SCG Teleconference with Tim Fisher tonight (12 Viewers)
- Thread starter kingharvest
- Start date
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
kingharvest or anyone ...... says on the official site that the SCG includes "high-ranking members of both Coventry City Football Club and the Ricoh Arena". Who actually makes up the members, I didnt think ACL were represented?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I still find it very telling that it seems Tim has lied to both Jan and King regarding the council using a veto on the buyout of shares.
We don't know - do we?
You are assuming he is, so that is telling you what exactly?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
cheers Godiva 
Grendel
Well-Known Member
He's flapping around as he knows ACL conned him into believing the rent was £150,000 he's clutching at straws.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
If Tim isn't lying then PWKH is.
I am pretty confident I believe PWKH from they way he has behaved on here.
Also Higgs were intending to sell to SISU much to my shock at the time.
If Tim has blatantly lied about this then it puts a massive question mark over everything he says
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
I would just like to thank PWKH, Jan and King harvest for keeping us on here up to date and please don't stop posting because of a mindless few that are brainwashed and can't help themselves.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I would just like to thank PWKH, Jan and King harvest for keeping us on here up to date and please don't stop posting because of a mindless few that are brainwashed and can't help themselves.
Are you capable of understanding the word irony?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
To quote James T Kirk - deflector shields are on full!
So you are assuming.
And that my friend, is the point I have been trying to make throughout this whole thread.
But until we get some evidence, we can only guess or assume. It's words against words.
In this particular case it is KH/Jan telling us TF's word - against the words from PWKH.
2nd hand words against 1st hand words.
Can we really make a case based on that?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
He doesn't cafe. He swallowed the ACL spin on rent so he'll just repeat Tim is lying over and over again.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
See...this started off as a very good informative thread with great credibility, & serious questions, & honest answers. Now it appears to be degenerating into something of a snide, tit-for-tat, even slanging match (between what I'll call the usual suspects)
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Not at all. We have learned some valuable things;
The rent is £400,000 versus £1.2 million
The subsidy is a potential subsidy instigated by the club
For me the one grey area is the statement that stated match day costs are £150,000 which does not equate. I have always interpreted this to mean that the food and drink revenues offset a portion of match day costs which suggests they are allocated around £100,000.
The club accepts £400,000 is fair but the back payment of £1.2 million and full disclosure on total revenues from beverages remain an issue of debate.
The smokescreen is the bit about the veto which is irrelevant to the initial debate.
I have always believed the rental agreement to be this and have had sarcastic sneers aimed at me. Now all we get us fisher is a liar
MichaelCCFC
New Member
Summary of key points in this thread
Some very useful posts in this thread - for anyone who doesn't want to read the whole thing/repeat it all again tomorrow the key points seem to be:
“the rent…was agreed at the well-publicised £400k” (KingHarvest)
“the 400k includes match day costs - they are not on top of the rent” (ashbyjan)
“The assertion by Martin Reeves [Coventry City Council Chief Exec] (I think it was) on CWR that the rent was £150k was misleading” but what ACL have offered is a “total cost to club of using ricoh as 150k per season ….The 150k rebate was off the rates and 100k was what ACL were giving to club from the food so the 150k council was on about was 400k [rent] - 150k [rates rebate]- 100k [what ACL have offered ccfc from food and drink] [=£150k]” (ashbyjan)
There appear to be three sticking points in the dispute but the rent is not one of them - 1. “Sisu require more clarity on the food and beverage numbers 2. ACL’s financial stability; and 3. the length of the deal. (ashbyjan)
Tim fisher says ACL are reluctant to provide the numbers on food and beverage but SISU need to understand these numbers in order for things to progress (Tim Fisher’s comments as reported by KingHarvest)
Sisu would like ‘break clauses’ in the contract – “There is also a disagreement about the length of the lease - it currently stands at 49 years with no break clauses. CCFC would clearly be much more comfortable with break clauses in the lease going forward”(KingHarvest)
“An arbitrator would listen to the arguments from both sides and come up with a "judgement" that both sides would "have" to abide by” but “A mediator would only be a referee and both sides can continue to argue, spin and bullshit to their hearts content but an agreement has to be reached by the two parties not the mediator”. (Ashbyjan)
“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”. (Ashbyjan)
“[Moving to] a new stadium…it’s not something the fans need to even really consider right now according to Tim Fisher” (KingHarvest)
“If Tim Fisher said the Council had vetoed the sale of the shares in ACL owned by the Charity to Sisu, as reported by KingHarvest it is a completely untrue statement by Fisher” (PKWH - Clerk to the Trustees of the Higgs Charity)
“joy seppala is heavily involved, speaks to Tim 4 times a day ” (KingHarvest) but “was accused of lying in a High Court wrangle over bust electricity company TXU. Seppala who is described by rivals as having "balls of steel", was criticised by the trial judge over her "distorted recollection of events" and for being "prone to exaggerate”” (Mary_Mungo_Midge)
There have also been further points about rates, Doncaster, whether ACL is “failing” and the business set up for food and drink at the ricoh but I’ve run out of time to do anymore…..
Some very useful posts in this thread - for anyone who doesn't want to read the whole thing/repeat it all again tomorrow the key points seem to be:
“the rent…was agreed at the well-publicised £400k” (KingHarvest)
“the 400k includes match day costs - they are not on top of the rent” (ashbyjan)
“The assertion by Martin Reeves [Coventry City Council Chief Exec] (I think it was) on CWR that the rent was £150k was misleading” but what ACL have offered is a “total cost to club of using ricoh as 150k per season ….The 150k rebate was off the rates and 100k was what ACL were giving to club from the food so the 150k council was on about was 400k [rent] - 150k [rates rebate]- 100k [what ACL have offered ccfc from food and drink] [=£150k]” (ashbyjan)
There appear to be three sticking points in the dispute but the rent is not one of them - 1. “Sisu require more clarity on the food and beverage numbers 2. ACL’s financial stability; and 3. the length of the deal. (ashbyjan)
Tim fisher says ACL are reluctant to provide the numbers on food and beverage but SISU need to understand these numbers in order for things to progress (Tim Fisher’s comments as reported by KingHarvest)
Sisu would like ‘break clauses’ in the contract – “There is also a disagreement about the length of the lease - it currently stands at 49 years with no break clauses. CCFC would clearly be much more comfortable with break clauses in the lease going forward”(KingHarvest)
“An arbitrator would listen to the arguments from both sides and come up with a "judgement" that both sides would "have" to abide by” but “A mediator would only be a referee and both sides can continue to argue, spin and bullshit to their hearts content but an agreement has to be reached by the two parties not the mediator”. (Ashbyjan)
“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”. (Ashbyjan)
“[Moving to] a new stadium…it’s not something the fans need to even really consider right now according to Tim Fisher” (KingHarvest)
“If Tim Fisher said the Council had vetoed the sale of the shares in ACL owned by the Charity to Sisu, as reported by KingHarvest it is a completely untrue statement by Fisher” (PKWH - Clerk to the Trustees of the Higgs Charity)
“joy seppala is heavily involved, speaks to Tim 4 times a day ” (KingHarvest) but “was accused of lying in a High Court wrangle over bust electricity company TXU. Seppala who is described by rivals as having "balls of steel", was criticised by the trial judge over her "distorted recollection of events" and for being "prone to exaggerate”” (Mary_Mungo_Midge)
There have also been further points about rates, Doncaster, whether ACL is “failing” and the business set up for food and drink at the ricoh but I’ve run out of time to do anymore…..
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Hate to be a pain but if your first statement is true then the rent actually is £150,000 and not £400,000.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
grego_gee
New Member
I think there is too much reference to TF lying, and it isn't helpful or justified.
the comment reported by KingHarvest was not a direct quote (didn't give the exact words used). Even if TF did use the word "vetoed" it may not have been literal.
I think there was a point recently when we were told that JS & TF had attended a meeting with the Chief Exec of the council. If he had said in such a meeting that they would not get council approval to the deal they might have taken that as practically vetoing the deal.
We do not know why TF has this viewpoint but in my opinion it is very likely to be valid, I certainly don't think he would make it up and I don't see any point in him lying about it.
Why would he? It is bound to come out in the wash so wouldn't gain him anything.
By all means ask for clarification - but whoever does so, please have some respect and don't begin by telling him he's a liar!
imp:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
This contradicts one of your prior posts;
On it you said £400,000 was reduced to £150,000 by netting off the match day food contribution and the rebate.
However of that was the case and also the £250,000 match day costs were also included the council would surely argue we are effectively paying nothing.
You see I don't get the statement at all. It says match day costs are reduced to £150,000. The use of the term march day cost implies to be the cost of putting games on irrespective of any rent. This currently is £250,000 so my interpretation is the match day cost is less as some of money from food and drink offsets the admin cost but the rent is £400,000.
We were as I understand it paying £1.2 million plus match day costs so why would the council quote £400,000 inclusive of match day costs as this looks less generous than saying the rent is now £150,000 and also the club has a rebate and beverage contribution.
The two statements you have made don't add up.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Luckily this matter is civil so you have to look at the balance if probabilities over beyond all reasonable doubt.
King I am sure he won't mind me saying has provided a very positive account of Tim's interview including this comment.
Hence he saw no issue with this comment as it portrayed the council in a very bad light.
If it were true as I am in no doubt King thought it was then he is happy to get the message out there.
Jan has provided a witness account to king confirming Tim said these words. In the past it is usually Tim denying he said something in a meeting that ACL have said he said.
So we can be confident he said it.
A while ago PWKH confirmed in here they were in talks with SISU about selling up.
I personally was shocked and questioned PWZH about whether it was a wise move. Until SISU proved they were interested in developing the team over a long period.
He prettying confirmed to me they wanted out and wanted to sell.
Quite a few times later it has been mentioned after the initial chats SISU never came back.
At that stage I believe the council were not even able to veto or not.
Now we have Tim saying the council veto'ed the deal.
PWKH is always very careful what he says on here as to not put himself in danger of litigation.
Yet he had categorically come out and said that what Tim said is not true .
This is the second time now. Also with Tim shaking on a deal then giving a different version of events.
Again I think you have to look at the balance of probabilities on that one.
ACL in unison have said Tim did this.
Yet the two other SISU directors where are they saying.
What an outrageous lie such a thing did not happen.
Are the ACL director likely to get their heads together and say right let's pretend Tim said. 'Gentleman we have a deal. We can put all this behind us and shook hands'
Balance of probabilities Godiva. At some point you have to go with what is more likely.
Then you have to ask yourself do you want SISU and Tim running CCFC like this?
Some will say yes as morals don't count as long as it helps Cov.
However it won't be long before we the fans are on the receiving end.
Last edited:
kingharvest
New Member
I only reported the facts from the meeting, none of my opinions or interpretations. I agree it's positive towards Tim but that's to be expected.
I'm sure if I factually reflected an hour long telephone conversation with ACL it would sound positive to ACL and paint Tim Fisher and SISU in a bad light.
That's the the thing isn't it? Report the facts for us to interpret ourselves.
Personally, my opinion, I think grego is probably right when he suggests veto may have been used in the non-literal sense.
I'm sure if I factually reflected an hour long telephone conversation with ACL it would sound positive to ACL and paint Tim Fisher and SISU in a bad light.
That's the the thing isn't it? Report the facts for us to interpret ourselves.
Personally, my opinion, I think grego is probably right when he suggests veto may have been used in the non-literal sense.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I am happy you fully believed what Tim said.
I have no issue that you reported what you were told.
However are you not concerned that Tim may have lied to you?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I think there is too much reference to TF lying, and it isn't helpful or justified.
the comment reported by KingHarvest was not a direct quote (didn't give the exact words used). Even if TF did use the word "vetoed" it may not have been literal.
I think there was a point recently when we were told that JS & TF had attended a meeting with the Chief Exec of the council. If he had said in such a meeting that they would not get council approval to the deal they might have taken that as practically vetoing the deal.
We do not know why TF has this viewpoint but in my opinion it is very likely to be valid, I certainly don't think he would make it up and I don't see any point in him lying about it.
Why would he? It is bound to come out in the wash so wouldn't gain him anything.
By all means ask for clarification - but whoever does so, please have some respect and don't begin by telling him he's a liar!
Do you think he shook hands with the directors of ACL and said gentleman we have a deal. We can now put all of this behind us and move on?
ashbyjan
Well-Known Member
Grendel you are overcomplicating it - its quite simple (and yes it is a good deal for CCFC which is why they have agreed to it) rent 400k ACL give CCFC their share of the profits from the f and b takings valued at 100k this gives a net cost to CCFC of 300k for the use of the Ricoh with no additional match day costs to pay. In addition the rates have been reduced by 150k but as already stated this has nothing to do with ACL and I criticised Martin Reeves of the council for including it in his calculation. Hope its now clear.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Not to mention the image it portrays to the footballing community including are own current staff and potential future managers and players.
It's not a positive impact.
grego_gee
New Member
Surely this is a situation where a signed contract is expected. I think its slightly strange that ACL are putting such stress on shaking hands. Without checking I can't quite remember where this quote came from. But I seem to remember it was said to be at the end of the meeting that the famous handshake took place..
I think its fairly normal to shake hands at the end of a not too acrimonious meeting. If there had been a handshake in the middle of the meeting when the had been concessions from both sides to move to a new agreement - maybe more significant? But then I'd still expect handshakes at the end of the meeting. Saying goodbye!
Do you see the confusion?
I believe actually that there is no meaning in law to a handshake. As I understand it a contract does not need to be signed. There can be a verbal contract which may be of equal force to a written contract. But...
At a meeting between two sides over something like this when the outcome is expected by both sides to be some final form of written contract - no one would expect a verbal contract to be agreed prematurely and be binding, its a contradiction of the process! And I find it quite strange that ACL are expressing such pain over this.
But the real answer is I wasn't there so I can't comment.
imp:kingharvest
New Member
Well i don't think he's lied - i think he's perhaps used the wrong word. But i'm with grego, i think people have taken it too literally. I know the club are convinced that the council don't want to allow SISU to have any stake in the Ricoh, and i believe this is what Tim was implying when he said veto.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Again, to reiterate, Fisher is paid a salary consummate with someone who doesn't use the 'wrong words' - such as this instance, or ACL 'going bust'. There is a clear and precise legal and business interpretation being these words and phrases that would give rise to their use implying something that it's not the case. Which is either unprofessional, or sinister. Take your pick....
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Grego's explanation is very plausible and more considered than don's. On a serious point two posters have now said he is a liar. Not great on an Internet forum. I would suggest that this now stops.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Look we all know that each side will put their own spin on the way they see things ........... TF is quite correct imo in thinking that as of now the Council would not want to give/sell/accept ownership or part ownership with SISU. However he has also made statements in the past about ACL being worthless and why would you pay good money for it..... his CWR interview 27/11/12 around 16:50 so in dragons den speak he declared himself out. So who actually vetoed what? Basically what I take from it is that both sides are saying that neither would accept the other as stakeholder in the stadium, but thats just my opinion
TF's speciality is as front man...... he is good at manipulating PR....... he is good at trying to drive discussions/press/sound bites in his direction......... it is essentially what he is here for...... he is very plausible to many people. What i do not think he is good at is answering a question in detail that puts him on the spot but thats just my opinion. I do think he has made "slip ups" in his PR, that people feel able to challenge his statements, are less accepting generally of what he says. But people are generally challenging both sides.
You have to also take in to account the qualifications and business experience all these people have. For instance given TF's is it plausible that comments about going bust or veto are a slip of the tongue. He is the professional talking to the layman - he has a duty in care, a duty established many times in court cases. Make your own minds up on that one
I have to agree with grego_gee we were not at the meetings so we can not know for sure. Is ACL actually getting that wound up about the hand shake or not ? or is it the feel we get about it from the forum and press? We are not talking contracts here or for the Charity share purchase we are talking Heads of Agreement - these are the framework for constructing a contract they are not binding, and as such not subject to any formal veto. Until someone tells us and proves it then we do not know what was actually put forward, the counter proposals or the reasons it was felt to be agreed or rejected. Doesnt stop us having an opinion or expressing our thoughts though
That said on too many occassions in this dispute things have been said that have turned out either not to happen, to contradict, to be illogical, fiction not fact or to be shockingly unprofessional. Play the PR card and you put yourself at greater risk of such things unless you are very careful.
People are entitled to make up their own minds........ the only request I would make is have is keep an open mind, question things, ask why?
TF's speciality is as front man...... he is good at manipulating PR....... he is good at trying to drive discussions/press/sound bites in his direction......... it is essentially what he is here for...... he is very plausible to many people. What i do not think he is good at is answering a question in detail that puts him on the spot but thats just my opinion. I do think he has made "slip ups" in his PR, that people feel able to challenge his statements, are less accepting generally of what he says. But people are generally challenging both sides.
You have to also take in to account the qualifications and business experience all these people have. For instance given TF's is it plausible that comments about going bust or veto are a slip of the tongue. He is the professional talking to the layman - he has a duty in care, a duty established many times in court cases. Make your own minds up on that one
I have to agree with grego_gee we were not at the meetings so we can not know for sure. Is ACL actually getting that wound up about the hand shake or not ? or is it the feel we get about it from the forum and press? We are not talking contracts here or for the Charity share purchase we are talking Heads of Agreement - these are the framework for constructing a contract they are not binding, and as such not subject to any formal veto. Until someone tells us and proves it then we do not know what was actually put forward, the counter proposals or the reasons it was felt to be agreed or rejected. Doesnt stop us having an opinion or expressing our thoughts though
That said on too many occassions in this dispute things have been said that have turned out either not to happen, to contradict, to be illogical, fiction not fact or to be shockingly unprofessional. Play the PR card and you put yourself at greater risk of such things unless you are very careful.
People are entitled to make up their own minds........ the only request I would make is have is keep an open mind, question things, ask why?
