Coventry City _ Ground update

The result of the FL survey for the Coventry fans about the groundshare, done via their fans Trust, Sky Blues Trust is in.

The survey:

If, by 25 April 2019, Coventry City do not have an arrangement to play matches in Coventry for the 2019/20 season, would you be in favour of Coventry City being permitted to play matches at a stadium outside the Coventry area under a ground-sharing arrangement as an alternative to expulsion from the EFL?

SUPPORTERS WILL BE ASKED TO PICK ONE ANSWER. Note that supporters who select option (b) below should recognise that this is the equivalent of a ‘no’ vote should the club be unwilling/unable to provide a binding commitment.

a) a ground-share within 50 miles from Coventry;

b) a ground-share within 50 miles from Coventry, subject to a binding commitment to return to Coventry within 3 years;

c) opposition to a ground-share outside Coventry as an alternative to expulsion from the EFL.


The Trust has agreed to ask its Members to answer the EFL’s suggested questiona above. The Trust has also decided to invite supporters who are not Trust members also to let us have their answers to the question.

(from the Sky Blues Trust website)


The result:

The Sky Blue Trust is now able to publish the results of its recent ground sharing survey, which closed at 6pm on Friday 29 March.

There are two preliminary points that we need to emphasise and have now done so to the EFL.

1. The vast majority of CCFC supporters wish the club to remain at the Ricoh.

2. Some supporters felt unable to answer the question posed because all of the three options presented were unacceptable to them.


The result of the survey was as follows:

A) 338 votes 12.05%
B) 821 votes 29.28%
C) 1645 votes 58.67%

Total votes cast = 2804

We are satisfied from active monitoring of the survey that this outcome reflects the views of those Sky Blue Trust members who felt able to respond and also broadly represents the views of the wider supporter base.

We have advised the EFL that it is now incumbent on them to exercise all possible influence on CCFC management, its owner and director, and any of the other parties to this protracted dispute who the EFL feels able to influence, to act in the best interests of the club, its supporters and the whole Sky Blues Community, so that none of these three outcomes becomes reality.

(From the Sky Blues Trust website)
 
The result of the FL survey for the Coventry fans about the groundshare, done via their fans Trust, Sky Blues Trust is in.

The survey:

If, by 25 April 2019, Coventry City do not have an arrangement to play matches in Coventry for the 2019/20 season, would you be in favour of Coventry City being permitted to play matches at a stadium outside the Coventry area under a ground-sharing arrangement as an alternative to expulsion from the EFL?

SUPPORTERS WILL BE ASKED TO PICK ONE ANSWER. Note that supporters who select option (b) below should recognise that this is the equivalent of a ‘no’ vote should the club be unwilling/unable to provide a binding commitment.

a) a ground-share within 50 miles from Coventry;

b) a ground-share within 50 miles from Coventry, subject to a binding commitment to return to Coventry within 3 years;

c) opposition to a ground-share outside Coventry as an alternative to expulsion from the EFL.


The Trust has agreed to ask its Members to answer the EFL’s suggested questiona above. The Trust has also decided to invite supporters who are not Trust members also to let us have their answers to the question.

(from the Sky Blues Trust website)


The result:

The Sky Blue Trust is now able to publish the results of its recent ground sharing survey, which closed at 6pm on Friday 29 March.

There are two preliminary points that we need to emphasise and have now done so to the EFL.

1. The vast majority of CCFC supporters wish the club to remain at the Ricoh.

2. Some supporters felt unable to answer the question posed because all of the three options presented were unacceptable to them.


The result of the survey was as follows:

A) 338 votes 12.05%
B) 821 votes 29.28%
C) 1645 votes 58.67%

Total votes cast = 2804

We are satisfied from active monitoring of the survey that this outcome reflects the views of those Sky Blue Trust members who felt able to respond and also broadly represents the views of the wider supporter base.

