SISU Open Letter Reply to Council (3 Viewers)

[olderskyblue]

So if the trust ignore certain things and say "we hope to get 3 points at the weekend" because people would agree with it for the sake of saying something until the next rage at sisu it's not obvious?

Are you naive? In fact don't answer "play up sky blues".

If you disagree with me you disagree with that.

Sure it’s obvious, but on this one you’re focussed only on what they didn’t say rather than what they did.

You made no comment on the 4 points they made, not even in passing. It’s an obsession with some on here, you included.

I don’t think for one minute the he said they said games are over, and I’m bored rigid with people going through every statement and then inventing a scenario around it that fits their argument. And that’s something that is also all too obvious on here.

Fook me, I could write abook with all the fiction spouted on here.

 

---

[usskyblue]

Sure it’s obvious, but on this one you’re focussed only on what they didn’t say rather than what they did.

You made no comment on the 4 points they made, not even in passing. It’s an obsession with some on here, you included.

I don’t think for one minute the he said they said games are over, and I’m bored rigid with people going through every statement and then inventing a scenario around it that fits their argument. And that’s something that is also all too obvious on here.

Fook me, I could write abook with all the fiction spouted on here.

Dissecting statements or ignoring wafts of a statement....they are all playing the same scenario/fit your argument ‘game’.

If only there was a group that represented the wider fan base. A group that wasn’t invested so far up one side’s arse that they could see things, and address them, from all sides. Obviously that would mean working closely with all sides, and not having an agenda against one.

That wouldn’t make sense would it? To alienate yourself from one of the parties, perhaps the most pivotal player.

Pure fiction of course but we can dream though m8

 

[JulianDarbyFTW]

Sure it’s obvious, but on this one you’re focussed only on what they didn’t say rather than what they did.

You made no comment on the 4 points they made, not even in passing. It’s an obsession with some on here, you included.

I don’t think for one minute the he said they said games are over, and I’m bored rigid with people going through every statement and then inventing a scenario around it that fits their argument. And that’s something that is also all too obvious on here.

Fook me, I could write abook with all the fiction spouted on here.

To be fair, the 4 points aren't exactly groundbreaking. They're roughly what this forum has been asking for for several weeks, yet the trust have waited until now to point them out.

I also take issue with their 'frustration' at the open letters. I'm actually glad of it. Get it out in the open. Stop hiding behind soundbites and PR leaks, and get people talking. The council's silence speaks volumes right now, and we'd have been none the wiser without SISUs statement.

I'm sure the trust feel that they have the club's best interests at heart, but they just don't reflect the feelings and opinions of most fans right now.

 

[Fergusons_Beard]

Nah.

The Trust have never had the Clubs best interest at heart.

Who remembers when they backed going into administration all those years ago-With another abortive attempt of getting rid of SISU-looking increasingly like a dodgy deal with dodgy investors!

And they haven’t fucking stopped churning out misinformed shit based on a promise of a chunk of the new club once we get SISU out.

Just an utterly corrupt organisation that SHOULD be neutral but who’s loyalty has been bought.

Never has represented the fans and never will.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[robbiekeane]

That mole must be in Duggins inner circle. Glorious

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

this properly made me laugh out loud

 

[robbiekeane]

Well that took me about an hour and a half to read the whole thread but wow. I knew the council were not blameless in this but the stuff is outright unforgivable. A year before we were in Northampton and they were dropping their pants for wasps? Wankers.

I also did not realise that SISU paid 800k in rent for the year they apparently didn't pay any rent? That was the one thing that in my head I was always struggling to justify (the rent strike) but it didn't even happen?

And the fact they never had any intention of selling to SISU but were faking it and drawing out bullshit negotiations to buy them time? They are by far the worst in this whole situation.

 

[pipkin73]

Well that took me about an hour and a half to read the whole thread but wow. I knew the council were not blameless in this but the stuff is outright unforgivable. A year before we were in Northampton and they were dropping their pants for wasps? Wankers.

I also did not realise that SISU paid 800k in rent for the year they apparently didn't pay any rent? That was the one thing that in my head I was always struggling to justify (the rent strike) but it didn't even happen?

And the fact they never had any intention of selling to SISU but were faking it and drawing out bullshit negotiations to buy them time? They are by far the worst in this whole situation.

Remember London Wasps first played at the Ricoh in 2007 in the Heineken Cup in front of 16,186 and the following season played Munster again in the Heineken Cup. Maybe that was where both/either London WASPS/CCC got the idea from to move/move them here.

 

[Captain Dart]

I also did not realise that SISU paid 800k in rent for the year they apparently didn't pay any rent? That was the one thing that in my head I was always struggling to justify (the rent strike) but it didn't even happen?

FYI the escrow was not funded by SISU it was money from £500k left over from a development agency grant deposited in 2004 before SISU ever became involved. There were also guarantees from former directors which were drawn down. (£250k from Geoffery Robinson for example).
In short SISU may suggest they paid rent but they simply triggered existing fall backs by their action. The money did not come from them.

 

[Nick]

FYI the escrow was not funded by SISU it was money from £500k left over from a development agency grant deposited in 2004 before SISU ever became involved. There were also guarantees from former directors which were drawn down. (£250k from Geoffery Robinson for example).
In short SISU may suggest they paid rent but they simply triggered existing fall backs by their action. The money did not come from them.

Did acl receive money or not?

Delayed replies? Going to be one of those days?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Did acl receive money or not?

Delayed replies? Going to be one of those days?

Yes they did but one can understand why there was ongoing concern. This is the problem here. Outside of court anyone can say what they like and put their own slant on things, not just Sisu. In court the powers that be have to decide on facts often with competing narratives. We cannot take any comments by the parties as read and it’s daft to do so.

 

[Captain Dart]

Did acl receive money or not?

Delayed replies? Going to be one of those days?

I never said that did I. The SISU statement claims the escrow belonged to the club but that is nonsense it was independently funded. If it was the club's money show me where it appeared in their accounts?

That statement is pure spin as much as any other.

 

[Nick]

I never said that did I. The SISU statement claims the escrow belonged to the club but that is nonsense it was independently funded. If it was the club's money show me where it appeared in their accounts?

That statement is pure spin as much as any other.

Did acl get paid money?

Try not to make obvious you have been away for a week looking for replies!

 

[olderskyblue]

Did acl get paid money?

Try not to make obvious you have been away for a week looking for replies!

I guess SISU putting CCFC into administration didnt happen then, as ACL got paid....

Bloody hell nick , you're clutching at straws

 

[Nick]

I guess SISU putting CCFC into administration didnt happen then, as ACL got paid....

Bloody hell nick , you're clutching at straws

It isn't clutching at straws it is asking if ACL were paid their money or not.

Today is Tuesday, do you agree with me or not? (Just to use your approach)

 

[covcity4life]

this is like alan partridge new scetches with the reporter who hates him

 

[olderskyblue]

It isn't clutching at straws it is asking if ACL were paid their money or not.

Today is Tuesday, do you agree with me or not? (Just to use your approach)

So, are you suggesting SISU did not go on a rent strike then? (2 can play at that game..)

 

[Nick]

So, are you suggesting SISU did not go on a rent strike then? (2 can play at that game..)

It was agreed with both parties before hand wasn't it? ACL still got paid the bulk of the rent.

They were both playing games.

 

[olderskyblue]

It was agreed with both parties before hand wasn't it? ACL still got paid the bulk of the rent.

They were both playing games.

The rent strike was agreed by both parties? Is that what you're suggesting?

My recollection is that SISU broke a legally binding lease, and ended up in court because of it. And the courts found against them. Is that not right?

 

[Nick]

The rent strike was agreed by both parties? Is that what you're suggesting?

My recollection is that SISU broke a legally binding lease, and ended up in court because of it. And the courts found against them. Is that not right?

Which case was that? (Not saying there wasn't any, probably just need reminding!). I only remember the JR judges discussing it.

 

[eastwoodsdustman]

Bottom line is that although the trusts statement says the right things in the main it is still pointing the finger at Sisu and asks the council to help with land if available.
It reads one sided to me especially in light of the recent revelations.
They’ve shifted stance slightly, but they’ve had to in order to try and save themselves from any more embarrassment.
I hope it’s the sign that they will pull away from siding with the council and try and become more neutral. We’ll see.

 

[olderskyblue]

Which case was that?

Blimey, there's been that many...

Had to google it
Guardian
In our article we wrote that Sisu “simply stopped paying the rent”. It was not controversial to say so: the club’s withholding of the rent was quite a public act. A month later, after City were relegated to League One, the club’s chief executive, Tim Fisher, confirmed to the Guardian that they had refused to pay the rent again, saying, as he explained elsewhere too, that it was to “focus minds” on the “unsustainable terms” of the arrangement with ACL.

ACL sued in the high court and won the judgment. When the club went into administration, the administrator wrote: “The [club] did not honour its obligations under the terms of the lease and licence.”

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

The rent strike was agreed by both parties? Is that what you're suggesting?

My recollection is that SISU broke a legally binding lease, and ended up in court because of it. And the courts found against them. Is that not right?

Judge Hickinbottom concluded at JR1 that:

"iii) SISU distressed the financial position of ACL by refusing to pay ACL any rent or licence fee. That made ACL commercially vulnerable, because it could not service its Bank loan. It also had the effect of reducing the value of the share in ACL that SISU coveted. SISU imposed more commercial pressure on ACL by indicating that they were prepared to see CCFC put into administration or liquidation, which (SISU believed) would have a cataclysmic effect on ACL because of ACL’s inability to service its loan without revenue from the Football Club. SISU’s strategy of distressing ACL’s financial position in these ways was quite deliberate. They considered this strategy was necessary if they were to recover their investment in the Football Club" ?

 

[Nick]

Blimey, there's been that many...

Had to google it
Guardian
In our article we wrote that Sisu “simply stopped paying the rent”. It was not controversial to say so: the club’s withholding of the rent was quite a public act. A month later, after City were relegated to League One, the club’s chief executive, Tim Fisher, confirmed to the Guardian that they had refused to pay the rent again, saying, as he explained elsewhere too, that it was to “focus minds” on the “unsustainable terms” of the arrangement with ACL.

ACL sued in the high court and won the judgment. When the club went into administration, the administrator wrote: “The [club] did not honour its obligations under the terms of the lease and licence.”

Wasn't that ACL applying to put the club into Administration or was it a different one?

There's no doubt SISU were playing games by letting it go from the Escrow, at the same time ACL were trying to get the debt down themselves from Yorkshire Bank.....

They were trying to fuck each other over it seemed, ACL won that one as they had the council sort it for them.

 

[olderskyblue]

Wasn't that ACL applying to put the club into Administration or was it a different one?

There's no doubt SISU were playing games by letting it go from the Escrow, at the same time ACL were trying to get the debt down themselves from Yorkshire Bank.....

A different one. "ACL sued in the high court and won the judgment"

I think that then led to SISU putting us into administration, as ACL threatened to do so?

 

[olderskyblue]

Wasn't that ACL applying to put the club into Administration or was it a different one?

There's no doubt SISU were playing games by letting it go from the Escrow, at the same time ACL were trying to get the debt down themselves from Yorkshire Bank.....

They were trying to fuck each other over it seemed, ACL won that one as they had the council sort it for them.

Well, it has never been straightforward. They did go on a "rent strike", but then claimed it was in agreement with ACL...

 

[Nick]

Well, it has never been straightforward. They did go on a "rent strike", but then claimed it was in agreement with ACL...

I could be wrong but I am sure it was said that ACL agreed to it originally too but then went back on it. (from the ACL side?)

 

[olderskyblue]

I could be wrong but I am sure it was said that ACL agreed to it originally too but then went back on it. (from the ACL side?)

Don't know. I guess we'll never know the full truth of any of it.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

It's manipulation in SISU's statement, it's nothing we didn't know at the time. SISU *did* stop paying the rent, ACL had to go wherever their backups were, and once they were exhausted, they then had to try and recover by other means.

It's a fine example, in fact, why it would be wise not to take SISU's statement at face value.

 

[robbiekeane]

So have the council responded to this yet? Because I am dying to know how they justify this shit.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

So have the council responded to this yet? Because I am dying to know how they justify this shit.

I'm just wondering how any of them can justify any of this shit

 

[Grendel]

A different one. "ACL sued in the high court and won the judgment"

I think that then led to SISU putting us into administration, as ACL threatened to do so?

ACL actually out the club into administration

 

[fernandopartridge]

The rent strike was agreed by both parties? Is that what you're suggesting?

My recollection is that SISU broke a legally binding lease, and ended up in court because of it. And the courts found against them. Is that not right?

It was a 'payment holiday' agreed at a point in time and it isn't disputed.

He challenged Justice Hickinbottom’s previous use of ACL’s term “rent strike”, saying the non-payment was a “rent holiday” to enable negotiations, which had also suited the council as rent non-payment lowered the value of the bank debt it wanted to purchase. One private document by council officer Chris West had stated it was best to present to the bank a distressed ACL.[/quote]

 

[Nick]

That's what I remembered, it also matches up to them saying about the story they will give to Yorkshire Bank (ACL).

There are issues that have not been agreed or resolved however, I think that the first stage is to do all we can to help CCC to work out the best tactics and story to enable the most cost effective purchase of the debt.

 

[torchomatic]

Still a few forum "big beasts" who for some reason are shy about posting on this thread. Not so slow on other similar threads...

 

[olderskyblue]

It was a 'payment holiday' agreed at a point in time and it isn't disputed.

That was a quote from SISU's solicitors? Well, I guess it is indisputable :emoji_grin: