Trust response to Tim Fisher (4 Viewers)

[Nick]

Of course that is the priority !!
Removing Fisher just might help the negotiations and offer Wasps a route to changing their opinions on reopening negotiations.
It’s all about pride and principles and you need “like minded people” with a common goal to achieve that.

I agree, we saw that when boddy and Stevens took over the academy negotiation.

Haven't wasps said openly they have a great relationship with the club and did a deal last year?

While I agree he couldn't lie straight in bed and boddy does much more than he does. Are wasps suddenly going to open talks? It wouldn't stop legals from going on.

 

---

[Grendel]

Anyway is this person the SBT secretary?

Two more Rochdale grooming scandal victims receive council pay-outs

 

[usskyblue]

Anyhow. I’ll leave the usual idiots alone to wank each other off now in mutual likes and repeating endlessly what each have already said as if it makes you smart. Enjoy yourself girls. I’m sure Fisher appreciates what you do for him.

Said like a true trust supporter m8

 

[chiefdave]

Removing Fisher just might help the negotiations and offer Wasps a route to changing their opinions on reopening negotiations.

How would Fisher going help? Boddy is the one doing the negotiations and Fisher resigning wouldn't have any impact on the legal action.

At best nothing changes, at worst someone like Dulieu gets dropped in by SISU.

 

[Nick]

How would Fisher going help? Boddy is the one doing the negotiations and Fisher resigning wouldn't have any impact on the legal action.

At best nothing changes, at worst someone like Dulieu gets dropped in by SISU.

Think that's the point missed, the replacement isn't going to be done by fan poll.

 

[shmmeee]

Probably because there are more important things to worry about. It's like someone has set fire to your house, instead of putting the fire out then going after the guy they're just shouting at the bloke while their house burns down.

Fucking love it when we get to the house on fire metaphors section of this debate.

Looking forward to second hand cars making an appearance soon.

 

[stupot07]

Anyway is this person the SBT secretary?

Two more Rochdale grooming scandal victims receive council pay-outs

Looks like it

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[clint van damme]

I don’t follow or are interested in the politics of the trust or any agenda of people on here.
Like the majority always CCFC and it’s current manager and team first.
However I do believe that Fisher is a devisive influence that only complicates a very difficult negotiating situation.
In the trust article they are very clear about Fishers roles and responsibilities and on those matters I agree with them. He should either resign or admit he supports the court cases.

To me, as a Sky blues supporter, whether Fisher resigns or not is, at the moment, a minor issue compared to where we are playing next season.
The only real hope we have of securing another year deal is if wasps give in and negotiate one with the club. All Sky blues should be showing a united front to put pressure on wasps but the trust are driving divisions, they really need to look at themselves.
If/when the deal is signed they should then start looking at a new strategy for bringing about ownership change as everything up to now has been ineffectual.

But not aligning themselves with the other supporters groups has been counter productive in my book.

 

[stupot07]

The Trust just arent for for purpose, and IMO are no longer representing the will of its membership or cov fans in general.

We all hate Fisher and would be glad to see the back of him, but him leaving and replaced with someone else changes Nothing.

All fans groups Should be putting pressure on all sides to come together to do a deal for us to stay at the Ricoh. This Should be the primary focus, right here, right now.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[NortonSkyBlue]

I have no agenda other than to support my club in their city.
I am not a member of the trust and would be disappointed if they were coming out with statements that have not been approved by their members, so if the trust have a mandate to call out Fisher and agree that signing the communique is not supported by their membership then that is perfectly acceptable to me. Coventry City supporters acting on behalf of Coventry City supporters.
That is democracy and it is not a big job in this day and age to canvas the membership. If it is a few people deciding for the membership on something as crucial as this then they should resign.
It's time we all found a united voice and stood behind the consensus, whatever that is.
My view is that Wasps should be approached to change their stance for the good of community relations and it would be something if the football club was part of that approach.
It's time to park pride and react to the situation we are in. Constantly finger pointing is the deflection.

 

[Colin Steins Smile]

If Fisher is really serious about ensuring CCFC's future at the Ricoh Arena in the long term, then his role as a Director of the companies pursuing litigation is key.
Under the "Confirmation Statement" lodged with Companies House persons are always cited as being a person with "significant control" over the company. In the case of the companies pursuing the legal claims Tim Fisher is such a person.
Therefore, if he's serious about securing CCFC's long term future her should use his "significant control" to drop the legal claim, which is the one barrier to opening negotiations.
Will he do it???????

 

[Grendel]

If Fisher is really serious about ensuring CCFC's future at the Ricoh Arena in the long term, then his role as a Director of the companies pursuing litigation is key.
Under the "Confirmation Statement" lodged with Companies House persons are always cited as being a person with "significant control" over the company. In the case of the companies pursuing the legal claims Tim Fisher is such a person.
Therefore, if he's serious about securing CCFC's long term future her should use his "significant control" to drop the legal claim, which is the one barrier to opening negotiations.
Will he do it???????

Stop spouting bollocks - fisher has no influence over the club

 

[chiefdave]

If Fisher is really serious about ensuring CCFC's future at the Ricoh Arena in the long term, then his role as a Director of the companies pursuing litigation is key.
Under the "Confirmation Statement" lodged with Companies House persons are always cited as being a person with "significant control" over the company. In the case of the companies pursuing the legal claims Tim Fisher is such a person.
Therefore, if he's serious about securing CCFC's long term future her should use his "significant control" to drop the legal claim, which is the one barrier to opening negotiations.
Will he do it???????

Lets say Fisher resigns today, what happens then? Nothing has changed, the legal action doesn't disappear so Wasps still refuse to talk.

 

[chiefdave]

I am not a member of the trust and would be disappointed if they were coming out with statements that have not been approved by their members, so if the trust have a mandate to call out Fisher and agree that signing the communique is not supported by their membership then that is perfectly acceptable to me. Coventry City supporters acting on behalf of Coventry City supporters.

Read the minutes or google the names of those on the board. Its a very small group of supporters, many with their own agendas, doing whatever they feel like irrespective of what the wider fanbase believes or what is best for the future of the club.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Still not a reason to get upset at Fisher being called out. What’s wrong with having an agenda against Fisher and SISU? They’ve earned it haven’t they?

Quite happy with that. Great.

Now they've done that, their New Year statement can be directed at some of the other parties who we need to campaign against and showcase their hypocrisy.

(Still waiting for the answer as to why they could all do a deal last season under the same circumstances, but seemingly not this season. Suspect I'll have to wait a while for that question to be asked by anybody other than some goon on a message board, mind)

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Anyway can someone confirm if this is roger Ellis the SBT secretary?

Council boss in charge at time of Rochdale child sex grooming scandal 'should pay back £80,000 payoff', MPs say | Daily Mail Online

I would say, if you consider this relevant, it probably deserves a separate thread so as:

• Not to get lost;
• Not to deflect.

Anyway, just a thought.

 

[Grendel]

I would say, if you consider this relevant, it probably deserves a separate thread so as:

• Not to get lost;
• Not to deflect.

Anyway, just a thought.

How is it deflection. I’m interested in the Trusts view on fit and proper people to sit on a board relating to the football club.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

How is it deflection. I’m interested in the Trusts view on fit and proper people to sit on a board relating to the football club.

It isn't dealing with this particular issue as in this thread. As it happens, no bugger's answering you, so it's not taking the thread away from that issue at all(!) but...

Notice I did suggest you made a thread so it didn't get lost, if you considered it important. Doing that would focus on that particular issue, wouldn't it? It'd also be more likely your question would be seen (and answered) and could probably be discussed more in depth.

 

[Grendel]

It isn't dealing with this particular issue as in this thread. As it happens, no bugger's answering you, so it's not taking the thread away from that issue at all(!) but...

Notice I did suggest you made a thread so it didn't get lost, if you considered it important. Doing that would focus on that particular issue, wouldn't it? It'd also be more likely your question would be seen (and answered) and could probably be discussed more in depth.

Nobodies answering any of the points raised are they? Ellis and co think apparently according to the numerous twitter accounts that people on here are extremists and not representative of ccfc supporters

I’m also interested to know why a trust member that creates a lot of accounts on social media to push an absurd and militant agenda was at one point associated with the trust of Birmingham City. Aren’t you?

 

[usskyblue]

I would say, if you consider this relevant, it probably deserves a separate thread so as:

• Not to get lost;
• Not to deflect.

Anyway, just a thought.

I think it’s relevant to highlight exactly who isn’t representing us m8

 

[Nick]

I see nw's point but it's not going to get an answer in here or on another thread.

It will just have random Twitter accounts fired up to say everybody are sisu lovers or something like that.

I've raised it with trust board members that to really bring the fans together that needs to be cut out. Only CJ tries to discuss things and be tends to get thrown under the bus while the others sit about liking snide tweets.

Wouldn't hold out any hope on any pressure on other parties in future statements either, it's way past that.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I think it’s relevant to highlight exactly who isn’t representing us m8

And I'm not saying it isn't, am I?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Anyway, not enough time to do it properly, and my brain is still elsewhere but...

We've had the Tim Fisher stuff - fine. No issue with that, so let's add to it, dealing with the issue at hand.

Why, as reported 8th May 2017, were Wasps seemingly happy to talk about a deal for the club to remain at the Ricoh in the medium term at that point, but not now? What has changed? Has anything changed? Are Wasps still happy to talk about a deal? Note, this statement was made after certain legal action commenced. As, apparently, it was a long term deal that was not able to be countenanced while legal action was ongoing, (see also here) why can't the parties talk about a rolling annual deal, to be reviewed on conclusion of legal action?

As the EFL were instrumental in helping the parties reach agreement on the current deal, according to reports, are they talking to both parties now? What is their view? Do we have a direct view, as opposed to hearsay?

A couple that are more flights of fancy, but the answers would be illuminating:

If we're talking hypotheticals, would the council; be happy for a temporary arrangement for the football club to play at the Butts rather than the Ricoh if talks broke down? As a Plan B, would they be willing to facilitate talks between those two parties, where relations appear to be more positive? Would CRFC be more disposed to talks with the football club if the council were onside?

As an actual Plan B, the club must surely have one if a deal at the Ricoh is unable to be reached. If not, it would be terrible business practice. What is Coventry City's Plan B, if they are unable to stay at the Ricoh?

 

[usskyblue]

And I'm not saying it isn't, am I?

Who pissed on your Digestives m8 ?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Who pissed on your Digestives m8 ?

As it happens, I appear to be the one saying bring it more into the open rather than digressions on other threads.

I'd have some questions myself if there were a thread dedicated to it, but I'm not going to waste (any more of!) my time digressing here.

 

[usskyblue]

As it happens, I appear to be the one saying bring it more into the open rather than digressions on other threads.

I'd have some questions myself if there were a thread dedicated to it, but I'm not going to waste (any more of!) my time digressing here.

We need a new thread dedicated to your digression m8

 

[Colin Steins Smile]

Stop spouting bollocks - fisher has no influence over the club

In that case the submission to Companies House is totally inaccurate, which is against the law!

 

[Otis]

This thread is hilarious. Already. Can’t understand why some supporters get so upset when Fisher gets called out.

I'm going to give it a wide berth for that very reason.

The Trust are right to point about Fisher for sure. They though should of course also be focusing on all the other factors too, such as getting the council involved with ensuring we continue to play at the Ricoh.

It is entirely wrong that Fisher seems to have his finger in all the pies.

What we need now though is a Trust statement on the Council and how we can apply pressure there.

We shouldn't just have this all descend into an argument about Fisher.

You are correct on that point for sure.

 

[usskyblue]

What we need now though is a Trust statement on the Council and how we can apply pressure there.

Good luck with that m8

 

[Otis]

Good luck with that m8

Needs doing though.

Isn't there public access to some council meetings? Should consider turning up and keep bringing the issue up ad nauseum.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Anyway, not enough time to do it properly, and my brain is still elsewhere but...

We've had the Tim Fisher stuff - fine. No issue with that, so let's add to it, dealing with the issue at hand.

Why, as reported 8th May 2017, were Wasps seemingly happy to talk about a deal for the club to remain at the Ricoh in the medium term at that point, but not now? What has changed? Has anything changed? Are Wasps still happy to talk about a deal? Note, this statement was made after certain legal action commenced. As, apparently, it was a long term deal that was not able to be countenanced while legal action was ongoing, (see also here) why can't the parties talk about a rolling annual deal, to be reviewed on conclusion of legal action?

As the EFL were instrumental in helping the parties reach agreement on the current deal, according to reports, are they talking to both parties now? What is their view? Do we have a direct view, as opposed to hearsay?

A couple that are more flights of fancy, but the answers would be illuminating:

If we're talking hypotheticals, would the council; be happy for a temporary arrangement for the football club to play at the Butts rather than the Ricoh if talks broke down? As a Plan B, would they be willing to facilitate talks between those two parties, where relations appear to be more positive? Would CRFC be more disposed to talks with the football club if the council were onside?

As an actual Plan B, the club must surely have one if a deal at the Ricoh is unable to be reached. If not, it would be terrible business practice. What is Coventry City's Plan B, if they are unable to stay at the Ricoh?

Can answer the council one they said it was nothing to do with them

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Anyway, not enough time to do it properly, and my brain is still elsewhere but...

We've had the Tim Fisher stuff - fine. No issue with that, so let's add to it, dealing with the issue at hand.

Why, as reported 8th May 2017, were Wasps seemingly happy to talk about a deal for the club to remain at the Ricoh in the medium term at that point, but not now? What has changed? Has anything changed? Are Wasps still happy to talk about a deal? Note, this statement was made after certain legal action commenced. As, apparently, it was a long term deal that was not able to be countenanced while legal action was ongoing, (see also here) why can't the parties talk about a rolling annual deal, to be reviewed on conclusion of legal action?

As the EFL were instrumental in helping the parties reach agreement on the current deal, according to reports, are they talking to both parties now? What is their view? Do we have a direct view, as opposed to hearsay?

A couple that are more flights of fancy, but the answers would be illuminating:

If we're talking hypotheticals, would the council; be happy for a temporary arrangement for the football club to play at the Butts rather than the Ricoh if talks broke down? As a Plan B, would they be willing to facilitate talks between those two parties, where relations appear to be more positive? Would CRFC be more disposed to talks with the football club if the council were onside?

As an actual Plan B, the club must surely have one if a deal at the Ricoh is unable to be reached. If not, it would be terrible business practice. What is Coventry City's Plan B, if they are unable to stay at the Ricoh?

Think it’s still planning on a new stadium

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Needs doing though.

Isn't there public access to some council meetings? Should consider turning up and keep bringing the issue up ad nauseum.

Can always raise with your local councillor

 

[rob9872]

The trust are irrelevant and I detest Fisher but we are where we are and everyone needs to grow up a bit and get past personal dislikes. I couldn't care less at present if Rose West was our chairman, but as far as I'm concerned we need a Ricoh deal resolving asap and everything else can wait.

 

[chiefdave]

Needs doing though.

Won't hold your breath. From what I can make out the trust secretary is an ex council CEO and there's another chap who shows as attending board meetings (despite not being listed on their website as a board member) who works for the council.