Tom Fisher Q & A email (10 Viewers)

[MichaelCCFC]

Really interesting use of words ie 'rightful income'. In the oft quoted Times article about sisu, there is a reference to JS believing her investors were entitled to a better deal. John Beech was on cwr saying some of sisu's actions are inexplicable but I wonder if you see sisu as being motivated by a sense of entitlement to income they see as rightfully theirs (irrespective of contractual arrangements, other stakeholders etc), it might give some insight.

Ha ha so some spurious attempt to suggest I am a sisu employee.

When I first joined this forum I had 2 main issues - thorn and the ridiculous arrangement we have in leasing the ground. Extortionate rent and no revenue is absurd and prohibitive.

I met Paul Fletcher a couple of times and although he had real issues in management capability his views on the councils handling of this whole situation and its attitude to the club was spot on. It's even worse now as they see themselves as playing God regarding owner suitability.

So no I have nothing to do with the current owners but I am we'll aware the rental arrangement is absurd and unfair.

Michael if you leased a shop from the council would you expect revenue from some if the customers to go back to the council?[/QUOTE]

Grendel, as I've said before I have no idea if you are my next door neighbour, a legal/financial expert, a bored kid etc etc. In any financial arrangement my starting point is the contract I've signed. It's possible to come up with scores of hypothetical anologies (I work in a self financing unit within a larger organisation and there are times it feels like money we've raised from our customers is taken from us!). But re ccfc we don't need to think in terms of hypothetical situations cos there are contractual arrangements in place between all the parties re ricoh/ccfc. To begin with, the acl-sisu dispute was about rent but that seems to have been agreed and I'm no longer even sure what it's about now

 

---

[Godiva]

i take it then if sisu had brought down ACL it wouldn't have effected the charitys investment !!!

Charity - investment.
Quite opposite each other.
Charity is about giving.
Investment is about returns.

As part of ACL the charity is merely an investor hoping to make a return ... a profit.
Just like sisu was hoping to make a return when they invested in the club.

Investors take chances - and they know their money can be lost.

So don't be confused here - Higgs is an investor as far as ccfc is concerned.
Just like sisu.

Had it not been Higgs, but ACME Property Development inc I don't think many ccfc fans would care much about ACL profit.

 

[Grendel]

Stupid argument don. Hull city refused to pay the rent. Do you know what happened? The council backed off because they knew they would be hounded out of town,

If a man dying of thirst approached someone in the street with a bottle of water and he gave him for 8 times the market value and made him sign a contract to protect him later where would your sympathies lie?

 

[thegameaintstraight]

Having read the last 13 pages of this thread I would say ............... but ffs sort it out:

Totally agree OSB but the evidence points to the conclusion that the all people involved don't want to sort it out. They have surely had enough time.
The Council/ACL/Charity are hamsrtung by public accountability constraints and SISU want £millions to go away.
I suspect all are hoping against hope for that Chinese billionaire to surface.
Could be our only hope.

 

[Godiva]

Both parties have painted themself into a corner. It seems none are ready to compromise. TF calls for mediation, but as this will be unbinding it won't do much.
The council ask sisu to leave the town ... that's not exactly asking for a compromise.

I only see arbitration as a way forward.

Arbitration would take away any control either part feel they have and therefor I guess none of them are prepared to walk that road freely.
But maybe the fans can put some pressure on them?

 

[MichaelCCFC]

Arbitration would take away any control either part feel they have and therefor I guess none of them are prepared to walk that road freely.
But maybe the fans can put some pressure on them?[/QUOTE]

Why not? Swansea is the example of what fans can achieve. Even Robbie Savage was praising the Swans Trust today!

 

[dongonzalos]

I wonder what a Coventry successfully promoted back to the championship. That has bought those shares would be worth.

Say guessing off the top of my head SISU spent another 15 million next season to achieve both.

Would they get more than 60 million from a buyer for that package?

 

[Godiva]

I wonder what a Coventry successfully promoted back to the championship. That has bought those shares would be worth.

Say guessing off the top of my head SISU spent another 15 million next season to achieve both.

Would they get more than 60 million from a buyer for that package?

Have you heard about FFP?

 

[sky blue john]

Can it buy them back at the original cost of the mortgage and will that give them absolute 100% control of the whole of ACL's activities?

Don't be silly Grendel how can that happen they will be purchasing a 50% stake the Higgs share. But obviously Sisu just want to play games like you trying to be clever but failing !!!

 

[Grendel]

Don't be silly Grendel how can that happen they will be purchasing a 50% stake the Higgs share. But obviously Sisu just want to play games like you trying to be clever but failing !!!

I wasn't asking you - I know you would rather see the club never kick a ball again than ever compromise ACL and the Council that you suck up to with every post.

My point is that this is what other councils that have owned similar projects have ultimately done. You may be happy with the council playing games with a community asset and penalising them compared to every other precendent that can be found. I and those interested in the football club are not.

 

[dongonzalos]

Have you heard about FFP?

Yes its gets mentioned here every now and then.

The 15 million is to buy the shares and fund the club next year for everything.

Not 15 million on promotion.

Hence they will need to get a buyer prepared to pay 60 million just so they get their money back.

Is half the shares for the Ricoh and a Coventry team back in the championship worth 60 million?

 

[Grendel]

Yes its gets mentioned here every now and then.

The 15 million is to buy the shares and fund the club next year for everything.

Not 15 million on promotion.

Hence they will need to get a buyer prepared to pay 60 million just so they get their money back.

Is half the shares for the Ricoh and a Coventry team back in the championship worth 60 million?

Are you having a laugh -- you must be.

Half share I assume is the Higgs Charity share? It's worthless as a sell on asset.

 

[Grendel]

Why not? Swansea is the example of what fans can achieve. Even Robbie Savage was praising the Swans Trust today!

Swansea indeed is.

When managers go from Coventry according to the likes of Sky Blue John it is because of poor ownership.

So when Swansea lose their manager (which they soon will) I assume it's because the board (which I believe has a Trust member on it) did not do enough to keep him.

 

[dongonzalos]

Are you having a laugh -- you must be.

Half share I assume is the Higgs Charity share? It's worthless as a sell on asset.

I thought access to these revenue streams were vital.

 

[Grendel]

I thought access to these revenue streams were vital.

They don't get access to anything as far as I understand it.

 

[dongonzalos]

They don't get access to anything as far as I understand it.

Why were SISU trying to buy it before then?

 

[grego_gee]

While we have all been engrossed here discussing the meaning of life.
Keith Curle has snuck in under the radar and become favourite for manager.
What a wuss!
please no!
imp:

 

[Grendel]

While we have all been engrossed here discussing the meaning of life.
Keith Curle has snuck in under the radar and become favourite for manager.
What a wuss!
please no!
imp:

He has a pretty good record at Notts County -- 22 away games unbeaten and 46% win ratio is not that bad.

 

[grego_gee]

I looked for an interview with him, on bbc, unimpressed!
No charisma and pretty apologetic!
God help us!
imp:

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

He has a pretty good record at Notts County -- 22 away games unbeaten and 46% win ratio is not that bad.

If he's not good enough for Notts County, why would he be good enough for CCFC!?

He's a Hoofball merchant, not even a good one! Big NO for me.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Ha ha so some spurious attempt to suggest I am a sisu employee.

When I first joined this forum I had 2 main issues - thorn and the ridiculous arrangement we have in leasing the ground. Extortionate rent and no revenue is absurd and prohibitive.

I met Paul Fletcher a couple of times and although he had real issues in management capability his views on the councils handling of this whole situation and its attitude to the club was spot on. It's even worse now as they see themselves as playing God regarding owner suitability.

So no I have nothing to do with the current owners but I am we'll aware the rental arrangement is absurd and unfair.

Michael if you leased a shop from the council would you expect revenue from some if the customers to go back to the council?

That last paragraph is an analogy you usually rip apart. I.e

Yes you would if that is a contact you agreed to. If you didn't what do you think the council would do.[/QUOTE]

Spot on Don-Grendo has shied away from that remark every time it gets mentioned.

 

[MichaelCCFC]

Swansea indeed is.

When managers go from Coventry according to the likes of Sky Blue John it is because of poor ownership.

So when Swansea lose their manager (which they soon will) I assume it's because the board (which I believe has a Trust member on it) did not do enough to keep him.

Afraid I didn't understand this response last night and still not sure what it's getting at. My point is the Swans Trust proves fans can make (positive) things happen, nothing to do with CCFC managers

 

[Grendel]

Afraid I didn't understand this response last night and still not sure what it's getting at. My point is the Swans Trust proves fans can make (positive) things happen, nothing to do with CCFC managers

Michael this post was not aimed at you.

There are some posters who were commenting that the owners were directly responsible for Robins walking due to the poor way they run the club.

I was merely highlighting such a view is subjective nonsense as the example of a well run club (Swansea) almost certainly losing their manager highlights.

 

[Grendel]

That last paragraph is an analogy you usually rip apart. I.e

Yes you would if that is a contact you agreed to. If you didn't what do you think the council would do.

Spot on Don-Grendo has shied away from that remark every time it gets mentioned.[/QUOTE]

Never shied away from it at all.

 

[Warwickhunt]

Take of the blinkers and take your fingers out of your ears. It's not just SISU who have made this a bad situation all round. The Council and ACL need to look at themselves too. We could have all the concessions, etc for £24M?! No wonder they are thinking about their options and moving. No, SISU haven't handled this well, but the Council and ACL are motivated by greed and are not doing what is best for the football club and ultimately for the city of Coventry.

Torch! One thing that strikes me through out all these messages is that COMPASS seems to hold the solution, CCFC need the F&B to show on the books that our Turnover is XXX and get us over the FPR problem. Wherein ACL only get a small percentage of profit from the F&B because COMPASS are creaming it!

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

That last paragraph is an analogy you usually rip apart. I.e

Yes you would if that is a contact you agreed to. If you didn't what do you think the council would do.

SISU didn't agree to that contract though, their predecessors did.

I'd like to say the landlord-tenant analogy is totally flawed, whoever uses it. Firstly, it's a different context and can't be dumbed down to 'black and white', if I rented a property which I could no longer afford and the landlord wouldn't reduce the price, I could go and rent, or buy, a cheaper property and the landlord can find someone else to rent his property at the same rate you rented, here, this is simply not the case; ACL have 1 tenant who could afford even 400k-a-year rent, CCFC, and CCFC can't go and find a cheaper property (the only realistic option, even if it's unrealistic, is building a new stadium) so the analogy can't work in this given scenario, and compromise is needed between the 2 parties. Secondly, it's a flawed analogy because SISU didn't agree to the contract, it was in place before they came, so they should have the right to renegotiate, people will point out that they've been here for 5 (?) years and haven't renegotiated yet, fair enough, but their plan was possibly a short-term plan to get to the Premiership where the rent agreement would be acceptable (apart from revenue streams, that'd still need addressing) so there was no need for a renegotiated agreement, also, we can't guarantee that ACL would've rejected (we don't know), now, their (SISU's) investment has turned sour, we got relegated to Division 3, we need to renegotiate, we can't afford the charged rate, so again, compromise is needed, my point here is this, the situation has changed from when SISU first came in so although they didn't negotiate when they 1st arrived, but should still retain the right to renegotiate.

I really don't understand if the majority (or very, very vocal minority) hate SISU and want to 'fuck off', wouldn't they take the side of the club in this saga, because if we get a favourable deal, we'll be more attractive to investors, after all, anyone who buys a football club aims to run it for a profit, whoever they are (!), and at this moment in time, CCFC is an unprofitable, unattractive enterprise for any investor, unless some Russian or Arabian oligarch shows some wonga, which is extremely unlikely. While we're on billionaires, can anyone remember what Alki David said after he looked at the club's finances!? He also said "the club is falling apart" - how prophetic.

