Fisher is on! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Paxman II
- Start date
6 Generations
Well-Known Member
Most agree that this is how it should be,
That does not detract from the fact that, at best our Timothy was otherwise extremely economical with the truth.
More spin than Shane Warne.
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
Actually a lot of what he said can be seen as correct. It's a matter for how you interpret some of his more vague answers but then again he can't mediate this on the radio can he?
The revenue from match days is significant.
Figuratively speaking ACL were all but bust - the council bailed them out. (perhaps they would like to bail out the towns football club that helps generate huge income streams for ACL?)
What he did say was clear. SISU are not running away. There are no buyers. They will stick this out until they are in a position to claw back their investment. If that takes until we reach the promised land then so be it but ultimately they will then sell.
Linnell did not ask him about the £30m stadium idea. That frankly is not serious at this time. It's a suggestion of what scenarios the town could face if they can't reach a resolution. Does the council want a football club and one at the stadium to continue in existance?
He said 400k rent was acceptable, they were happy with that! made that very clear thanking them for the consideration. He went on to say it was not just about that. Revenue streams have to be part of it and accepting what is without seeing the proof (the books) is no agreeable. ACl he said have so far not allowed this to happen?
He suggest Delloitte as a good example he did not say it has to be them as mediators. He has made clear that CCFC will abide by the ruling of such an arbitrator. That took a while but he said as such.
He mentioned that those people simply don't shake hands in that room. It was not a case of all shaking hands and agreeing in the first place. Suggesting that was simply not true.
It's clear goodwill between the parties is broken and a mediator is required. He actually agreed the sooner the better...so I don't see it's in anyway a delaying tactic of some sort. Nothing concrete will happen before the end of the season stance wise. The mediator can get this done relatively quickly and we can all move forward in a matter of weeks.
ACL over to you. Would you like to refute all Fisher said? Perhaps be bold enough to make a statement of your intentions or at least reply?
The supporters demand some explanations of both sides in this saga. It's a little beyond the 'private business meeting, I can't say in public' type of argument anymore. Fans who give good money so regularly to this towns football club and therefore feed the likes of SISU, ACL et al deserve better. Without this support and support of the public of Coventry none of you would exist.
The revenue from match days is significant.
Figuratively speaking ACL were all but bust - the council bailed them out. (perhaps they would like to bail out the towns football club that helps generate huge income streams for ACL?)
What he did say was clear. SISU are not running away. There are no buyers. They will stick this out until they are in a position to claw back their investment. If that takes until we reach the promised land then so be it but ultimately they will then sell.
Linnell did not ask him about the £30m stadium idea. That frankly is not serious at this time. It's a suggestion of what scenarios the town could face if they can't reach a resolution. Does the council want a football club and one at the stadium to continue in existance?
He said 400k rent was acceptable, they were happy with that! made that very clear thanking them for the consideration. He went on to say it was not just about that. Revenue streams have to be part of it and accepting what is without seeing the proof (the books) is no agreeable. ACl he said have so far not allowed this to happen?
He suggest Delloitte as a good example he did not say it has to be them as mediators. He has made clear that CCFC will abide by the ruling of such an arbitrator. That took a while but he said as such.
He mentioned that those people simply don't shake hands in that room. It was not a case of all shaking hands and agreeing in the first place. Suggesting that was simply not true.
It's clear goodwill between the parties is broken and a mediator is required. He actually agreed the sooner the better...so I don't see it's in anyway a delaying tactic of some sort. Nothing concrete will happen before the end of the season stance wise. The mediator can get this done relatively quickly and we can all move forward in a matter of weeks.
ACL over to you. Would you like to refute all Fisher said? Perhaps be bold enough to make a statement of your intentions or at least reply?
The supporters demand some explanations of both sides in this saga. It's a little beyond the 'private business meeting, I can't say in public' type of argument anymore. Fans who give good money so regularly to this towns football club and therefore feed the likes of SISU, ACL et al deserve better. Without this support and support of the public of Coventry none of you would exist.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Good post Paxman.
However he said "Without access to the revenues then we are not going to be able to put anything like a decent team on the pitch", later he used the phrase "we would put nothing short of a shambles on the pitch" - in fact they'd still have a larger budget than average for league one as everyone faces similar restrictions & City have relatively large turnover for the division regardless of these factors simply due to its large attendences, if he'd said we would only be able to put a mid table team together it might have sounded more believable.
He also claimed he didn't know what the F&B revenues where, yet his case was based on accessing these revenue streams. At no stage has any party released any bugetary information for external parties to make a judgement. So on the one hand he says he doesn't know the numbers and on the other he says they are crucial?
Also he claimed they paid nearly £800K rent since the end of last season, but this was simply matchday fees, which are not part of the rent and drawdown on the escrow which has to be replenished. In actual fact they've been on rent strike & are the subject of a court order forcing them to pay. A court order which they are failing to comply with.
However he said "Without access to the revenues then we are not going to be able to put anything like a decent team on the pitch", later he used the phrase "we would put nothing short of a shambles on the pitch" - in fact they'd still have a larger budget than average for league one as everyone faces similar restrictions & City have relatively large turnover for the division regardless of these factors simply due to its large attendences, if he'd said we would only be able to put a mid table team together it might have sounded more believable.
He also claimed he didn't know what the F&B revenues where, yet his case was based on accessing these revenue streams. At no stage has any party released any bugetary information for external parties to make a judgement. So on the one hand he says he doesn't know the numbers and on the other he says they are crucial?
Also he claimed they paid nearly £800K rent since the end of last season, but this was simply matchday fees, which are not part of the rent and drawdown on the escrow which has to be replenished. In actual fact they've been on rent strike & are the subject of a court order forcing them to pay. A court order which they are failing to comply with.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sky Blues
Active Member
Didn't Fisher say the other day that our FFP playing budget next year would be about £3m without the extra revenues? What is Tranmere's this season? About £1.5m?
Black6Osprey
New Member
There will always be teams who do well on lower budgets but if you really want to get out of this league quickly you've got to stack the odds in your favour. If our budget is reduced next season which players are we going to lose and will that make it any easier for us to get promoted? I would expect Tranmere to still be in league 1 next season so there admirable achievements for their budget would ultimately come to nothing. How many seasons of league 1 are you willing to take? I'm sick of it already.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So what? Are you saying you want the income stream restricted? What a wierd comment.
mattylad
Member
So he said....
SISU will continue to commit in the football club and to get to a break even point they need access to all the revenue. SISU admit they have made some absolute blunders.
Accepts its his responsibility to get the deal done but accepts a third party needs to come in and say this is the football norm so a deal can be done.
I haven't had a single knock on the door to sell, need a sustainable business and continues to remind SISU of its responsibilities in the community. Drop to league 1 was a shock and cost club 5m in revenue.
Will pay 400,000 rent if they can release other revenues.
SISU will continue to commit in the football club and to get to a break even point they need access to all the revenue. SISU admit they have made some absolute blunders.
Accepts its his responsibility to get the deal done but accepts a third party needs to come in and say this is the football norm so a deal can be done.
I haven't had a single knock on the door to sell, need a sustainable business and continues to remind SISU of its responsibilities in the community. Drop to league 1 was a shock and cost club 5m in revenue.
Will pay 400,000 rent if they can release other revenues.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Also Tim said I put it on the website now I will wait and see if I get a call, they know my number.
Seems desperately keen to get this sorted?
He must not know their number so has to suggest it via the Web site.