Fisher's Remarks... (40 Viewers)

[Deleted member 5849]

I think that OSB reiterated that what was asked for by the club, but rejected by ACL 18 months ago has now been accepted by ACL.


Selective reading is rife on this site.

One wonders how often 'both sides have had to compromise' has to be written.

And it's a good thing they have!

Any deal that involves one 'side' being crushed into giving way entirely will never be a deal that offers the potential fopr a long term solution

 

---

[Nick]

Oh the irony.

The rules stated that clubs must have a minimum 10 year rolling contract. Were ACL wrong to offer a 10 year rolling contract?

When the 10 year offer was made Appleton was supposed to be running and making all decisions about our club. The ioffer was made to Appleton. Was this wrong?

The FL had talks with ACL. The FL then tried to broker a deal over 3 seasons to bring us home. Fisher said it was a good offer. Joy said no. Was ACL or the FL at fault?

I would add selective facts as well as selective reading.

I think he is on about from the Trust Q and A from before we left? When ACL turned down the short deal?

 

[Astute]

And? The rent returns back to £1.3 million for the next 8 years.

Show me where you got that from then. It would have given the chance of negotiations to happen.

And even if it was true why have they accepted a two year deal now? Is it because a new stadium will be ready by then?

 

[Astute]

I think he is on about from the Trust Q and A from before we left? When ACL turned down the short deal?

They did as it wasn't allowed by the FL rules at the time.

And we all know that the FL have bent the rules for SISU. Like when we could sign players when in admin the last time. They have tried to do things to help, but have added to our pain at times.

 

[Nick]

They did as it wasn't allowed by the FL rules at the time.

And we all know that the FL have bent the rules for SISU. Like when we could sign players when in admin the last time. They have tried to do things to help, but have added to our pain at times.

Did they say that it was no because of those rules or have they told you that in private?

 

[Astute]

Did they say that it was no because of those rules or have they told you that in private?

So the rule of clubs needing a minimum of a ten year rolling contract meant nothing did it? We all saw it in writing at the time.

 

[Nick]

So the rule of clubs needing a minimum of a ten year rolling contract meant nothing did it? We all saw it in writing at the time.

So is that why ACL turned it down? I am not saying there was no rule, but where has it been said that is why they turned it down?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

So the rule of clubs needing a minimum of a ten year rolling contract meant nothing did it? We all saw it in writing at the time.

Given there was a limited deal on offer for Northampton, it was pretty clear that there was the opportunity to make a limited deal in the right city.

As has, indeed, been proven.

There's no defence for either party acting like obdurate cocks, none whatsoever... and both indeed have.

But looking forward they're both somewhat cowed, and more keen to chat so how about we focus on that, rather than defending their past efforts to ensure no deal was reached.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Where we were in January 2013 is not the same as where we ended up in August 2014. There are common elements that were compromised by both sides but the terms possible are very different. Along the way there were several proposals put forward in different ways that were basically rejected or allowed to wither. There was no way that the deal agreed in August 2014 could have been agreed by either side in January 2013 - they both had their agendas or reasons to reject those proposals had those proposals actually been properly made at all. Time has moved on and the options available have been slowly closed down........ to a great degree we got to a place where there was no more options left, that is probably why with the change of faces we got any sort of deal at all.

You could argue ACL should have compromised more but so could CCFC. It was CCFC that walked away from the discussions and ACL's then final offer in January 2013 to come back with proposals they must have had a good idea would have been rejected. You can point the finger at ACL for not offering the terms along the lines now agreed, I can certainly accept people may look at it that way, but the question I have is with the benefit of hindsight are we sure SISU would have agreed to it? Did such a deal suit either sides objectives in January 2013 - most probably not

 

[Astute]

So is that why ACL turned it down? I am not saying there was no rule, but where has it been said that is why they turned it down?

Seems quite obvious to me. Why would they agree to something not allowed at the time? The first time that an offer of less than ten years was made was when ACL had talks with the FL. The FL made the offer to SISU. It was the offer that SISU were after. Joy then turned it down. Does that not tell you that SISU were after something they knew couldn't happen? And when it suddenly could they didn't want it anymore.

To me it was all part of the plan of taking our club out of Coventry whilst blaming others for it happening.

