CCLSC minutes 29th May - Fisher Speaks (1 Viewer)

ccfcway

Well-Known Member
Meeting with Tim Fisher

TF asked SISU to do a deal with ACL on match-day revenues because of prospect of Financial Fair Play. His counterpart, Daniel Gidney, said ACL would reduce rent to £500k p/a and give them match-day revenues including catering and parking at the Ricoh for £24m consideration in effect - net present value over next 40 + years.

In March 2012, SISU could not accept the big funding gap. Crowds were down and it tried again to discuss a deal to buy half the stadium company – the business, not the bricks and mortar. The Council had the right to veto any deal. SISU and Higgs signed a term sheet on 18 June 2012.

To support the deal then, SISU negotiated with the Council to buy the Yorkshire Bank debt and to discharge the debt so that the value (of both halves) of the equity would go up. The leasehold would need to rise from 42 years to 125 years – again leading to an increase in the value of both equity stakes. On 2 August 2012, a heads of terms agreement was signed with the Council.

Steve Brookfield was charged in his role of FD to do a pay-as-you-play deal with an interim rent. This was circa £10K per match. Something went wrong in about September/October 2012. The Council reneged on the deal agreed in August but the football club still needed a share of the stadium revenues. With the prospect of FFP, the terms of occupancy needed to be changed. A rent reduction was agreed from £1.3m to £400K.

The club had also been paying rates of £197K p/a for the use of the stadium for as little as 23 match-days. These were subsequently marked down to £60K p/a - which created a rebate of circa £400K.

The club had been paying £1.5m p/a including rent and all other charges under Robinson / early SISU. All contracts were reviewed – e.g. went from paying £20K p/a for cleaning training ground to £6K p/a. All invoices were checked including those without contract. CCFC was putting its house in order. This would naturally put more pressure on ACL.

In December 2012, Yorkshire Bank said they were about to foreclose on ACL. Joy Seppala went to Leeds with ACL, and a deal was negotiated that would restructure the debt but allow the football club and the mortgage to stay in place. Despite SISU/CCFC agreeing the terms of a deal, the Council said “No.” YB said they would re-structure in order for ACL to survive.

On 15 January 2013, however, the Council used £14.4m of tax-payers’ money to enable it to pay off the YB mortgage and to become ACL’s bankers. This is now the subject of an application for a judicial review.

On 22 February 2013, Tim Fisher received a letter from ACL saying that negotiations were off. The ‘sunshine test’ told him that CCFC Ltd was technically insolvent. On 27 February 2013, ACL released its accounts in which it stated that it was a going concern based on both businesses negotiating the rent so that they remained sustainable into the future, thereby contradicting its letter of 22 February 2013. ACL claimed that it had been too late to interrupt the print run of the handful of accounts copies.

The initial administration order was served on 13 March. On 21 March, Joy Seppala called Martin Reeves, head of ACL, and pleaded to adjourn over the weekend to negotiate. CCFC Ltd went into administration on 22 March.
SISU is a distressed debt fund and therefore batters people in court. ACL had switched lawyers from Wragge’s to Walker Morris.

Tim Fisher had not attended the creditors’ meeting with the administrator but had stayed at Ryton to look at plans for the football team for the new season. He met with Pressley and Waggott but the football side is all affected by the adjournment and prolonged administration

We cannot live and deal with the Council. We need to be masters of our own destiny and to get our own ground in the Coventry area. There are loads of sites to choose from, an embarrassment of riches with brown-field sites, so it will be built. He derided claims that this was ‘smoke and mirrors’. CBRE had been involved for some time.

This all led to the major problem: needing to ground-share for three seasons. He cannot sugar-coat it and make it attractive. He can reduce ticket costs, sell season tickets at a discount, but it requires our goodwill. The interim is a commercial nightmare that will need to be underwritten by SISU for the next three years, but only because in the long term it will start to make money. The rent being negotiated was closer to £170k.

FFP is key. The offered revenue share of £100K per year is further hampered by the outsourcing to Compass of the catering contract. The club has become hamstrung. Even if they got the revenue it would not be enough.

