Scg meeting notes from Thursday (19 Viewers)
- Thread starter CovFan
- Start date
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I think you'll find it was from SCG then telegraph I first read it on here when SCG minutes were put up
Nick
Administrator
The minutes got put up yesterday (17th) with stuff from Fisher and Steve.
The Telegraph article was the 14th.
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
i do apologise I only knew about it when I saw it out on here
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Wasn't Ryton said to be worth £8m recently, and it has been speculated that the remaining debt (as in what hasn't already been written down) is in the £10-15m region so you'd be looking at a ball park of £20m to purchase.
Think there's more to this than we know. Fisher was clearly hinting at something in the SCG meeting and it strikes me as odd when the Trust have said that have dialogue with all parties involved, including Joy, they couldn't just ask her. A casual 'what sort of amount would we need to buy the club' at one of those meetings might have been a better option.
Joy Division
Well-Known Member
The irony of SISU lecturing somebody on when and how accounts should be filed, laughable Tim. Clearly opened with that statement to undermine the group at the first opportunity, not as clever as you think you are Tim.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
was clearly told to open with that statement! He didn't decide to do that himself.
Joy Division
Well-Known Member
Apologies if already answered but who is Tynan Scope?
Nick
Administrator
Think he is the commercial manager at ccfc, or something like that.
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
As I said on another thread I think it's been a long time since they met Joy
skybluebeduff
Well-Known Member
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sky-blue-trust-hits-out-12040886
On the takeover approach
He alleged that the Trust had made an offer to buy the club. I said that was untrue. I attach, on a confidential/not for publication basis, a copy of the letter sent by the Trust’s solicitors to Ms Seppala. You will see that it quite clearly does not make an offer, as I told the meeting.
On the Trust’s accounts
The Trust (a mutual society rather than a company) accounts were submitted to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) back in August.
The FCA have acknowledged receipt. The Trust had been in discussions with the Registrar with a view to removing the audit requirement, which was contained in new Trust rules, to replace it with a less costly process of independent examination.
It took time to get the right advice and paperwork sorted so that the Trust (who are and have to be cost conscious) could save their members thousands of pounds. It needed to be done properly and it was.
The filed accounts for the year ended January 2016 show the Trust had a turnover in that year of £485 and net assets of £5,629.
As our earlier statement made clear, in any purchase Trust funds would not be used. Instead a community share scheme would be used.
In addition, the accounts have been available on the Trust website for some time.
On the takeover approach
He alleged that the Trust had made an offer to buy the club. I said that was untrue. I attach, on a confidential/not for publication basis, a copy of the letter sent by the Trust’s solicitors to Ms Seppala. You will see that it quite clearly does not make an offer, as I told the meeting.
On the Trust’s accounts
The Trust (a mutual society rather than a company) accounts were submitted to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) back in August.
The FCA have acknowledged receipt. The Trust had been in discussions with the Registrar with a view to removing the audit requirement, which was contained in new Trust rules, to replace it with a less costly process of independent examination.
It took time to get the right advice and paperwork sorted so that the Trust (who are and have to be cost conscious) could save their members thousands of pounds. It needed to be done properly and it was.
The filed accounts for the year ended January 2016 show the Trust had a turnover in that year of £485 and net assets of £5,629.
As our earlier statement made clear, in any purchase Trust funds would not be used. Instead a community share scheme would be used.
In addition, the accounts have been available on the Trust website for some time.
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
how can it be if they didn't put private and confidential on it ?
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
This bit is a very odd way to act. The Chair should be asked to explain at the next meeting.
"The Trust insists it had clarified the position on all of the points raised by Mr Fisher ahead of the publication of the SCG minutes but the Trust’s responses were not included.
A spokesman for the Trust told the Telegraph failing to include the group’s responses could be considered “an irresponsible act”".
"The Trust insists it had clarified the position on all of the points raised by Mr Fisher ahead of the publication of the SCG minutes but the Trust’s responses were not included.
A spokesman for the Trust told the Telegraph failing to include the group’s responses could be considered “an irresponsible act”".
tisza
Well-Known Member
Fisher can say he hasn't been paid. But we know that earlier his income was dependent on reaching certain targets - promotion, stake in the Ricoh. All missed.
Does beg the question have the performance targets been switched from success for the football club to balancing the books?
Does beg the question have the performance targets been switched from success for the football club to balancing the books?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
What does that mean in non-accountant speak as to me it reads like they're required to submit audited accounts but have instead have submitted unaudited accounts and are trying to get the audit requirement removed. Would that not mean that until there is agreement to remove that requirement the accounts submitted are not of the required type?
skybluebeduff
Well-Known Member
I don't know mate, better to ask OSB or a member of the SBT.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
I think they are explaining the delay was due to asking to get the audit requirement removed, and that this has now been resolved.
edit - from the Trust website 'The meeting considered a report by the Trust Secretary on the background to and reasons for delay in bringing accounts to the AGM for approval in recent years. He explained that, as permitted by the Trust rules, it had become necessary for the Trust to arrange for the accounts to be subject to Independent Examination rather than audit. Such examination had been carried out'.
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
I think back fondly to those happy months of silence from Mr Fisher.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
To be honest I think he's the most entertaining player we have at the moment.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
"The filed accounts for the year ended January 2016 show the Trust had a turnover in that year of £485 and net assets of £5,629."
fuck me, that's what he's arguing over?!
The clubs on the brink and he's making an issue of 6 grands worth of assets! I've got more than that in my ISA!
fuck me, that's what he's arguing over?!
The clubs on the brink and he's making an issue of 6 grands worth of assets! I've got more than that in my ISA!
oucho
Well-Known Member
Read the next paragraph. He clearly says that Trust funds will not be used to buy the cub, and instead a community share offer will be issued.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Isn't that his point, that they haven't got the money? Appreciate they've said it won't be Trust money used to buy the club but have they shown any viable means of raising the sort of funds we'd be talking about. Seems to me there would need to be someone sat in the background putting a lot of money in. If they have that person lined up why not make them known.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
I think he was just trying to create a smoke screen to divert attention away from every thing else that's been going on and I think he was told to do so.
Yes. technically he had a point on a couple of issues but there are more important things that should be getting discussed.
I think it was a rather clumsy attempt by the trust to try and find out what it would take for sisu to sell up but you can't blame them for trying. I think you've made the point yourself in the past CD about offering sisu a way out rather than forcing them out, so surely knowing the asking price for the club would be a start?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The distraction worked on some though as you can tell from this thread.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I don't think they ever claimed to be using trust funds, far from in fact. So no that isn't the point. The point is obvious and you've swallowed it hook line and sinker.
Nick
Administrator
Swallowed what? That it was all a fishing exercise and it was obvious it would be straight back to the telegraph to help with their campaign?
The same as last time.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The fact that you have to ask only confirms that you swallowed it too.
See CVD's post a couple above mine. He explains it better than I could.
Nick
Administrator
I wasn't on about what Fisher said, I was on about the offer.
It isn't a very good smokescreen is it when the trust will just have a word with the telegraph and get loads of articles published. It is all part of the campaign.
If stuff is left out of the minutes, I strongly disagree with that and that's where the strange fellow should piss off. (as i said in the other thread).
skybluebeduff
Well-Known Member
Why should they make them known? If Tim and Joy had accepted to have a discussion about it, then clearly it would be disclosed who the investor is, we've all seen what happens when a potential buyer/investor has been made public...
SCG = meaningless gathering of trivial people hoping to become important.
SBT = well meaning and passionate collection of fans who actually care about the club and exploring ways of changing its future.
TF = brainless, blustering, bullying bag of bullshit
JS = pandering, psychophantic, bag of wind and piss
SBR= too nice a guy to share a platform with these tossers.
SG = what's the point?
Sent from my SGP611 using Tapatalk
SBT = well meaning and passionate collection of fans who actually care about the club and exploring ways of changing its future.
TF = brainless, blustering, bullying bag of bullshit
JS = pandering, psychophantic, bag of wind and piss
SBR= too nice a guy to share a platform with these tossers.
SG = what's the point?
Sent from my SGP611 using Tapatalk
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Smoke screen for what? Like I said read CVD's post. Pay special attention to the part about offering SISU a way out rather than forcing them out. Always the tin foil hat with you Nick where other parties are concerned. Why don't you throw theories at SISU's motives for a change?
Nick
Administrator
Yes, but a fans group who are clearly working with the telegraph on a campaign against them isn't going to get anywhere is it? Are they expecting SISU to reveal all to them to then give it to the telegraph or the council etc?
It was supporters direct telling the council's PR company to go and knock on Joy's door, why is she going to entertain it?
It isn't tin hat is it? It is obvious.
As I said at the time, if it was The trust with gilbert waiting round the corner for the info it is totally different to a rich arab rocking up to enquire isn't it?
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
If all the trust have to do is have a word with the telegraph why don't the club try it . Or are you saying the telegraph wouldnt print anything that comes out of the club?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
You really are a dumb ass.
No I wouldn't expect SISU to reveal all to them to give to the council or telegraph. I would however expect a period of confidential preliminary talks before a period of confidential due diligence while a bid is being tabled. I'm sure you're familiar with a phrase called commercial confidentiality by now.
Did you really just claim that it's all a smoke screen to fish for information for the CT or CCC? That's a bold statement. Do you have more than a tin foil hat to confirm this revelation?