We have advised the EFL that it is now incumbent on them to exercise all possible influence on CCFC management, its owner and director, and any of the other parties to this protracted dispute who the EFL feels able to influence, to act in the best interests of the club, its supporters and the whole Sky Blues Community, so that none of these three outcomes becomes reality.

(From the Sky Blues Trust website)
Great insight to the issues there....is it just me (probably) who thinks the above is like a cov version of brexit voting options in the house of commons the past week or so? :unsure:
 
Great insight to the issues there....is it just me (probably) who thinks the above is like a cov version of brexit voting options in the house of commons the past week or so? :unsure:

The options are awfully worded and not great which is why I think the number voted is so low coupled with quite a few thinking it is a box ticking exercise.
 

Update on the deadline. I suspect by the wording and that Coventry/FL will have been in regular contact that the FL are amenable to allowing them further than the 6 miles previously stated. Burton have offered them a groundshare according to the local Coventry paper.
 
They will end up at the Ricoh, an agreement will happen because Wasps will not want to be the reason Coventry no longer have a league club. That could be detrimental to their own support in the city.
 
They will end up at the Ricoh, an agreement will happen because Wasps will not want to be the reason Coventry no longer have a league club. That could be detrimental to their own support in the city.

Don't be so certain. There is a lot of animosity between the Council, Wasps and SISU/Coventry City. SISU won't drop their legal challenge, even though they've lost numerous times and Wasps won't negotiate until they do.
 
Don't be so certain. There is a lot of animosity between the Council, Wasps and SISU/Coventry City. SISU won't drop their legal challenge, even though they've lost numerous times and Wasps won't negotiate until they do.

I agree. The club seems to be in an impossible position at the moment. SISU are useless, the council seems fed up with them and Wasps don't want to negotiate. I don't think it would bother Wasps if Cov were gone. The only real option is for someone to buy the club and arrange a ground-share while building them a new ground. Sounds familiar.

It's a real pity and somewhat sad to me as I've had a soft for the club since I was at Warwick Uni. Used to go along to watch them quite a bit when Oxford were away.
 
It would reduce the Service charge as that would be split by one additional party.
Is that right? will not the match day costs double? there will only be one winner IF it ever happened FK.
As a fan of OUFC, the move wouldn't have my blessing.
 
I agree. The club seems to be in an impossible position at the moment. SISU are useless, the council seems fed up with them and Wasps don't want to negotiate. I don't think it would bother Wasps if Cov were gone. The only real option is for someone to buy the club and arrange a ground-share while building them a new ground. Sounds familiar.

It's a real pity and somewhat sad to me as I've had a soft for the club since I was at Warwick Uni. Used to go along to watch them quite a bit when Oxford were away.

Apparently the club/SISU have identified a site, an ex School site (Woodlands School I think) which is owned by the Council. Conveniently leaked by SISU publically on the day they are supposed to confirm they have a ground to play in next season. So SISU want the Council to sell them the site and publically support the scheme to drop their legal case over the Ricoh.
 
Good, if true, and I hope the council get behind them. I wouldn't trust SISU as far as I could throw them, though.
 
Good, if true, and I hope the council get behind them. I wouldn't trust SISU as far as I could throw them, though.
I would it would imagine the terms of the proposed deal as to whether the council got behind them. The council apparently asked for a detailed proposal, and SISU sent what they said was a "masterplan" - which amounted to less than two sheets of A4. SISU then went public to try and put pressure on the council. Neither side comes out of it well.
 
Is that right? will not the match day costs double? there will only be one winner IF it ever happened FK.
As a fan of OUFC, the move wouldn't have my blessing.
It would not have my blessing but yes the service charge would go down significantly.
The day to day upkeep of the ground maintenance rates water rates building insurance and other costs would he shared.
Sure some costs would increase but nowhere near doubled.
 
It would not have my blessing but yes the service charge would go down significantly.
The day to day upkeep of the ground maintenance rates water rates building insurance and other costs would he shared.
Sure some costs would increase but nowhere near doubled.
Would not "upkeep of the ground maintenance rates water rates building insurance and other costs" increase?
You add another tenant in the property and with their match day costs, weekly use of the stadium costs, stewards and other match day staff, restaurant and catering costs, as well as all the standard stuff of utilities that make up a service charge.

Thinking about it I can't see any change in costs to us, just an aditional revenue for the landlord, did we get a reduction when LW appeared or an increase when they left, only 1 winner here but hopefully it will never happen.
 
Would not "upkeep of the ground maintenance rates water rates building insurance and other costs" increase?
You add another tenant in the property and with their match day costs, weekly use of the stadium costs, stewards and other match day staff, restaurant and catering costs, as well as all the standard stuff of utilities that make up a service charge.

Thinking about it I can't see any change in costs to us, just an aditional revenue for the landlord, did we get a reduction when LW appeared or an increase when they left, only 1 winner here but hopefully it will never happen.
There are lots of fixed costs.
There is no extra revenue to the landlord except for a management charge.
So yes the costs would definitely go down.
The maintenance of the ground would probably only change marginally but would be split in two. There is presumably a person who is in charge of maintenance around the stadium generally. They wouldn't get another in just due to an extra team playing 25 times a season.
Business rates on the stadium would not change ( I believe). The building insurance covers 24/7 fire flooding etc. That would only change marginally for one team playing 25 times a season.
There would be significant fixed costs that would have to be split 50/50 rather than oufc coughing up for all of it (Kassam would pay for some if the costs due to the conference centre)
 
There are lots of fixed costs.
There is no extra revenue to the landlord except for a management charge.
So yes the costs would definitely go down.
The maintenance of the ground would probably only change marginally but would be split in two. There is presumably a person who is in charge of maintenance around the stadium generally. They wouldn't get another in just due to an extra team playing 25 times a season.
Business rates on the stadium would not change ( I believe). The building insurance covers 24/7 fire flooding etc. That would only change marginally for one team playing 25 times a season.
There would be significant fixed costs that would have to be split 50/50 rather than oufc coughing up for all of it (Kassam would pay for some if the costs due to the conference centre)
So did we get a "significant reduction" when LW were here?
 
So did we get a "significant reduction" when LW were here?
Well there seems to have been a lot of comments about the huge costs since London Welsh left....
I would think that there would be a significant increase since they left (would you call £100k for example significant?)
The talk is of paying nearly £1m. I believe that the rent is circa £375k?? So a huge service charge.
 
Well there seems to have been a lot of comments about the huge costs since London Welsh left....
I would think that there would be a significant increase since they left (would you call £100k for example significant?)
The talk is of paying nearly £1m. I believe that the rent is circa £375k?? So a huge service charge.
Please don’t peddle that £1m shite.
Our rent is circa £250k plus vat
The service charge is circa £300k plus vat I think I read.
At the moment we are paying the outstanding money owed on the service charge we have not paid through arbitration, both lots of costs incurred by arbitration, that is only the fault of the club (DE).
So you never confirmed if we had a reduction when LW were here, as per your original point of our costs would be less if cov arrived?
I’m genuinely interested as I see only one winner in any scenario.
 
They have until 25th April to tell the EFL their plans for next season. They've narrowed it down to two ground-shares plus the preferred option of staying at the Ricoh.
 

SISU and Wasps finally talking it seems.
well, as SISU are in a lull in their legal action after having lost the latest appeal (again), it is probably time. Hopefully they are seeing sense and deciding to work with everyone else rather than try and cheat them/bully them/sue them.
They do seem the strangest hedge fund. Never seen one quite so keen on chucking money away.
 
Coventrys' future at the Ricoh in doubt again because owners Sisu have taken their legal case to the EU - you really couldn't make this up!
It's almost as if Sisu want Covebtry to fold (although they would presumably lie out if that happened)
Very strange.
 
Back
Top Bottom