The Forums (1 Viewer)

[SLOnAir]

How can anyone know what follows when we don't know what the answers are!

On a simple level. If CCFC Ltd was a non-trading subsidiary, as TF suggests, then how has it been forced into administration, as it wouldn't have any debts if it had passed on the rental costs to the trading company? Therefore, the wrong company has gone into administration. Where do we start with that? Why not ask TF what happens next?

However, as far as I'm aware, when you take control of a company, a period of due diligence ensures that the any complexities are sorted and then the new owners are responsible for the previous mistakes/errors etc of that company. It becomes their 'mess' to quote TF.

You are quite right, of course, and as he tried to explain (not well, but again, I think he was trying to choose his words carefully) the due diligence that was carried out under the original Sisu management was not as it might have been.

As for which company was placed into administration, that is surely down to ACL. They initiated the action against "Ltd", and would have put "Ltd" into administration if Sisu hadn't done so the night before.

 

---

[Jack Griffin]

Correct. Fisher explained that limited in 95 was setup to be a vehicle for third party player trading. He mentioned Robbie Keane being a player funded by third parties. At the same time all other football related businesses was done through holdings.

Yeah, he said that but .... read what OSB found out

- whether he would care to comment on the 1996 Memorandum & Articles (approved by directors, shareholders, company house and The Football League) which reads as follows
"the Companys (CCFC Ltd) objects are:
To acquire from its parent company, The Coventry City Football Club Limited (later to be called CCFC H) as a going concern the business of the playing activities of that company and to carry on such business under the name of "COVENTYRY CITY FOOTBALL CLUB"

Seems to be the whole business of the football related activities of the club.. not just trading.. and anyway haven't player trades been carried through this vehicle in recent years when 3rd party trading has been against league rules. One of the speakers at last Thursdays forum said that within the last 14 months they had seen a player loan agreement undertaken through CCFC Ltd....

 

[SLOnAir]

Must go for now chaps. Thanks for the time being.

 

[Skybluesquirrel]

You cannot faithfully suggest you are unbiased as you are only seeking answers that you think - or hope - could bring Fisher in trouble.
He never said the Robbie Keane details were not recorded properly. He said (to my understanding) that most of the mess came about after they stopped third party ownership, but for some time kept trading players through limited.

I never said Fisher doesn't understand the group structure - that is you twisting my words. I said he had a tough time explanating it through the boo's and wise remarks from the audience who clearly didn't wanted to know.

My intention has always been to raise questions. I don't have access to the information that would provide answers. Directors of companies generally have that access. That is why I feel we should question TF and question him rigorously. No-one in the media to my knowledge has done so thus far.

Re the structure: I'm only going on what you posted - I wasn't there, unfortunately. I thought you were implying that he was unable to explain the structure so that you were able to understand it, not that the constant interruptions were the problem.

 

[Godiva]

Yeah, he said that but .... read what OSB found out



Seems to be the whole business of the football related activities of the club.. not just trading.. and anyway haven't player trades been carried through this vehicle in recent years when 3rd party trading has been against league rules. One of the speakers at last Thursdays forum said that within the last 14 months they had seen a player loan agreement undertaken through CCFC Ltd....

It really does need answering! But not in a forum - it's not the right venue.

 

[italiahorse]

Stuart, firstly I thought you were excellent last night, reinforcing/helping the questioner.
In addition forcing an answer from the table.

As for the forums I didn't see what they would achieve.
Overall if SISU listen to the fans they should stop this stupid plan.

 

[Skybluesquirrel]

You are quite right, of course, and as he tried to explain (not well, but again, I think he was trying to choose his words carefully) the due diligence that was carried out under the original Sisu management was not as it might have been.

As for which company was placed into administration, that is surely down to ACL. They initiated the action against "Ltd", and would have put "Ltd" into administration if Sisu hadn't done so the night before.

SISU didn't put Ltd into administration. Arvo did.

So, Arvo put CCFC Ltd into administration even though they knew that they should put Holdings into administration? Just to stop ACL? That doesn't make sense. But obviously, TF is the man to question on that, not you!

 

[Godiva]

My intention has always been to raise questions. I don't have access to the information that would provide answers. Directors of companies generally have that access. That is why I feel we should question TF and question him rigorously. No-one in the media to my knowledge has done so thus far.

Re the structure: I'm only going on what you posted - I wasn't there, unfortunately. I thought you were implying that he was unable to explain the structure so that you were able to understand it, not that the constant interruptions were the problem.

Again (as above) that is not the venue for those kind of questions.
I am sure the administrator is 'on the case' anyway and will reveal his findings in due course.