The playing budget was £4.25m last season; next season it will be circa £2m +. Yeovil went up on £1.2m.

He wants what is right for the club and does not care about the stadium business per se. ACL is not even a real business – a synthetic only.

Selling a ground-share is difficult. It will be painful. The total financing to be drawn down is £21m – some equity from SISU and some debt.

ACL would not give them access to Compass and their revenue partners. The Charlton example in League One: £1.8Mio/£720K/40% margin v Compass 14% margin.

The Council do not do commercial. SISU is prepared to take risks to make money – by its nature has ‘skin in the game’. The Council simply can rely on a budget of over half-a-billion pounds a year. Very different doctrines. A third party stadium operator should be brought in to develop the business.

There is no such thing as a football administrator – however, there is a company administrator and beneficial economic rights. This is very much recognised by the Football League regulations AND is in accordance with insolvency law. No assets moved in the interim period. There is confusion around the ‘golden share’, and the issue arose around the time of the set-up of the Premier League – the company number originated in 1907 but the company was restructured in 1995 which has caused huge confusion. They have letters from FL saying that Holdings is the member. Holdings pay the wages and third party service providers.

Legal advice says the FL has dealt with Holdings. Holdings is solvent; Limited is not. He gets accused of Paul Appleton being ‘in his pocket’. He would expect better from the people making these accusations. Paul A. is under pressure to deliver his report and begin the sales process. There are up to 6-7 expressions of interests. The football club is not for sale and a CVA is the preferred route.

All Arvo-SISU funding engineered in the form of debt. It is the first time a football club had been subject to a third party debt order. Arvo crystalised their debt. ACL put the third party debt order “on the wrong company”. Historic player trading and property ownership was the only purpose of Limited. BDO did the due diligence. As with all administrations and insolvencies then TF is potentially personally liable, could be investigated, struck off and could be chased for £1.3m for the next 41 years. It is not a game of blink.

CCLSC Ltd volunteered administration as a pre-emptive tactic.

There will be some clubs whose home fixtures will not be aligned with CCFC in the FL’s preparation of the fixtures. Won’t go into discussions on the new ground due to NDA. Police bill huge for Blues; will not confirm Walsall. Nil possibility of starting the season at the Ricoh.

Kits are in hand but being held up until the club comes out of administration. The football club’s relationship with Genesis is good – it has taken delivery of training kit. The club has a contract with Genesis. Kit has been designed, ordered, deposit paid and the balance will be paid at the end of administration.

CCC could contact other councils and do a deal to support them against planning applications. However, CBRE do these deals all the time…it will be a brownfield site requiring a change of use etc.

Coventry are not the first club who do not own their own stadium to experience administration.

SISU should have done the deal with ACL in 2008 when they had the strongest bargaining power. The model was for Ray Ranson to run the football side of things, and the model was promotion. SISU could then either milk the Premier League monies in the West Brom mould or sell up for a profit.

FL needs a financial plan which will require a bond, at least a theoretical one, thanks to the Wimbleon/MK model, which is repaid after three years. SISU will fund it. They had needed to see the route forward.

The club will need to file statutory accounts. They will take ten days to audit.

There is a viable business model if we can get everything right in terms of the revenue streams.

There is no room for agreement. We were told ‘no commercial deal’. TF understands why ACL could not give up cash flow revenues but why not match-day revenues which were the deal breaker based on FFP?

It’s not practical to consult fans over where to ground-share. Football League will not allow this.

It would take an act of God to sign the club over to another bidder. SISU would not deal with them even if they take on the ground. There has to be a proper process. Instead, it has been a circus. It has certainly not been the strategy to destabilise ACL – or the football club.

Joy does not want to make herself public - it is her choice. TF thinks it would make a difference.

They should put a statue of Joy Seppala outside the ground for the £45m she has put into the club.

It could all be OK if ACL go back to the terms agreed in August 2012.
 

ccfcway

Well-Known Member
"This all led to the major problem: needing to ground-share for three seasons. He cannot sugar-coat it and make it attractive. He can reduce ticket costs, sell season tickets at a discount, but it requires our goodwill"
...................

This might get bumpy for another month or two, but surely this shows they are on their way out. No way will they be getting much "good will"

#NotAPennyMore
 

Tonylinc

Well-Known Member
That's right Tim blind us with "facts", so that we follow you and Sisu in a blinkered sort of way. GET OUT NOW!!!!!!
 

Broken Hearted Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
So we should forget about the statue of the man who took a club that was stuggling to the best supported club in the midlands and make a new one of the woman who made the same club a laughung stock. Yes Timmy I'm all for it:facepalm:
 

The Prefect

Active Member
I think this is exactly what you'd expect from Fisher.

He seems to forget that the Club sold the rights to match day income BEFORE SISU bought the club - a fact that was known at the time of their takeover.

As one of the shareholders that had his shares 'taken' by SISU (I didn't sign them over) I remember talking to Sir Derek Higgs at one of the shareholders meetings. Like most shareholders I was concerned that the club had sold these rights and their 50% rights in ACL.

Sir Derek explained that the club had a 'buy-back' clause. When I asked at what price he said that there was a formula that would calculate the price at a future date. I understood that the club needed to pay the price to acquire its 50% of ACL back.

I just wonder whether the club have wanted to 'negotiate' the price of the Charity's 50% rather than pay the formula price? This would lead to some animosity at the Charity who helped the club years ago through Sir Derek...

Would SISU pick the pockets of a charity to benefit themselves? Draw your own conclusion.
 

Lord_Nampil

Well-Known Member
The council bits interesting, why did they back track? I'm guessing we will hear this on Thursday and Friday ? Wat next?
 
Last edited:

quinn1971

Well-Known Member
"This all led to the major problem: needing to ground-share for three seasons. He cannot sugar-coat it and make it attractive. He can reduce ticket costs, sell season tickets at a discount, but it requires our goodwill"
...................

This might get bumpy for another month or two, but surely this shows they are on their way out. No way will they be getting much "good will"

#NotAPennyMore

He doesn't get it does he.so now after treating the fans like shit he now expects us to welcome the ground share and the new ground with open arms. I may be wrong but I read it as if there's no fans their plan wont work.l.he wants goodwill from us.sorry tim we ran out of that a long time ago.
 

luwalla

Well-Known Member
To be fair I thought that was a good read.. apart from the " statue of JS" bit.. I'm Presuming that was a fisher quote!

So as I say.. Good read & sums up what I previously thought. IE. sisu just well out if their depth early on & made a right old hash of it .. And ACL had more than just a bit part role in this whole sorry affair and are equally to blame for the current situation ( financially & for us currently being without a current home ).

Long n short of it.. We need to be rid of both for us to move on in the way the fans want... But Christmas is a long way of!
 

Steve_75

New Member
If an outsider who had no knowledge of the history read that it does sound plausible and like SISU has been given a raw deal. Unfortunately for TF, the number of times we've heard contradictions from other people means that very few trust what he says anymore.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were some elements of truth in there but I'm sure that what he's said isn't the full story. For example, the end of January meeting that I thought TF was at with ACL where there was allegedly a hand shake isn't mentioned. I wonder why...
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
Meeting with Tim Fisher
FL needs a financial plan which will require a bond, at least a theoretical one, thanks to the Wimbleon/MK model, which is repaid after three years. SISU will fund it. They had needed to see the route forward.
Is that the Wimbledon model where the club had virtually no supporters for a few years whilst they were planning their move to Milton Keynes? :claping hands:
 

shy_tall_knight

Well-Known Member
Tim you are supposed to be a top businessman we don't measure success with inputs (cash invested) we measure it in outputs (results on the pitch ) £45m later and we are mid-table in a league lower with a very poor squad and no assets. Maybe if SISU had invested last season we would not have been relegated.

FFP is there as an excuse to justify previous under investment that got us relegated. FFP is easy to get around like Man city will with an over the top sponsorship deal, but this can't be funded via debt, so SISU won't like it..

One of the top 25 clubs (Cov) is seeking to operate on a budget similar to 1 of the bottom 10 league clubs in terms of size (yeovil) grrrrrreat.

ACL & Council's role looks very dodgy though.
 

ajsccfc

Well-Known Member
If she doesn't want to be seen publicly, that statue of her most likely won't be built after all. What a tease.
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
I think this is exactly what you'd expect from Fisher.

He seems to forget that the Club sold the rights to match day income BEFORE SISU bought the club - a fact that was known at the time of their takeover.

As one of the shareholders that had his shares 'taken' by SISU (I didn't sign them over) I remember talking to Sir Derek Higgs at one of the shareholders meetings. Like most shareholders I was concerned that the club had sold these rights and their 50% rights in ACL.

Sir Derek explained that the club had a 'buy-back' clause. When I asked at what price he said that there was a formula that would calculate the price at a future date. I understood that the club needed to pay the price to acquire its 50% of ACL back.

I just wonder whether the club have wanted to 'negotiate' the price of the Charity's 50% rather than pay the formula price? This would lead to some animosity at the Charity who helped the club years ago through Sir Derek...

Would SISU pick the pockets of a charity to benefit themselves? Draw your own conclusion.
He was a nice bloke despite being on the board during the BR years (who I actually met once), and bailed us out through the charity when we were up against it - shame he died.
 
Last edited:

trondegilsoltvedt97

Active Member
I think this is exactly what you'd expect from Fisher.

He seems to forget that the Club sold the rights to match day income BEFORE SISU bought the club - a fact that was known at the time of their takeover.

As one of the shareholders that had his shares 'taken' by SISU (I didn't sign them over) I remember talking to Sir Derek Higgs at one of the shareholders meetings. Like most shareholders I was concerned that the club had sold these rights and their 50% rights in ACL.

Sir Derek explained that the club had a 'buy-back' clause. When I asked at what price he said that there was a formula that would calculate the price at a future date. I understood that the club needed to pay the price to acquire its 50% of ACL back.

I just wonder whether the club have wanted to 'negotiate' the price of the Charity's 50% rather than pay the formula price? This would lead to some animosity at the Charity who helped the club years ago through Sir Derek...

Would SISU pick the pockets of a charity to benefit themselves? Draw your own conclusion.

However, the council veto would still be in place so that wouldnt happen!
 

RogerH

New Member
This is the Fisher/SISU version of events. No doubt ACL/Council/Higgs would tell a different story and we will probably never know the actual truth.

In essence, it seems to me that Fisher is saying that it doesn't matter that the majority of fans either hate him or think he's a joke, and equally loathe SISU, what the fans think doesn't seem to matter. Not exactly doing a good PR job is he ?. Hopefully he'll find out what the fans think soon enough ! Anyone else think that by now something should have been announced or leaked about a "home" ground ? A lot of this doesn't add up.
As to the ownership of the club, in SISU's world everything is for sale at the right price. Such decisions will be made by Joy Seppala, NOT Fisher. I doubt he would even be involved in such decisions, he is an employee, not the owner.
 

quinn1971

Well-Known Member
Tim you are supposed to be a top businessman we don't measure success with inputs (cash invested) we measure it in outputs (results on the pitch ) £45m later and we are mid-table in a league lower with a very poor squad and no assets. Maybe if SISU had invested last season we would not have been relegated.

FFP is there as an excuse to justify previous under investment that got us relegated. FFP is easy to get around like Man city will with an over the top sponsorship deal, but this can't be funded via debt, so SISU won't like it..

One of the top 25 clubs (Cov) is seeking to operate on a budget similar to 1 of the bottom 10 league clubs in terms of size (yeovil) grrrrrreat.

ACL & Council's role looks very dodgy though.

Should we be taking fishers plans serious now. Not feeling very optimistic about getting rid of sisu.they don't seem to be going anywhere soon.just hope we all stick to what we've said and boycott a ground share.just hope once the season starts everyone doesn't start thinking we're stuck with sisu so we might as well go and watch them. That would be playing right into their hands
 

Desperados

New Member
He seems to have missed out the meetings and agreement that SISU went back on in December? Does fill in some gaps though and explains why they aren't happy at all with the CCC - Yorkshire Bank deal.
 

mark82

Super Moderator
What I don't get is that he says the company in administration is not the club and the club is not for sale but then in the next breath is saying the kits, etc can't be sorted until the club comes out of administration. Seems the club is only in administration for the things that suit him.

