Full Q and A's (1 Viewer)

[mattylad]

Question 26 the big interest for me!! 45m to 60m how?? Other interesting answers nothing giving rise to delaying their publication

We need to wait and see what is said in the admin report regards amount owed and to whom..it is possible that the amount had been technically written off due to the age of the debt but that SISU were still expecting to show this as a recovery at a later point say if we got promoted to the premiership.

 

---

[Ashdown1]

..and as for £4 for every spectator over 16K in the PL, you've got to be fucking kidding me?

Not content then with the massive boost it would give to the local area from having a PL football club (just listen to what Swansea council have said recently about the massive boost in investment since the Swans achieved PL status), they would also seek to eek more money out of the football club by levying a surcharge on match tickets.

Overall, ACL answered their questions honestly and with clarity, far more so than SISU, but there are a couple of things that come out of the answers provided that reflect badly on ACL imo. Cue shouts of SISU-apologist.

I think its fair to say that ACL have wanted their pound of flesh out of this all along, maybe got a little greedy but they wouldn't be the first in football and their main point of response which is fair is that even without their rather expensive charges the club was being run like Greece anyway. There's a lot of dirty fingers in pies and a lot of lies but without doubt the bulk of the incompetence lies with the scandalous owners of the club itself. To ACL's credit when push came to shove they bent over backwards to reduce all charges by 60 plus %.............................and I'm still both intrigued by last years £12 million administration charge in our accounts and the again mysterious £15 million extra debt that has just appeared out of the fog !!

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

No I agree. You have to read it all carefully. ACL are squeezing the life blood from the football club even after the football club came knocking at the door to find a way forward. ACL just see themselves as a stadium company and the football club another renter believing they don't need the football club. I just don't think they are as bright as SISU in all this.
Outright refusal to allow a mediator is not good by ACL.

Don't even know where to start with how much nonsense is contained in this post.

 

[Jack Griffin]

So the picture becomes clear-Fisher only ever had authority to agree to a deal if it meant the club could achieve a break even position next season. That being because SISU had no intention of funding losses any longer.

Did he ever mention this to ACL?

 

[mattylad]

Did he ever mention this to ACL?

I am guessing they did which is how the whole CCFC liquidation process came in to play

 

[Paxman II]

Ashdown1:
Does it matter where or how the money you mention is or has gone? It's all paperwork by clever accounting for the most part and no way can ACL assume they are more knowledgeable in all this. They are not.
What needed to be understood by ACL and for me they simply won't get it - is any football club can not be sustainable at the Ricoh under the current conditions of tenancy. They wish to drip feed bits back to the football under duress it would appear to benefit themselves. I can't say that's wrong but it brings me to the reason why CCC formed this 'middle company' in the first place that have to make profit to exist like any company but they too long term are surely not sustainable under the current conditions.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Did he ever mention this to ACL?

Would I be giving him too much credit to assume he would've done?

 

[SkyBlueCharlie]

"29: Can ACL and the Ricoh survive without CCFC?
ACL: This is not what we want – but yes we can. We have detailed business plans supporting this. ACL is a solvent and successful business. Our accounts, which have been lodged with Companies House demonstrates this.
CCFC: I personally doubt it – our analysis of the ACL business show the company’s business model to be very challenging without the club and possibly require further cash injections from the Council. Without the revenue currently received from CCFC the council will be called on for more money to prop up a failing business in the future."

Nice little dig there, hey?

 

[coundonskyblue]

<p>

<b>&quot;29: Can ACL and the Ricoh survive without CCFC?</b></p>
<p> ACL: This is not what we want – but yes we can. We have detailed business plans supporting this. ACL is a solvent and successful business. <b>Our accounts, which have been lodged with Companies House demonstrates this.</b></p>
<p> CCFC: I personally doubt it – our analysis of the ACL business show the company’s business model to be very challenging without the club and possibly require further cash injections from the Council. Without the revenue currently received from CCFC the council will be called on for more money to prop up a failing business in the future.&quot;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Nice little dig there, hey?

Why would ccfc want a share of a failing business?

Also, if acl are a failing business, does it not support their claim that the physically can't offer anymore?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

"29: Can ACL and the Ricoh survive without CCFC?
ACL: This is not what we want – but yes we can. We have detailed business plans supporting this. ACL is a solvent and successful business. Our accounts, which have been lodged with Companies House demonstrates this.
CCFC: I personally doubt it – our analysis of the ACL business show the company’s business model to be very challenging without the club and possibly require further cash injections from the Council. Without the revenue currently received from CCFC the council will be called on for more money to prop up a failing business in the future."

Nice little dig there, hey?

