Statement from fisher (2 Viewers)

As we (well, almost all of us ) have been saying for a very long time - Sisu are a busted flush.
1) They have no money
2) They are hanging on for reasons of pride and reputation alone
3) They have made the tactic of "throwing good money after bad" doubly idiotic by appointing a series of clowns to run the club.
4) They are not trusted by the people they needed to keep on side - ACL, the Council and the fans.

Fisher's latest is ridiculous. The image of Nero fiddling while Rome burns is becomes more and more apt.
He's beginning to sound deluded.

While the game for them may be reaching its sorry end we have to hope that eventually we can put into place the foundations for a proper club.
ACL, the Council and any new owner will be responsible for that and we, the fans, must be aware of that responsibility and make sure that any new company is given the where-with-all to build from the ground up. The fans have to play their part in ensuring that this is what happens.
PUSB

dadgad said:

As we (well, almost all of us ) have been saying for a very long time - Sisu are a busted flush.
1) They have no money
2) They are hanging on for reasons of pride and reputation alone
3) They have made the tactic of "throwing good money after bad" doubly idiotic by appointing a series of clowns to run the club.
4) They are not trusted by the people they needed to keep on side - ACL, the Council and the fans.

Fisher's latest is ridiculous. The image of Nero fiddling while Rome burns is becomes more and more apt.
He's beginning to sound deluded.

While the game for them may be reaching its sorry end we have to hope that eventually we can put into place the foundations for a proper club.
ACL, the Council and any new owner will be responsible for that and we, the fans, must be aware of that responsibility and make sure that any new company is given the where-with-all to build from the ground up. The fans have to play their part in ensuring that this is what happens.
PUSB

Click to expand...

I don't believe they are a busted flush - they could likely raise the funds to buy the stadium with an offer that can't be refused. It is business maximum out for minimum outlay? If they suddenly see something to light their fire further...the money will be found - unless someone makes them an offer they cannot refuse.

Yo Bazza, Not sure that fits in with any possible scenario. The CCC have already stated they will not sell to sisu.
They have burnt their bridges.

SUPER COURT FRIDAY:

ACL (represented by Lockhart/Gardner) vs SISU (represented by Wolfman & Hart)

Everyone involved in this sorry state of affairs should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves...

jas365 said:

Fisher reminds me of this bloke:

View attachment 1847

Click to expand...

You know that bit in the first Naked Gun when there's the explosion in the fireworks shop and Frank Drebin is stood in front of it saying "nothing to see here, move along people" while all the fireworks are going off.


That.

SISU have agreed to fund the club this season. They have appointed a new manager and paid compensation.
How does this sit with having no money? Of course SISU have money. Pot fulls! They just simply won't keep throwing it at the football club without some quid quo pro from ACL.

Can they prove they are solvent? YES. That is all the hearing is about.

They threaten to leave and liquidate the club and they could still carry that threat out. But it's just a threat and a court will not pay heed to such comments regarding this at this hearing.

Can the hearing insist CCFC pay the rent due? NO. That's a seperate case.
can CCFC prove they are not insolvent. Probably.

Can they show access to revenue streams denied (and have been subject to ongoing negotiations and offers) that would ensure they then could pay the rent? Probably. Did they accept the offer of £400k? Yes verbally at least. Did they accept any offer of revenue streams with that? No. Can they prove this is still apart of previous dicussions? Yes.


You make up your mind.

Did you enjoy that?

Paxman II said:

SISU have agreed to fund the club this season. They have appointed a new manager and paid compensation.
How does this sit with having no money? Of course SISU have money. Pot fulls! They just simply won't keep throwing it at the football club without some quid quo pro from ACL.

Can they prove they are solvent? YES. That is all the hearing is about.

They threaten to leave and liquidate the club and they could still carry that threat out. But it's just a threat and a court will not pay heed to such comments regarding this at this hearing.

Can the hearing insist CCFC pay the rent due? NO. That's a seperate case.
can CCFC prove they are not insolvent. Probably.

Can they show access to revenue streams denied (and have been subject to ongoing negotiations and offers) that would ensure they then could pay the rent? Probably. Did they accept the offer of £400k? Yes verbally at least. Did they accept any offer of revenue streams with that? No. Can they prove this is still apart of previous dicussions? Yes.


You make up your mind.

Click to expand...

That's about the way I read it too.

Spencer said:

What don't you understand?

All SISU need to demonstrate in order to avoid admin is that they have an ability to pay their debts as they fall due.

SISU are saying the rent isn't due as they have a dispute. This is easily evidenced by the behaviour of ACL and their willingness to offer concessions on the rent.

This court hearing isn't about whether SISU should pay.

I just think ACL are now playing their only real card left. SISU have played a great game in terms of leaving ACL in no doubt that, even if they obtained a court order, they wouldn't get the rent as they'd merely liquidate the club.

Therefore, ACL will be throwing good money after bad if they decide to sue SISU.

Click to expand...

I thought this had been explained to you already. ACL have already obtained judgement in this matter in August 2012, in December 2012 they obtained a third party debt order and now they are seeking to place CCFC into administration to stop Sisu liquidating CCFC. If CCFC have the ability to pay this debt they have until 22 March to do so.

The case has gone past whether Sisu is liable, that has been proved. It is about the ability to pay. Sisu can no longer liquidate CCFC, that option is now with the appointed administrator.

May I recommend the"iSpy Book of Insolvency" or failing that "Insolvency for Dummies" for your future reading, both readily available at Amazon.

Paxman II said:

SISU have agreed to fund the club this season. They have appointed a new manager and paid compensation.
How does this sit with having no money? Of course SISU have money. Pot fulls! They just simply won't keep throwing it at the football club without some quid quo pro from ACL.

Can they prove they are solvent? YES. That is all the hearing is about.

They threaten to leave and liquidate the club and they could still carry that threat out. But it's just a threat and a court will not pay heed to such comments regarding this at this hearing.

Can the hearing insist CCFC pay the rent due? NO. That's a seperate case.
can CCFC prove they are not insolvent. Probably.

Can they show access to revenue streams denied (and have been subject to ongoing negotiations and offers) that would ensure they then could pay the rent? Probably. Did they accept the offer of £400k? Yes verbally at least. Did they accept any offer of revenue streams with that? No. Can they prove this is still apart of previous dicussions? Yes.


You make up your mind.

Click to expand...

Actually the income streams discussions or those on rent do not come into it either. There is no agreement and any agreement verbally given was subsequently rejected by SISU in writing. The court will consider whether or not the club is solvent on current facts and agreements not on what may or may not happen in the future. It may or may not be sufficient for SISU to deposit enough money to pay all potential liabilities.

The two tests of solvency are do assets exceed liabilities and is the company capable of paying its debts as they fall due. There is little doubt on the first test, it is the second test that there will be discussion on

In respect of the income streams then all ACL have to say is they are no longer available in any case. They own the rights to that income and can not be forced to sell them to CCFC, so form no part of an assessment of the current solvency of CCFC. The proposed rent of £400k might be acceptable to both but it doesnt actually legally exist

CCFC survive or fall on what is as far as administration is concerned.

It will depend on whose barrister is sharpest on the day I suspect

But both sides will have the right to appeal any decision made...............

What this isnt is an assessment of the worth of SISU.

It is a hearing at which CCFC will have to prove its solvency. CCFC will have to disclose all assets and all foreseeable liabilities. That will include the rent debt and reasons why it is not due and what SISU are doing to cover its effects. It may be that they deposit money in CCFC or Court to cover the potential of full liability to pay the rent and that might be enough.

If they contend the debt is not due then the judge will need to explore the reasons and basis of that contention. He will need to do that because it is a significant amount and will affect his judgement of solvency or the amount SISU will need to deposit to satisfy the judges assessment. It will also affect his assessment to whether he should grant, dismiss or adjourn the petition from ACL.

He may well decide that he accepts a deposit against liabilities paid into court by SISU and adjourns the case for further information or even to give both sides a final chance to talk.

In my opinion it is doubtful there will be decision 22nd ....... a decision before 28th is also unlikely...... this will rumble on for a while yet maybe even months

Spot on OB. (& pax too)
The other side to it, is - Do SISU want administration?
I think they may have been preparing for it for some time.
They may be relative beginners in football ownership, but this is their forté, and maybe their ace up the sleeve.
I think they may be ready to purchase it back from the administrator and come out without any onerous rent deal obligations.
I don't think ACL petitioning for it would be a particular problem for them, and it might actually have been their plan, for PR reasons.
The problem is TIMING, I think SISU would have left us in until our chance of making the playoffs had gone by.
Last week I thought that chance had gone, but I now think I had miscalculated and we could still overhaul Bournemouth (but loss of Clarke & now Baker makes it less likely).
I think ACL have just played into SISU's hands but at this moment in time SISU won't be sure which way to jump!

imp:

& others questions come to mind, like, how much are the likes of TF, ML, costing the club,
i.e. being paid HOW MUCH for doing an abysmal job

georgehudson said:

& others questions come to mind, like, how much are the likes of TF, ML, costing the club,
i.e. being paid HOW MUCH for doing an abysmal job

Click to expand...

Apparently TF on £250k+

georgehudson said:

& others questions come to mind, like, how much are the likes of TF, ML, costing the club,
i.e. being paid HOW MUCH for doing an abysmal job

Click to expand...

Signifcantly less than Bryan "Bonus" Richardson thats for sure

Bluegloucester said:

Apparently TF on £250k+

Click to expand...

That should cover the Administrator for a month or two.