 

[Skybluesquirrel]

Must go for now chaps. Thanks for the time being.

Thanks for your replies Stuart. I do hope you will start asking some probing questions so we can see what the answers are, and what the implications will be.

 

[Skybluesquirrel]

Again (as above) that is not the venue for those kind of questions.
I am sure the administrator is 'on the case' anyway and will reveal his findings in due course.

Where should the questions be asked then? In the Telegraph? On the radio?

Really interested to know where you think is appropriate, as you regularly suggest its not the forums.

 

[duffer]

Hi Stuart. First off, fair play to you for coming on here to engage with us.

I've got to say though, that like others, I thought Fisher got a relatively easy ride on some of the trickier questions. Saying that it's a 'complex' or it's 'a mess' isn't going to cut it.

SISU are claiming that a non-trading entity which has no assets has somehow been loaded with £60m worth of debt. Mr Fisher is a director of CCFC Ltd, who signed off the accounts and had a legal duty to promote the success of the company. Obviously keeping the debt but not the assets may help CCFC Holdings walk away from the Ricoh, but in what way did his actions help CCFC Ltd?

We need answers to questions like these because Fisher is proposing that we accept that he's going to be running the club post-admin and that we can trust him. If he wants us to do that, he's going to have to prove that he's not incompetent at best, or at worst a fraud.

 

[Godiva]

Where should the questions be asked then? In the Telegraph? On the radio?

Really interested to know where you think is appropriate, as you regularly suggest its not the forums.

In a venue where professionals can have access to the documentation and follow the explainations through the paperwork to prove or disprove the claims.
That would likely be either by the administrator - or by the courts.

I may be naive (I know I am) but the Trust could send the club a formal letter asking to see documentations for his claims under some kind of confidentiallity agreement.

 

[dongonzalos]

Although I have spoken to Michael Byng, I have not had the opportunity of interviewing him. I don't know the circumstances about how his bid was submitted, only that he has assured me that it has been and that he has spoken about it to Paul Appleton. I believe he has worked extensively in the Far East and has built up a network of contacts.

Re Forums - all I would add to what I have already said, is that these were Coventry City Football Club events and, although I and Clive Eakin tried to conduct them as closely as we could to how it would be done if it were a BBC event, at the end of the day they were only ever going to respond or not in their own way.

Re the Football League - I disagree; they have chosen their language very carefully and I think they may have no alternative than to take "beneficial ownership" into account.

Stuart

Thanks for the reply what is it that you think is not clear regarding their statement

The Football League's statement says: “The Football League has provided detailed information to the administrator to assist him with his ongoing investigation into the ownership structure of the club.

"Nevertheless it is our view that the club’s League share at the point of administration was owned by Coventry City FC Limited, hence the ten points deducted during the 2012/13 season."

Will be interesting to see what Mr Byng has to say.

Do you think their is anything in the conspiracy theorists who now link him to ACL's bid.

I

 

[Skybluesquirrel]

In a venue where professionals can have access to the documentation and follow the explainations through the paperwork to prove or disprove the claims.
That would likely be either by the administrator - or by the courts.

I may be naive (I know I am) but the Trust could send the club a formal letter asking to see documentations for his claims under some kind of confidentiallity agreement.

So simple questions such as 'why do you think the accounts you signed off Mr Fisher were incorrect' can only be asked in a court, even though TF states that the accounts were wrong repeatedly, to the press and on the radio. Can only a court be expected to receive a more detailed answer than 'its a bit of a mess'?

The trust sent a detailed set of questions that were posted on their web-site to the administrator. They have yet to post a reply. My guess is the reply has not yet been received.

If the letter was sent under a 'confidential agreement', then any response wouldn't be in the public domain.

 

[chiefdave]

Where should the questions be asked then? In the Telegraph? On the radio?

Really interested to know where you think is appropriate, as you regularly suggest its not the forums.

you need a setting where a small number of people who know what they're talking about can put the facts to those in charge and question the answers they receive in a calm way. a forums never going to give you that as people are too busy yelling. if, as some people believe, there is something we're not being told that's the way to really put the pressure on.

To be fair to Stuart and the guys at CWR they aren't, and shouldn't need to be, accounting experts and it would be a dangerous thing for them to get drawn into on live radio. one slip up and they've accused SISU of something without realising it and could be in all sorts of trouble. However if it was a member of the public questioning them you would probably have more leeway for making accusations.

The Telegraph could step up to the plate here as obviously they have time to consider what they are going to put in the paper, and if need be get it checked by a lawyer. I suspect that these days local papers don't have the resources for much in the way of in depth investigative journalism.

A final thought, have you tried arranging a meeting or phone call with Fisher yourself? We are told he has phoned up other fans so you never know, he might agree to it.

 

[Jack Griffin]

you need a setting where a small number of people who know what they're talking about can put the facts to those in charge and question the answers they receive in a calm way. a forums never going to give you that as people are too busy yelling. if, as some people believe, there is something we're not being told that's the way to really put the pressure on.

However TF would never agree to that.

 

[blend]

It really is nothing to do with the intelligence of anyone. It is do with the level of knowledge and understanding of the questions asked and the answers given. You may consider them to be straightforward, many do not - and I disagree with your observations about posters here. Some may follow it to the letter. Many clearly do not.

Whatever answers you may receive, they will usually require interpretation so that they can be fully appreciated by a wider audience and the problem you have is that you and others (no criticism intended) start from a particular perspective. Not matter how objective you claim to be, your interpretation and response to the answers given will always be viewed through that prism.

You are entitled to ask your questions. They are perfectly valid and I do not rule out addressing the issues you raise on air when an appropriate opportunity arises (which is not necessarily the next interview with Tim Fisher, though it may be), but do not expect consequences of any significance when they are answered.

Correct ALL of us on here come from a particular perspective. We should always be happy for our own particular perspective to be challenged and accept that taking on board other particular perspectives can be extremely useful in asking questions of others. None of us claim to be completely objective. As you have said yourself we ALL put our own interpretation on it.

 

[Godiva]

So simple questions such as 'why do you think the accounts you signed off Mr Fisher were incorrect' can only be asked in a court, even though TF states that the accounts were wrong repeatedly, to the press and on the radio. Can only a court be expected to receive a more detailed answer than 'its a bit of a mess'?

Funny that he gives the same answer to the same question every time, isn't it?

When did Fisher realize the accounts were 'a mess'? That's the key question.
If he didn't know when he signed the one set of accounts he has signed, then surely you can't really blame him.

He actually gave a detailed answer, but for the n'th time - it drowned in the noise from an audience who wasn't there to listen.

 

[Delboycov]

Funny that he gives the same answer to the same question every time, isn't it?

When did Fisher realize the accounts were 'a mess'? That's the key question.
If he didn't know when he signed the one set of accounts he has signed, then surely you can't really blame him.

He actually gave a detailed answer, but for the n'th time - it drowned in the noise from an audience who wasn't there to listen.

Defending your boys to the last Godiva...can you blame him for signing off what seemingly looks like an incorrect set of accounts? Well yes actually I can...Not sure what forum you went to but at the one I was at last night he gave no detailed answers....at least not in answering the questions he was asked.

 

[shmmeee]

Defending your boys to the last Godiva...can you blame him for signing off what seemingly looks like an incorrect set of accounts? Well yes actually I can...Not sure what forum you went to but at the one I was at last night he gave no detailed answers....at least not in answering the questions he was asked.

Agreed, I was there Monday. I've tried to be as neutral (sometimes by swinging from one extreme to the other ) as I can in this whole thing and remain objective, but Fisher dodged any tough questions relating to: Who will own the arena, What evidence they have for Holdings being the club (i.e. they have none) and what will happen to the team under FFP for the next three years.

Those are quite frankly the only important points IMO:

1) Is the club up for sale (i.e. is it Ltd) - We have no answer. Fisher did NOT say Holdings was the club and even admitted at one point that he has no legitimacy to speak for CCFC

2) If we're getting a new ground will it be a club asset or a Sisu asset. NO ANSWER. Kept talking about how the club has no value, the stadium does. I wish I'd thought to ask him at the time why Sisu don't walk away from the club and just build a stadium in Cov if there's so much money in it.

3) If we're going to groundshare, how will we survive on massively reduced wage budget? Last season out budget was circa £4.2m and we finished bottom half of the table (after an outstanding run of form from a manager no longer with us). This coming season (based on revenue from the Ricoh remember) it's £2m. What will it be next season after a year in Wallsall? £1m? £500k?

The point all along is that Sisu have continually shown and continue to show with the mess last season, that they cannot run the football side of things. Yes they can restructure debt and blah blah blah make the company stable, but they keep fucking up their product on the pitch and ultimately no matter how good your accountants are, they don't win you football matches.

 

[Delboycov]

My thoughts exactly Shmmee...I was really surprised at how little effort he put into trying to sell us his dream and as I've said before he gave the distinct impression that he didn't even believe in it himself!