Sisu make official complaint over Coventry councillors' conduct (11 Viewers)

[Nick]

You obviously are worried about it as are some other posters who keep bringing it up. How you can link the duplicity of TF to Wasps is quite staggering. I don't recall any one else making that link except you just now. Maybe you're the one trying to slide up to Wasps? I don't know but you seem to like talking about them.

Pretty sure there are a few on here with an agenda about wasps so won't let a bad word be said.

 

---

[bigfatronssba]

The problem is people don't want CCC to have any involvement in ccfc (which I understand and agree with).

That however is contradicted when people say CCC should have forced ccfc into changing it's stated position on the Ricoh.

 

[Astute]

The time to bid was around dec 13, when the request to put a bid in was published. You don't seriously think that the deal was still available after we came back do you?

The time to bid was when a bid was made. It was thought up by Fisher and Joy. As in the road map. The time to negotiate was then. They could have had both Higgs and CCC shares for what they wasted on litigation costs and going to Northampton. But they didn't want to take on the loan. Then the time to negotiate was when we were in Northampton and they had made their point. After this the time to negotiate was when they were told that CCC wouldn't wait forever and they would listen for bids from elsewhere if they didn't want to hold talks.

 

[Astute]

I think it's safe to say that is happening with regards to both parties.

Nowhere near as much as with what Fisher has said though. It doesn't matter what Fisher has said to some as the normal lines about not believing him about things but believing him on others to suit.

The only time we have all been together on Fisher was when he made his comment a couple of days after we came home. It just showed how much of a c u n t he is. His comments have caused most of the shite that has gone on.

 

[Astute]

Pretty sure there are a few on here with an agenda about wasps so won't let a bad word be said.

And I consider those to be WUMS. Who could seriously put Wasps before CCFC? It is an absolute joke.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

The time to bid was when a bid was made. It was thought up by Fisher and Joy. As in the road map. The time to negotiate was then. They could have had both Higgs and CCC shares for what they wasted on litigation costs and going to Northampton. But they didn't want to take on the loan. Then the time to negotiate was when we were in Northampton and they had made their point. After this the time to negotiate was when they were told that CCC wouldn't wait forever and they would listen for bids from elsewhere if they didn't want to hold talks.

You're right, I should have said the final opportunity to bid was around Dec 13.

 

[Astute]

You're right, I should have said the final opportunity to bid was around Dec 13.

Shall we settle on Dec 13th 7 years ago? :thinking about:

 

[oldfiver]

You're right, I should have said the final opportunity to bid was around Dec 13.

Was that when hell started to freeze over ?

 

[skybluetony176]

Was that when hell started to freeze over ?

That doesn't count as AL is a liar.

Or does the whole is a liar isn't a liar when it suits argument only count with TF :thinking about:

 

[chiefdave]

If anyone from SISU have said anything we should ignore it especially from Fisher. But if it is said by CCC it is cast in stone and constantly used.

SISU are a private hedge fund. By definition they are only interested in maximising their return and are not answerable to anyone other than their investors.

CCC are a publically accountable body, they should not be dishonest with the electorate.

It's really a very simple concept. And that's before you even consider that pretty much since he first turned up and opened his mouth nobody has believed a word Fisher has said. His comments only ever get dredged up as 'fact' when its to support an argument, usually defending CCC or Wasps.

 

[skybluetony176]

SISU are a private hedge fund. By definition they are only interested in maximising their return and are not answerable to anyone other than their investors.

CCC are a publically accountable body, they should not be dishonest with the electorate.

It's really a very simple concept. And that's before you even consider that pretty much since he first turned up and opened his mouth nobody has believed a word Fisher has said. His comments only ever get dredged up as 'fact' when its to support an argument, usually defending CCC or Wasps.

Isn't a CEO and Chairman also accountable for what they say and do by law, not just their investors?

I'm sure someone (maybe OSB) put a list up at some point of the company laws a CEO is supposed to stick to. Seem to remember one of them was along the lines off not giving false representation or words to that effect. Could be wrong, I'm going from memory.

