torchomatic
Well-Known Member
You just LOVE this thread, don't you?
Well yes. For starters it was 2 1/2 years ago SISU first showed an “interest” in the site with actual a very sensible proposal which going by the article at the time was confirmed as a sensible proposal as it fitted in with what the council had planned and designated the site for. Are we supposed to believe that someohow SISU has forgotten the response of their initial interest? Blocking what plans? Unless SISU can prove otherwise the magnitude of this grand plan is 2 sheets of A4. That’s akin to me saying I have plans to build a five bedroom house because I’ve sent a rizla paper into the local planning offices with I want to build a five bedroom house written on it and then complaining that I haven’t got backing for it. What next? Maybe we’ll trot out that generic artist impression again that wasn’t even originally drawn for us, they just changed the shirt colours to sky blue of the people in the artist impression, then claim that they’re plans again, maybe Fisher can announce an exciting announcement in three weeks. Seriously Dave, were you out of the country locked in a cave last time SISU were building a stadium? You and a few others are coming all over very RFCesq falling over yourselves trying to legitimise SISU on this.
How do you know that? (Sorry to go all Nick on you, but just cos it wasn't publicised doesn't mean it don't exist)
(No offense Nick)
Unless SISU can prove otherwise the magnitude of this grand plan is 2 sheets of A4.
If you remember Wasps were playing the benevolent franchise rugby club and reached out to offer the CCFC academy to rent some of the planned facilities - this offer was made public on 2nd June 2016, around the time the plans were submitted.
The parties are different here but the premise is the same, Wasps had made some sort of agreement with the CSF prior to submitting the application.
Wasps submit plans for £7m training centre at CCFC Academy site
Wasps offer to help Coventry City Academy stay at Higgs Centre
One rule for the Hedge-Fund owned Rugby Club from London and one for the 130 year old Coventry Football club......
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Not just architects is it? There will be numerous reports and experts that need to be engaged. As everyone is keen to keep pointing out the difficulties with the site they will all need to be studied and plans devised to overcome the difficulties.Where did you get millions on a planning application from.
Those are expensive architects. I'd be thinking more like £150,000 (finger in the air for 1 to 2 man years of consultancy time).
What level of detail are you expecting when we're still at a stage before the pre-planning application process.Unless SISU can prove otherwise the magnitude of this grand plan is 2 sheets of A4.
No I don't mate, however it would be a hell of a lot easier for me to get to. (If I believed it)Do you live in the Ward?
View attachment 11891
WTF, are you actually serious? You are expecting SISU, or anyone else for that matter, to spend millions putting together a full application for planning permission on a piece of land they don't own when the owner of said piece of land hasn't responded to their requests to discuss the lease or sale?
To what end though? They can't force the council to sell land even if there is a brilliant plan. The Wasps plan for the training centre at Allard Way didn't come before they'd agreed a deal for the land. Why would CCFC do things any differently?
What level of detail are you expecting when we're still at a stage before the pre-planning application process.
An enquiry is being made to see if the site, owned by the council, would be available for lease or purchase for a potential new stadium. It would be usual for that to be agreed and then the planning process, and therefore all the detail, worked on.
Tony-How do you know it’s just two sheets of A4?
Because you believe what the Council said about it?
The same council that admitted talking to Wasps before we moved to Northampton?
The same council that sold a stadium built by and for CCFC to a Hedge fund owned Rugby Club from London?
Before accusing Dave of being in a cave I suggest you start by evolving your own opinion up from Neanderthal...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Not just architects is it? There will be numerous reports and experts that need to be engaged. As everyone is keen to keep pointing out the difficulties with the site they will all need to be studied and plans devised to overcome the difficulties.
Just look on the trust timeline how much CCFC spent before there was any sign of work beginning at the Ricoh.
It will be a significant outlay which may all be for nothing if CCC won't release the land. You'd be crazy to do it that way round.
Just going what the trust have on their Ricoh timeline and the amount spent before ground was broken. As you have more accurate figures perhaps you could give us a breakdown.Millions. Ha ha ha.
Again, why the expectation that the football club should have to follow a different procedure, and as a consequence cost, to everyone else? You seem to be reveling in the fact the council are 'getting one over' on SISU but all they are doing in reality is giving SISU more evidence to hand to the EFL to justify us moving away.Surely SISU understand the cost of this from last time they claimed to do it? Oh wait. Forgot about the FOI’s.
Woodlands for all intents and purposes is a greenfield site. Asbestos in the existing buildings is about as complicated as it’s going to get, assuming that wasn’t already taken care of when it was still operating as a school. I remember RBC starting to asbestos surveys on public buildings including schools in the 90’s so I would think it’s likely already taken care of. The gas works was a heavy industry site that was heavily contaminated over decades requiring specialists. If you’re going to compare eggs with something compare it with another egg.
Just going what the trust have on their Ricoh timeline and the amount spent before ground was broken. As you have more accurate figures perhaps you could give us a breakdown.
There was decontamination work and the gas holders were demolished in 2002, that all happened before the land was even purchased from British Gas.Just going what the trust have on their Ricoh timeline and the amount spent before ground was broken. As you have more accurate figures perhaps you could give us a breakdown.
Just going what the trust have on their Ricoh timeline and the amount spent before ground was broken. As you have more accurate figures perhaps you could give us a breakdown.
Doubt it’s on wiki to be fair
There was decontamination work and the gas holders were demolished in 2002, that all happened before the land was even purchased from British Gas.
Gas tower's going, going, gone!
How the Ricoh Arena deal was almost scuppered before building started
A few posts back it was going to cost a fortune to build at Woodlands because of what's on the site now its greenfield!Because Woodlands is a site that’s had decades of heavy industrial use on it, has towers to be demolished, requires major decontamination? If you want accuracies start by comparing eggs with eggs. Woodlands is basically a greenfield site.
Again, why the expectation that the football club should have to follow a different procedure, and as a consequence cost, to everyone else? You seem to be reveling in the fact the council are 'getting one over' on SISU but all they are doing in reality is giving SISU more evidence to hand to the EFL to justify us moving away.
As you keep ignoring the question I'm going to assume you don't actually have any figures.I think the point is that they are expected to follow the standard procedures the same as everyone else. No evidence as yet that they’ve done that. You are the one making it about the council not me. I’m making it about the parallels of what happened last time. Forgive me if I don’t go RFC over it, you knock yourself out if you want to. There’s zero evidence to show that they’ve done little more than a couple of pages more than they did last time we walked this path and all the evidence is that last time they did nothing of credibility. You do recall the results of all the rounds of FOI’s last time after they repeatedly claimed to be in consultation with local authorities, environmental agency etc? Why are you bending over backwards to add credibility to them based on previous experience? It defies logic. Let’s see something tangible from them and I’ll get behind it.
Nope, it seems like the command has been sent out to just keep hammering on about planning and hope no difficult questions get asked of the council.Is everything still about planning? Anything different if they own it
What are your figures? What I found on sbt arena timeline is..As you keep ignoring the question I'm going to assume you don't actually have any figures.
As you keep ignoring the question I'm going to assume you don't actually have any figures.
Nobody is 'going RFC'. It is because of what happened last time I want the council to not dick about. I want this drawn to a conclusion as quickly as possible. Let me make it as simple as possible for you. In what scenario would we now be better off:
Scenario 1) March 2018 and SISU approach the council with a view to building a new stadium at Woodlands. The council is slow to respond, stalls and provides SISU with a mountain of evidence to take to
Scenario 2) March 2018 and SISU approach the council with a view to building a new stadium at Woodlands. The council say that won't be possible and give a clear reason that stands up to scrutiny. SISU have no evidence to take to the EFL demonstrating how they are being obstructed by the council. They also have to come up with an alternative plan.
Scenario 3) March 2018 and SISU approach the council with a view to building a new stadium at Woodlands. The council say we are fully behind that, negotiate a forward contact and we enter the pre-planning stage. SISU have no evidence to take to the EFL demonstrating how they are being obstructed by the council. They now have to start spending a significant sum on the planning process.
I would argue that scenario 1 is the worst possible for the club, we're in limbo and in danger of being moved out of the city. Scenario 2 would at least have been a definitive answer and a line gets drawn under that options. Scenario 3 is the best option IMO, it forces SISU to either move forward with a new stadium or admit it is BS. For some reason you seem to prefer we stick with the council messing around and more years of the same old crap.
What are your figures? What I found on sbt arena timeline is..
1998
31st May CCFC H Ltd accounts confirm outline planning permission received for new stadium at the Foleshill Gas works. Total costs expended to that date £150,526
I couldn't care less what SISU did or didn't now. What I want is this whole thing to come to a close and the council pissing around is doing nothing but draw things out.You’re trying to start history on the site with SISU 2 years after the event first started. When did sisu first identify the site? What did they originally identify it for? How was that received? Why was it received that way?
Are you suggesting that they didn’t know what would and wouldn’t be considered on the site now they’ve changed their minds on what they’ve identified the site for?
I couldn't care less what SISU did or didn't now. What I want is this whole thing to come to a close and the council pissing around is doing nothing but draw things out.
And pretending that you want to build a ground on a site that you already know from previous enquires 2 years prior is highly unlikely for numerous reasons that you’ve already established isn’t pissing around and drawing things out?
I've made it as simple as possible for you by laying out every way it could have been dealt with and shown how the way the council have chosen to go both plays in to SISUs hands and draws the whole thing out the longest. Which part is it you are struggling to comprehend?And pretending that you want to build a ground on a site that you already know from previous enquires 2 years prior is highly unlikely for numerous reasons that you’ve already established isn’t pissing around and drawing things out?
Why haven’t you commented on a certain other thread Tony? Missed it? Why do you try a oneupmanship and patronising approach when basically you are a tad thick?
I would have thought most people on here would be bothered about the situation our club finds itself in. Think you'll find you're in a very small group in not caring about it or wanting it to be resolved as quickly as possible.Because it amuses me that it bothers you so much.
I've made it as simple as possible for you by laying out every way it could have been dealt with and shown how the way the council have chosen to go both plays in to SISUs hands and draws the whole thing out the longest. Which part is it you are struggling to comprehend?
I've made it as simple as possible for you by laying out every way it could have been dealt with and shown how the way the council have chosen to go both plays in to SISUs hands and draws the whole thing out the longest. Which part is it you are struggling to comprehend?
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?