CCLSC conversation with TF (5 Viewers)

ccfcway · Jul 23, 2014

Dear ccfcway

Notes from Tim Fisher conversation 22 July 2014

The Supporters' Consultative Group (SCG) meeting scheduled for this week was postponed due to difficulties over both individual availability and venue. Tim Fisher offered to speak to the various SCG members to give them an update on the current situation, next steps and likely timelines. I took up that offer and I had a telephone conversation with Tim Fisher on Tuesday 22 July. Below are notes of that conversation. They are not verbatim and should not be read as such.

The topics covered were:

CCLSC AGM – I explained that at last Saturday’s AGM the resolution moving the supporters club back to a neutral position on the current dispute was passed with strong support after a full and frank discussion. Members will make their own mind up about whether to attend games at Sixfields or not. I also mentioned that Simon Fahy had also written to Joy Seppala on this subject and she had offered to meet Simon and Colin Henderson upon her return from the US.
CCLSC meeting – TF agreed to meet with a group of CCLSC members at the Calthorpe Arms on Thursday 31 July. This will be, due to capacity constraints, a member’s only event. Details will be sent to members shortly.
Player of the Season Award presentation – TF would support the presentation of the award before the Stevenage away pre season friendly. If timings made it impractical for either Steve Pressley or Steve Ogrizovic to receive the award before the game, TF suggested that CCFC Director, Steve Waggott could received the award on behalf of Joe Murphy.
Current status –
1. ACL were adamant it should be paid a figure of £590k;
2. CCFC had deposited funds in excess of those due with the Football League;
3. CCFC have submitted a copy of its short term/interim Ricoh proposal to the FL. I asked why this had not been sent to ACL? ACL had made it clear that they had no desire to engage in discussions about a return to the Ricoh until both the £590 had been received and the legal appeal had been dropped. However, by sending the proposed terms to the FL, TF said that this showed goodwill in trying to create a route back to the Ricoh. This also ensured that the supporters had knowledge, insight and transparency as to the various challenges faced by the club;
4. Was the proposal for a permanent or interim move? It was an interim deal and TF explained the rent proposal would be benchmarked against the division we were playing in; it was on the basis of 23 days per annum with cup games paid for on a match by match basis. CCFC would pay, as previously, all the match day costs (stewards, police, etc);
5. The Club was not seeking anything which is not related to match day revenues. Only that turnover directly related to a match being played at the Ricoh. TF added, that today, CCFC is the only football league club which does not have access to match day revenues beyond ticketing;
6. As such, the Club wanted car parking revenues as those using the car parks were attending the match, all in-bowl commercial revenues such as advertising etc on match days. Previously, the Club only received a fraction;
7. The issue re Compass on F&B was for ACL to resolve as the club is not a counterparty in the contracts struck between ACL and Compass, but TF believed it was reasonable for the club to have access to F&B generated by its supporters on the days the Club was renting the stadium.
8. The proposal was seeking a carve out based on 23/365 days from ACL when they rented the stadium
Timeline – a lot of work would need to be done to prepare for a return to the Ricoh e.g. is the pitch ready and the Safety Advisory Group would need to be engaged on the stadium. TF quoted that FL rules do not allow for a change of ground mid season but he recognised that the FL rules are discretionary and exceptions can be made. He felt that we were running out of time to get a deal done. TF said he couldn’t influence the timing of the FL Board meeting scheduled for 7 August (to determine the amount to be paid) but considered that the politics -“the will of local people and local tax payers” ” might play a part with CCC , as the creditor-lender, positively encouraging both ACL and Higgs and thereby answering the question everyone is asking – which is just how much does the Council want its club to play back in the community. TF felt this was about reconciliation, healing and goodwill.
Probability – I asked what the probability of a return to the Ricoh was this season. TF said if it was the will to do a deal then it was 100%/0% but skewed logic and local politics meant that the likelihood of achievement reduced to say 70%/30%.

The call finished with TF saying that the club was pushing as hard as they could, but it will take effort and will from all parties to achieve this goal.

Best regards
PUSB
Ian Davidson

ccfcway · Jul 23, 2014

CCFC have submitted a copy of its short term/interim Ricoh proposal to the FL. I asked why this had not been sent to ACL? ACL had made it clear that they had no desire to engage in discussions about a return to the Ricoh until both the £590 had been received and the legal appeal had been dropped.

