CCLSC minutes 29th May - Fisher Speaks (3 Viewers)

[lordsummerisle]

That logic doesn't follow, does it? If you're claiming the winding up order was served with intent, then there would be nothing to move.

Either the winding up order was an escalation in the stand off, in which case threatening to move wasn't appropriate response; or it was served with evil intent, in which case the club ceases to exist and nothing remains to be moved.

But it can't serve both purposes, surely?

Conversely the logic that ACL really want the football club at the ground not borne out by a winding-up petition.

 

---

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

On the issue of 'outing' posters, I've concluded Grendy is really Iyseden Christie; filled with angst and frustration, after a promising Premier League debut fell into a decline of ever worsening standard of club.

Or Cllr Mutton, as his anti-council rhetoric has become more vitriolic since Lucas deposed him; allied to the fact he never posts when he should be on a milk round

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Conversely the logic that ACL really want the football club at the ground not borne out by a winding-up petition.

Actually, thinking it through now I've woken properly, did they ever run with a winding up order?

 

[Hobo]

Nick "Are you the police?"

You just outed him!!

"The only authority is yourself" The Crass

 

[lordsummerisle]

Actually, thinking it through now I've woken properly, did they ever run with a winding up order?

To be honest with you I'm not sure if they actually went ahead with the threat.

Posturing maybe?

 

[James Smith]

I had to laugh when Mr Labovitch was on CWR and said that Webber Shandwick had had 4 people working on an ACL press release. To me that screamed paranoia as there was very little chance that he knew that as a fact and I had a vision of him wearing a tinfoil hat whilst on the phone to the station. Then again even Clive Eakin can make Mr Labovitch seem like he's a rabbit caught in the headlights with no actual answer to the question being asked.

Having said that I had a boss who was bordering on the full David Icke and took a different route home every day. He lasted two weeks and then quit.

 

[shmmeee]

To be honest with you I'm not sure if they actually went ahead with the threat.

Posturing maybe?

Was it their threat? All the reports I can find say it's a possible outcome of the statutory demand, but not that it was threatened. Always seemed to be a route to admin rather than winding up to me, after all the stated rationale at the time was that it was to stop the threatened liquidation when the Ricoh deal fell through.

 

[lordsummerisle]

Was it their threat? All the reports I can find say it's a possible outcome of the statutory demand, but not that it was threatened. Always seemed to be a route to admin rather than winding up to me, after all the stated rationale at the time was that it was to stop the threatened liquidation when the Ricoh deal fell through.

This looks a bit like a threat!

The Board feels that all other avenues to resolve this issue have been exhausted and is astonished that the club's owners have allowed matters to come to this sorry pass. Responsibility for this situation lies completely with Sisu, a Mayfair hedge fund which has let CCFC fail under its direction.

"If they don't meet this deadline, Sisu must either declare CCFC insolvent or face a winding up order for the club."

 

[Astute]

This looks a bit like a threat!

Depends which way you look at it. SISU had already been threatening to liquidate our club well before then. They admitted it in court IIRC. They strangely never let us fans know and CCC have kept quiet all the way through this debacle.

 

[Godiva]

To be honest with you I'm not sure if they actually went ahead with the threat.

Posturing maybe?

In December 2012 ACL threatened the club they could face a winding up petition if the rent arrears wasn't paid by Boxing day.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...iven-21-days-pay-rent-face-winding-order.html

In February 2013 ACL went to court and had the clubs bank account frozen.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/21475743.app

In between - in January 2013 - the council voted to bail out ACL.

So was the original threat a tool to 'help' YB to accept a discount on the buy out of the loan?
And further - was it a tool to 'convince' the members of council who were not involved in the ACL/CCFC negotiations they had to vote in favour of CCC taking over the loan?

The actual bail out of ACL was the game changer that stopped all negotiations between CCFC and ACL. The original threats then became real actions from ACL ...

 

[lordsummerisle]

Depends which way you look at it. SISU had already been threatening to liquidate our club well before then. They admitted it in court IIRC. They strangely never let us fans know and CCC have kept quiet all the way through this debacle.

I was asked if they had actually threatened a winding-up order, and showed evidence that they did.

Can't really say that CCC(through ACL), or even directly, have quiet throughout this whole debacle really can you?

 

[Astute]

I was asked if they had actually threatened a winding-up order, and showed evidence that they did.

Can't really say that CCC(through ACL), or even directly, have quiet throughout this whole debacle really can you?

