So you saying - "You're going to have to stop trying to play the whole "I didn't say those exact words" game" isn't you telling me how I can/can't post and interact here?
Play your own game, I said it was boring not that you can, can't.
You are trying it on different threads at the same time.
No it's me trying to push the point across it's boring. It wasn't a threat. In fact you are doing it on different threads and have to a few different users for some reason.So you saying - "You're going to have to stop trying to play the whole "I didn't say those exact words" game" isn't you telling me how I can/can't post and interact here?
No it's me trying to push the point across it's boring. It wasn't a threat. In fact you are doing it on different threads and have to a few different users for some reason.
So you have said I'm paranoid about pr for saying this is pr, but you also think it's pr?You've indicated I don't see this article as PR - something that is factually incorrect.
I point out your comment is baseless and you to stop the way I post - thereby telling me how I can/can't post and interact here.
If it's a shared ground the FL do insist on the football has primacy.
I am waiting for the answer on that one too.Like they do with the requirement for a 10 year deal ??
They are more like guidelines to be honest in that respect if Wasps insisted on primacy the FL would just roll over.
It is better all round if Wasps play on Sunday as they will increase there attendances as there will be few clashes. (Although it does clash with Coventry Welsh Ladies)
Also the pitch will be at its best for the football.
Nick, why was the Fulham game not allowed ? Was it spite as suggested or some other reason ?
Need to delve further. Now you have said that that rings a bell.I think the official reason given for the Fulham match was that the pitch wouldn't be ready, don't take that as fact just what I'm remembering
It isn't exactly an unprecedented scenario compared to what happened to us. Quite a few football league teams ground share with rugby clubs, so I think there is an understanding between the football league and the rfu that football takes primacy.I am waiting for the answer on that one too.
I also wonder about this ruling. Why do we think the FL will insist on enforcing that? Why wouldn't they just fold on the matter? Not exactly shown balls in the past have they.
I think anyone that doesn't wear blinkers understands, they probably don't like
football much and would like to poach our fans if "possible" but at the same
time see us as necessary to their financial model.
What about the whole 17 sites they looked at but just happened to choose where the CCFC academy is? Which just happens to be run by the company trying their very best to push Rugby through the city to make it a city of rugby?
What about us not being allowed to play games against Fulham for charity pre season at the Ricoh?
The thing is, they could do whatever they want to CCFC and they would just say "SISU's fault" and it would all be ok. Take the academy thing for example, news came out Wasps were going there and people got angry at Wasps. Threads made by people (not the usuals) about boycotting Wasps etc. A statement comes out from them and CSF and it just pretty much says it is SISU's fault, everything then changes.
Be interested to know if the other shared ones are a combination or ownership, or are owned by football clubs with rugby teams renting, or vice versa.It isn't exactly an unprecedented scenario compared to what happened to us. Quite a few football league teams ground share with rugby clubs, so I think there is an understanding between the football league and the rfu that football takes primacy.
Should wasps take the stance that they want primacy it would be interesting to see the football league and rfu responses,
Tbh if wasps want to play on the Saturday it wouldn't make the slightest difference as wasps fixtures would be scheduled for when we are away.
Be interested to know if the other shared ones are a combination or ownership, or are owned by football clubs with rugby teams renting, or vice versa.
Just wonder if we are the only football team renting, rather than renting out.
Just wonder if it weakens our position with the FL.In terms of the Rugby club owning, while the football club rent then yeah, it's us. Stockport were the first example of a situation such as we find ourselves in... at about the time they plunged through the leagues. Sale then moved out and moved elsewhere themselves, how everyone must have laughed.
A fair few joint renting.
In terms of?Just wonder if it weakens our position with the FL.
It not being our ground. Us renting rather than renting out.In terms of?
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Nothing has changed, we were and are still renting. I would have thought now the option to buy is gone it strengthens our position with the FL who will be even more sympathetic to our needs.It not being our ground. Us renting rather than renting out.
Will it weaken our position? You have to bear in mind the constant assertion that we were supposedly building our own stadium and didn't want to stay at the Ricoh anyway.
Will the FL see our case as weaker because it is not our ground and because we have consistently said we are moving anyway?
I know nothing has changed, Stu, was thinking more in terms of if Wasps started to be funny with us and tried to force us out.Nothing has changed, we were and are still renting. I would have thought now the option to buy is gone it strengthens our position with the FL who will be even more sympathetic to our needs.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
I know nothing has changed, Stu, was thinking more in terms of if Wasps started to be funny with us and tried to force us out.
