The screening application referred to a new facility of "similar scale" to the existing STC on roughly the same footprint as the existing Academy building so as not to drastically reduce the outdoor pitch space any further. The specification for the facilities inside the proposed new build was also almost identical to that of the existing STC. Fast forward to when the plans were uncovered by an Eagle eyed fan and everyone started kicking off about the potential loss of Cat 1 status and Waggott suddenly starts talking in the LT about a 2 storey build being necessary to maintain Cat 1 status. Forgive me if I'm wrong but as far as I can remember the existing STC is on one floor only (not 2 floors) so a 2 storey build is not what it says on the plans. And bear in mind you need a very high roof for an indoor pitch, the existing STC is still roughly 14m in height at just the one floor. A move to the new site would also seemingly only leave us with 4 full size outdoor pitches. Make of the above what you will, I certainly know what my view is. If I'm factually incorrect with any of the above, I'm happy to be corrected.

Come on lads, let's focus. darrenrover isn't at fault,or the problem, or the enemy in this instance. That would be the man who introduced the "Waggott tax", who put prices by up to 25% in the midst of a pandemic and reduced the season ticket base by 75%, the assistant manager who pitched a similar scheme for housing redevelopment whilst at Coventry, and the manager who presumably had us training on an already knackered pitch to keep everyone out of the surveyors' hair. One or two people might have attempted to misdirect the thread a bit to stop the issues being discussed properly I don't know. The rest of us need to concentrate on the issues at hand and not the personalities. There are numerous potential downsides. I'm Still waiting to hear a single reason why this scheme would leave us with better facilities than we have now. Other than "under the same roof". Anyone?

You can't just compare walloping great sites like Everton's which are at least five times the size of the site currently occupied by the STC and think any new facility we built would be comparable on the "all under one roof" basis. Also where is this "professional" opinion that we don't need both sites coming from?. All we have is Waggott who according to his comments in the LT "thinks" we can configure the one site and schedule the use of any facilities to meet Cat 1 requirements. I don't know how many times it needs to be said, but if the new facility fails in terms of either lack of outdoor pitch space, or all the teams having to share facilities, then that's it. No room for manoevure, a white elephant of a facility not fit for purpose and Cat 1 status gone forever.

There you go again inferring that anyone opposing the plans must be a silly old sod clinging desperately to some outdated sepia tinted notion of "The Jack Walker Legacy". As regards the first part of the above paragraph, we're "online" as well aren't we? And out of curiosity, where are these other bastions of support for the plans? The only comments I've seen are in the LT along the lines of "There we are, Steve said it so it must be right, can we put that one to bed?" At least people on here are attempting to be constructive by comparing the available facts with the spin and highlighting the vast discrepancies. Not just taking everything at face value.

Coming from you that's quite a concession! Fair do's!

There is, isn't there.

I completely disagree. You made some extremely disparaging remarks along the lines of "The Jack Walker legacy isn't particularly important" and then went scurrying off complaining to the mods when you received the predictable flak. You also received comments questioning the impartiality of your stance as an existing Club sponsor which I think was an entirely fair question. No-one accused you of taking any financial consideration for your comments or being "a plant". No-one has stopped you from posting your views on here either, criticism of the moderators in that respect is completely unfair. You simply got overly precious about the fact people didn't like what you posted and took your bat and ball home.

You can hold a contrarian view, no problem at all, but if you do by then definition you should expect to be challenged on it. And the more extreme your view appears the more you should expect to be challenged on it. Fine line sometimes between being a contrarian and a troll? How's that "progress" under Mowbray coming along BTW?

That's not a reason why the plans are a good thing though, it's crossing your fingers and hoping for the best. If you oppose the plans that is. You haven't really indicated what your stance is on them.

Not even sure if the point about RO referring to JHR in the first person is a valid one. I certainly can't be bothered checking which thread it came from and looking it up but did RO not mean (in my other post on the subject which you replied to) "I'd missed out....."

You were getting a bit hot under the collar at the time though! "Why do you keep asking me the same question every week Mercer?" 🙂

He looks to me like he's been in the gym since the first time he was here and purely imo it's turned him from an athletic and willing runner into a lumbering waste of space.

The point is, it will be way too late to do anything about it if we get to the stage whereby Cat 1 status is refused. You can tweak a building design but you can't magic up space that doesn't exist. I think Richard Oakley makes some valid points. I don't think 1864 is "a plant" but nevertheless I find his stance on this extremely odd. Still, as 1864 has said several times, he has his view, we have ours and we're all entitled to them.

Has someone tasked you with the job of attempting to discredit anyone opposing the Brockhall scheme or are you doing it completely off your own batt? You picked on the wrong poster with such an exceptional contributor as JH Rover frankly.

Of course he doesn't believe it. He can hardly come out and say "We were absolutely terrible but I'm powerless to do anything about it as the players aren't responding to me and I'm completely out of ideas". (Although he has been hinting as much with his "the owners will have to decide if I've become a burden to the Club" comments recently) It doesn't annoy me that he comes out with such guff per se, although I feel compelled to point out what nonsense it is where necessary. It does infuriate me that some people do seem to swallow it hook line and sinker though!

Now you know why you were getting so much flak for insisting you would keep Mowbray until the end of the season for so long!

I think that's wildly optimistic. He probably wouldn't be quite as bad up front as out wide but he's a £5m dud. End of. What makes it all the more criminal is that we knew already he wasn't that good from the first time he was here, albeit he was better and looked a lot more mobile and athletic than he does now.

If we do have options in the case of Nyambe and Rothwell, but they won't sign new long term deals, then surely that only means we'll secure a modest fee for them when they are sold in the summer as opposed to them being here for another 12 months? JRC hasn't signed a new contract yet either but as he seems to be Mowbray's latest love child no doubt he'll be offered a deal befitting of his talents unlike Nyambe.

Mowbray isn't going anywhere unless he is paid off and I doubt "The Coventry 3" as a whole intend going anywhere until the Brockhall development thing is resolved one way or the other. Ideally we need the owners to step in and give all three the bullet. We can but live in hope.

A housing development on Brockhall?

We now know why we were training on an already knackered pitch don't we I'd imagine the surveyors can't do their jobs down at the STC whilst players are training and vice versa! As for the new pitch, Waggott seemed to be insinuating it needed financing in an article in Lancs Live so we'll see if it actually happens or whether it just ends up being a patch up job.

Yes more enthusiasm than the rest of them put together. Thought Rothwell was good first half as well but fizzled out second.

Dead rubber with at least half a team who won't be here next year. I mean, come on, really! Coventry 3 out! Let's save our infrastructure and try and put some pride, passion and hope back into the Club!

Ludicrous isn't it. Either they must get appearance bonuses or Mowbray is trying to get them all to a minimum number of appearances which triggers a contract extension.

Wouldn't be if it wasn't a dead rubber and we had a chance of making the play offs. Mind you that boat sailed in the early part of December so it's nothing we haven't been watching for the last 3 months already.