Why does it make me think its all part of the "we are doing everything we can FL" line that will keep us at Sixfields for a long time to come

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 23, 2014

ccfcway said:
Why does it make me think its all part of the "we are doing everything we can FL" line that will keep us at Sixfields for a long time to come

Suspect it's mirroring the time ACL sent their offer via the Football League.

While I appreciate the desire for some kind of authentication an offer actually exists... would be nice if the two sides could actually have a chat.

ccfcway · Jul 23, 2014

both sides have now sent offers to FL, both have spoken to the press...

yet not spoken to each other outside of a court room ?

SISU could have easily copied in ACL on the offer sent to the FL.

Imagine if Michael and KCIC would have sent its offer to the FL and not ACL !

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 24, 2014

ccfcway said:
both sides have now sent offers to FL, both have spoken to the press...

yet not spoken to each other outside of a court room ?

SISU could have easily copied in ACL on the offer sent to the FL.

Imagine if Michael and KCIC would have sent its offer to the FL and not ACL !

Not arguing with you.

lifelongcityfan · Jul 24, 2014

im sorry, but no one believes a word TF says anymore even if it was genuine. the guy has lost all credibility with the vast majority of city fans. Also, he doesnt make any decisions...so what is his role/use.

Nick · Jul 24, 2014

What are the rules the cet posted about being able to move?

I was eleven in 87 · Jul 24, 2014

Nick said:
What are the rules the cet posted about being able to move?

The FL rules are that you can't move grounds mid season. However the FL have said this rule can be discretionary and they would support city going back to the Ricoh as long as it was a permanent or long term deal.

Nick · Jul 24, 2014

Ahh makes sense now thanks!

Although this does seem to me like a pr charm offensive.

lifelongcityfan · Jul 24, 2014

I also note that clever use of words ; sisu state they have put into the escrow more than they owe...that doesnt mean 590k does it? If they believe they only owe 100k, they may have deposited 105K...well short of waht ACL is due
Its all a game by sisu

I was eleven in 87 · Jul 24, 2014

Seems like a PR exercise from all sides of the debate at the moment, but no one with the balls to dip their toes in the water and pick up the phone unfortunately!!

Tonylinc · Jul 24, 2014

The FL themselves told Shitzu to pay £590k so I hope that this is at least the amount which they have deposited.

lifelongcityfan · Jul 24, 2014

I agree, but i have yet to see anything that sates sisu hav put 590k into the account. If they had they would state as much surely?

I was eleven in 87 · Jul 24, 2014

lifelongcityfan said:
I agree, but i have yet to see anything that sates sisu hav put 590k into the account. If they had they would state as much surely?

In the notes that ccfcway has posted TF has claimed that they have placed in excess of the funds that the FL require in the escrow account. I am presuming that will be more than the £590,000, but I take that with a pinch of salt given previous history.

play_in_skyblue_stripes · Jul 24, 2014

Did anyone ask why did they leave in the first place?

Was the judge right in his presumption on SISU "commercial tactics"?

What has changed to seek a return?

Was the JR result, Guardian article, FL or "the March" the key factor or just plain common sense?

ccfcway · Jul 24, 2014

I was eleven in 87 said:
In the notes that ccfcway has posted TF has claimed that they have placed in excess of the funds that the FL require in the escrow account. I am presuming that will be more than the £590,000, but I take that with a pinch of salt given previous history.

I cut and paste the entire email sent to me by CCLSC.

Why on earth would SISU put more than £590k in there. It all indicates that it doesnt add up

Como · Jul 24, 2014

No mention of the new ground?

ccfcway · Jul 24, 2014

Como said:
No mention of the new ground?

apparently more concerned about getting pie money in the short term from ricoh

martcov · Jul 24, 2014

ccfcway said:
apparently more concerned about getting pie money in the short term from ricoh

Using CCFC as a hostage. He says the deal depends on how much the Council want the Club back. The veiled threat being - accept, or you won't being seeing the Club in Cov. The hope being that the taxpayers put pressure on CCC to influence ACL. The majority of taxpayers would rather see the back of the chancers than CCC do what they dictate.

Como · Jul 24, 2014

Any move to the Ricoh will be short term, a couple of years at most, so ACL still have the longer term issue of needing a long term tenant.

Such a tenant is not going to be easy to find, presumably they will need to keep their options open in case they can find one.

Seems that SISU are essentially saying any rent they will pay will be nominal based on League 1 averages and 30 odd days occupancy.