Yes. As I posted yesterday, the utterances of an antagonistic amateur. Let's be candid, he's answered with 'I don't know' to many points he should - given his position - be able to answer either directly, or with mild investogative endeavour: but not used the same disclaimer in response to the question for which it's use seems most appropriate

 

[Noggin]

So Tim Fisher could only agree a deal if it lead to break even point, playing for free at the Richoh isn't enough to make the club break even, so it follows no deal could possibly have been reached.

 

[theferret]

Yes. As I posted yesterday, the utterances of an antagonistic amateur. Let's be candid, he's answered with 'I don't know' to many points he should - given his position - be able to answer either directly, or with mild investogative endeavour: but not used the same disclaimer in response to the question for which it's use seems most appropriate

How was this interview conducted out of interest? Did they have time to prepare answers (in which case there is no excuse for a 'don't know'), or was it an off-the-cuff interview? It seems to me they were written responses, but could be wrong.

 

[theferret]

So Tim Fisher could only agree a deal if it lead to break even point, playing for free at the Richoh isn't enough to make the club break even, so it follows no deal could possibly have been reached.

I suppose it depends whether you believed Fisher when he said gates of 11K are our break-even point.

 

[Jack Griffin]

I think this answer is very revealing also.

29: Can ACL and the Ricoh survive without CCFC?
ACL: This is not what we want – but yes we can. We have detailed business plans supporting this. ACL is a solvent and successful business. Our accounts, which have been lodged with Companies House demonstrates this.
CCFC: I personally doubt it – our analysis of the ACL business show the company’s business model to be very challenging without the club and possibly require further cash injections from the Council. Without the revenue currently received from CCFC the council will be called on for more money to prop up a failing business in the future.

There's already been lots of debate/disagreements about the validity of the highlighted part on this forum, it doesn't do to any good to go over them again, but what it shows is that SISU used the leverage they found very well.

If both can't survive together there is no realistic future, but as me (& many of us have been saying), the 2 parties need to find a way where they can both manage.

 

[thegameaintstraight]

How was this interview conducted out of interest? Did they have time to prepare answers (in which case there is no excuse for a 'don't know'), or was it an off-the-cuff interview? It seems to me they were written responses, but could be wrong.

If you want the truth dont ask too many questions.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

How was this interview conducted out of interest? Did they have time to prepare answers (in which case there is no excuse for a 'don't know'), or was it an off-the-cuff interview? It seems to me they were written responses, but could be wrong.

This I don't know dear chap. However, with preparation, such a lack of knowledge is unforgivable. Or disingenuous. Even if more ad hoc, being frank I wouldn't consider myself sufficiently well prepared to negotiate on issues of such criticality without being able to summon such facts accurately and immediately. And Fisher should share the same mindset.

Either way, therefore, to me it's a poor show

 

[dadgad]

No I agree. You have to read it all carefully. ACL are squeezing the life blood from the football club even after the football club came knocking at the door to find a way forward. ACL just see themselves as a stadium company and the football club another renter believing they don't need the football club. I just don't think they are as bright as SISU in all this.
Outright refusal to allow a mediator is not good by ACL.

Oh dear! x 60 million times.
I suppose at the end of the day people will see what they want to see.
ACL could always install a specsavers on the concourse, why not?

 

[theferret]

If you want the truth dont ask too many questions.

Is that meant to be profound or are you just a little weird?

Weird is good though.

 

[stupot07]

This I don't know dear chap. However, with preparation, such a lack of knowledge is unforgivable. Or disingenuous. Even if more ad hoc, being frank I wouldn't consider myself sufficiently well prepared to negotiate on issues of such criticality without being able to summon such facts accurately and immediately. And Fisher should share the same mindset.

Either way, therefore, to me it's a poor show

To be fair, it is quite feasible if there is no audit trail for someone not to have all of the facts. Better to say you don't know than to try and make up some bs story.

 

[LoyalSupporters]

It that meant to be profound or are you just a little weird?

Weird is good though.

Parrrr :facepalm:

 

[theferret]

Parrrr :facepalm:

It that meant to be profound or are you just a little weird?

Weird is good though.

 

[elephanttears]

<p>

Why would ccfc want a share of a failing business?

Also, if acl are a failing business, does it not support their claim that the physically can't offer anymore?

They didn't say acl was a failing business, just that it would be without CCFC at the Ricoh.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

"29: Can ACL and the Ricoh survive without CCFC?
ACL: This is not what we want – but yes we can. We have detailed business plans supporting this. ACL is a solvent and successful business. Our accounts, which have been lodged with Companies House demonstrates this.
CCFC: I personally doubt it – our analysis of the ACL business show the company’s business model to be very challenging without the club and possibly require further cash injections from the Council. Without the revenue currently received from CCFC the council will be called on for more money to prop up a failing business in the future."

Nice little dig there, hey?

Not really as it's just telling you where to find the information if you want it.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

To be fair, it is quite feasible if there is no audit trail for someone not to have all of the facts. Better to say you don't know than to try and make up some bs story.

Okay. One small example. He was asked if anyone had approached the ACL ahead of April 2012 with regards a rent reduction or change of term. By that time, SISU was in it's fourth year at the club. You're happy he didn't know if any of his predecessors, sharing the same employer and string-puller had ever spoken to the ACL about this issue which he latterly claims is of sufficient magnitude as to threaten the very existence of the club?

 

[sky blue john]

I can't believe that even now further information coming out we still have people defending Sisu !!!

 

[stupot07]

Okay. One small example. He was asked if anyone had approached the ACL ahead of April 2012 with regards a rent reduction or change of term. By that time, SISU was in it's fourth year at the club. You're happy he didn't know if any of his predecessors, sharing the same employer and string-puller had ever spoken to the ACL about this issue which he latterly claims is of sufficient magnitude as to threaten the very existence of the club?

The question was ccfc not necessarily just the Sisu years. He might know that during the Sisu years this has never been done, but prior to that he may not know whether Robinson et al had done so or not.

 

[LoyalSupporters]

It that meant to be profound or are you just a little weird?

Weird is good though.

Yep definately profound.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

The question was ccfc not necessarily just the Sisu years. He might know that during the Sisu years this has never been done, but prior to that he may not know whether Robinson et al had done so or not.

I'm aware of that. But THE SISU relevant history should have been there in a full splendid chronology for him to recite. Or did he not want to explain that SISU have never challenged this point of pronounced criticality before?

And if that's the case I refer my learned friend to my earlier comments with regards disingenuous behaviour

 

[stupot07]

I'm aware of that. But THE SISU relevant history should have been there in a full splendid chronology for him to recite

But the question doesn't say "during sisu's reign have you approached ACL prior to April 2012' - perhaps the SBT should have been more explicit with that question?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I can't believe that even now further information coming out we still have people defending Sisu !!!

I don't think there are many if any who are defending sisu per se. What people are saying Grendel, Godiva, torch are that acl have made money out of the club and meant we have ended up at this stage. There is truth in this especially in the last year but and it's big you don't just decide you can't pay it and seemingly lie to your customers ie us!!

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

But the question doesn't say "during sisu's reign have you approached ACL prior to April 2012' - perhaps the SBT should have been more explicit with that question?

If, after entering their fifth season with the club, they hadn't grasped the magnitude of this issue which us now sufficiently important to fold the club over, what would that infer about SISU's governance?

If they hadn't asked, how could the issue be as big as it's now being made out to be? If they had asked, Fisher would and should have explained that context without the question needing to be that specific. And let's be honest, he'd shout any such spurned requests from the rooftops. He can't have it both ways

 

[stupot07]

If, after entering their fifth season with the club, they hadn't grasped the magnitude of this issue which us now sufficiently important to fold the club over, what would that infer about SISU's governance?

We know their governance has been shit. Still doesnt mean that fisher should know the details of an approach that happened prior to Sisu.

 

[mattylad]

We know their governance has been shit. Still doesnt mean that fisher should know the details of an approach that happened prior to Sisu.

Or even during the SISU tenure...who knows every enquiry that their predecessor made in their current role? (let alone predecessors) I certainly don't and I share the same management structure that they did.

 

[Ashdown1]

Ashdown1:
Does it matter where or how the money you mention is or has gone? It's all paperwork by clever accounting for the most part and no way can ACL assume they are more knowledgeable in all this. They are not.
What needed to be understood by ACL and for me they simply won't get it - is any football club can not be sustainable at the Ricoh under the current conditions of tenancy. They wish to drip feed bits back to the football under duress it would appear to benefit themselves. I can't say that's wrong but it brings me to the reason why CCC formed this 'middle company' in the first place that have to make profit to exist like any company but they too long term are surely not sustainable under the current conditions.

By God yes it does matter, I want the football club to be run in an open and transparent manner, I want to support a club without all the smoke and mirrors and deceit, offshore accounts and mysterious admin charges. Just remember that while you have a point about rent charges these only represent a contribution of 1/8 th of the annual losses.....................according to the hedge fund.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Or even during the SISU tenure...who knows every enquiry that their predecessor made in their current role? (let alone predecessors) I certainly don't and I share the same management structure that they did.

But we are told this issue is of such significance it's worth folding the club over, and Auntie Joy couldn't have filled him in with regards what's gone before? He with gave been negotiating blind?!