Sky Blues Club Update.

[Rossm]

Details about the pitch extracted:

The pitch is now safe and playable, and looking good ahead of our first home game on Wednesday night. 

We apologise again to fans for inconvenience and disruption caused by the pitch issues. Prior to the Commonwealth Games we were confident that the pitch would be playable for us to begin the season, and it was only following the usage at the Games that this changed.

Following the end of the Commonwealth Games and the usage/lack of stadium access that involved, the Club is able to again be in regular dialogue with the stadium regarding the pitch and view the pitch, and we are confident the improvements made will ensure it is in a suitable condition for the rest of this season.

Coventry City are not paying any additional funds on top of our rent agreement fee to fund the pitch improvements.

While the stadium and pitch is not under our ownership or control, it is difficult to directly influence the pitch condition, though we will continue to be in constructive dialogue with the Arena. 

Interesting to read that, prior to the CWG, CCFC were confident that the pitch would be playable for football. I expect we were also

For those wishing to read the full CCFC news update, link here.

https://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/2022/august/news-club-update---august-2022/

[Sliminator]

A pity that they didn't make that statement prior to all the mud-slinging. would have helped keep things more civil between fans.

[SBSam]

Depends on what that confidence was based. I think Wasps weren’t expecting the amount of damage, certainly rugby fans seemed surprised.

I don’t thin releasing the statement earlier would have made any difference to fans feelings. It was the fact that Wasps were denying there was a problem with the pitch, and hence refusing to repair it that was the big issue.

[WonkyWasp]

Presumably Slimy you referring to the bit where ccfc admit that they didn't actually pay anything at all towards  the pitch improvements??   Can we now look forwards to abject apologies (or any apologies of any kind would be nice)   for the mud slinging and claims that ccfc were indeed paying for said improvements??

[Rossm]

Depends on what that confidence was based. I think Wasps weren’t expecting the amount of damage, certainly rugby fans seemed surprised.

I don’t think releasing the statement earlier would have made any difference to fans feelings. It was the fact that Wasps were denying there was a problem with the pitch, and hence refusing to repair it that was the big issue.

I still believe that EFL were being very unhelpful and unsympathetic regarding football early season fixtures (not really their problem of course). All in all, it was a bit of a cluster fuck or to put it more politely, a perfect storm of unforeseen circumstances with unforeseen consequences - just my opinion of course

[bigad82]

Depends on what that confidence was based. I think Wasps weren’t expecting the amount of damage, certainly rugby fans seemed surprised.

I don’t thin releasing the statement earlier would have made any difference to fans feelings. It was the fact that Wasps were denying there was a problem with the pitch, and hence refusing to repair it that was the big issue.

Wasps said nothing about the pitch.CCFC went crying to the press first.
No denial ever took place by Wasps.

[matelot22]

Depends on what that confidence was based. I think Wasps weren’t expecting the amount of damage, certainly rugby fans seemed surprised.

I don’t think releasing the statement earlier would have made any difference to fans feelings. It was the fact that Wasps were denying there was a problem with the pitch, and hence refusing to repair it that was the big issue.

I still believe that EFL were being very unhelpful and unsympathetic regarding football early season fixtures (not really their problem of course). All in all, it was a bit of a cluster fuck or to put it more politely, a perfect storm of unforeseen circumstances with unforeseen consequences - just my opinion of course

Don't you go being the voice of reason, that'll never catch on

[SBSam]

Presumably Slimy you referring to the bit where ccfc admit that they didn't actually pay anything at all towards  the pitch improvements??   Can we now look forwards to abject apologies (or any apologies of any kind would be nice)   for the mud slinging and claims that ccfc were indeed paying for said improvements??

Slimy? That’s a bit unfair.

It is a carefully worded answer to a question raised on SBT. CCFC claimed in the beginning that they had offered to pay the upfront costs - help with the cash flow- which Wasps declined. Paying nothing extra over the season is consistent with that claim, in that upfront costs could be recovered by an equal and opposite reduction in rent. If that isn’t the case, wouldn’t it have been far easier just to say that Wasps had paid for the repairs? The beauty with statements is that you don’t have to deal with any awkward follow up questions.

IF the above is correct, it would indeed mean that Wasps have paid for said repairs, which is what should be the case in a landlord: tenant relationship. They have, however, done so with a degree of bad grace, such that the dispute resolution process had to be invoked and a third party mediator brought in.

In CCFC fans views, Wasps were in denial about the pitch given their statement about the move of the cup match to Burton and their hope that the next league match would be played at the CBSA, coupled with their reluctance to commence repairs asap. That is in addition to the need to bring in Andy Street. In the event, neither of the next two home league games were played. If Wasps had accepted that the pitch wasn’t up to scratch, agreed a remedy and actioned it at the earliest possible time, at least one of those matches could have been played.

I agree that the EFL were unsympathetic, assuming they were approached in the first place. We may get a feel for whether they were or not based in the whatever punishment they mete out to the football club for the postponements.

For your amusement, CCFC supporters are once again pretty cheered off with our owners, given the record st sales and lack of transfer activity and the clubs own role in the whole pitch fiasco.

[matelot22]

Presumably Slimy you referring to the bit where ccfc admit that they didn't actually pay anything at all towards  the pitch improvements??   Can we now look forwards to abject apologies (or any apologies of any kind would be nice)   for the mud slinging and claims that ccfc were indeed paying for said improvements??

Slimy? That’s a bit unfair.

It is a carefully worded answer to a question. CCFC claimed in the beginning that they had offered to pay the upfront costs - help with the cash flow- which Wasps declined. Paying nothing extra over the season is consistent with that claim, in that upfront costs could be recovered by an equal and opposite reduction in rent. If that isn’t the case, wouldn’t it have been far easier just to say that Wasps had paid for the repairs? The beauty with statements is that you don’t have to deal with any awkward follow up questions.

IF the above is correct, it would indeed mean that Wasps have paid for said repairs, which is what should be the case in a landlord: tenant relationship. They have, however, done so with a degree of bad grace, such that the dispute resolution process had to be invoked and a third party mediator brought in.

In CCFC fans views, Wasps were in denial about the pitch given their statement about the move of the cup match to Burton and their hope that the next league match would be played at the CBSA, coupled with their reluctance to commence repairs asap. That is in addition to the need to bring in Andy Street. In the event, neither of the next two home league games were played. If Wasps had accepted that the pitch wasn’t up to scratch, agreed a remedy and actioned it at the earliest possible time, at least one of those matches could have been played.

I agree that the EFL were unsympathetic, assuming they were approached in the first place. We may get a feel for whether they were or not based in the whatever punishment they mete out to the football club for the postponements.

For your amusement, CCFC supporters are once again pretty cheered off with our owners, given the record st sales and lack of transfer activity and the clubs own role in the whole pitch fiasco.

I'll think you'll find Wonky was referring to Sliminator, and not your good self.

Wonky is the happiest, least offensive soul on the whole of the internet, and would never resort to petty name calling.

[SBSam]

Depends on what that confidence was based. I think Wasps weren’t expecting the amount of damage, certainly rugby fans seemed surprised.

I don’t thin releasing the statement earlier would have made any difference to fans feelings. It was the fact that Wasps were denying there was a problem with the pitch, and hence refusing to repair it that was the big issue.

Wasps said nothing about the pitch.CCFC went crying to the press first.
No denial ever took place by Wasps.

Were you there when Vaughan and Boddy discussed it? Sometimes actions (in this case inactions) speak louder than words.

[SBSam]

Presumably Slimy you referring to the bit where ccfc admit that they didn't actually pay anything at all towards  the pitch improvements??   Can we now look forwards to abject apologies (or any apologies of any kind would be nice)   for the mud slinging and claims that ccfc were indeed paying for said improvements??

Slimy? That’s a bit unfair.

It is a carefully worded answer to a question. CCFC claimed in the beginning that they had offered to pay the upfront costs - help with the cash flow- which Wasps declined. Paying nothing extra over the season is consistent with that claim, in that upfront costs could be recovered by an equal and opposite reduction in rent. If that isn’t the case, wouldn’t it have been far easier just to say that Wasps had paid for the repairs? The beauty with statements is that you don’t have to deal with any awkward follow up questions.

IF the above is correct, it would indeed mean that Wasps have paid for said repairs, which is what should be the case in a landlord: tenant relationship. They have, however, done so with a degree of bad grace, such that the dispute resolution process had to be invoked and a third party mediator brought in.

In CCFC fans views, Wasps were in denial about the pitch given their statement about the move of the cup match to Burton and their hope that the next league match would be played at the CBSA, coupled with their reluctance to commence repairs asap. That is in addition to the need to bring in Andy Street. In the event, neither of the next two home league games were played. If Wasps had accepted that the pitch wasn’t up to scratch, agreed a remedy and actioned it at the earliest possible time, at least one of those matches could have been played.

I agree that the EFL were unsympathetic, assuming they were approached in the first place. We may get a feel for whether they were or not based in the whatever punishment they mete out to the football club for the postponements.

For your amusement, CCFC supporters are once again pretty cheered off with our owners, given the record st sales and lack of transfer activity and the clubs own role in the whole pitch fiasco.

I'll think you'll find Wonky was referring to Sliminator, and not your good self.

Wonky is the happiest, least offensive soul on the whole of the internet, and would never resort to petty name calling.

Phew. It can get difficult to know who is being responded to. TBH I thought it was an autocorrect, I would be deeply hurt to be insulted by Wonky.

[Rossm]

Presumably Slimy you referring to the bit where ccfc admit that they didn't actually pay anything at all towards  the pitch improvements??   Can we now look forwards to abject apologies (or any apologies of any kind would be nice)   for the mud slinging and claims that ccfc were indeed paying for said improvements??

Slimy? That’s a bit unfair.

It is a carefully worded answer to a question. CCFC claimed in the beginning that they had offered to pay the upfront costs - help with the cash flow- which Wasps declined. Paying nothing extra over the season is consistent with that claim, in that upfront costs could be recovered by an equal and opposite reduction in rent. If that isn’t the case, wouldn’t it have been far easier just to say that Wasps had paid for the repairs? The beauty with statements is that you don’t have to deal with any awkward follow up questions.

IF the above is correct, it would indeed mean that Wasps have paid for said repairs, which is what should be the case in a landlord: tenant relationship. They have, however, done so with a degree of bad grace, such that the dispute resolution process had to be invoked and a third party mediator brought in.

In CCFC fans views, Wasps were in denial about the pitch given their statement about the move of the cup match to Burton and their hope that the next league match would be played at the CBSA, coupled with their reluctance to commence repairs asap. That is in addition to the need to bring in Andy Street. In the event, neither of the next two home league games were played. If Wasps had accepted that the pitch wasn’t up to scratch, agreed a remedy and actioned it at the earliest possible time, at least one of those matches could have been played.

I agree that the EFL were unsympathetic, assuming they were approached in the first place. We may get a feel for whether they were or not based in the whatever punishment they mete out to the football club for the postponements.

For your amusement, CCFC supporters are once again pretty cheered off with our owners, given the record st sales and lack of transfer activity and the clubs own role in the whole pitch fiasco.

I'll think you'll find Wonky was referring to Sliminator, and not your good self.

Wonky is the happiest, least offensive soul on the whole of the internet, and would never resort to petty name calling.

Phew. It can get difficult to know who is being responded to. TBH I thought it was an autocorrect, I would be deeply hurt to be insulted by Wonky.

I thought it was an autocorrect as well

In the early days of spellchecking, my son wrote a religious knowledge essay and the computer threw a wobbler at Iscariot and suggested escargot instead - true story.

[SBSam]

Presumably Slimy you referring to the bit where ccfc admit that they didn't actually pay anything at all towards  the pitch improvements??   Can we now look forwards to abject apologies (or any apologies of any kind would be nice)   for the mud slinging and claims that ccfc were indeed paying for said improvements??

Slimy? That’s a bit unfair.

It is a carefully worded answer to a question. CCFC claimed in the beginning that they had offered to pay the upfront costs - help with the cash flow- which Wasps declined. Paying nothing extra over the season is consistent with that claim, in that upfront costs could be recovered by an equal and opposite reduction in rent. If that isn’t the case, wouldn’t it have been far easier just to say that Wasps had paid for the repairs? The beauty with statements is that you don’t have to deal with any awkward follow up questions.

IF the above is correct, it would indeed mean that Wasps have paid for said repairs, which is what should be the case in a landlord: tenant relationship. They have, however, done so with a degree of bad grace, such that the dispute resolution process had to be invoked and a third party mediator brought in.

In CCFC fans views, Wasps were in denial about the pitch given their statement about the move of the cup match to Burton and their hope that the next league match would be played at the CBSA, coupled with their reluctance to commence repairs asap. That is in addition to the need to bring in Andy Street. In the event, neither of the next two home league games were played. If Wasps had accepted that the pitch wasn’t up to scratch, agreed a remedy and actioned it at the earliest possible time, at least one of those matches could have been played.

I agree that the EFL were unsympathetic, assuming they were approached in the first place. We may get a feel for whether they were or not based in the whatever punishment they mete out to the football club for the postponements.

For your amusement, CCFC supporters are once again pretty cheered off with our owners, given the record st sales and lack of transfer activity and the clubs own role in the whole pitch fiasco.

I'll think you'll find Wonky was referring to Sliminator, and not your good self.

Wonky is the happiest, least offensive soul on the whole of the internet, and would never resort to petty name calling.

Phew. It can get difficult to know who is being responded to. TBH I thought it was an autocorrect, I would be deeply hurt to be insulted by Wonky.

I thought it was an autocorrect as well

In the early days of spellchecking, my son wrote a religious knowledge essay and the computer threw a wobbler at Iscariot and suggested escargot instead - true story.

That’s hilarious. Is the going rate for a snail 20 pieces of lettuce?

[baldpaul101]

genuine question.
Post the postponement of the first footie game, does anyone know if any work was done to the pitch at all? Presumably the normal ground staff must have been trying to remedy the issues they could see?
Or was nothing done till the agreement was made with CCFC, the mayor & the weave started?

[WonkyWasp]

Dear Matelot, Ross and Sam ...  I said ' Slimy'  as   a short version of Sliminator, but obviously I shouldn't have done.   Apologies to all!  Even to the 'Person ín Question'.  Maybe a change of name there??  As to the kind and  generous compliments .....  thank you very much ...  completely overwhelmed .............. I'll go and have a cold shower .....