Printable View
Only to be expected really. What a shame though as they use to have a massive following of 30k+ for their home games.
Hope they get to sort things out with the University and get their new ground accordingly. Remember how immensely proud I felt when I first walked into the New York Stadium.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53533716
So like i asked earlier in the year, is there any warnings from the EFL/FA about returning to Coventry? I'm sure we had to put £250,000 bond down, to ensure a retun within 4 years.......or is it just Rotherham??
Thought it was £750k bond with four year time limit to return to Rotherham??
I know they gave us a 4 year time limit but not sure what charge would have been levied had we failed. As for is it just Rotherham they picked on, I’d say yes it is. How long have Coventry now been without a ground?
It’s going to take at least a full season to build a new ground and they haven’t even been through the planning stages yet!
This is all very sad. How on earth are Cov going to be able to pay for a new 35k stadium. They,ll end up back in the lower divisions again.
Someone in that region needs to bang some heads together and come up with an equitable solution.
Appoint an independent mediator and get it sorted
Like I said in the other thread, Cov has had to lodge a £1m bond with the EFL, and a proviso they will not propose a new gound development outside the boundaries of Coventry. Couldnt see a time frame on the EFL website though. So, no, not just Rotherham.Quote:
Originally Posted by avondalemiller
Yes, the same stipulations are in place.Quote:
Originally Posted by avondalemiller
The bond serviced by TS, in favour of the Football League, was for £800k.
Just as an aside, as it's a common misconception, a bond doesnt mean that the secured amount (£800k in our case) is that amount of money lodged away. Think of it more akin to an insurance policy whereby a premium is paid in order that a surety/bondsman guarantees to pay the secured amount (the bond) to whomever it is in favour of in the event that the bond agreement is called upon. Bondsmen tend to be the bank of the business in question, and servicing the bond can therefore affect the business's financial operations higher banking fees for example)
Sadly, I feel, the Ricoh horse has bolted.Quote:
Originally Posted by flourbasher
I doubt the club did themselves any favours by taking the Council to court over the terms of sale of the ground to Wasps RUFC. The case is under appeal at the EU Court (not sure what juristriction they have over matters of public funding in the UK).
I would imagine that they are alleging unlawful state aid as the legal challenge was based upon a claim that the ground was sold to Wasps at an undervalue.Quote:
Originally Posted by WanChaiMiller
Yes exactly how I see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrAvon
My question was whether the EU Court still has jurisdiction?