If Wasps seriously wanted us out I just can't see how the FL can make a rugby club that owns it's own ground accommodate a football team if they don't want to.
Think the FL would then waiver its rules on where we could ground share.
You will have to send me updates then, Stu.Well they couldn't force the former owners of acl to accommodate us if they had decided they didn't want us here. I would imagine, the FL would be fleixible in where we could ground share and a few more clubs may be more amenable to letting us ground share temporarily so we may have more options than sixfields.
I didn't go to sixfields the first time around, but if wasps were to kick us out then I would go and support the club.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
At the moment we aren't being pushed to have a ten year deal by the authorities as they believe we are looking to build a new ground. What they have been told to make them think it is happening is anyones guess although you would think the sort of comments made by the council when the Butts idea went public aids the club as they can say to the authorities they are trying but being blocked.Will it weaken our position? You have to bear in mind the constant assertion that we were supposedly building our own stadium and didn't want to stay at the Ricoh anyway.
At the moment we aren't being pushed to have a ten year deal by the authorities as they believe we are looking to build a new ground. What they have been told to make them think it is happening is anyones guess although you would think the sort of comments made by the council when the Butts idea went public aids the club as they can say to the authorities they are trying but being blocked.
The only other requirements are in terms of standards of facilities, which isn't an issue, and primacy, which CCC assured us was agreed.
So, what's the answer then? Its your scenario where Wasps don't want us at the Ricoh and kick us out, and we have no choice but to temporary groundshare. Under those circumstances, surely it would still be our club? Or do we just abandon them? Granted not everyone would be able to get to the temporary venue, but it would still be our club?You will have to send me updates then, Stu.
We go back to Northampton and I will become an armchair fan unfortunately. I couldn't even go if I wanted to, it wouldn't be possible, but I wouldn't want to anyway.
Just wouldn't be our club any more to my mind.
Well they must have authorised the 2+2 deal we had when we first came back so its likely to be fairly easy going until then. At that point more questions might get asked.For how long though? Just until our current term agreement is up?
I would be happy with that as a temporary measure.So, what's the answer then? Its your scenario where Wasps don't want us at the Ricoh and kick us out, and we have no choice but to temporary groundshare. Under those circumstances, surely it would still be our club? Or do we just abandon them? Granted not everyone would be able to get to the temporary venue, but it would still be our club?
I see that scenario as completely different to the six fields move.
And tbh, if that situation was to arise I would like to think we could play at the butts with some temporary stands and a reduced capacity rather than move away.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
I know nothing has changed, Stu, was thinking more in terms of if Wasps started to be funny with us and tried to force us out.
If Wasps seriously wanted us out I just can't see how the FL can make a rugby club that owns it's own ground accommodate a football team if they don't want to.
Think the FL would then waiver its rules on where we could ground share.
So still too complicated for most City supporters then, eh.I think it's an irrelevant point going on about the primacy issue, if wasps state they want to play on the Saturday then the football league and rfu will collaborate so our fixtures don't clash and we will still play on the Saturday.
The football league can't force ACL to extend our deal at the Ricoh but primacy is one of the lowest points of priority in negotiations as it is the most simple to work around.
Pretty sure it was said at the May SCG, the one where CRFC attended and they talked about the possibility of the butts development that the FL had been out and were happy with the (non) progressThe thing i cannot understand is that there has been no request by the F L asfar as i know as to any progress on any new ground or a more permanant deal at the Ricoh.Perhaps they wait untill an eviction notice is served.By the way wonder what SUSI would do if roles were reversed
Pretty sure it was said at the May SCG, the one where CRFC attended and they talked about the possibility of the butts development that the FL had been out and were happy with the (non) progress
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Because of the income we provide, ie rent , F&B, car parks, bars, casino, hotel etcWhy are we necessary to their financial model?
Because of the income we provide, ie rent , F&B, car parks, bars, casino, hotel etc
And just the extra footfall created around the stadium.
Then there's the link to a professional football club and all the mentions the stadium
gets through the media and TV games, if we get any.
This is all lucrative free advertising.
Wasps would certainly like us there but necessary to the success of their financial plan i do not think so - not when turnover excl VAT is heading towards £30m per year - CCFC do not even bring £1m of that and after deduction of costs the benefit to Wasps is even smaller
And like it or not, there's a cost to Wasps of us being there, that we *are* rivals for support. Therefore any gain they make has to make that cost worthwhile.
If *I* were Wasps (and for CCFC's sake it's probably good that I'm not), I'd be wanting far far far more off CCFC to even consider a new rental agreement.
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?