Was osb there? (1 Viewer)

[Nick]

One reason why all of the pointless questions and rants should be ignored as they give Fisher a way out as they move on and skirt aside without answering

While people cheer the sisu out comments, it doesn't gain anything.

 

---

[Delboycov]

It would mean the forums had more point, definitely.

Even if they wanted to give full answers, the format just doesn't allow it. May as well have been a series of phone-ins and not wasted everyone's time having to travel.

Agree with you there NW. What was most frustrating was there were some good questions asked which weren't answered and SL and the questioners weren't given the chance to probe further as you had people screaming for the microphone only to ask a crap question that we already know the answer to! Very frustrating but good for Fisher & Co...

 

[oldskyblue58]

Thought there were some good questions last night from a number of people............. none of which got a proper reply

Had to smile when the young lad in front of me and asked why TF didnt go talk to ACl, when TF said ACL wont talk to him and he had the papers to prove it the young lad well can we see the letters then to which TF said no and everyone laughed
Well done young man !

 

[dongonzalos]

Pity SL never followed it up ,its been so easy for them to skirt the very detail which exposes the Chicanery .

This was the most disappointing aspect for SL he didn't seem to gauge the importance of a question or if it has been answered.

It is reassuring that they didn't have the answers though. Would have been more of a concern if they did.

 

[duffer]

Personally I think you've done terrific work, osb, and it's just a pity that Fisher was once again allowed to sidestep the key questions.

It really frustrates me that SISU and the present and former directors aren't being properly challenged on their running of CCFC Ltd. CWR and the CET should be like a dog with a bone on this, at the moment SISU are getting an easy ride, imho.

 

[Delboycov]

Thought there were some good questions last night from a number of people............. none of which got a proper reply

Had to smile when the young lad in front of me and asked why TF didnt go talk to ACl, when TF said ACL wont talk to him and he had the papers to prove it the young lad well can we see the letters then to which TF said no and everyone laughed
Well done young man !

Thought that was brilliant! But another time TF was let off the hook as he should've been pressed on why, if he continually claims to have letters proving his case he hasn't so far produced them or any other evidence to support these claims...

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Thought that was brilliant! But another time TF was let off the hook as he should've been pressed on why

Again agreed.

There are even valid reasons he could give to why, it would just be nice to see if he chooses to use them!

 

[Jack Griffin]

I for one want to that OSB for all he has done on here, tearing apart what is coming out of holdings. Pity the telegraph cannot employ you to point out what is going on. I did wonder if your attending the forum monday, could be the reason that it was not on the radio.

Naah.. it was because the Holiday Inn had a prior booking of their conference room & there wasn't time for the radio boys to get set up for broadcast.

 

[Delboycov]

Again agreed.

There are even valid reasons he could give to why, it would just be nice to see if he chooses to use them!

He just didn't seem bothered in putting up any defence last night! I was just shocked at how completely disinterested he seemed...

 

[NorthernWisdom]

He just didn't seem bothered in putting up any defence last night! I was just shocked at how completely disinterested he seemed...

Put yourself in his shoes though, at the end of the day he is just an employee/figurehead.

Not sure when he joined the club he expected to be asked to front up a room of shouting men, so to do it 3 work nights on the trot is going to sap your enthusiasm a little!

 

[Warwickhunt]

Do you find it strange that OSB has not commented?

 

[Noggin]

Do you find it strange that OSB has not commented?

He has posted 3 times in this thread.

 

[Delboycov]

Put yourself in his shoes though, at the end of the day he is just an employee/figurehead.

Not sure when he joined the club he expected to be asked to front up a room of shouting men, so to do it 3 work nights on the trot is going to sap your enthusiasm a little!

Take your point but last night was possibly his last opportunity to sell us his big 'dream' and I think with this plan clearly dependant on fan's buying into it, he could've at least tried to look half interested for 80 minutes! There's a very small part of me that's felt sorry for him as I'm sure he's just carrying out orders but I didn't think for a second last night he 'believed' in this plan and if he doesn't believe in it himself then how the hell is he going to get us to believe in it?! I thought he represented his bosses very poorly last night and that really surprised me...

 

[SkyBlueBlood]

I'm not shouting down on people, It's the complete opposite, Bellend, twat, mug, chump, all used AT ME, that's me insulting people is it? From the word off, I said a simple point, why are people pinning richardsons problems on SISU? And saying you won't support the team you apparently love because of someone in a suit, that doesn't make you a fan at all

Why are SISU hiding behind Richardson's problems when they have caused enough themselves?

 

[wingy]

It would mean the forums had more point, definitely.

Even if they wanted to give full answers, the format just doesn't allow it. May as well have been a series of phone-ins and not wasted everyone's time having to travel.

For all the yelling/Furore it is relevant for the emotion to be transmitted, and felt.
Having had a chat with Him the week before thinking I would physically lose it ,face to face was surprisingly benign .I didn't think there was any point attending any of the Lectures ,as it just gave air to ludicrous intentions.

 

[luwalla]

a perfect example of why these forums were a waste of time.. OSB asked some legitimate and quite important questions ( especially given that the purpose of these forums was to try and install some trust in the club taking us forward ) .. and they are totally ignored & its on to the next pointless round of waffle from TF

nothing.. i honestly cant think of one thing.. has come out of these forums of any interest, or that we didnt already know.. it was merely a PR exercise ( and a pretty poor one at that ) by the club.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

One reason why all of the pointless questions and rants should be ignored as they give Fisher a way out as they move on and skirt aside without answering

While people cheer the sisu out comments, it doesn't gain anything.

Nick-nothing does mate

 

[Nick]

Well when somebody who knows what they are talking about is quizzing them and is getting somewhere then surely they shouldn't be stopped for somebody just to say "get of our town sisu". It was the point I was trying to make after I listened to the first one.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Well when somebody who knows what they are talking about is quizzing them and is getting somewhere then surely they shouldn't be stopped for somebody just to say "get of our town sisu". It was the point I was trying to make after I listened to the first one.

Or the person who next gets the mic could have just sent Lineell back to the original questioner, and given up their 15 seconds of fame.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Or the person who next gets the mic could have just sent Lineell back to the original questioner, and given up their 15 seconds of fame.

Won't forget my pal Jim announcing his Twitter username before his question.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

Having been asked as to who i am and was i there then I confirm that I was the one giving Mr Brookfield a grilling

Yes I was at the creditors meeting representing a client, The Alan Higgs Centre Trust in my professional capacity. All above board, with letters of engagement, signed in at that meeting etc. It was a one off appointment for that day which gave me the opportunity to question the administrator on their behalf and to assist a local charity. I have not acted for them before or since and I am not part of The Higgs Charity, ACL, the Council etc nor have I ever been.

As my name is out there I will also make clear that I have been helping, in a non professional capacity, the Sky Blue Trust in getting a handle on the financial situation at CCFC. Nothing to hide there either. Hopefully it helps the Trust get their heads round complex/messy financial matters.

Think I have proven my financial skills and been right on more than a few ocassions

I view the current situation as so serious that hiding behind a keyboard is neither relevant or useful. If any of the above upsets, devalues my contribution or disappoints some on here then so be it. My input here and other places has always been truthful and to the best of my ability and I am very comfortable with that. Oh and if I offered an opinion it was honest and I am entitled to express it just as much as anyone else

Got some questions .......

Last night I asked Mr Brookfield
- if the accounts were right or wrong, was the basis of their preparation incorrect ?
- if he had ever encountered a group banking situation whereby all bankings and payments are made from one account?
- whether it is who paid or who had the liability to pay that dictates what is in the accounts?
- 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" " ..................... could he comment as to why CCFC Ltd was a non trading property subsidiary when the Company's own statutory rules said it was not

I stated the basis of those memorandum & articles had not been changed by later amendments.

Mr Brookfield is Finance director of CCFC appointed over a year ago............ these are not difficult questions.......... you might expect any director to understand the entity he is in charge of

Instead there was no real reply and the retort was "were you at the creditors meeting with the Alan Higgs Trust" - to which I immediately answered truthfully yes

Got to wonder what relevance my being at the creditors meeting had to any of the questions I asked and did not get answered :facepalm::thinking about:

They were not difficult questions

That is the truth.

Are any of these questions (unanswered) being included in the letter to Joy Seppala ?

 

[simple_simon]

Fair play to you OSB

 

[Johnnythespider]

If this ends up in the courts they won't be able to skirt the answers, best get your thinking caps on timmy and co as that's where i see it ending up.
Thanks for the good work OSB

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

If this ends up in the courts they won't be able to skirt the answers, best get your thinking caps on timmy and co as that's where i see it ending up.
Thanks for the good work OSB

and when HMRC, Customs and Excise and Company House start asking questions -- which they will !

 

[Sisued]

Thanks OSB, you exposed some glaring errors in the SISU defence.
Lets hope they prove as inept at bidding for the company as they are at running it.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

Is anyone able to put OSB's questions onto a Word document and send it to [email protected] for them to include the questions in the letter to Joy Seppala ? I don't know how to put onto Word (I'm a thick OAP after all!)

 

[CJ_covblaze]

Good idea but amongst others from the board his questions are in a letter from the Trust to Joy

 

[Godiva]

Having been asked as to who i am and was i there then I confirm that I was the one giving Mr Brookfield a grilling

Yes I was at the creditors meeting representing a client, The Alan Higgs Centre Trust in my professional capacity. All above board, with letters of engagement, signed in at that meeting etc. It was a one off appointment for that day which gave me the opportunity to question the administrator on their behalf and to assist a local charity. I have not acted for them before or since and I am not part of The Higgs Charity, ACL, the Council etc nor have I ever been.

As my name is out there I will also make clear that I have been helping, in a non professional capacity, the Sky Blue Trust in getting a handle on the financial situation at CCFC. Nothing to hide there either. Hopefully it helps the Trust get their heads round complex/messy financial matters.

Think I have proven my financial skills and been right on more than a few ocassions

I view the current situation as so serious that hiding behind a keyboard is neither relevant or useful. If any of the above upsets, devalues my contribution or disappoints some on here then so be it. My input here and other places has always been truthful and to the best of my ability and I am very comfortable with that. Oh and if I offered an opinion it was honest and I am entitled to express it just as much as anyone else

Got some questions .......

Last night I asked Mr Brookfield
- if the accounts were right or wrong, was the basis of their preparation incorrect ?
- if he had ever encountered a group banking situation whereby all bankings and payments are made from one account?
- whether it is who paid or who had the liability to pay that dictates what is in the accounts?
- 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" " ..................... could he comment as to why CCFC Ltd was a non trading property subsidiary when the Company's own statutory rules said it was not

I stated the basis of those memorandum & articles had not been changed by later amendments.

Mr Brookfield is Finance director of CCFC appointed over a year ago............ these are not difficult questions.......... you might expect any director to understand the entity he is in charge of

Instead there was no real reply and the retort was "were you at the creditors meeting with the Alan Higgs Trust" - to which I immediately answered truthfully yes

Got to wonder what relevance my being at the creditors meeting had to any of the questions I asked and did not get answered :facepalm::thinking about:

They were not difficult questions

That is the truth.

OSB is not being completely fair I think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMW6rVXDhlY (part 5).

Starting from the beginning of part 5 and for the duration of 3:40 minutes Steve Brookfield explain (tries to) the difference between limited and holdings.

OSB follows up with a series of questions and there is a 3 minute debate between SB and OSB. Then at 7:15 Fisher ask if OSB was at the creditors meeting. Stuart Linnell then takes over and issue a follow up question and the exchange between SB and OSB continues until OSB effectively ends the debate with a crack remark. Stuart Linnell then move on to the next person.

So in most of 9 minutes it was all about the difference between limited and holdings - the trade, the assets, the registrations, the difference between now and 95, company rules and so on. OSB seemed to have one aim - to get SB to admit that ccfc ltd always was and still is the football club and that limited should hold all the assets. SB didn't agree and they could have gone on for hours without ever getting closer to an agreement.

But listen for yourself - it's complicated stuff and contrary to what OSB says - it IS difficult to comprehend!

The part I enjoyed was when Fisher said 'welcome to my world, we have accountants all over the place. It's just so painful'.

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

Godiva,

The more I read your posts, the more I am convinced you must be connected to SISU/Fisher in some way. I am not using the silly "SISU rent boy" terminology, which is pathetic. I am saying that I cannot for the life of me understand your posts except from the perspective that for some reason you ardently support SISU/Fisher.
I am not saying you are wrong to do this, you are entitled to your stance and your opinion, but I cannot interpret your posts in any other way.

 

[cloughie]

OSB is not being completely fair I think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMW6rVXDhlY (part 5).

Starting from the beginning of part 5 and for the duration of 3:40 minutes Steve Brookfield explain (tries to) the difference between limited and holdings.

OSB follows up with a series of questions and there is a 3 minute debate between SB and OSB. Then at 7:15 Fisher ask if OSB was at the creditors meeting. Stuart Linnell then takes over and issue a follow up question and the exchange between SB and OSB continues until OSB effectively ends the debate with a crack remark. Stuart Linnell then move on to the next person.

So in most of 9 minutes it was all about the difference between limited and holdings - the trade, the assets, the registrations, the difference between now and 95, company rules and so on. OSB seemed to have one aim - to get SB to admit that ccfc ltd always was and still is the football club and that limited should hold all the assets. SB didn't agree and they could have gone on for hours without ever getting closer to an agreement.

But listen for yourself - it's complicated stuff and contrary to what OSB says - it IS difficult to comprehend!

The part I enjoyed was when Fisher said 'welcome to my world, we have accountants all over the place. It's just so painful'.

It would appear the you tube clip has been blocked

 

[wingy]

Seems to be working Cloughie however the Audio level is shite.

 

[grego_gee]

Seems to be working Cloughie however the Audio level is shite.

Its working for me but it is part 4 not part 5.

The accountants talking about details of how the accounts have been done in detail, does not prove anything very useful.
I have suspected for some time that osb had acquired a weighted agenda, and I think this is most unfortunate. I have respected the insight his posts have given in the past but now he has been signed up by PWKH his contributions cannot be regarded as impartial.
His main point seems to be trying to maintain that the business was run through Ltd. Even if that point is accepted it does not take us much further. The fact is Ltd is owned by SISU as is Holdings and without doubt SISU own the club whether the main part is in one or the other. If any other bidder acquires Ltd they would be in a precarious position to try and run the club without negotiating with Holdings for their cooperation and the whole interest.
It may even be that osb promoted the idea that ACL should table an initial offer perhaps to get access to more detail in the accounts. This has resulted in Byngs backers being concerned and withdrawing their bid, again very unfortunate.

imp:

 

[cloughie]

Its working for me but it is part 4 not part 5.

The accountants talking about details of how the accounts have been done in detail, does not prove anything very useful.
I have suspected for some time that osb had acquired a weighted agenda, and I think this is most unfortunate. I have respected the insight his posts have given in the past but now he has been signed up by PWKH his contributions cannot be regarded as impartial.
His main point seems to be trying to maintain that the business was run through Ltd. Even if that point is accepted it does not take us much further. The fact is Ltd is owned by SISU as is Holdings and without doubt SISU own the club whether the main part is in one or the other. If any other bidder acquires Ltd they would be in a precarious position to try and run the club without negotiating with Holdings for their cooperation and the whole interest.
It may even be that osb promoted the idea that ACL should table an initial offer perhaps to get access to more detail in the accounts. This has resulted in Byngs backers being concerned and withdrawing their bid, again very unfortunate.

imp:

I very much doubt that would be a reason for withdrawing from the bid if you were seriously intersted.

More like a face saving excuse from Byng, as lets face it he changes his version of events everyday.

 

[grego_gee]

I very much doubt that would be a reason for withdrawing from the bid if you were seriously intersted.

More like a face saving excuse from Byng, as lets face it he changes his version of events everyday.

It doesn't seem to be headlined on newsnow yet, I read it here...
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sisu-backed-company-preston-heskell-iv-4313036

imp:

 

[TheRoyalScam]

Some TRS musings:

Hedge funds like to control a myriad of companies: 'trading' companies, along with various 'holdings' (or 'owning') companies, as well as companies with 'debentures' (or 'charges') relating to goods/property/chattels owned by the trading companies.

When SISU took control they had the chance to start with a clean slate, yet throughout their tenure they have simply exacerbated the problem.

Rather than rationalize CCFC Ltd, CCFC (Holdings) Ltd, and SBS&L Ltd, they have instead done the complete opposite and created more: ARVO (a 'debenture holding' company, based in the Cayman Islands tax haven) and the mysterious Otium Leisure (now dissolved).

This has led to the present crucial problem - who 'owns' the club? Without the FL 'Golden Share' it could be argued that nobody does, however the FL believes that the 'Golden Share' has always been in CCFC Ltd (in administration).

It's relevant that TF is on record as saying that CCFC Ltd is merely a non-trading property subsidiary (because it controls the Ricoh lease), yet in the last published accounts its articles of association stated its main business was that of running a professional football club. Personally I don't see why SISU should be allowed to have their cake and eat it.
It may be legal, but the idea of mysteriously moving player/staff contracts/registrations to CCFC (Holdings) Ltd, while putting CCFC Ltd into administration because it holds the ACL lease, reeks as much of desperation as it does underhand (or in Tim's words 'normal') business practice.

Whatever happens over the four bids to purchase CCFC Ltd, it looks like the only conclusion will be in a Court of Law.

Hedge funds like Courts of Law - witness the appeal against CCCouncil's £14m restructuring of the ACL mortgage with Yorkshire Bank. If matters do drag on I believe there is a possibility that we may not even start the next league season.

Having failed in their misguided attempt to distress ACL, it appears to me that SISU have merely taken the next inevitable hedge fund tactic, namely to distress CCFC.

What a tangled web.....

I'm no expert, just a fan since we were last in this division (Division 3 as it was called back in the 60s). Back then we had vision. Now we just have smoke and mirrors.

PUSB