Just wonder how attractive a deal it could possibly be?

kmj5000 · Jul 24, 2014

So does the "offer" include the expectation of receiving the match day revenue rights (the ones the club sold) for nothing?

letsallsingtogether · Jul 24, 2014

Yes funny that and he goes on to say that it is up to ACL to negotiate it on their behalf.
Fuck me they want it all on a plate so, if it fails they can say we told you so we did everything right!!!!

kmj5000 said:
So does the "offer" include the expectation of receiving the match day revenue rights (the ones the club sold) for nothing?

fernandopartridge · Jul 24, 2014

kmj5000 said:
So does the "offer" include the expectation of receiving the match day revenue rights (the ones the club sold) for nothing?

No. The club pays rent for them essentially. What's your problem with this anyway? Why is anybody concerned about what ACL get?

will am i · Jul 24, 2014

You have to care about ACL because they are the other side of the argument and without them receiving a sensible offer instead of more games by SISU we arent likely to return to the Ricoh. The match day revenues have a value and need to be paid for. If its within the rent, the rent will have to be higher. Funny how SISU start making statements when the season is about to begin and its pretty much too late to start the season at the Ricoh. Won't be their fault of course "Did all they could"

Godiva · Jul 24, 2014

letsallsingtogether said:
Yes funny that and he goes on to say that it is up to ACL to negotiate it on their behalf.
Fuck me they want it all on a plate so, if it fails they can say we told you so we did everything right!!!!

It's a contract between ACL and Compass. The club can only ask those companies if they agree the club can have the F/B revenue.

But this thread again illuminates the fundamental issues of having the club and ACL owned by two different owners with two different objectives.

Godiva · Jul 24, 2014

will am i said:
You have to care about ACL because they are the other side of the argument and without them receiving a sensible offer instead of more games by SISU we arent likely to return to the Ricoh. The match day revenues have a value and need to be paid for. If its within the rent, the rent will have to be higher. Funny how SISU start making statements when the season is about to begin and its pretty much too late to start the season at the Ricoh. Won't be their fault of course "Did all they could"

Well, not today it hasn't.

mark82 · Jul 24, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
No. The club pays rent for them essentially. What's your problem with this anyway? Why is anybody concerned about what ACL get?

I never do get that. We've been ripped off by them for years but we don't want them to be ripped off.

Essentially it is a new deal now. Everything that went before is void as the CVA was rejected. This is what ACL wanted presumably when they refused the CVA. If you were negotiating this afresh you would want all revenue streams included else you are making the same mistake again. For this you would agree an appropriate rent based on what other similar businesses pay. Whether what they have offered is a fair price we don't yet know as they haven't given us enough detail to decide. I for one hope they make this information available soon.

Also worth remembering that in law they have no entitlement to any of the £590k either but they are fortunate to have the football league saying the club have to pay it. For that reason this shouldn't hold up a deal for me.

Godiva · Jul 24, 2014

mark82 said:
I never do get that. We've been ripped off by them for years but we don't want them to be ripped off.

Essentially it is a new deal now. Everything that went before is void as the CVA was rejected. This is what ACL wanted presumably when they refused the CVA. If you were negotiating this afresh you would want all revenue streams included else you are making the same mistake again. For this you would agree an appropriate rent based on what other similar businesses pay. Whether what they have offered is a fair price we don't yet know as they haven't given us enough detail to decide. I for one hope they make this information available soon.

Also worth remembering that in law they have no entitlement to any of the £590k either but they are fortunate to have the football league saying the club have to pay it. For that reason this shouldn't hold up a deal for me.

What kind of deal would a fan owned or fan part-owned club want?
It's so easy to spend other peoples money, but if the bill potentially has to be paid by 'me' ...

The Gentleman · Jul 24, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
No. The club pays rent for them essentially. What's your problem with this anyway? Why is anybody concerned about what ACL get?

Nobody is really concerned with what ACL get and deep down you know that mate. It's the simple fact that Sisu, TF, ML or any other face they shove up to front up their spin seem to want to never actually state what they are willing to pay for. They want access to F & B's then a simple, quick and frankly honest quote on what they are willing to pay isn't hard is it? the same way they cannot answer a simple question about what they have deposited into the escrow account. If they have put in £590k they just say so, the fact that they don't proves they are still playing games and not that serious about a return because if they were then being fully open and honest would be the best way to put pressure on ACL to take a deal.

The reason I imagine that people are concerned is that if Sisu do keep playing games then no-one in their right mind would entertain them. The sooner Sisu stop fucking about and get things moving then the sooner we might come home, lets not forget that if Sisu had come out before the 31st May and payed this money, this might have been dealt with sooner by the FL.

The Gentleman · Jul 24, 2014

Godiva said:
It's a contract between ACL and Compass. The club can only ask those companies if they agree the club can have the F/B revenue.

But this thread again illuminates the fundamental issues of having the club and ACL owned by two different owners with two different objectives.

If that is true then why have the club never made an offer to buy the Ricoh and stuck to it then?

The Gentleman · Jul 24, 2014

mark82 said:
I never do get that. We've been ripped off by them for years but we don't want them to be ripped off.

Essentially it is a new deal now. Everything that went before is void as the CVA was rejected. This is what ACL wanted presumably when they refused the CVA. If you were negotiating this afresh you would want all revenue streams included else you are making the same mistake again. For this you would agree an appropriate rent based on what other similar businesses pay. Whether what they have offered is a fair price we don't yet know as they haven't given us enough detail to decide. I for one hope they make this information available soon.

Also worth remembering that in law they have no entitlement to any of the £590k either but they are fortunate to have the football league saying the club have to pay it. For that reason this shouldn't hold up a deal for me.

The club agreed to the original deal, the club then refused a deal which was less than a tenth of the original deal. That is what I don't get.

shmmeee · Jul 24, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
No. The club pays rent for them essentially. What's your problem with this anyway? Why is anybody concerned about what ACL get?

Because ACL have to agree you massive fuck tard.

I know you're desperate to give someone in public office a kicking to overcome whatever issues it is you have. But most people here want us home.

While the club refuses to budge from the position that brought this mess about that won't happen. While eejits like you are cheerleading for your favourite hedge fund, were stuck in fucking Northampton.

Something tells me the likes of you and Grendel would be gutted if CCFC had to come back to the Ricoh without everything they've demanded. Seems getting one over on the council is more important than seeing us play in Cov.

Nick · Jul 24, 2014

shmmeee said:
Because ACL have to agree you massive fuck tard.

I know you're desperate to give someone in public office a kicking to overcome whatever issues it is you have. But most people here want us home.

While the club refuses to budge from the position that brought this mess about that won't happen. While eejits like you are cheerleading for your favourite hedge fund, were stuck in fucking Northampton.

Something tells me the likes of you and Grendel would be gutted if CCFC had to come back to the Ricoh without everything they've demanded. Seems getting one over on the council is more important than seeing us play in Cov.

Not read the threads about fans wanting huge points deductions just to spite sisu then?

I think the point is nobody cares what acl get, only the club.

Some seem to put acl over the club when asking for point deductions etc.

fernandopartridge · Jul 24, 2014

shmmeee said:
Because ACL have to agree you massive fuck tard.

I know you're desperate to give someone in public office a kicking to overcome whatever issues it is you have. But most people here want us home.

While the club refuses to budge from the position that brought this mess about that won't happen. While eejits like you are cheerleading for your favourite hedge fund, were stuck in fucking Northampton.

Something tells me the likes of you and Grendel would be gutted if CCFC had to come back to the Ricoh without everything they've demanded. Seems getting one over on the council is more important than seeing us play in Cov.

You massive fucktard. You do hurt me.

What is £175k over 23 days paying for?

Godiva · Jul 24, 2014

The Gentleman said:
Nobody is really concerned with what ACL get and deep down you know that mate. It's the simple fact that Sisu, TF, ML or any other face they shove up to front up their spin seem to want to never actually state what they are willing to pay for. They want access to F & B's then a simple, quick and frankly honest quote on what they are willing to pay isn't hard is it? the same way they cannot answer a simple question about what they have deposited into the escrow account. If they have put in £590k they just say so, the fact that they don't proves they are still playing games and not that serious about a return because if they were then being fully open and honest would be the best way to put pressure on ACL to take a deal.

The reason I imagine that people are concerned is that if Sisu do keep playing games then no-one in their right mind would entertain them. The sooner Sisu stop fucking about and get things moving then the sooner we might come home, lets not forget that if Sisu had come out before the 31st May and payed this money, this might have been dealt with sooner by the FL.

They shouldn't pay anything other than trade costs (products/labour).
It's worth nothing to ACL and Compass when the club plays in Northampton.

CCLSC conversation with TF (5 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency