all supporters minds there is a viable option, no matter how unlikely, making the poll pointless?

 

[kg82]

But surely in all supporters minds there is a viable option, no matter how unlikely, making the poll pointless?

Have a look at the poll. I'd say people aren't convinced. It boils down to whether they also think the Ricoh is viable, whether they think wasps will move on at some point and if it's worth waiting it out. There you go, a couple of things for you to think about.

 

[Noggin]

Christ, it's about thinking for yourself. I'm not going to write every detail. So what if viable means something different to everyone, it's meant to be ambiguous. I think most people realise though that viable, in this case, means close enough to the city to not make much difference. Like I said, I'm not here to bottle feed you.

Absolutely 100% Everyone (ccfc fans) would be willing to move from the Ricoh if what we were moving too was better in everyway and owned by us despite what those who have lost all ability to be reasonable say. So you absolutely need to give an example of what viable means for your poll to be meaningful, of course it's too late now.

 

[kg82]

Absolutely 100% Everyone (ccfc fans) would be willing to move from the Ricoh if what we were moving too was better in everyway and owned by us despite what those who have lost all ability to be reasonable say. So you absolutely need to give an example of what viable means for your poll to be meaningful, of course it's too late now.

Well for a start I haven't said it would be better in every way? Why do I need to give an example? Most know what's going on. I haven't said in a perfect world etc, so nothing would change ownership-wise, council-wise etc etc. make your own mind up.

 

[Grendel]

Absolutely 100% Everyone (ccfc fans) would be willing to move from the Ricoh if what we were moving too was better in everyway and owned by us despite what those who have lost all ability to be reasonable say. So you absolutely need to give an example of what viable means for your poll to be meaningful, of course it's too late now.

No he doesn't. It's perfectly obvious that it's a poll to judge if people would consider moving in principal.

Many would move if it wasn't better "in every way" as proved by the results.

 

[Noggin]

Well for a start I haven't said it would be better in every way? Why do I need to give an example? Most know what's going on. I haven't said in a perfect world etc, so nothing would change ownership-wise, council-wise etc etc. make your own mind up.

You poll is trying to work out if people are willing to move from the Ricoh, the answer to that is everyone is willing to move from the Ricoh under the right circumstances. So the useful question finds out what percentage of people are willing to move under a certain circumstance (you've used viable) but because you've not defined viable everyone is answering a different question. You don't know what question they are answering and so you can take no useful information from the percentage you see.

 

[Nick]

You poll is trying to work out if people are willing to move from the Ricoh, the answer to that is everyone is willing to move from the Ricoh under the right circumstances.

Are they? Everybody?

This poll is along the lines of the ones the CET use to draw up headlines about what city fans want, still no headline though

 

[skybluetony176]

No he doesn't. It's perfectly obvious that it's a poll to judge if people would consider moving in principal.

Many would move if it wasn't better "in every way" as proved by the results.

The pole indicates that if people would move if its viable. It doesn't indicate in any shape or form what the individual who has voted yes believes to be viable. So the pole doesn't show indicate what you're trying to say it does at all.

 

[Noggin]

No he doesn't. It's perfectly obvious that it's a poll to judge if people would consider moving in principal.

Many would move if it wasn't better "in every way" as proved by the results.

everyone is willing to move in principal despite what sickboy, toorch etc believe. The poll doesn't deliver in anyway the information he seeks.

Of course many would move if it wasn't better in everyway, that isn't my point, my point is that 40% of people have voted no they aren't willing to move however that's nonscense all of those people would be willing to move if the new stadium situation was better in everyway. They have quite understandably though voted no because they don't believe the new stadium would be acceptable. We have no way of knowing from the result how many people have answered "am I willing to move under any circumstance" and ticked yes, vs how many have tried to imagine what this likely new stadium would be and voted on whether or not they would prefer to stay where we are.

 

[kg82]

You poll is trying to work out if people are willing to move from the Ricoh, the answer to that is everyone is willing to move from the Ricoh under the right circumstances. So the useful question finds out what percentage of people are willing to move under a certain circumstance (you've used viable) but because you've not defined viable everyone is answering a different question. You don't know what question they are answering and so you can take no useful information from the percentage you see.

I'm not writing a journal entry with the results. I'm confident most people are taking a sensible approach to what viable means and they know the circumstances won't change anytime soon.