 

[Nick]

Seems quite obvious to me. Why would they agree to something not allowed at the time? The first time that an offer of less than ten years was made was when ACL had talks with the FL. The FL made the offer to SISU. It was the offer that SISU were after. Joy then turned it down. Does that not tell you that SISU were after something they knew couldn't happen? And when it suddenly could they didn't want it anymore.

To me it was all part of the plan of taking our club out of Coventry whilst blaming others for it happening.

How is it obvious though? Why in the Q and A didn't they say "No, we can't offer this as it breaks the rules"? It isn't obvious. Both sides have been absolute bellends and are now starting to talk which can only be a good thing going forward.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

You could argue ACL should have compromised more but so could CCFC.

Of course they should, there's little defence for either party.

But how are we going to move forward with a culture that looks back to the halcyon days of no talking and breakdowns in trust?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Of course they should, there's little defence for either party.

But how are we going to move forward with a culture that looks back to the halcyon days of no talking and breakdowns in trust?

Think you and I both agree it is essential to look forward and to work honestly towards a proper solution ....... raking up the past to apportion blame is not going to change what needs to be done. There are opportunities available will the parties look to take them ................

 

[Astute]

Given there was a limited deal on offer for Northampton, it was pretty clear that there was the opportunity to make a limited deal in the right city.

As has, indeed, been proven.

There's no defence for either party acting like obdurate cocks, none whatsoever... and both indeed have.

But looking forward they're both somewhat cowed, and more keen to chat so how about we focus on that, rather than defending their past efforts to ensure no deal was reached.

As I pointed out earlier the FL allowed the Northampton deal as SISU told them they had been forced out of the Ricoh. Strange as we were still playing there afterwards and not paying rent. But they started talks with the FL in December 2012. The FL finally admitted to this. The FL said that they agreed to the move to keep our club afloat. It wouldn't have looked good on them if our club would have folded because we had to have a ten year rolling contract. And they stated so several times.

 

[lordsummerisle]

. You can point the finger at ACL for not offering the terms along the lines now agreed, I can certainly accept people may look at it that way, but the question I have is with the benefit of hindsight are we sure SISU would have agreed to it? Did such a deal suit either sides objectives in January 2013 - most probably not

That's the thing, Sisu may very well have moved the goalposts again if ACL had agreed to it, but we'll never know either way on that one now.

Though if ACL had accepted those terms, Sisu rejected them, but then accepted them 18 months later I think we would be seeing(justly)rather more odium being thrown Sisu's way, than goes the other way.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Think you and I both agree it is essential to look forward and to work honestly towards a proper solution ....... raking up the past to apportion blame is not going to change what needs to be done. There are opportunities available will the parties look to take them ................

I actually see compromise on certain elements as a good thing.

A little late, undoubtedly(!) but nonetheless, a good thing.

Isn't this what we've been asking for, for God knows how long?

 

[lordsummerisle]

I actually see compromise on certain elements as a good thing.

A little late, undoubtedly(!) but nonetheless, a good thing.

Isn't this what we've been asking for, for God knows how long?

I won't be happy until we get a Truth and Reconcilliation Committee!

 

[Astute]

I actually see compromise on certain elements as a good thing.

A little late, undoubtedly(!) but nonetheless, a good thing.

Isn't this what we've been asking for, for God knows how long?

Exactly. All sides have seen sense at last. And now we have the chance of them continuing to do so. There is still a long way to go. But things are finally looking better for all sides.....especially our club and us supporters.

 

[Godiva]

Think you and I both agree it is essential to look forward and to work honestly towards a proper solution ....... raking up the past to apportion blame is not going to change what needs to be done. There are opportunities available will the parties look to take them ................

The agreement leaves both sides in much stronger financial positions. The club has a significant reduced cost base (including lower player wages) and ACL has a better mortgage deal. If nothing else both the club and ACL now stand on much improved financial foundations and both could be profitable going forward.

It's been a bitter fight and I wonder if the parties are ready to go back to the table to restart negotiations that should lead to the club owning ACL?

 

[lordsummerisle]

It's been a bitter fight and I wonder if the parties are ready to go back to the table to restart negotiations that should lead to the club owning ACL?

I think that we may have to wait and see how the next two years of the two year deal go first before anything like that happens to be honest.

 

[Astute]

The agreement leaves both sides in much stronger financial positions. The club has a significant reduced cost base (including lower player wages) and ACL has a better mortgage deal. If nothing else both the club and ACL now stand on much improved financial foundations and both could be profitable going forward.

It's been a bitter fight and I wonder if the parties are ready to go back to the table to restart negotiations that should lead to the club owning ACL?

I just hope that Higgs are prepared to try negotiating again. It certainly seems the easiest way forward at this moment.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Funny how both sides have compromised.

But then Fisher comes out with a comment that they are still not happy and he hasn't even had the keys delivered yet.
Needs to keep those comments to himself and resolve the issues.
He can then hopefully come back to us with some positive words for a change!!!

 

[sky blue john]

Obviously Sisu thought they were going to win the JR. Only when that ship sailed they were prepared to negotiate.
Whilst we have the feel good factor and maybe decent gates is this not an opportunity for Sisu to sell up ?
I can't see them obtaining Acl or the Ricoh.

 

[Astute]

Obviously Sisu thought they were going to win the JR. Only when that ship sailed they were prepared to negotiate.
Whilst we have the feel good factor and maybe decent gates is this not an opportunity for Sisu to sell up ?
I can't see them obtaining Acl or the Ricoh.

Stranger things have certainly happened. Higgs wanted to sell their share back to our club. That was always the agreed deal. They were prepared to make a loss on it. Just not as much of a loss as what Joy wanted them to take.

 

[Godiva]

I think that we may have to wait and see how the next two years of the two year deal go first before anything like that happens to be honest.

Ah, but there's no time is there?
The deal at the Ricoh is a temporary deal, so I would think it doesn't really change the 3-5 year time limit set by the FL to find the future solution. If the council and Higgs won't sell ACL I suppose the club will have to build a new stadium. How long till the FL says 'stop, do a long term deal with ACL or face expulsion from the leagues'?

 

[Jack Griffin]

The agreement leaves both sides in much stronger financial positions. The club has a significant reduced cost base (including lower player wages) and ACL has a better mortgage deal. If nothing else both the club and ACL now stand on much improved financial foundations and both could be profitable going forward.

It's been a bitter fight and I wonder if the parties are ready to go back to the table to restart negotiations that should lead to the club owning ACL?

Hey, maybe they are not Turkeys anymore?

 

[Astute]

Hey, maybe they are not Turkeys anymore?

Did they become an eagle?

 

[Godiva]

Did they become an eagle?

Not yet ... after the merger they will.

 

[bigfatronssba]

Ah, but there's no time is there?
The deal at the Ricoh is a temporary deal, so I would think it doesn't really change the 3-5 year time limit set by the FL to find the future solution. If the council and Higgs won't sell ACL I suppose the club will have to build a new stadium. How long till the FL says 'stop, do a long term deal with ACL or face expulsion from the leagues'?

Are we talking about the same Football League here?

 

[Godiva]

Are we talking about the same Football League here?

How many are there?

 

[skybluetony176]

This thread demonstrates perfectly what Mr Fisher brings to our club.


Nothing constructive.

 

[italiahorse]

Not exactly sold the rights to Compass, as OSB said they set up a joint venture, called IEC, which they sold 23% of to compass, for about £4million I think.

Even more reason to buy into ACL then ?

 

[Samo]

This thread demonstrates perfectly what Mr Fisher brings to our club.

Nothing constructive.

It also clearly demonstrates than people do NOT want to 'just talk about the football'

 

[Godiva]

Not exactly sold the rights to Compass, as OSB said they set up a joint venture, called IEC, which they sold 23% of to compass, for about £4million I think.

Even more reason to buy into ACL then ?

Problem is that Compass paid £4m for 23% of IEC. That means ACL could potentially value their share of IEC at £13.4m.
And that is just IEC ... what about the rest?
How much would the owners of ACL value their business at?

I am pretty sure any valuation would be way above sisu's price range.

 

[Godiva]

It also clearly demonstrates than people do NOT want to ``just talk about the football``

Ha, that's true.
It's an addiction stronger than methamphetamine.
And the whole story is like Breaking Bad.
(I guess we're in season 3 now, so still many more episodes to come).