Last edited:
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I have no issue with saying it Grendel.
It is pretty specific.
Tim Fisher knows exactly what the word veto means.
Especially when the council do have the power to Veto any perspective deal to buy the Higgs share.
He is completely aware that the council can Veto any deal.
He used the term the council HAVE veto'ed SISU from buying the Higgs share.
That has not happened it is not the truth.
'To lie is to deliver a false statement to another person which the speaking person knows is not the whole truth, intentionally.'
Tim Fisher knows this is not the truth has he intentionally
told Jan and King this, as it paints the council in a bad light.
It would be very easy to say I think the council would Veto. Or in my opinion it is likely the Council would VETO.
We are told he said the council HAVE veto'ed.
I am happy to post in here in my opinion this was intentionally not telling the truth. Until I hear otherwise. I think it is very reasonable for me to have this opinion and express. I see not issue with expressing it.
Secondly All the ACL directors have said that Tim shook their hands and said Gentleman we can put all this behind us. Etc....
Tim has denied this.
If he came out and said yes I did that. Yes I thought we had a deal. However I then went away did more due diligence and changed my mind fair enough.
He didn't
So If he was going to sue anyone he would sue the ACL directors for making up that he said this.
However he isn't
So I am happy with my opinion that he is not telling the truth
It is pretty specific.
Tim Fisher knows exactly what the word veto means.
Especially when the council do have the power to Veto any perspective deal to buy the Higgs share.
He is completely aware that the council can Veto any deal.
He used the term the council HAVE veto'ed SISU from buying the Higgs share.
That has not happened it is not the truth.
'To lie is to deliver a false statement to another person which the speaking person knows is not the whole truth, intentionally.'
Tim Fisher knows this is not the truth has he intentionally
told Jan and King this, as it paints the council in a bad light.
It would be very easy to say I think the council would Veto. Or in my opinion it is likely the Council would VETO.
We are told he said the council HAVE veto'ed.
I am happy to post in here in my opinion this was intentionally not telling the truth. Until I hear otherwise. I think it is very reasonable for me to have this opinion and express. I see not issue with expressing it.
Secondly All the ACL directors have said that Tim shook their hands and said Gentleman we can put all this behind us. Etc....
Tim has denied this.
If he came out and said yes I did that. Yes I thought we had a deal. However I then went away did more due diligence and changed my mind fair enough.
He didn't
So If he was going to sue anyone he would sue the ACL directors for making up that he said this.
However he isn't
So I am happy with my opinion that he is not telling the truth
grego_gee
New Member
I think I agree with your first point, and maybe TF is purposely trying to be provocative, had he used the words "running aground" or "hitting the dust" perhaps you wouldn't have been able to be so concerned. But I don't think its half as sinister or unprofessional (or illegal?) as the council using tax payers funding to finance an independent company - ACL.
The Council seem to have been very careful to avoid supporting (financially) the football club yet when ACL were heading for financial trouble the council stepped in to prop them up.
In my view that was somewhat biased, the council set up ACL to be an independent company so they should be no different to CCFC or SISU. However I don't see anything wrong with the words TF used I doubt if their use would be actionable. To all intents and purposes ACL were running out of money without the Revenue from CCFC and apparently couldn't find the money to pay the mortgage. Probably SISU expected ACL to fold but they have at least demonstrated that effectively CCFC are paying the mortgage - yet being bound as tenants.
imp:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
just my opinion and expressing no bias but............ I think that TF knew exactly what he was saying and why. There are others involved in this dispute that shoot from the hip and open mouths before thinking ............ TF has never struck me as being one of them. We do not have it word for word obviously BUT call it what you like, make your own minds up, take it as a slip up if it suits, but he knew what he was saying...... to conclude otherwise, that he didnt understand what he was saying is actually a more serious indictment, because it implies he doesnt know what he is doing.
People really need to be very careful in making public statements - it can carry great risk.
People really need to be very careful in making public statements - it can carry great risk.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
You can find quotes from Counciller Mutton expressing that very sentiment.
http://www.football.co.uk/coventry_...e_will_sell_to_sisu_-_mutton_rss1957728.shtml
Can't agreee with you on that, the Council are protecting their stake in the Arena, they committed to paying to build it when CCFC screwed up thier finances, which was controversiial enough, when the operation was threatened by the (definitely illegal) rent strike they stepped in to shore up the situation in a way that only benefitted all parties & didn't extend their level of risk.
Sadly, both sides are using words that imply a situation that is nearly but not quite what it actually is, its hard to see through the smoke & mirrors.
Last edited by a moderator: