Woodlands (3 Viewers)

[torchomatic]

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.

You just LOVE this thread, don't you?

 

---

[fernandopartridge]

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)

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

 

[Fergusons_Beard]

Unless SISU can prove otherwise the magnitude of this grand plan is 2 sheets of A4.

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

 

[Fergusons_Beard]

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

 

[fernandopartridge]

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

In fairness, I'm not saying that really. I'm just saying that the idea that SISU should spend significant sums on something that is apparently a non-starter (local planning expert skybluetony176 has said it is) is a little off the mark.

 

[chiefdave]

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).

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.

 

[chiefdave]

Unless SISU can prove otherwise the magnitude of this grand plan is 2 sheets of A4.

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.

 

[Harryshipman1998]

Do you live in the Ward?
View attachment 11891

No I don't mate, however it would be a hell of a lot easier for me to get to. (If I believed it)
If the land is already ear marked for a special school. Why aren't the council saying that instead of bothering to belittle SISU's by the sound of it unprofessional approach?
Ah well to be fair to SISU I think their plan is working a treat look at the discussion it has generated here.

 

[skybluetony176]

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?

Millions. Ha ha ha.

 

[skybluetony176]

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?

They could start by going public with this brilliant plan. Should it exist.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

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.

An enquiry is being made so that SISU can say they've done something. We have had sketches for a ground since 2013, committees set up to help with its design etc etc...but no bid for land, no request for planning permission, no evidence of a serious attempt in 6 years. More effort has gone into the smoke and mirrors than to the construction. As before-either put some weight behind the enquiries or admit it's bollocks.

 

[skybluetony176]

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

I don’t. That’s why I said unless SISU can prove otherwise. Nothing stopping them releasing a statement with some PDF’s is there? I’d welcome it in fact.

I’m well aware of what the council has said and done. I’m also well aware that SISU have trodden this path before so you’ll excuse me if I don’t go all RFC over it given our previous experience. Let’s see something of substance.

 

[skybluetony176]

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.

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.

 

[chiefdave]

Millions. Ha ha ha.

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.

 

[chiefdave]

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.

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.

 

[Grendel]

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

 

[Captain Dart]

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.
Gas tower's going, going, gone!
How the Ricoh Arena deal was almost scuppered before building started

 

[skybluetony176]

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.

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.

 

[skybluetony176]

Doubt it’s on wiki to be fair

It’s not. So you won’t be able to use it to check what I’ve said as you usually do.

 

[chiefdave]

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

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.

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!

As I suggested previously look at the costs shown on the Trust website. Look when the money was spent and look when the decontamination was carried out as the decontamination seems to start after a significant amount of money had already been spent.

Once again I would ask that as you have more accurate figures you post them up for everyone to see and also explain why the football club should have to follow a different, more expensive, route than everyone else.
​

 

[skybluetony176]

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.

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.

 

[Nick]

Is everything still about planning? Anything different if they own it

 

[chiefdave]

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.

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.

 

[chiefdave]

Is everything still about planning? Anything different if they own 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.

 

[Captain Dart]

As you keep ignoring the question I'm going to assume you don't actually have any figures.

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

 

[skybluetony176]

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.

I’ve never claimed to have any figures. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist though to work out that a greenfield site with a few buildings on isn’t going to be anywhere near as expensive to develop at any stage from basic planning and consultation to completion as a heavy industrial site of the nature of the old gas works.

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?

 

[skybluetony176]

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

Not millions then? That’s a surprise

 

[chiefdave]

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.

 

[skybluetony176]

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?

 

[Grendel]

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?

 

[chiefdave]

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?

 

[skybluetony176]

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?

Because it amuses me that it bothers you so much. Clearly you’re a Tad thicker than me as you’ve played your part in my amusement so willingly.

 

[chiefdave]

Because it amuses me that it bothers you so much.

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.

 

[skybluetony176]

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?

Over two years ago they first identified the site as a replacement for Ryton and joint academy. It was well received because it ties in with the councils long-standing plans for the site. Nothing has happened since on that. Now this. Who is drawing it out exactly? One plan well received, never followed up despite as I’ve said numerous times now was a good idea in the first place and possible. Now almost two and half years later this. Who is dawning it out exactly? I’ll meet you halfway if you like and agree both the council and SISU are. Now who’s been drawing it out the longest? This is even before you enter the discussion of if you believe they have any attention building a stadium anywhere at any point. I’ll put my cards on the table. I don’t believe they have. Do you?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

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?

The part where there's any illusion that SISU are actually committed to building a brand new stadium.