 

[Warwickhunt]

I don't think anyone, at least I'm not, disputing that it was the Club - for that read Richardson - who started the ball rolling and we've been struggling ever since. However, I do think the Council certainly took advantage of us in our "hour of need". They bought our share ridiculously cheap and pegged a rent that was ridiculously expensive, so while I agree with one half your post, I don't agree when you infer that the Council are poor little innocents.

Bang on the Ball Torch!
We spent all our available cash on cleaning up the peice of poisonous land the council sold to us with its Toxic shite + Squatters and go to the point where the cashflow dried up and then the Council came back in and fleeced us on the cheap. TESCO's would never have moved anywhere near the place until it was cleaned up and there was no way the council was going to do this so the mugs of CCFC did it

 

[MichaelCCFC]

I think that most city fans agree, famous last words, that we have been in a mess for a long time now, not just the last few months. I also think most people are sick to death of the whole anti/pro sisu/acl/council stuff. The key thing is how to start moving things forwards. Why won't both sides agree to binding arbitration?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I think that most city fans agree, famous last words, that we have been in a mess for a long time now, not just the last few months. I also think most people are sick to death of the whole anti/pro sisu/acl/council stuff. The key thing is how to start moving things forwards. Why won't both sides agree to binding arbitration?

Some on here have said it's all SISU's fault, which simply isn't true, and if you look at it, it's their predecessors that have really fucked the club over, that's not exempting SISU from any blame, they've played their part but in hindsight, the writing was on the wall as soon as they stepped in.

Michael, if it was the Sky Blue Trust alone making the decision, would they have accepted the 50% reduction in rent, because judging from the general reaction from the fans after it was revealed we rejected that, many were angry and the 'SISU out' bellows got louder, I want to know if the Trust has the business brain to, if they were ever required, take the club forward. As when ever I ask any questions of the Trust, the answer I always get is one similar to what you'd get off a politician, one that doesn't answer the question directly nor very well indirectly, and I don't trust politicians.

As a CCFC fan, I want the club to make revenues that we, the fans, pay for, instead of going in the pockets of ACL, for me, it's not on, and yes, this 'debate'/'argument' is very fatiguing and boring, but it will rumble on until a deal is struck, it's actually ruined our season a bit.

Fair play to Fisher for doing this Q & A, hopefully it'll clear some of this up and fair play to Waggott for doing a guest speaking at the Trust meeting and fair play to the Trust for inviting him.

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

SISU didn't agree to that contract though, their predecessors did.

I'd like to say the landlord-tenant analogy is totally flawed, whoever uses it. Firstly, it's a different context and can't be dumbed down to 'black and white', if I rented a property which I could no longer afford and the landlord wouldn't reduce the price, I could go and rent, or buy, a cheaper property and the landlord can find someone else to rent his property at the same rate you rented, here, this is simply not the case; ACL have 1 tenant who could afford even 400k-a-year rent, CCFC, and CCFC can't go and find a cheaper property (the only realistic option, even if it's unrealistic, is building a new stadium) so the analogy can't work in this given scenario, and compromise is needed between the 2 parties. Secondly, it's a flawed analogy because SISU didn't agree to the contract, it was in place before they came, so they should have the right to renegotiate, people will point out that they've been here for 5 (?) years and haven't renegotiated yet, fair enough, but their plan was possibly a short-term plan to get to the Premiership where the rent agreement would be acceptable (apart from revenue streams, that'd still need addressing) so there was no need for a renegotiated agreement, also, we can't guarantee that ACL would've rejected (we don't know), now, their (SISU's) investment has turned sour, we got relegated to Division 3, we need to renegotiate, we can't afford the charged rate, so again, compromise is needed, my point here is this, the situation has changed from when SISU first came in so although they didn't negotiate when they 1st arrived, but should still retain the right to renegotiate.

I really don't understand if the majority (or very, very vocal minority) hate SISU and want to 'fuck off', wouldn't they take the side of the club in this saga, because if we get a favourable deal, we'll be more attractive to investors, after all, anyone who buys a football club aims to run it for a profit, whoever they are (!), and at this moment in time, CCFC is an unprofitable, unattractive enterprise for any investor, unless some Russian or Arabian oligarch shows some wonga, which is extremely unlikely. While we're on billionaires, can anyone remember what Alki David said after he looked at the club's finances!? He also said "the club is falling apart" - how prophetic.

You dont know what you are talking about. This issue is simply contract law.
Sisu took on i.e legally accepted the rental contract when they took ownership of the club. They obviously didnt see it as a major issue then, else it would have been raised after due diligence.
They accepted the level of the rent and the terms of the contract- including duration and conditions for change. They dont have any contractual right to 'renegotiate'.
Legally they have to live by the contract they signed, like anyone else who agrees a rental contract.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

You dont know what you are talking about. This issue is simply contract law.
Sisu took on i.e legally accepted the rental contract when they took ownership of the club. They obviously didnt see it as a major issue then, else it would have been raised after due diligence.
They accepted the level of the rent and the terms of the contract- including duration and conditions for change. They dont have any contractual right to 'renegotiate'.
Legally they have to live by the contract they signed, like anyone else who agrees a rental contract.

I take it ACL don't know what they're doing either, because they acknowledge CCFC's right to buy a share in ACL and renegotiate rent, hence why they've reduced it several times.

The post was largely a critique of the flawed landlord-tenant analogy.

 

[MichaelCCFC]

Some on here have said it's all SISU's fault, which simply isn't true, and if you look at it, it's their predecessors that have really fucked the club over, that's not exempting SISU from any blame, they've played their part but in hindsight, the writing was on the wall as soon as they stepped in.

Michael, if it was the Sky Blue Trust alone making the decision, would they have accepted the 50% reduction in rent, because judging from the general reaction from the fans after it was revealed we rejected that, many were angry and the 'SISU out' bellows got louder, I want to know if the Trust has the business brain to, if they were ever required, take the club forward. As when ever I ask any questions of the Trust, the answer I always get is one similar to what you'd get off a politician, one that doesn't answer the question directly nor very well indirectly, and I don't trust politicians.

As a CCFC fan, I want the club to make revenues that we, the fans, pay for, instead of going in the pockets of ACL, for me, it's not on, and yes, this 'debate'/'argument' is very fatiguing and boring, but it will rumble on until a deal is struck, it's actually ruined our season a bit.

Fair play to Fisher for doing this Q & A, hopefully it'll clear some of this up and fair play to Waggott for doing a guest speaking at the Trust meeting and fair play to the Trust for inviting him.

SBT - Swans Trust is a great example of fans working together and then bringing together a consortium of investors who then between them have the necessary skills. I would have thought it goes without saying that you need football people on the football side, and legal/financial/marketing etc people for the non-football side (although given given where the combined business skills of Richardson through to sisu have got us the idea that generic 'businesspeople' are the answer to our problems isn't perhaps as persuasive as it one was).

And moving beyond all the historic/hypothetical stuff, what is your suggestion for a way forward?

 

[Grendel]

You dont know what you are talking about. This issue is simply contract law.
Sisu took on i.e legally accepted the rental contract when they took ownership of the club. They obviously didnt see it as a major issue then, else it would have been raised after due diligence.
They accepted the level of the rent and the terms of the contract- including duration and conditions for change. They dont have any contractual right to 'renegotiate'.
Legally they have to live by the contract they signed, like anyone else who agrees a rental contract.

The debate has moved on from this rather sterile, dull position.

Is that the best you can do? There are plenty of other Council suck ups who can do a lot better.

The fact the quango has reduced the rent by such an amount shows the outrageous starting position and they have only done this as SISU are not living by the contract they signed.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Spot on Don-Grendo has shied away from that remark every time it gets mentioned.

Never shied away from it at all.[/QUOTE]

It negates the validity of anything you have to say in this topic. I agree with you on footballing matters but your opinions on contract breaking being everyday business is baffling.

 

[Grendel]

Never shied away from it at all.

It negates the validity of anything you have to say in this topic. I agree with you on footballing matters but your opinions on contract breaking being everyday business is baffling.[/QUOTE]

Hull and Ipswich are living proof that similar situations go on in football and the club wins - Doncaster to an extent as well.

I believe our manager effectively just broke his contract as well.