 

[olderskyblue]

SISU are a private hedge fund. By definition they are only interested in maximising their return and are not answerable to anyone other than their investors.

CCC are a publically accountable body, they should not be dishonest with the electorate.

It's really a very simple concept. And that's before you even consider that pretty much since he first turned up and opened his mouth nobody has believed a word Fisher has said. His comments only ever get dredged up as 'fact' when its to support an argument, usually defending CCC or Wasps.

Although a comment made by AL in a private meeting is treated as the gospel by some on here. I have had board meetings that, while discussing a specific customer, have had all sorts of abuse spouted about them (it was a very very difficult and unreasonable customer). However, when the dust settled, we dealt with them in our usual very professional manner.

What is said privately does not have to then translate to policy.

(And no, I didn't agree with CCC selling the Ricoh to wasps)

 

[skybluetony176]

Although a comment made by AL in a private meeting is treated as the gospel by some on here. I have had board meetings that, while discussing a specific customer, have had all sorts of abuse spouted about them (it was a very very difficult and unreasonable customer). However, when the dust settled, we dealt with them in our usual very professional manner.

What is said privately does not have to then translate to policy.

(And no, I didn't agree with CCC selling the Ricoh to wasps)

It wouldn't happen like that with CCC though. AL is the Kim Jong Un of Coventry, if other councilors disagree with her it's exicution time. Probably explains why the council chambers goes through so much coffee. No one dare fall asleep. Apparently she holds every record at Godiva Harriers as well.

 

[Ian1779]

It wouldn't happen like that with CCC though. AL is the Kim Jong Un of Coventry, if other councilors disagree with her it's exicution time. Probably explains why the council chambers goes through so much coffee. No one dare fall asleep. Apparently she holds every record at Godiva Harriers as well.

What's her golf handicap like?

 

[torchomatic]

Once he's stopped washing her feet then I'm sure he'll let us know.

What's her golf handicap like?

 

[italiahorse]

SISU are a private hedge fund. By definition they are only interested in maximising their return and are not answerable to anyone other than their investors.

CCC are a publically accountable body, they should not be dishonest with the electorate.

It's really a very simple concept. And that's before you even consider that pretty much since he first turned up and opened his mouth nobody has believed a word Fisher has said. His comments only ever get dredged up as 'fact' when its to support an argument, usually defending CCC or Wasps.

Sisu are answerable to the customers of CCFC and in that respect their customers have voted with their feet.
CCC are answerable to the ratepayers and as a Public company as you say need to be above board.
But they are also a business that needs to be run as a business and to expect them to always have their cards in full view during negotiations is a little naive.

To say ACL was doing okay in that process is understandable but the real picture would always be found during due diligence.
I think it's just the fans looking for a smoking gun.

 

[torchomatic]

**smoking gun.

**Used by kind permission of SkyBlueTony176. © 2014

 

[Ian1779]

To say ACL was doing okay in that process is understandable but the real picture would always be found during due diligence.
I think it's just the fans looking for a smoking gun.

Or just identifying the fact they lied.

 

[Sick Boy]

It's unbelievable that some defend one side of a bad coin. Both parties SISU and CCC have been dishonest, yet some are desperate to defend the council and their precious 'Ann'. Why would anyone feel such affinity to a council and this woman?

Good little Anndroids.

 

[skybluetony176]

Once he's stopped washing her feet then I'm sure he'll let us know.

A well structured argument. Well done.

 

[torchomatic]

Thanks.

A well structured argument. Well done.

 

[italiahorse]

It's unbelievable that some defend one side of a bad coin. Both parties SISU and CCC have been dishonest, yet some are desperate to defend the council and their precious 'Ann'. Why would anyone feel such affinity to a council and this woman?

Good little Anndroids.

Neither has done anything dishonest. Both have been stretching the rules.
The disappointment of the situation we find ourselves in is clouding your judgement.

If ACL was your business what would you have done?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

SISU are a private hedge fund. By definition they are only interested in maximising their return and are not answerable to anyone other than their investors

No so easy. The directors of the various CCFC companies have a common law fiduciary duty to companies they manage, as set out in sections 171 to 177 of the Companies Act 2006.

These include promoting the success of the company, and executing judgment, skill, care and diligence with regards the running of the company.

Looking at Fisher and his cohorts within their role as directors of the various CCFC businesses - can you say he has done this? Really?

You can't simply look at his role in the context of serving his masters at SISU and state forgive it all as 'SISU are a private hedge fund' and your mitigation that comes thereafter.

He has a responsibility to the CCFC businesses, and the club itself - not just in the direction of SISU. Do you think he got the balance of judgements between both parties correct? Or was one party imperilled in order to enrich the other?

 

[Astute]

SISU are a private hedge fund. By definition they are only interested in maximising their return and are not answerable to anyone other than their investors.

CCC are a publically accountable body, they should not be dishonest with the electorate.

It's really a very simple concept. And that's before you even consider that pretty much since he first turned up and opened his mouth nobody has believed a word Fisher has said. His comments only ever get dredged up as 'fact' when its to support an argument, usually defending CCC or Wasps.

So do you think it is OK for Fisher to give us as much bullshit as he wants and say it is OK because he is a part of a hedge fund? And by the sound of it you expect us to take everything that he says as bullshit as we are not allowed to think that anything he says is the truth.

And where were CCC dishonest with the electorate because I missed it.

 

[chiefdave]

No so easy. The directors of the various CCFC companies have a common law fiduciary duty to companies they manage, as set out in sections 171 to 177 of the Companies Act 2006.

There's a difference between Fisher shooting off some comment to the CT and what you are suggesting. Of course if SISU have done anything illegal I would expect them to be punished but you're actually proving my point. SISU have only to not break the law, they have no responsibility to anyone else.

That isn't the case for CCC. Simply stating they haven't broken the law does not absolve them of blame. As a public body accountable to the electorate they should be held to a higher standard and conduct themselves in a manner that is beyond reproach. They quite simply haven't done this, they have even been found out and yet are still give a free pass by some.

 

[Astute]

No so easy. The directors of the various CCFC companies have a common law fiduciary duty to companies they manage, as set out in sections 171 to 177 of the Companies Act 2006.

These include promoting the success of the company, and executing judgment, skill, care and diligence with regards the running of the company.

Looking at Fisher and his cohorts within their role as directors of the various CCFC businesses - can you say he has done this? Really?

You can't simply look at his role in the context of serving his masters at SISU and state forgive it all as 'SISU are a private hedge fund' and your mitigation that comes thereafter.

He has a responsibility to the CCFC businesses, and the club itself - not just in the direction of SISU. Do you think he got the balance of judgements between both parties correct? Or was one party imperilled in order to enrich the other?

Read again. They are allowed to say and do what they want because they are a hedge fund :facepalm:

 

[Astute]

There's a difference between Fisher shooting off some comment to the CT and what you are suggesting. Of course if SISU have done anything illegal I would expect them to be punished but you're actually proving my point. SISU have only to not break the law, they have no responsibility to anyone else.

That isn't the case for CCC. Simply stating they haven't broken the law does not absolve them of blame. As a public body accountable to the electorate they should be held to a higher standard and conduct themselves in a manner that is beyond reproach. They quite simply haven't done this, they have even been found out and yet are still give a free pass by some.

So no legal wrongdoings were found in the JR?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

There's a difference between Fisher shooting off some comment to the CT and what you are suggesting. Of course if SISU have done anything illegal I would expect them to be punished but you're actually proving my point. SISU have only to not break the law, they have no responsibility to anyone else.

That isn't the case for CCC. Simply stating they haven't broken the law does not absolve them of blame. As a public body accountable to the electorate they should be held to a higher standard and conduct themselves in a manner that is beyond reproach. They quite simply haven't done this, they have even been found out and yet are still give a free pass by some.

I think if you care to look back at from the original court case in Birmingham, through to the Judicial Review, then Judicial Review appeal; the Council and all other parties dragged into this mess have held themselves to a high standard. Successive judges found so.

Your desperate ambition to share the blame in equal measure despite judgement to the contrary by independent parties must be music to Fisher's ears. Yes, other parties have been far from perfect, and culpable in this mess; but it's nearly always been reactive to events of SISU's instigation, and never even close to being of the same order of magnitude

 

[chiefdave]

So do you think it is OK for Fisher to give us as much bullshit as he wants and say it is OK because he is a part of a hedge fund? And by the sound of it you expect us to take everything that he says as bullshit as we are not allowed to think that anything he says is the truth.

That is not what I am saying at all. My preference would be for the club to be honest and transparent but, given the type of owners we have, it would be naïve to say the least, to expect that to be the case. Are you really going to argue that when Fisher bangs on about a new stadium and announcements in a couple of weeks you have complete faith in him? Look at the video of the fans forum where he stated his expected attendance, he was being openly laughed at and mocked. Doesn't strike me that people were hanging on his every word as the truth.

The council I expect to be open and upfront. I formed my initial stance based on information stated as fact by CCC, Higgs and ACL. Statements which have turned out to be, if you're being charitable, deliberately misleading, if you're not being charitable, outright lies. What else have they told us that isn't true? Why is everything hidden behind a blanket of confidentiality?

And where were CCC dishonest with the electorate because I missed it.

Is this a serious question or are you on the wind up?

 

[Grendel]

A well structured argument. Well done.

I guess he should have started with something like "come on keep up", mentioned "toxic poison running through the club" and "smoking gun".

 

[chiefdave]

I think if you care to look back at from the original court case in Birmingham, through to the Judicial Review, then Judicial Review appeal; the Council and all other parties dragged into this mess have held themselves to a high standard. Successive judges found so.

What has the JR got to do with the sale of ACL to Wasps?

 

[LB87ccfc]

only 35 pages of drama queen bollocks about SISU ACL and Wasps ( we can never leave Wasps out now can we of anything to do with our club, only 35 pages so far, well I am disappointed. Keep going.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

What has the JR got to do with the sale of ACL to Wasps?

The JR took a view on the rent strike and the subsequent move to Sixfields - including the May 2013 assertion that SISU were closing in on land for their own stadium in three to four weeks - which is surely all part of the narrative that gave rise to (the unwanted) ACL being sold to Wasps in October 2014

 

[Astute]

That is not what I am saying at all. My preference would be for the club to be honest and transparent but, given the type of owners we have, it would be naïve to say the least, to expect that to be the case. Are you really going to argue that when Fisher bangs on about a new stadium and announcements in a couple of weeks you have complete faith in him? Look at the video of the fans forum where he stated his expected attendance, he was being openly laughed at and mocked. Doesn't strike me that people were hanging on his every word as the truth.

The council I expect to be open and upfront. I formed my initial stance based on information stated as fact by CCC, Higgs and ACL. Statements which have turned out to be, if you're being charitable, deliberately misleading, if you're not being charitable, outright lies. What else have they told us that isn't true? Why is everything hidden behind a blanket of confidentiality?



Is this a serious question or are you on the wind up?

Just because Fisher has problems knowing what the proof is it doesn't mean that everyone else involved is the same.

It was said at the time that Ann was informed that the arena was doing OK without us there. And yes we were told about building bridges. But do we know if the deal was done or what Wasps were after when it was said?

I want it all out in the open so we can deal with facts and not treat everyone like they are Fisher. And if anyone has done legal wrongdoings they should answer to what they have done and take the consequences. But I am not going to hang someone or use them to make Fisher look better without the facts. And it looks like we will be finding out. But SISU bringing legal proceedings doesn't mean they are right. We have seen that before.

 

[Monners]

Page 36

Sisu, Wasps, JR, ACL, CCC, bias Telegraph, Fisher, Joy,

I feel better now!

Edit: Doh!! :facepalm: