Steps removed. SISU and CCFC. (3 Viewers)

Forums New posts
H

hopesprings

Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58 said:
Basically the new Money launderings regulations focus on how the due diligence on clients old or new is done. Rather than a simple proof of identity (passport etc) professionals additionally have to adopt a risk based assessment of the client and key personnel. Looking at it from the outside I do not see there would be any issues for SISU & Seppala even with their raised profile, I would think the same applies to any of the directors

Came in to force 22 June 2017

more details here Quick guide to the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 - The Law Society
Click to expand...
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
So keep your eyes out then and see if anything seems to be going on this time ;)

You can lift your eyebrows all your want, it's interesting how you say there are SISU employees (there probably is that are better at hiding it) but council employees are on here as cov fans.

It isn't just on here, it will be the media as well ramping things up a bit. I said it last week, it's already gone up a gear...
Click to expand...

I will keep an eye out.

By the Cov fans comment I actually meant that you are likely to get council people in here as there will be Cov fans working for the council. I can't imagine many Cov fans work for SISU.
You never mentioned that I said PR people as well?

Yes I will carry on raising my eyebrows like I say having incorrectly been on the receiving end of your conspiracy theories I am quite sceptical
 
Last edited:
Nick

Nick

Administrator
dongonzalos said:
I will keep an eye out.

By the Cov fans comment I actually meant that you are likely to get council people in here as there will be Cov fans working for the council. I can't imagine many Cov fans work for SISU.
You never mentioned that I said PR people as well?

Yes I will carry on raising my eyebruws like I say having incorrectly been on the receiving end of your conspiracy theories I am quite sceptical
Click to expand...

Well yes, there will be people on here who are employed by the council but are nothing to do with it. IE they work in a school or something. That's not really what is meant by it though if people say something along those lines ;)
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
Well yes, there will be people on here who are employed by the council but are nothing to do with it. IE they work in a school or something. That's not really what is meant by it though if people say something along those lines ;)
Click to expand...

There will be people in here who work for the council higher up who are Cov fans as well, who will have different opinions to you.
There will also be a pr person or two from both sides I bet.
It's that person who will dip in and out.
However there won't be as many as you suspect. In my opinion.
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
dongonzalos said:
There will be people in here who work for the council higher up who are Cov fans as well, who will have different opinions to you.
There will also be a pr person or two from both sides I bet.
It's that person who will dip in and out.
However there won't be as many as you suspect. In my opinion.
Click to expand...

What about people involved using fake accounts?
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
dongonzalos said:
As Chiefdave, if someone was repeatedly suing you despite them get advised by the judicial system to give up because their case was so weak.
They are causing you hassle time and money.
You have a legal duty to deal with them over certain matters. However they need you go well above and beyond that obligation and proactively help them out.
You are prepared to help but ask them to stop wasting your time and money with the pointless action. They refuse, would you help them above and beyond.
Also as chiefdave do you now wish that SISU drop the action
Click to expand...
If that 'helping them out' maximises my return I would absolutely continue to deal with them. That's a common occurrence in business and something I have done myself in the past. You put the legal matters to one side, which are generally being dealt with by lawyers anyway, and get on with running your business.

However is as you have assumed that company is losing me money (not sure how you've drawn the conclusion CCFC lose Wasps money) then I wouldn't deal with them if they were taking legal action or not.
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
What about people involved using fake accounts?
Click to expand...

They could be dodgy.
Unless they have to because they want to express their opinion without it been put down as the official statement from whoever they work for.
Was PWKH on here as a fan for example or did he only create an account due to the problems?
It's also a real shame that those who are in the know get hounded out on here when they post as themselves.
Some people don't realise that they are shooting themselves in the foot. A bit like on the platform with Tim Fisher, you get a chance to ask sensible questions but waste it
 
Last edited:
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
If that 'helping them out' maximises my return I would absolutely continue to deal with them. That's a common occurrence in business and something I have done myself in the past. You put the legal matters to one side, which are generally being dealt with by lawyers anyway, and get on with running your business.

However is as you have assumed that company is losing me money (not sure how you've drawn the conclusion CCFC lose Wasps money) then I wouldn't deal with them if they were taking legal action or not.
Click to expand...

That's where we differ I would be highly concerned about getting into long term business with someone. Who is actively trying to screw me over, then also can't take one step towards building a good relationship before we do business.
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
The other thing SISU did was meet up with select groups of fans and get their opinion across to those fans, hoping that those fans spread the word.
It gives it a lot more credibility if it comes from those people instead of SISU itself.
A very intelligent thing to do really.
Say you met with Nick Grendel, OSB, Rob S, Letts and convinced them of your point of view. It's better if trusted established supporters on here are spreading your agenda than you. It gives it far far more credibility.
The tricky bit I imagine is convincing them of your point of view. However I bet they managed it with a few (law of averages). Which would then be deemed a success.
 
Last edited:
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
You could actually be pushing an agenda without even realising you are, purely because you met up with SISU or the council, for example catching a train with them or going to select fan meetings and only hearing their account of things and then you go away and spread that opinion.
 
Last edited:
Super_Johnny_Gayle

Super_Johnny_Gayle

Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58 said:
Not sure how many times it has to be explained. Legally Otium is a separate entity to SISU there is nothing at all that shows otherwise. What you are mistakenly taking as being the same entity is actually a description of being controlled by SISU in the decisions made. Like many companies not all decisions need to be passed to the "owners" for approval though.

It is a question of control not entity.

Perhaps if people used the right terms and descriptions there wouldn't be these perpetual misconceptions, pointless arguments and not challenging SISU on the real issues.

The reason it is important to get it right was highlighted with the administration of CCFC Ltd. That company formed part of the SBS&L group whose members are controlled by SISU exactly like Otium t/a CCFC is , had it been the same entity then SISU would have been in administration too, which of course it was not. That allowed SISU to take actions, for example to break the lease, that did not risk SISU Capital Limited - CCFC Ltd though controlled by SISU was expendable without affecting SISU existence as an entity. They made the decisions, controlled the process but were never the same entity.

Similarly Otium t/a CCFC is not the same entity any way you like to look at it. Otium is most definitely controlled by SISU though as was CCFC Ltd

Perhaps the worry should be that they are not the same entity, because of the options being separate brings

ps I have the qualifications that cover accounts, group structures and basic company law which some would say makes me an expert not an "expert" thanks
Click to expand...
So at tonight's game I should be chanting "OTIUM OUT!!!"?
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
Super_Johnny_Gayle said:
So at tonight's game I should be chanting "OTIUM OUT!!!"?
Click to expand...

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

really cant tell if you are being obtuse or serious? but what ever floats your boat. No idea why you would chant that but there you go.......
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
dongonzalos said:
You could actually be pushing an agenda without even realising you are purely because you met up with SISU or the council, for example catching a train with them or going to select fan meetings and only hear their account of things and then you go away and spread that opinion.
Click to expand...

As I said the other day prepare for account hyperdrive.
 
ccfcway

ccfcway

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
Don't think it will be coincidence this is all starting up again when there could be pressure on Wasps to speak to the club about staying at the Ricoh. From what we are told by them, via the Telegraph, their stance is still a refusal to speak to the club yet we only have an agreement to play there until the end of the year.
Click to expand...

Grendel has confirmed they want ccfc at the Ricoh on a long term deal but ccfc don't want it.
 
M

martcov

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
Something is going on in the background... Agendas are firing up.

If they were the same, CCFC wouldn't have a ticket office and offices at the Butts would they if he can't deal with SISU?
Click to expand...

They are one and the same from the point of view of the council. This means that if John Sharp needs the council - which he does - then, from the position in negotiations, he has to take the stance that they are one and the same. On a day to day running of the club basis they are separate entities.

That is the reality whatever the situation is technically.
 
oucho

oucho

Well-Known Member
Fingers crossed that Dave Boddy can pick up where Waggott left off i.e. have a sensible, calm,, business-like negotiation behind closed doors and only do the reveal when the deal is done. That was a decent way of playing it from all sides. TF clearly isn't the "softly softly" approach kind of guy needed in this situation.
 
M

martcov

Well-Known Member
This started out as.... CCC are wankers, ACL are wankers, The Ricoh is an "edifice", a "white elephant", the reason for our demise etc. Etc. etc..

We are leaving - in a white van with all our gear.

We will have our own stadium with all the revenue- err.. well ok the prop co. will have some of the revenue...- but nevertheless we have a committee to decide e.g. the colour of our seats ( the players cannot tell a player from the empty sky blue seats ). We will be sailing into a glorious sunset.... ( seem familiar - see EU in or out thread under "Brexit" ).

Now, back to the reality of League 2...... "the clock is ticking" and as every minute goes by out negotiating position gets worse. No one is in a hurry on the other side ( Wasps, CRFC and CCC ), they have something we need - a stadium or support for an alternative stadium. We have something they don't need - JR2. Unless Joy offers to drop the appeal of an appeal, there will be no negotiations. No conspiracy. Just a pretty obvious tactic. I suspect that there is some sort of deadline for a "position paper", or the CCFC/ SISU equivalent of one, in the background, which would account for a flurry of activity in the press and social media.

The ball is clearly in CCFC's court and they are under time pressure.
 
M

martcov

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
How so? At present the only option in coventry is the Ricoh. That is controlled by Wasps and they have ended talks with the club and refused any further talks.
Click to expand...

If CCFC now do nothing that is the end of the story - as you rightly point out. I assume CCFC want to continue playing football in or near Coventry. If they want to get anywhere with that, they have to put something on the table to reopen talks. The only thing that would reopen talks ( apart from a huge sum of money ) would be the dropping of JR 2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top