CCC have been more quiet than SISU have been truthful.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I was asked if they had actually threatened a winding-up order, and showed evidence that they did.

Can't really say that CCC(through ACL), or even directly, have quiet throughout this whole debacle really can you?

Still don't see it. Not being pedantic (quelle surprise). The links Godiva kindly provides from The Mail cites the statuary demand - which 'could' - result in a winding up order if unpaid.

However, you'll recall that - when this wasn't paid; ACL - instead of moving to winding up order - enforced a Third Party Debt Order on the club's accounts, as Godiva mentions; again this being in February 2013.

So, I don't think they threatened winding up order at all. They issued a statuary demand following the successful court case, and then moved to a Third Party Debt Order. They didn't enforce the winding up order they could have actioned after Boxing Day; and therefore I see no proof they threatened it either.

The Mail reports a potential outcome of the statuary demand which wasn't the case. That's all, surely?

 

[Astute]

In December 2012 ACL threatened the club they could face a winding up petition if the rent arrears wasn't paid by Boxing day.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...iven-21-days-pay-rent-face-winding-order.html

In February 2013 ACL went to court and had the clubs bank account frozen.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/21475743.app

In between - in January 2013 - the council voted to bail out ACL.

So was the original threat a tool to 'help' YB to accept a discount on the buy out of the loan?
And further - was it a tool to 'convince' the members of council who were not involved in the ACL/CCFC negotiations they had to vote in favour of CCC taking over the loan?

The actual bail out of ACL was the game changer that stopped all negotiations between CCFC and ACL. The original threats then became real actions from ACL ...

Wasn't it revealed in court last week that SISU started threatening liquidation of our club at the start of 2012.....nearly a year before ACL did? And as we have only had the SISU side of it so far I would consider it to be foolish to already have determined who is at fault for what before the truth finally comes out.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Wasn't it revealed in court last week that SISU started threatening liquidation of our club at the start of 2012.....nearly a year before ACL did? And as we have only had the SISU side of it so far I would consider it to be foolish to already have determined who is at fault for what before the truth finally comes out.

Again, dear chap; I don't think ACL did. They won a court case over rent unpaid since April 2012, then used a Statuary Demand, followed by a Third Part Debt Order; then - almost a year into this dispute, pushed to an administration order only when liquidation was mentioned in public; this following on from what appears to have been it's private use in 2012 by Ms Seppela.

They didn't push for winding up order when clearly they could, and haven't at any point, tried to liquidate the club. At least not in any documents I've seen so far. But I will stand corrected if anyone can point me in the right direction

 

[Astute]

Again, dear chap; I don't think ACL did. They won a court case over rent unpaid since April 2012, then used a Statuary Demand, followed by a Third Part Debt Order; then - almost a year into this dispute, pushed to an administration order only when liquidation was mentioned in public; this following on from what appears to have been it's private use in 2012 by Ms Seppela.

They didn't push for winding up order when clearly they could, and haven't at any point, tried to liquidate the club. At least not in any documents I've seen so far. But I will stand corrected if anyone can point me in the right direction

That is more or less what I thought, but was not sure at all. But am sure that SISU had been threatening to liquidate our club for at least 11 months before this as they admitted in court last week. And as I said we still have only heard one side of the story.

 

[lordsummerisle]

Still don't see it. Not being pedantic (quelle surprise). The links Godiva kindly provides from The Mail cites the statuary demand - which 'could' - result in a winding up order if unpaid.

However, you'll recall that - when this wasn't paid; ACL - instead of moving to winding up order - enforced a Third Party Debt Order on the club's accounts, as Godiva mentions; again this being in February 2013.

So, I don't think they threatened winding up order at all. They issued a statuary demand following the successful court case, and then moved to a Third Party Debt Order. They didn't enforce the winding up order they could have actioned after Boxing Day; and therefore I see no proof they threatened it either.

The Mail reports a potential outcome of the statuary demand which wasn't the case. That's all, surely?

As I posted earlier, direct quote from ACl statement on the 5th December 2012:

"If they don't meet this deadline, Sisu must either declare CCFC insolvent or face a winding up order for the club."

Looks a teensy,weesy bit like a threatened winding up order to me.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

As I posted earlier, direct quote from ACl statement on the 5th December 2012:

Looks a teensy,weesy bit like a threatened winding up order to me.

Yes. I would agree, that does. There is a flip-side though; that being that SISU's actions in ignoring all legal routes is going to give rise to an escalation in rhetoric in order to get some changing in stance.

Godiva's line above:

'The actual bail out of ACL was the game changer that stopped all negotiations between CCFC and ACL. The original threats then became real actions from ACL' seems a touch extravagant when you bear in mind SISU's stance in the months that preceded the decision. By that time - if they'd have wished - they could have issued the winding up order and be done with it. Now, that would have been a 'game changer'...

 

[lordsummerisle]

Yes. I would agree, that does. There is a flip-side though; that being that SISU's actions in ignoring all legal routes is going to give rise to an escalation in rhetoric in order to get some changing in stance.

Godiva's line above:

'The actual bail out of ACL was the game changer that stopped all negotiations between CCFC and ACL. The original threats then became real actions from ACL' seems a touch extravagant when you bear in mind SISU's stance in the months that preceded the decision. By that time - if they'd have wished - they could have issued the winding up order and be done with it. Now, that would have been a 'game changer'...

They could have issued the winding-up order, but if it was the case as Godiva suggests, it could be that it was a tactic used to apply pressure on the Yorkshire Bank to reduce what they would accept for paying off the mortgage, agreed early January I believe?

 

[Astute]

They could have issued the winding-up order, but if it was the case as Godiva suggests, it could be that it was a tactic used to apply pressure on the Yorkshire Bank to reduce what they would accept for paying off the mortgage, agreed early January I believe?

And this the problem that we have. Trying to work out the truth on what has happened. And there is a chance that we are all wrong.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

They could have issued the winding-up order, but if it was the case as Godiva suggests, it could be that it was a tactic used to apply pressure on the Yorkshire Bank to reduce what they would accept for paying off the mortgage, agreed early January I believe?

It's a hard call to make without knowing all of the thoughts of all of the players; not just those contained in the SISU bundle. When we have all of the facts - or even a more representative selection of the facts - a better call on motives can be made

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

And this the problem that we have. Trying to work out the truth on what has happened. And there is a chance that we are all wrong.

Correct. One of the reasons I've held back from commenting in recent days. Grendy heralding some of the comments in SISU's bundle as 'explosive' and 'sensational', without having any idea of the context or motivation that ley behind them; or making reference to the prevailing relationships at the time is frankly astonishing.

In the coming weeks and months, further evidence will present itself which could make one or all of us on here look like an absolute fool. That could well be me! As such, I'm not readily going to add to my potential embarrassment by wading in with a view, or series of views that could prove foolhardy when the cold light of facts are shone upon them

 

[shmmeee]

It's a hard call to make without knowing all of the thoughts of all of the players; not just those contained in the SISU bundle. When we have all of the facts - or even a more representative selection of the facts - a better call on motives can be made

Yeah, that's about as far as we can get until it all comes out at JR (hopefully).

I'm still not sure I see a threat from those links given, more of a statement of what could happen.

IIRC the only people threatening winding up throughout all of this have been Fisher and Seppala.

 

[skybluetony176]

They could have issued the winding-up order, but if it was the case as Godiva suggests, it could be that it was a tactic used to apply pressure on the Yorkshire Bank to reduce what they would accept for paying off the mortgage, agreed early January I believe?

i have to say that reading the points being raised between yourself and MMM just demonstrates how muddy the waters are in all this. what i have realised though is that my own personal moral compass does not apparently line up with the latter of the law.

when people say that there was a plot to distress the YB mortgage so SISU could pay it off on the cheap as part of a deal to purchase ACL my moral compass tells me that the word should be defraud not distress. still, what do i know.

 

[play_in_skyblue_stripes]

Correct. One of the reasons I've held back from commenting in recent days. Grendy heralding some of the comments in SISU's bundle as 'explosive' and 'sensational', without having any idea of the context or motivation that ley behind them; or making reference to the prevailing relationships at the time is frankly astonishing.

In the coming weeks and months, further evidence will present itself which could make one or all of us on here look like an absolute fool. That could well be me! As such, I'm not readily going to add to my potential embarrassment by wading in with a view, or series of views that could prove foolhardy when the cold light of facts are shone upon them

This is a very sensible approach to take. Its very tempting to wade in with the normal stuff but you could be right lets wait and see.

However if we do take this approach , "what the hell will we talk about ?!!!"

 

[lordsummerisle]

law.

when people say that there was a plot to distress the YB mortgage so SISU could pay it off on the cheap as part of a deal to purchase ACL my moral compass tells me that the word should be defraud not distress. still, what do i know.

The same would apply of course if CCC used the same tactics to try and reduce the size of the mortgage.

 

[lordsummerisle]

It's a hard call to make without knowing all of the thoughts of all of the players; not just those contained in the SISU bundle. When we have all of the facts - or even a more representative selection of the facts - a better call on motives can be made

A fair point, as Astute makes also, however it hasn't stopped people making judgements over that past couple of years that it is all down to Sisu, and wanting evidence and proof that it is not so.

Something that has not been required from the other side of things.

 

[shmmeee]

I'd like some more info about the plot to distress. What exactly was the plan? I'm assuming the rent strike wasn't part of it, what else "distressed" the loan?

 

[shmmeee]

A fair point, as Astute makes also, however it hasn't stopped people making judgements over that past couple of years that it is all down to Sisu, and wanting evidence and proof that it is not so.

Something that has not been required from the other side of things.

Bit of a straw man that.

I don't think anyone's been asking for proof of a negative, more that the weight of evidence comes down against Sisu, what have you got the other way? And to be fair, this email is the first thing in over a year that anyone on the "balance" side has been able to point to other that "what if"s.

For me, there is literally nothing that could come out that would justify the move to Sixfields. Even if the big bad council were whipping up a PR storm and going behind their back and trying to out them, a better strategy would've been to stay put and shine a light on it.

 

[lordsummerisle]

Bit of a straw man that.

I don't think anyone's been asking for proof of a negative, more that the weight of evidence comes down against Sisu, what have you got the other way? And to be fair, this email is the first thing in over a year that anyone on the "balance" side has been able to point to other that "what if"s.

For me, there is literally nothing that could come out that would justify the move to Sixfields. Even if the big bad council were whipping up a PR storm and going behind their back and trying to out them, a better strategy would've been to stay put and shine a light on it.

It was a statement from a meeting by Tim Fisher, at the very beginning of this thread, that said some things that directly relate to the emails and minutes revealed last week.

Most responses along the lines of "bullshit", "and where's your proof?"

When proof is furnished, it isn't enough then!

Of course, CCC are always given the "Can't say anything until after the JR" get out of jail free card.



To be met

 

[Nick]

After the JR, will there be some sort of Parkinson interview with Ann Lucas where they can let everything out?

 

[Astute]

A fair point, as Astute makes also, however it hasn't stopped people making judgements over that past couple of years that it is all down to Sisu, and wanting evidence and proof that it is not so.

Something that has not been required from the other side of things.

In life you have choices. If I had a choice between a liar and a thief I would choose the thief. You can trust a thief until something goes missing. You never know when to trust a liar.

So far this season we started looking like relegation candidates. We did well. We started to look like we could make the playoffs. It went badly wrong. Then we looked like we were getting dragged into the relegation battle again. Now we look safe again. And at the start of all of this we were told we would find out about the location of that new ground in a few weeks. A lot has happened on the pitch but next to nothing off it like we were told.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

A fair point, as Astute makes also, however it hasn't stopped people making judgements over that past couple of years that it is all down to Sisu, and wanting evidence and proof that it is not so.

Something that has not been required from the other side of things.

I think people are so vehemently anti-SISU because of what they did by taking the club away from Coventry. We all suspected the council weren't totally saintly in all this. Now we're beginning to know how dirty their hands were. So, was there provocation in SISU's direction? Well, yes. We need to see context to know whether any unfairness towards SISU was proactive, tit-for-tat or has been blown out of proportion. That will hopefully out itself in the coming weeks.

But anti-SISU sentiment comes from people seeing the club they feel so strongly for being threatened with 'liquidation' and the move to Northampton. The sledgehammer to crack the nut doesn't make friends, when the nut - or nuts - are something you care for. If you'll forgive the metaphor being stretched to encompasses a Finbar Saundersesque double entendre

 

[shmmeee]

It was a statement from a meeting by Tim Fisher, at the very beginning of this thread, that said some things that directly relate to the emails and minutes revealed last week.

Most responses along the lines of "bullshit", "and where's your proof?"

When proof is furnished, it isn't enough then!

Of course, CCC are always given the "Can't say anything until after the JR" get out of jail free card.



To be met

Again more "along the lines of" "rumour" etcetera. As I've said if that redacted email is all you've got I'd argue its still rumour.

To clarify: I'm talking about the position that the council took decisions that were designed to harm CCFC.

 

[skybluetony176]

The same would apply of course if CCC used the same tactics to try and reduce the size of the mortgage.

100% yes. But apparently still within the law.