Very confusing.
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
Will be interesting to see what PWKH makes of all this. Of course when Tim talks about signed this and signed that he'll have these available for peer review I hope, or were they lost in the move to Ryton?
 

Broken Hearted Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Should we be taking fishers plans serious now. Not feeling very optimistic about getting rid of sisu.they don't seem to be going anywhere soon.just hope we all stick to what we've said and boycott a ground share.just hope once the season starts everyone doesn't start thinking we're stuck with sisu so we might as well go and watch them. That would be playing right into their hands
But you know that will happen dont you?
 

RegTheDonk

Well-Known Member
Cheers very much for posting this up. An interesting read...



.......SISU should have done the deal with ACL in 2008 when they had the strongest bargaining power. The model was for Ray Ranson to run the football side of things, and the model was promotion. SISU could then either milk the Premier League monies in the West Brom mould or sell up for a profit.
Deviating from the plan, cost cutting, the downward spiral begins.

......It would take an act of God to sign the club over to another bidder. SISU would not deal with them even if they take on the ground. There has to be a proper process.
So although the club isn't for sale, SISU would look at a "proper process". So I take that as they would sell.

......They should put a statue of Joy Seppala outside the ground for the £45m she has put into the club.
IF she had put this much in we'd be in the PL by now.

.........It could all be OK if ACL go back to the terms agreed in August 2012.
So although we will never play again at the Ricoh ... It could all be OK if ACL bla bla bla. So SISU would deal with them and get us back at the Ricoh?


Tim, FFS, can you please stop contradicting yourself and either come clean or p* off.
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
Basically Fisher is saying the council behaved in a totally underhand manner, this doesn't really sound likely.

I can't believe this version of events.. its like the "non-trading property subsidrary" story, not credible.
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
What I don't get is that he says the company in administration is not the club and the club is not for sale but then in the next breath is saying the kits, etc can't be sorted until the club comes out of administration. Seems the club is only in administration for the things that suit him.

Very confusing.

Well spotted. I didn't pick up on that.

We keep hearing from him that CCFC Ltd is worthless, yet stuff like this keeps coming up and then they also say stuff like they will bid for CCFC Ltd.

:facepalm::confused:
 
Last edited:

The Prefect

Active Member
However, the council veto would still be in place so that wouldnt happen!

That's a good point. I do suspect SISU have been 'negotiating' for some time when there was a simple 'Buy It Now' price to calculate.

Perhaps if they had paid the formula price, the Council wouldn't have used its veto?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Will be interesting to see what PWKH makes of all this. Of course when Tim talks about signed this and signed that he'll have these available for peer review I hope, or were they lost in the move to Ryton?

Why who cares? What is he going to do? Blow up a balloon?
 

Broken Hearted Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Worrying isn't it.fact is not enough people care. So long there's a team on the pitch they won't be
Bothered who the owners are.there isn't going to be a good outcome to this.
I have this terrible feeling they will still be in charge they will get the Ricoh or at least part of it but say we have to recoup our investment so sorry we cant invest in the club and as you know we dont give a shit about you anyway besides youve got the best ground in division 4 so what are you moaning about
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
Why who cares? What is he going to do? Blow up a balloon?
Given he's a director of ACL he's probably able to give the other side to these statements. He can probably state whether he or any of the other ACL people have ever met the mysterious Joy and took a trip to Leeds with her for example.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
What a tangle.If they were doing a deal with Higgs at the same time as allegedly doing a separate deal with ACL/Council as a whole no wonder there is distrust .Can we assume that Mr Gidney and the other fella whose name evades me got a smell for Trouble ahead and swiftly did one.
 

oakey

Well-Known Member
Time for stout hearts gentlemen and ladies.
Even in their own version of events our owners sound like incompetent, grasping, mendacious fools.
Stand firm. Be of good cheer. Once more unto the breaches.
Not a penny more.
If we die in the attempt, or the club does, better to die with your boots on than crawl on your belly to support such an embarrassing regime.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top