SCG Teleconference with Tim Fisher tonight (17 Viewers)

Forums New posts
A

Ashdown1

New Member
These types will also charge a fortune..................who's picking up the tab for that ?!
 
ashbyjan

ashbyjan

Well-Known Member
SkyBlue_Taylor said:
Ashbyjan, we all crave for an agreement, would you say this process would be worth it if an agreement favourable to CCFC is agreed?
Click to expand...

SBT - my own opinion is that whilst the deal is obviously much better than they had and that is of benefit to the football club we all love but the problems at the club run far deeper than just the rent and whilst a saving of 800k is good I fear it may have taken everybody's eye of the bigger problem. Do the ends justify the means? In my view in this case probably no - I am convinced that a good deal could have been done without the complete breakdown of relations between the two parties. It is vital that ACL and CCFC work together for their mutual benefit but so many bridges have been burned during this acrimonious affair it may take years for any trust to be rebuilt.
 
grego_gee

grego_gee

New Member
oldskyblue58 said:
yes he is making that suggestion. Personally I would go for someone who has been entirely independent in all this. Deloittes, they have the expertise certainly but were involved in the negotiations involving Yorkshire bank and may well already have close links to both parties. They are not the only major firm of accountants that could do this though. I would perhaps approach someone like one of the football finance academics we have heard on CWR - they will have very good football finance knowledge but no link to the club

But there we have the first problem dont we, even if it is agreed to be done ......by who?
Click to expand...

Yes that is true but it would be 100 times more difficult to agree on who should be an arbitrator to be binding on both sides. However it is not for you you or me to suggest alternatives for a mediator, If TF has put forward Deloittes its up to ACL to agree or not. I assume he is confident in them because he thinks they will be best able to take into consideration and explain the niceties of the new FFP regulations. I don't think that ACL should be afraid of that. Surely Deloittes are an established & trusted firm able to remain impartial.

Too much mistrust! take it in good faith!

:pimp:
 
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
ashbyjan said:
SBT - my own opinion is that whilst the deal is obviously much better than they had and that is of benefit to the football club we all love but the problems at the club run far deeper than just the rent and whilst a saving of 800k is good I fear it may have taken everybody's eye of the bigger problem. Do the ends justify the means? In my view in this case probably no - I am convinced that a good deal could have been done without the complete breakdown of relations between the two parties. It is vital that ACL and CCFC work together for their mutual benefit but so many bridges have been burned during this acrimonious affair it may take years for any trust to be rebuilt.
Click to expand...

Answered like a politician. It was a 'Yes or No' question, your answer please.

We'll save 800k, but make possibly north of 200-300k in match day revenues (food & drink etc.) so we'll have cut over 1m off our debt, meaning we'll be able to spend more on 'x, y and z' and thus be more competitive in the market, if we get promoted, the extra revenues that go with promotion would possibly bring us close to break-even or maybe even profit.
 
G

Godiva

Well-Known Member
PWKH said:
I am sorry but...
There was either a veto or there was not. It is black and white. There was no veto and Sisu have made no contact since writing and signing the heads of terms in June. I think that has to be my last word on the subject as there is nothing that can usefully be added.
Click to expand...

That is my point and why I responded.
This is something that could quite easily be verified. When we know the verified facts we know a lot more about the people involved.
 
ashbyjan

ashbyjan

Well-Known Member
SBT - I did say my answer is NO - the cost of the deal is too high and in my view unnecessary in the acrimony it has bred. As I said our problems run far deeper than the rent and the wages is the biggest of them. Our current wage bill is simply unsustainable on our gates and income (even with a reduced rent and added match day revenue) - how can we justify 4 players who allegedly earn more than Tranmeres entire squad? If we were able to replace these with cheaper players of similar ability then great but we are stuck with 3 of them for at least another season after this. Yes the rent reduction helps but it doesn't provide a solution and the cost of getting (assuming we ever do) to an agreement is too high.
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
Godiva said:
That is my point and why I responded.
This is something that could quite easily be verified. When we know the verified facts we know a lot more about the people involved.
Click to expand...

out of interest other than a verbal confirmation how do you verify something that we are told does not exist? Could ask the council I suppose because it would take a full council meeting to approve the veto or not (no evidence of such a meeting having taken place as far as i am aware). Personally I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve PWKH's post.
 
Last edited:
Mary_Mungo_Midge

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
SkyBlue_Taylor said:
Answered like a politician. It was a 'Yes or No' question, your answer please.

We'll save 800k, but make possibly north of 200-300k in match day revenues (food & drink etc.) so we'll have cut over 1m off our debt, meaning we'll be able to spend more on 'x, y and z' and thus be more competitive in the market, if we get promoted, the extra revenues that go with promotion would possibly bring us close to break-even or maybe even profit.
Click to expand...

You ask if this process would perhaps be 'worth it'. You cite one outcome above, which I'm sure is what Fisher and his team would like you to believe is one end-game. Fine, believe it.

Now, consider another outcome. ACL press home their legal advantage - particularly in light of recent comments with regards them 'going bust' et al - and hit the club with the winding up order. The club ceases to exist.

Those are the cards that are on the table. You are happy for 'your' club to be used as trumo card in such a game of brinksmanship?
 
Last edited:
mattylad

mattylad

Member
PWKH said:
Football Investors Ltd was owned by CCFC and had as its Directors Robinson, McGinnity, Higgs and Hover. In 2003 CCFC sold FIL to the Higgs Charity. The CCFC Directors resigned and I was appointed. FIL is a non-trading company. It only exists to hold shares in ACL. The Charity appointed Higgs and McGinnity to be Directors of ACL. I was appointed as an alternate director as was Hover. When McGinnity resigned ( at the same time he resigned as CCFC Chairman) the Charity just replaced him with me . When Sir Derek died the Charity appointed another Director to ACL: a former chief executive of CCFC, Stuart Rolt. When he resigned Paul Harris was appointed Director of ACL and subsequently a Trustee of the Charity.

All Agreements etc are between ACL and CCFC.
Click to expand...
The club that ACL are now killing off...how ironic
 
G

Godiva

Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58 said:
out of interest other than a verbal confirmation how do you verify something that we are told does not exist? Could ask the council I suppose because it would take a full council meeting to approve the veto or not (no evidence of such a meeting having taken place as far as i am aware). Personally I have no reason to disbelieve PWKH's post, but thats just my honest opinion of course
Click to expand...

I don't mistrust PWKH either, nor do I mistrust KH or Jan.

Bying the Higgs shares seemed strategic to the club which led to the Heads of Agreement. When nothing else happened, we had a lot of discussions on this board if that was down to the disagreement over the price or terms. We also discussed in length if the council would ever agree to a deal involving sisu.

Now TF claims in a conferrence with SCG there was a veto - something that PWKH now says is untrue.

It can't be both, it's either there was or there wasn't a veto.

Suppose there wasn't a veto and no evidence of such can back up TF's claim, then I suggest the SCG ask themself how valuable their consultations/meeting really are.
In their shoes I wouldn't accept being fed misleading information (or being downright lied to).
So I would pick up the phone and call TF and say 'about this veto you told us yesterday ... we have been told by the charity that there was never a veto by the council. Can you please clarify what you meant or give us some documentation to back up your claim?'
 
Mary_Mungo_Midge

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
Godiva said:
So I would pick up the phone and call TF and say 'about this veto you told us yesterday ... we have been told by the charity that there was never a veto by the council. Can you please clarify what you meant or give us some documentation to back up your claim?'
Click to expand...

Agreed. And whilst at it, asking him for clarification as to what he meant when (repeatedly) stating that ACL had 'gone bust'; as there's only one definition of such in my mind, and the mind of most fair-minded people
 
sky blue john

sky blue john

Well-Known Member
SBT, Grendel and others on here have applauded Sisu's tactics on this whole affair !!!
Yes it looks to have got the rent down whoopee !!!
The costs to ccfc have been massive though!!
Unlikely to ever gain a stake in the stadium !!
Lost the best manager for twenty years !!
I believe the reduction could have been also gained with a softer approach.
Also to cap it off TF has been banging on about the rates and they could have been reduced a lot sooner with an appeal process. Sisu are not business people amateurs comes to mind !!!!
 
Last edited:
covmark

covmark

Well-Known Member
sky blue john said:
SBT, Grendel and others on here have applauded Sisu's tactics on this whole affair !!!
Yes it looks to have got the rent down whoopee !!!
The costs to ccfc have been massive though!!
Unlikely to ever gain a stake in the stadium !!
Lost the best manager for twenty years !!
I believe the reduction could have beeb also gained with softer
Click to expand...
Jesus, Robins leaving was no fault of SISU :facepalm:
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
sky blue john said:
So accounts being frozen they might not be able to pay me next week would have had nothing to do with it ?
keep slapping your head covmark !!!
Click to expand...

Still think sisu paid robins to say nice things at the Huddersfield press conference?
 
K

kingharvest

New Member
Godiva said:
I don't mistrust PWKH either, nor do I mistrust KH or Jan.

Bying the Higgs shares seemed strategic to the club which led to the Heads of Agreement. When nothing else happened, we had a lot of discussions on this board if that was down to the disagreement over the price or terms. We also discussed in length if the council would ever agree to a deal involving sisu.

Now TF claims in a conferrence with SCG there was a veto - something that PWKH now says is untrue.

It can't be both, it's either there was or there wasn't a veto.

Suppose there wasn't a veto and no evidence of such can back up TF's claim, then I suggest the SCG ask themself how valuable their consultations/meeting really are.
In their shoes I wouldn't accept being fed misleading information (or being downright lied to).
So I would pick up the phone and call TF and say 'about this veto you told us yesterday ... we have been told by the charity that there was never a veto by the couuncil. Can you please clarify what you meant or give us some documentation to back up your claim?'
Click to expand...

I think our consultations with the club are definitely worthwhile, depending on the subject matter.

If its about improving match days, helping to increase fan numbers, acting as a sounding board then great. I have my own views on whether talking about this sort of stuff is worthwhile, But I think if its a way to get more information across to the fans then that alone is worth it.

Also, I personally have no reason to disbelieve either party, although clearly they both can't be right. Can they? I dunno. Too messy and confusing to be honest.

If people genuinely want to put questions to Tim Fisher, why not two or three of you request a meeting? He's relatively accessible albeit busy.
 
Last edited:
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
oldskyblue58 said:
Can we be clear what we are asking for ......

TF wants mediation ....... which could be a long drawn out process that attempts to find a compromise

arbitration is a process where someone independent looks at the available info, arguments and decides the solution ........ TF is not suggesting this
Click to expand...

Pretty much what I said a few days ago, so my belief then as now is that its a delaying tactic..
 
Mary_Mungo_Midge

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
Still think sisu paid robins to say nice things at the Huddersfield press conference?
Click to expand...

Something wasn't right about that press conference. Not that I suggest it altered Robin's stance - that being my belief is that he left for money and money alone.

Fisher states that Robins doesn't know the meaning of the word loyalty and that he's disappointed in him. Then at the same time, Robins in his press conference at Huddlesfield, states that TF has just mailed him and asked him out for dinner?!?
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Something wasn't right about that press conference. Not that I suggest it altered Robin's stance - that being my belief is that he left for money and money alone.

Fisher states that Robins doesn't know the meaning of the word loyalty and that he's disappointed in him. Then at the same time, Robins in his press conference at Huddlesfield, states that TF has just mailed him and asked him out for dinner?!?
Click to expand...

I would suggest you look at that interview note robins' eye movement when he said that and form your own conclusion.
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
ashbyjan said:
Last night Tim Fisher did state he had asked ACL for mediation but only during a radio broadcast and on the clubs website, no direct request made to ACL with terms of reference or anything like that. I believe when Linnell pressed him on the radio on Saturday about abiding by any third party decision he avoided giving an answer - maybe someone could confirm that.
Click to expand...

You can still get the replay I think.. my recollection is he was evasive & he talked about the first step being to agree the terms of mediation.. when pressed he referenced back to that agreement being acceptable to both parties first, so my feeling was that if it suited it might never be agreeable..
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
grego_gee said:
Isn't that the difference between mediation and arbitration. my understanding (before reaching for the dictionary) is the former is not binding on either party the latter is.

:pimp:
Click to expand...

Nope, it is also about who calls the shots, in mediation the negotiating parties agree a compromise with help of the mediator, in arbritation the independant arbitrator decides and the disputing parities are stuck with his decision like it or not.
 
smouch1975

smouch1975

Well-Known Member
It's a fair point. Any business of this size and nature would insist on a confidentiality agreement of some sort.


We shall have to wait for his memoirs
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
smouch1975 said:
It's a fair point. Any business of this size and nature would insist on a confidentiality agreement of some sort.


We shall have to wait for his memoirs
Click to expand...

An agreement that includes saying nice things and going out for dinner is a very special agreement indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 18 (members: 0, guests: 18)
Top