Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
On one hand, an open and transparent, above board, and decent business(ACL)
On the other hand, A lying, cheating, blackmailing, underhand, thieving bunch of bastards,(SISU)........Now!...Let me see!:facepalm:
And ACL aren't petty at all
ACL need to quickly come to a business arrangement with SISU/CCFC. If they had done this a year ago instead of dragging their feet the debt would not have built up. In that time the football side of the business has been cost neutral.
Unfortunately without SISU/CCFC there other business's will start to fail hence ACL need to move fast.
Ah, a statement from ACL: "an open and transparent, above board, and decent business".On one hand, an open and transparent, above board, and decent business(ACL)
On the other hand, A lying, cheating, blackmailing, underhand, thieving bunch of bastards,(SISU)........Now!...Let me see!:facepalm:
Ah, but if that customer directly led to you receiving more than that £1.3million in other sources, Compass deal, sponsorship, car-parking etc then you might think
How much was the Compass deal in catering? Was it paid up front? If so, would they be demanding their money back without the regular sales of a football club in situ?
I hardly think three home games until the end of the season would make much difference in terms of revenue. Definately not 1.3 million in bottom line profit !!!!
We're not talking just three home games though are we potentially?
It goes back to those who say that ACL is viable without the club and those who think it isn't.
ACL need to quickly come to a business arrangement with SISU/CCFC. If they had done this a year ago instead of dragging their feet the debt would not have built up. In that time the football side of the business has been cost neutral.
Unfortunately without SISU/CCFC there other business's will start to fail hence ACL need to move fast.
The three things I wanted to know are missing from this scribble by Fisher.
1) Confirmation on whether the golden share is held by CCFC Ltd or CCFC Holding Ltd (though of course it might not make a difference in the outcome).
2) The intended alternative to playing at the Ricoh.
3) SISU's intended commitment to the club from this point.
All else is frippery.
It's important to note that technically we're still in a middle of a court case, and any statement would have been approved by the lawyers.
We were never gonna get a full disclosure, and won't until after the litigation has been sorted.
Wheres all the sisu lovers:facepalm: I think sisu are running out of ideas and just trying to paper over the cracks. The sooner they feckoff the better im sick of getting a stress headache over my football club. SISU :jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit:
Theres plenty of them on here allways bending over backwards to defend them. All sisu do is feed us lies and im sick of it but i suppose everyone is entitled to there own opinion.Define a sisu lover? Bit odd if someone had a crush on a hedge fund!
I quote from the CCFC statement:
But following Thursday's decision to place Coventry City Football Club Limited into administration, ACL told the appointed administrators they would require the full rent and licence fee on the stadium to be paid.
This is simply not true.
Neither ACL nor its lawyers have been approached by either the Club, its lawyers, Sisu or the Administrator, nor has ACL or its lawyers approached the Club, its lawyers, Sisu or the Administrator to say that “they would require the full rent and licence fee on the stadium to be paid”.
As the ACL statement said earlier we want the Sky Blues to continue playing at the Ricoh and nothing has changed. As the Club know full well in Administration there is anyway 14 days “grace” during which no rent or licence fee has to be paid by the company in administration.
So, let's get this right. ACL - who are nothing to do with the Club we support - make a statement and it's "way to go", "well done ACL", etc etc
The Club makes a statement - that's the Club WE support - and it's bullshit, lies, spin, etc?
So, let's get this right. ACL - who are nothing to do with the Club we support - make a statement and it's "way to go", "well done ACL", etc etc
The Club makes a statement - that's the Club WE support - and it's bullshit, lies, spin, etc?
So, let's get this right. ACL - who are nothing to do with the Club we support - make a statement and it's "way to go", "well done ACL", etc etc
The Club makes a statement - that's the Club WE support - and it's bullshit, lies, spin, etc?
So, let's get this right. ACL - who are nothing to do with the Club we support - make a statement and it's "way to go", "well done ACL", etc etc
The Club makes a statement - that's the Club WE support - and it's bullshit, lies, spin, etc?
The difference is, I think, quite clear. You may not agree with the actions spelt out in the ACL statement, you may disagree with the policy being followed by ACL, you may believe that ACL should be behaving in a different way but you cannot point to a deliberate falsehood. The CCFC statement states as a fact something that is intended to justify their actions, something that is utterly untrue. That is the difference.
To ease your confusion....
I judge people on their actions.
One party has been good enough to come on this site and inform us what is happening. So far I have had no reason to doubt what he says.
The other party, well the less said the better....
Hope that helps.
So, let's get this right. ACL - who are nothing to do with the Club we support - make a statement and it's "way to go", "well done ACL", etc etc
The Club makes a statement - that's the Club WE support - and it's bullshit, lies, spin, etc?
ACL wanted the arrears repaid over a period of years but the club refused and so negotiations collapsed. No business is going to just write off that sum of money when it's legally owed.
Well only the people that belive him and thought his post spoke sense and knew who he was would "like" his posts. But i think most would give him a load of abuse and call him a bullshiterSo if Tim Fisher came on here and gave his version everyone would "like" everything he says as well?
Well only the people that belive him and thought his post spoke sense and knew who he was would "like" his posts. But i think most would give him a load of abuse and call him a bullshiter
But isn't that exactly what many posters on here want SISU to do - walk away with nothing after having put in £45M
Absolutely. Yes. They are multiple millionaire backers who are gambling in high risk stakes. That's what Hedge funds are. They take big risks and sometimes win mega bucks and sometimes lose. I was once in a casino in West Bromwich and folks were talking about a chap who had lost tens of thousands a few days before. Then someone pointed out he was a millionaire many times over. Small change for him and no sympathy.But isn't that exactly what many posters on here want SISU to do - walk away with nothing after having put in £45M
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?