lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
"Untangling the truth from the part truths and the outright lies would take an age."
tim speaks.....bullshit as usual (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter covkid69
- Start date
"Untangling the truth from the part truths and the outright lies would take an age."
lifelongcityfan
Well-Known Member
the first is to do with the shares, the second is to do with the rent
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
In which case, someone can correct James Smith the next time he uses that quote as evidence that SISU had the chance to buy half a share in ACl, and went back on it.
The quote is also in the context of a sale, not rent, so I'd like it clarified so we all know whether SISU have had the opportunity to buy, and have gone back on that, or have not had the opportunity to buy as no agreement has been reached.
I'm sure clarification will be given, and it appears they have never reached an agreement, which is fine.
But I'd like it clarified.
Last edited by a moderator:
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Heads of terms is defined here.
Wikipedia said:
As I understand it this is non binding and not a legal sale agreement. What Uncle Tim claimed as I read it was something different that would have been binding. He'll be able to show us that though to prove it.
lifelongcityfan
Well-Known Member
sisu had an option to buy the shares--- thry never pursued it
YamYam
New Member
If Ltd is liquidated, the FL won't give the golden share to anybody; unless a new company has bought the assets and paid off the debts to the court's satisfaction.
lifelongcityfan
Well-Known Member
you seiously dont expect sisu to pay for anything - do you?
Quite simply: there was an HoT which was the basis for a negotiation which Sisu never proceeded with. There was complete silence from June. At the end of their exclusivity period they popped up with a request to extend it, but as they had done nothing during the period no further exclusivity was granted, but they could have picked up the 'phone or sent an e-mail at any time to continue from the HoT. They just stopped talking to the Charity. There was no deal just the opening of a dialogue.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
So a basis for negotiation, as opposed to an agreement.
Ultimately worthless from either side other than a formal statement of intent, as committed neither to anything other than an attempt to drill down the negotiations?
Yes. an agreed opening of negotiations, an agreement from which to work toward a deal.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Hobo
Well-Known Member
Lets face it if you research SISU nothing adds up. They cannot be trusted full stop. Forget ACL they are just a scapegoat and only a landlord. They are buying time to try and distress ACL and pick up the Ricoh on the cheap. They have inflated the debt, muddied the structure all to put buyers off. Remember the debt is to themselves, they are making money from us while the club is loosing money. They have had the chance to sell, renegotiate rent so why else are they staying?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
The answers he has given are at best misrepresentation and at worst outright dishonesty. He is without shame.
Yes, but what Fisher say is:
He doesn't say specifically 'Higgs' shares ... and he refers to CCC, not the charity.
So you can both be right.
There were possibly no deal to buy Higgs shares.
Sisu possibly made a deal with CCC to buy half of ACL (the ccc shares) and an agreement was signed.
As I suspect the shareholders at ACL are communicating, I assume you can either confirm or deny if the deal Fisher speak about was actually agreed upon.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
Where is all this speculation going? The reality is agreements which haven't happened are of no consequences. what is valid is SISU's ability to build a new stadium while we ground share, because that is what they have stated they will do. However the maths do not add up. Yes they have an argument to do this for the long term good, but it would have made more sense to stay at the Ricoh while they build a new ground. why haven't they got the ground share sorted already?
As is pretty well known both shareholders have a veto over the sale by the other of their shares. Neither the Charity nor the Council have ever been asked by the other if they could sell their shares. I can say categorically that there never has been a deal done with Sisu/Seppala/Fisher/whoever for anyone to have either the Council's or the Charity's shares. It is a Fisherism to say anything to the contrary.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Would the charity be open to making an agreement with a SISU owned CCFC for the charity's share, assuming SISU owned the club as it came out of administration?
Would the council veto this deal if agreed with SISU?
The reason I ask is this was the inference I got from a radio interview you did a while back, that the charity would be open to a deal, but the council would probably veto; but so much has been said from either side since then my poor brain is confuzzled and might have mixed you up with someone completely different (entirely possible!), so while you're here clarification would be welcomed from me at least!
I believe if you can show a word is in common use you can apply to get it added to the dictionary at which point it becomes an official part of the English language.
As there have been so many incidents now which have prompted the use of the word 'Fisherism' can I suggest we apply to get it officially recognised as part of the English language.
As there have been so many incidents now which have prompted the use of the word 'Fisherism' can I suggest we apply to get it officially recognised as part of the English language.
I cannot speak for the City Council. This possibility has not been discussed with the Council by the Charity. I cannot say what will happen in the future but I am sure that the Trustees would not consider any talks with CCFC or Seppala/Fisher until they have recovered money owed by Seppala and her Sisu Capital following the first "negotiation". As I understand it the County Court hearing won't be for some months yet.
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
I have to say I find it hard to believe what PWKH is saying, yet at the same time I am not sure that Tim Fisher is telling the truth either, too many games played and too much antics, I dare not believe or trust either side in this predicament. Who is going to stand for being shown up in front of the fans, media, courts, adminstrator and potential investors? Certainly not Coventry City Council they have to much to lose.
ACL OUT, SISU OUT, COUNCIL OUT!! NO ONE TRUSTS YOU ANYMORE!!
ACL OUT, SISU OUT, COUNCIL OUT!! NO ONE TRUSTS YOU ANYMORE!!
Yes, so much has been said by either side that it is impossible to grasp it all.
PWKH - if you were invited to a face-to-face debate with Tim Fisher, organised and moderated by the Trust, would you accept?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Why didn't you discuss this possibility before entering into any kind of negotiation? Surely even a heads of terms on which to proceed would have wasted the charity's time as much as anyone's, if any deal coming out of that start point would be vetoed anyway?
In hindsight, do you regret not asking the council about this possibility?
Last edited by a moderator:
hill83
Well-Known Member
Respect for coming on here, into the Helmand Province of forums to state your point. Like you say, I wouldn't bother if I was bullshitting.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Indeed, I'd also like to add a thankyou to PWKH for taking the trouble to clarify a few things.
I appreciate with coming court cases this restricts what can be said as much as anything, but a clarification of things from his perspective is welcomed by me at least.
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
get your balloons out for the lads
TheRoyalScam
Well-Known Member
I believe if you can show a word is in common use you can apply to get it added to the dictionary at which point it becomes an official part of the English language.
As there have been so many incidents now which have prompted the use of the word 'Fisherism' can I suggest we apply to get it officially recognised as part of the English language.
I think it would be most apt:
Fisherism (noun) a statement or phrase that distorts the reality of a given situation or fact - a piece of misinformation intending to confuse or obfuscate - a lie, or at best a 'half-truth'
e.g. His answers to the questions were merely Fisherisms, so were taken with the usual pinch of salt.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Yeah respect where it's due PWKH doesn't have to come on here and post, and I applaud him for doing so. I also can't see why he would lie about things as it would eventually come out and he'd lose credibility in the eyes of many on here. Now as I see it Uncle Tim isn't so bothered about the odd inaccuracy and just says any old thing.
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Exactly, Fisher has form for this sort of thing. He's lied once too often, therefore everything he says must be treated with suspicion.
TheRoyalScam
Well-Known Member
Here's a good example of a Fisherism from today's CT:
'...we paid in excess of £800,000 for the use of the Ricoh...'
No Tim, that's a lie and you know it - £500,000 came from the escrow account and that's not your money.
'...we paid in excess of £800,000 for the use of the Ricoh...'
No Tim, that's a lie and you know it - £500,000 came from the escrow account and that's not your money.
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
I believe if you can show a word is in common use you can apply to get it added to the dictionary at which point it becomes an official part of the English language.
As there have been so many incidents now which have prompted the use of the word 'Fisherism' can I suggest we apply to get it officially recognised as part of the English language.
Only if we can also have NW's confuzzled.
:claping hands: very good. Just checked with the OED, can't use evidence from newspapers or journals but if you can get the word printed in a book somewhere you can submit it as evidence for the word to be included in the OED. Would be so tempting to get someone to do it wouldn't it
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
One question not asked was this proposal to play elsewhere, what if the request to play somewhere else is turned down by Walsall or whoever else we ask or the league, what happens then ?
