I'm talking about when he first turned up before it all kicked off.
As much as we all agree now that there was a problem with the rent at the time there were lots of comments that the club had agreed to it and there shouldn't be a problem. We even had PWKH come on here to tell us it was only the same as what we were paying at HR, conveniently leaving out details like it was the final rent at HR which contained huge penalties for moving out late.
There was clearly a concern about the bank loan, if there wasn't an eventual bail out wouldn't have been needed. I think at one point there were concerns about the loan but nothing that wasn't solved to the satisfaction of the bank. They never called the loan in
Point being if on day 1 when Fisher said the rent is too high, the bank are concerned and your over reliant on CCFC the Council and Higgs had agreed and come to the table to negotiate on that basis then maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we are today. Of course we'll never know that but it can't be easy to negotiate when the other side keeps saying we don't need you, our business is fantastic when you know that's not the case.
Ok lets put it in to some context. Just to be clear I do not think TF is a fool, he is a clever fella in many ways and has qualifications to back it up. I am also sure anything he says is for a purpose. It is not that I am disagreeing with a lot of what you are saying either but TF as a purveyor of the truth about ACl for me doesn't ring true ....... there is of course some truth but much more suggestion in what he says
so without dealing in personalities lets concentrate on a timeline of some events regarding TF
09/05/11 appointed director of CCFC H
19/12/11 appointed director of CCFC Ltd
04/01/12 appointed director of SBS&L and Otium
08/01/12 gave first CT interview - no mention of ACL other than needed to look at working together to get a better deal. This tack continued in his interviews 03/05/12, 15/05/12, 09/06/12, 30/06/12.
06/03/12 The TF roadmap discussed
19/03/2012 ARVO master fund take charges over CCFC and CCFCH assets
01/04/12 CCFC stop paying rent
May 2012 SISU in talks with Charity to buy shares
01/05/2012 SISU informed CCC shares not for sale
31/07/2012 Exclusivity on share talks over - no deal agreed
October 2012 £2m verbal offer by SISU to Charity flatly rejected - no prospect of a deal
27/11/2012 TF took the tack for the first time of highlighting financial problems at ACL, emphasising loan debt
10/12/2012 Meeting of SISU, CCC, ACL, YB & Deloittes end in stale mate. Covers long lease, buying out the loan, Charity shares - except as of October there was no Charity share deal
19/12/2012 TF gives interview on CWR highlighting ACL's finances
now by 19/12/2012 as a director of each group company TF should have been aware of
- no deal to buy any shares Charity or CCC
- according to the JR had been notified ACL/CCC had another plan
- why accounts were not being filed (2012's never were for CCFC and CCFC H)
- that CCFC Ltd was a shell property company - was the landlord aware of the change of status?
- where the players registrations were - even if it were errors
- that ACL had gained two judgements, uncontested apparently, to recover rent and the process involved
- the benefit of due diligence information relating to ACL
So they could not agree a deal, the only way to get the site was to force a solution....... and public statements on the finances were part of the strategy. But they don't seem to have started to be negative until there was no deal in the offing, 7 months after withholding the rent. Was there always a SISU plan B going back to early 2012 ? Was plan B actually plan A? who knows? Clearly there was an element of truth in what was said, there always is in TF statements but the why is perhaps more interesting
as for the bail out. Interesting that for one party its a bail out the other its investment. Investment implies a reasonable prospect of a return
As for negotiations takes two to tango. Holding the shares AEHC and CCC didn't have to sell until they were comfortable with the outcome So SISU were entirely reasonable and transparent about negotiating were they? Just because TF says something doesn't mean CCC/AEHC have to agree to anything or is wholly true. Are SISU not saying we don't need you too? The new stadium idea first arose in December 2012 I believe
Yes ACL were over reliant on CCFC but this seems to have backfired on SISU too because the dispute made them look to other things, in fact stating as a policy in the accounts that in future they wont be reliant on sport team income
You can see it your way differently , got no problem with that, but when you put all the events of this whole saga in date order you get to see some interesting patterns and perhaps understand better why certain things were said and when they were said
TF was saying these things (a) not at the start and (b) with a purpose in mind
Think we will have agree to disagree CD
Apologies to everyone as this seems to be a thread like so many others ...... will do my bit and not post further on this thread :wave:
