Tom Fisher Q & A email (4 Viewers)

[Mucca Mad Boys]

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?

I think a fans' body should have a minority, 10-20% stake in the club, but the SBT has 800-odd membership, hardly the voice of the fans yet.

It's difficult to suggest a way forward, we'd all love new owners, but that's wishful thinking, no one is within sight, also, if I were an investor, I wouldn't walk away from the 45m they've put in, or said they have, you want to at least break-even, so that's possibly why they signed nearly 20 players this season, perhaps they have changed policy? The club needs to reacquire Ryton, get a reduced rent agreement and look to buy a 50% share in ACL, and one day buy the ground, which lay the foundations for a successful club, although you're looking at 10 years minimum before this could take action, all a distant dream at the minute as a fan who has seen no success yet.

Why don't the Trust seek to speak with Hoffmann and co. (if they haven't already done so) or other parties and see if the two parties could work together for a realistic takeover bid?

 

---

[torchomatic]

If that was the case then ACL would have said "£1.2M a year or nothing, SISU. Get out of Coventry if you're not going to pay", although the second half of that statement is true, the first isn't they've already lopped off £800K

People renegotiate rents, loans and mortgages all the time. "I've been made redundant, can I reduce my payments or have interest only, etc". But that asides, the bloke living in a council house and not paying his rent analogy is stupid.

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.

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

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.

Legally ACL dont need to do anything, the contract is in place-- which is why the landlord-tenant analogy is valid contractually and you are wrong.
ACL have moved because of business pressure and an ethical case.

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

If that was the case then ACL would have said "£1.2M a year or nothing, SISU. Get out of Coventry if you're not going to pay", although the second half of that statement is true, the first isn't they've already lopped off £800K

People renegotiate rents, loans and mortgages all the time. "I've been made redundant, can I reduce my payments or have interest only, etc".

It is legally and contractually the case. Real-business-politik is another matter.

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

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.

'I say 'you dont know what youre talking about' and apologist #1 responds. Haha:claping hands:

 

[torchomatic]

Obviously not. Else ACL wouldn't have reduced by £800K per annum.

It is legally and contractually the case. Real-business-politik is another matter.

 

[torchomatic]

Oh, it is annoying when people don't agree with you. It's always best to label them and call them names, isn't it?

'I say 'you dont know what youre talking about' and apologist #1 responds. Haha:claping hands:

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

Obviously not. Else ACL wouldn't have reduced by £800K per annum.

Oh dear bye bye Betsy-- I cant make it any simpler for you.

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

Oh, it is annoying when people don't agree with you. It's always best to label them and call them names, isn't it?

Haha Grendel makes a career out of that apologist #2.

 

[torchomatic]

Well, I suppose we're all apologists for something at the end of the day. Me for the football club I'ev supported for 40 years. You for a joint venture company. Each to their own.

Haha Grendel makes a career out of that apologist #2.

 

[dongonzalos]

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.

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.[/QUOTE]

I thought we allowed him to speak to other clubs in when we gave him a contract but naively didn't stipulate after 12 months

 

[torchomatic]

If it was naive then only because you expect your manager to stick around longer than five months into his three-year contract. Which as I keep saying was a big statement of intent from the Club.

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.

I thought we allowed him to speak to other clubs in when we gave him a contract but naively didn't stipulate after 12 months[/QUOTE]

 

[dongonzalos]

If it was naive then only because you expect your manager to stick around longer than five months into his three-year contract. Which as I keep saying was a big statement of intent from the Club.



I thought we allowed him to speak to other clubs in when we gave him a contract but naively didn't stipulate after 12 months

[/QUOTE]

I agree you do.
However as shown a lot in football you have to cover your basis and as for a 12 month commitment.

 

[Grendel]

I agree you do.
However as shown a lot in football you have to cover your basis and as for a 12 month commitment.[/QUOTE]

If a manager wants to break a contract after a week he will.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Mr Fisher challenged claims by ACL – the company jointly owned by Coventry City Council and Alan Edward Higgs Charity – that it had offered a deal which effectively reduced annual rent and matchday cost charges to £150,000, from the current £1.2m.
He said the club had agreed to pay a rent of £400,000 per year, but described the £150,000 figure as “false.”
He said claims the calculation included offering a rate rebate as part of the deal were also false, as the club had been overpaying the rates and any rebates would have nothing to do with ACL.
He reiterated the club had been awaiting more detail on what the offer might mean for revenue from matchday food and drink sales, which he said could bring the club £1million.
Mr Fisher claimed the club had paid more than £800,000 towards matchday costs since withholding its £100,000-a-month rent payments last April.

Read More http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/co...-owned-business-92746-32878039/#ixzz2LvSMaAYc

2 points....For the ones who said SISU didn't agree with the £400k rent...Please read above statement by non other than Fisher himself.
I seem to recollect SISU stating that matchday costs were between 10-12k per home game, and were paying this to make sure CCFC upheld their commitment to fullfilling matches. Pardon me if I'm wrong but....since when did 10-12k add up to £800k?
​

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Mr Fisher challenged claims by ACL – the company jointly owned by Coventry City Council and Alan Edward Higgs Charity – that it had offered a deal which effectively reduced annual rent and matchday cost charges to £150,000, from the current £1.2m.
He said the club had agreed to pay a rent of £400,000 per year, but described the £150,000 figure as “false.”
He said claims the calculation included offering a rate rebate as part of the deal were also false, as the club had been overpaying the rates and any rebates would have nothing to do with ACL.
He reiterated the club had been awaiting more detail on what the offer might mean for revenue from matchday food and drink sales, which he said could bring the club £1million.
Mr Fisher claimed the club had paid more than £800,000 towards matchday costs since withholding its £100,000-a-month rent payments last April.

Read More http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/co...-owned-business-92746-32878039/#ixzz2LvSMaAYc

2 points....For the ones who said SISU didn't agree with the £400k rent...Please read above statement by non other than Fisher himself.
I seem to recollect SISU stating that matchday costs were between 10-12k per home game, and were paying this to make sure CCFC upheld their commitment to fullfilling matches. Pardon me if I'm wrong but....since when did 10-12k add up to £800k?
​

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Mr Fisher challenged claims by ACL – the company jointly owned by Coventry City Council and Alan Edward Higgs Charity – that it had offered a deal which effectively reduced annual rent and matchday cost charges to £150,000, from the current £1.2m.
He said the club had agreed to pay a rent of £400,000 per year, but described the £150,000 figure as “false.”
He said claims the calculation included offering a rate rebate as part of the deal were also false, as the club had been overpaying the rates and any rebates would have nothing to do with ACL.
He reiterated the club had been awaiting more detail on what the offer might mean for revenue from matchday food and drink sales, which he said could bring the club £1million.
Mr Fisher claimed the club had paid more than £800,000 towards matchday costs since withholding its £100,000-a-month rent payments last April.

Read More http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/co...-owned-business-92746-32878039/#ixzz2LvSMaAYc

2 points....For the ones who said SISU didn't agree with the £400k rent...Please read above statement by non other than Fisher himself.
I seem to recollect SISU stating that matchday costs were between 10-12k per home game, and were paying this to make sure CCFC upheld their commitment to fullfilling matches. Pardon me if I'm wrong but....since when did 10-12k add up to £800k?
​

The 150k figure is false, and has misled many people, and it turns out that there is no rebate. I reckon an agreement is close, only a few more, reasonable compromises are needed, 100% F & B revenues and the 400k (or whatever) the excess debt written off, and the whole process will be worth it, and hopefully we can build a more competitive squad and be within the FFP boundaries.

Forward CCFC!

 

[Sky Blues]

2 points....For the ones who said SISU didn't agree with the £400k rent...Please read above statement by non other than Fisher himself.
I seem to recollect SISU stating that matchday costs were between 10-12k per home game, and were paying this to make sure CCFC upheld their commitment to fullfilling matches. Pardon me if I'm wrong but....since when did 10-12k add up to £800k?

As I understand it, Sisu had at one time rejected the £400,000 figure (remember when Fisher was banging on about League 1 average rent) but now they have accepted it.
I think that Fisher, after complaining about misleading figure from ACL then goes on to chuck out a misleading figure of his own with the £800,000, which I think is comprised of about £300,000 match day costs and the £500,000 escrow account, which was money set aside to cover the rent in the event that CCFC did not. Unless it is removed as part of any deal, the club will have to refill that escrow account at some point so I don't think they can really count that as rent paid.

I'm getting dizzy from all the spinning going on.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

My points were.....There are posters on this forum who said SISU DIDN'T agree the £400k rent deal...My last post PROVES they DID!
And finally...since when does £10-12k per home game, add up to £800k

 

[Sky Blues]

My points were.....There are posters on this forum who said SISU DIDN'T agree the £400k rent deal...My last post PROVES they DID!
And finally...since when does £10-12k per home game, add up to £800k

I don't think I was disagreeing with you, just unpacking those points a bit.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

My points were.....There are posters on this forum who said SISU DIDN'T agree the £400k rent deal...My last post PROVES they DID!
And finally...since when does £10-12k per home game, add up to £800k

Just incase.

I didn't see anyone who said they didn't accept.

They may have overpaid, took Otis' suggestion to make a contribution, they must've paid 800k or ACL will tear them to pieces in the PR war, it can't be a lie, if they are lying, it is plain stupidity.

 

[Grendel]

They have £500,000 sitting in the holding account in addition to match day costs.

There is no argument here.

 

[grego_gee]

The requirement to hold 1/2 a million pounds in an escrow account in case the rent is not paid is totally unjustified in the current financial climate. No one can afford to have that amount of money lying around doing nothing. But apart from arguments about that which are separate. the fact that ACL have taken the money out of the escrow account is only for one thing - because they have not received the normal £100k a month payments. ie it has gone towards the rent! it is not a deposit that is forfeited in the event of non-payment of rent - it is simply a rent payment.
in adition to this SISU have paid matchday costs of £300k over the 11 month period since they stopped the regular payments. I understand that they do not pay these sums for matchday costs when they are paying the rent but that is normally paid by ACL. So they have paid that amount on behalf of ACL and it can be viewed as a payment to ACL. So I understand the situation to be that they have paid £800k to ACL over an 11 month period - that is twice the amount that ACL have negotiated as being a fair rent for a league one clubs occupation of the arena,
I do not see how ACL can justify demanding the full amount of 1.2million over that period when they have already acknowledged that £400k would be fair. So In my view ACL owe SISU £400k for that period.
imp:

 

[Sky Blues]

They have £500,000 sitting in the holding account in addition to match day costs.

There is no argument here.

Fisher said ACL "emptied" it, which suggests there is not £500,000 sitting in the holding account. Has something else been said that I've missed?

 

[Grendel]

ACL have kindly said the club can have £300,00 off the amount owed. If the half a million is not included in the areas then this is yet more spin.

You're right about the holding account. It's a bizarre arrangement which is unique for that sort of value.

 

[Grendel]

Fisher said ACL "emptied" it, which suggests there is not £500,000 sitting in the holding account. Has something else been said that I've missed?

No I mean its been taken and explains the £800,000 payments. I used the wrong tense.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Would be interested to know if what CCFC has paid to ACL as match day expenses includes VAT or not. My understanding is that the Rent at Ricoh is not chargeable to VAT (no option to tax has been made). So if VAT is charged on the match day expenses and CCFC has paid it then they must therefore accept it is not rent. :thinking about:Wonder if anyone knows for sure ? Also strange how the £800k was quoted before Xmas, that it was £10k match day expenses per game now it is being said £12k (£10k plus VAT perhaps?), anyone look how many games have been played since last April ? Anyone know when the actual date of the last rent payment ran out?

As for rental deposits, escrow accounts etc, we can argue amounts but these are often sought especially when the tenant is high risk or there is some impediment to recovery action like the "football creditors rule". I would expect at the end of this there will be something similar but less in value

As for the rent being agreed, no it isnt nothing has been signed. Can we please get past it being quoted at £150k it isnt and never was.

If the talks have broken down is any of this actually still on the table? :thinking about:

 

[oldskyblue58]

would be interested to see what people defined as a failing business ....... given TF's latest quotes in the media and why support of one is a no go but the reverse is expected

anyone care to give their definition?

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

The "Escrow Account"(£500k) was taken out of the account by ACL after a couple of "Missed rental payments"
SISU still have to pay this back....Isn't, and was never, theirs.

 

[Godiva]

would be interested to see what people defined as a failing business ....... given TF's latest quotes in the media and why support of one is a no go but the reverse is expected

anyone care to give their definition?

I understand that a failed business has ceased operation. A failing business could mean a business heading for bankruptcy but not quite there yet.

 

[Grendel]

I understand that a failed business has ceased operation. A failing business could mean a business heading for bankruptcy but not quite there yet.

Like ACL before the council "assisted"' in their loan arrangements you mean?

 

[Godiva]

Like ACL before the council "assisted"' in their loan arrangements you mean?

I couldn't say for sure as I have no access to their accounts, but it certainly looks like it to me.

 

[SkyBlueCharlie]

“Councillor John Blundell, Conservative group deputy leader, said today: “It’s been going on long enough, and they should now pay up. They haven’t paid any money at all on actual rent, not even an amount they think would be fair and reasonable.”

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2013/02/15/no-headline-92746-32816252/2/

So is Mr. Fisher the only person that thinks they have paid their fair share of the rent?

edit...Apologies I've just remembered that I said I wouldn't post on this again.

 

[Jack Griffin]

ACL is not a Quango, its a private company that is owned by a Charity & a local council.

Quango or qango is an acronym meaning quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation used chiefly in the United Kingdom and Ireland, but also elsewhere, to label an organization to which government has devolved power. In the United Kingdom the official term is "non-departmental public body" or NDPB. International Organization for Standardization, which is a network of the national standards institutes of countries and Forestry Commission, which is a non-ministerial government department responsible for forestry in Great Britain can be a form of quango.

 

[Jack Griffin]

would be interested to see what people defined as a failing business ....... given TF's latest quotes in the media and why support of one is a no go but the reverse is expected

anyone care to give their definition?

One like Coventry City Football Club.

Would be interested to know if what CCFC has paid to ACL as match day expenses includes VAT or not.

What is the 10K (or 12K) each match for? Fisher implies it is rent. I didn't think it was, but I'm not sure what it is for, does it cover the cost of Compass & ACL staff who work on match days without which the match would not be able to be played? It is all shrouded in mystery & each side uses the terminology they find most convenient, and whatever they say can't be taken at face value.