Who would have Primacy? (1 Viewer)

Neutral Fan · Oct 3, 2014

EPL rules say a club must have primacy in any shared stadium. Not sure about FL rules but If CCFC still have ambitions to ever get back into PL then they would need primacy over Wasps in a shared stadium.

Seems unlikely if Wasps are owners.

Just seems another reason to reject this latest franchise.

RFC · Oct 3, 2014

Why post it twice??????????

Rusty Trombone · Oct 3, 2014

The FL can make their own rules, they are only interested in fixtures being fulfilled.

Neutral Fan · Oct 3, 2014

I'm not very good at this thing...will try to delete other thread.

Anyway...the point is ... who would have primacy?

CJ_covblaze · Oct 3, 2014

I posted this in the other thread but it's gone walkies.

IIRC CCFC have primacy in their 2+2 deal (as per FL rules) and all previous contracts have to be honoured. Doubt it'll be an issue.

chiefdave · Oct 3, 2014

CJ_covblaze said:
IIRC CCFC have primacy in their 2+2 deal (as per FL rules) and all previous contracts have to be honoured. Doubt it'll be an issue.

Additionally I can't see anything that says Wasps would need primacy. Other clubs manage to share so I think that would be the least of our worries.

We managed a season at Sixfields without primacy anyway so it wouldn't be anything new. Not like a lot of football is Saturday at 3pm as it would have been when that rule was put in place.

Neutral Fan · Oct 3, 2014

chiefdave said:
We managed a season at Sixfields without primacy anyway so it wouldn't be anything new. Not like a lot of football is Saturday at 3pm as it would have been when that rule was put in place.

No, it's nothing to do with 3pm. It's about football clubs having primacy over rugby (or other) teams. It's an EPL rule. Unsure about FL rules.

There's no football team in England currently renting from a rugby club. If CCFC rent from Wasps and Wasps have primacy (very likely) then CCFC could never play in the Prem at Ricoh.

Ok that may seem a million miles away but it can't be right not to be allowed to dream. If CCFC can't get primacy then they should prevent RFC Franchise imo.

lordsummerisle · Oct 3, 2014

Neutral Fan said:
Ok that may seem a million miles away but it can't be right not to be allowed to dream. If CCFC can't get primacy then they should prevent RFC Franchise imo.

Should be trying to prevent any sort of Franchise removed from it's area really.

samccov1987 · Oct 3, 2014

Wasps don't play in their local area though. They've moved round London for many years and have spent ten years in bucks. They only became London wasps in 1999

lordsummerisle · Oct 3, 2014

samccov1987 said:
Wasps don't play in their local area though. They've moved round London for many years and have spent ten years in bucks. They only became London wasps in 1999

A bit like the Harlem Globetrotters?

That's okay then.

samccov1987 · Oct 4, 2014

I don't see it in the same light as Wimbledon moving to MK. Bad news for coventry rugby although the truth is they've not been a well supported club for many years. Hypothetically if wasps reformed in coventry and rose through the leagues would it be acceptable?
Wasps have been struggling for over a decade to secure a home in or around London at what point do they have to bite the bullet and move to survive?

hill83 · Oct 4, 2014

RFC said:
Why post it twice??????????

Why all the question marks?

Gosford Green · Oct 4, 2014

Will they be Coventry Wasps ? I know fuck all about the game rugby but I have read Wasps are quite good. This might mean they beat Leicester Tigers which in turn might be a reason to smile.

As an afterthought will their fans travel 90 miles to watch them. I am guessing that rugby fans are a bit different to football fans.

theferret · Oct 4, 2014

samccov1987 said:
I don't see it in the same light as Wimbledon moving to MK. Bad news for coventry rugby although the truth is they've not been a well supported club for many years. Hypothetically if wasps reformed in coventry and rose through the leagues would it be acceptable?
Wasps have been struggling for over a decade to secure a home in or around London at what point do they have to bite the bullet and move to survive?

What really matters is what the supporters of that club think, because they ARE the club to all intents and purposes. Their fans are vehemently opposed to it. We are opposed to it (at least the sensible ones are) and you'll be hard pressed to find a single supporter of our local Rugby club that thinks it is a good idea. So, 3 teams affected by this, and the supporters of all of them don't want it. Why is this lunacy even on the agenda? I guess somewhere along the line and individual, or a small group of individuals, think they might make some money. Well I say fuck em.

chiefdave · Oct 4, 2014

lordsummerisle said:
A bit like the Harlem Globetrotters?

There's much more chance of me going to see them at the Ricoh than any rugby!

SkyBlueSid · Oct 4, 2014

samccov1987 said:
Wasps don't play in their local area though. They've moved round London for many years and have spent ten years in bucks. They only became London wasps in 1999

Correct. And they have now dropped the London prefix so they are officially now just called Wasps again.

Nick · Oct 4, 2014

SkyBlueSid said:
Correct. And they have now dropped the London prefix so they are officially now just called Wasps again.

So if we hadn't had Coventry in our name it would have been fine to move us?

theferret · Oct 4, 2014

SkyBlueSid said:
Correct. And they have now dropped the London prefix so they are officially now just called Wasps again.

Why does that even matter?

Neutral Fan · Oct 4, 2014

theferret said:
Why does that even matter?

Maybe it doesn't matter in the wonderful world of "sports franchises" (as ACL like to say).

But franchising is killing real sport. CCFC supporters are seeing it up close now.

If Wasps franchise to Ricoh they will surely have primacy over their own stadium. EPL rules are quite clear - a club must have primacy over teams from other sports if they groundshare.

So CCFC are effectively banned from EPL as long as they play at Ricoh. A club with no assets other than players and no legal route to the Premier League is effectively unsaleable...stuck with SISU for ever.

At your protests I suggest the issue of primacy be raised.

theferret · Oct 4, 2014

Neutral Fan said:
Maybe it doesn't matter in the wonderful world of "sports franchises" (as ACL like to say).

But franchising is killing real sport. CCFC supporters are seeing it up close now.

If Wasps franchise to Ricoh they will surely have primacy over their own stadium. EPL rules are quite clear - a club must have primacy over teams from other sports if they groundshare.

So CCFC are effectively banned from EPL as long as they play at Ricoh. A club with no assets other than players and no legal route to the Premier League is effectively unsaleable...stuck with SISU for ever.

At your protests I suggest the issue of primacy be raised.

I'm not sure the PL would enact that rule if the club were to win promotion to the PL - it would be massively controversial. Also worth noting that both Wimbledon and Fulham played in the PL in in ground share situations where they did not have 'primacy'.

It's a moot point to an extent, because this deal would make the prospect of a double promotion nigh on impossible anyway.

Your point about the club being unsaleable is a salient one. Nobody would touch us with an extra long barge pole. We'd be stuck with SISU for the foreseeable.

chiefdave · Oct 4, 2014

Neutral Fan said:
Maybe it doesn't matter in the wonderful world of "sports franchises" (as ACL like to say).

But franchising is killing real sport. CCFC supporters are seeing it up close now.

If Wasps franchise to Ricoh they will surely have primacy over their own stadium. EPL rules are quite clear - a club must have primacy over teams from other sports if they groundshare.

So CCFC are effectively banned from EPL as long as they play at Ricoh. A club with no assets other than players and no legal route to the Premier League is effectively unsaleable...stuck with SISU for ever.

At your protests I suggest the issue of primacy be raised.

Why are you trying to create a problem that doesn't exist and never will. It is very very simple. Football, both PL and FL, requires the club to have primacy on any potential match dates. Rugby, at any level, does not. Hence many football and rugby clubs share grounds. It really doesn't matter who owns it from a primacy perspective. Wasps play 11 home games, do you really think they would refuse a major tenant to have primacy when there is absolutely no requirement for them to have it, would it make any difference to them if they play at home on 11 of the Saturdays when we aren't? What would happen is exactly the same as happens with every other team that shares a ground.

Of course that even assumes at any point the rules get enforced. According to FL rules Coventry should have had primacy at Sixfields, they didn't but nothing happened did it? Some games got moved to a Sunday the first season as the fixtures had already been published and then this season it was arranged so home games alternated.

Rusty Trombone · Oct 4, 2014

Neutral Fan said:
Maybe it doesn't matter in the wonderful world of "sports franchises" (as ACL like to say).

But franchising is killing real sport. CCFC supporters are seeing it up close now.

If Wasps franchise to Ricoh they will surely have primacy over their own stadium. EPL rules are quite clear - a club must have primacy over teams from other sports if they groundshare.

So CCFC are effectively banned from EPL as long as they play at Ricoh. A club with no assets other than players and no legal route to the Premier League is effectively unsaleable...stuck with SISU for ever.

At your protests I suggest the issue of primacy be raised.

So if there's a change of management company, and if Wasps move their rugby club here, and if your guess at primacy is correct, and if we get promoted, and if we get promoted again, we might have to make sure we tell the League that we have primacy. I think this is something we can leave for now.

samccov1987 · Oct 4, 2014

I think people are overplaying the chance of wasps wanting us out of the stadium if they own it. Having both a football and rugby club at the stadium would dramatically increase the site profitability.
A new majority owner of acl may make it easier for sisu to buy into the stadium company.

Nick · Oct 4, 2014

samccov1987 said:
I think people are overplaying the chance of wasps wanting us out of the stadium if they own it. Having both a football and rugby club at the stadium would dramatically increase the site profitability.
A new majority owner of acl may make it easier for sisu to buy into the stadium company.

More like people under playing a team being moved 70 miles.

theferret · Oct 4, 2014

samccov1987 said:
I think people are overplaying the chance of wasps wanting us out of the stadium if they own it. Having both a football and rugby club at the stadium would dramatically increase the site profitability.
A new majority owner of acl may make it easier for sisu to buy into the stadium company.

I don't think anyone believes they will want to us out, it is more that WE will want out. How long will people tolerate the idea of subsidising a rugby club that has no historic links to the city? The idea of a team that (with the best will in the world) will only pull in 3000-4000 being part financed by us because they own the stadium that was originally conceived by and built for the football club just won't sit well.

New ownership would be fine if the main objective were not to secure use of the main stadium bowl.

Neutral Fan · Oct 4, 2014

Nick said:
More like people under playing a team being moved 70 miles.

And it never stopped people protesting about their club being moved 35 miles by turning up in their thousands to a franchised fc that had been moved 70 miles.....

I never understood that at all. Ironic that a new franchise now threatens those same people...

shmmeee · Oct 4, 2014

Surely CCFC have a contract and that contract will have to be honoured?

"Neutral" Fan making things up for controversy again?

I thought we were never coming home and were moving to Northampton? What happened to that?

Neutral Fan · Oct 4, 2014

shmmeee said:
Surely CCFC have a contract and that contract will have to be honoured?

"Neutral" Fan making things up for controversy again?

I thought we were never coming home and were moving to Northampton? What happened to that?

I'm not making anything up. Just very unhappy how "sports franchising" is increasing.

Very pleased CCFC are no longer at Sixfields though I still don't trust SISU not to move you somewhere else again...do you?

All I'm saying is that if CCFC do become tenants of RFC Franchise you MUST secure primacy. Without that the club would have no future. It would be worthless. Who would ever buy a club with no stadium and isn't allowed to be promoted to the top flight?

Who would have Primacy? (1 Viewer)

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency