How can anyone know what follows when we don't know what the answers are!
On a simple level. If CCFC Ltd was a non-trading subsidiary, as TF suggests, then how has it been forced into administration, as it wouldn't have any debts if it had passed on the rental costs to the trading company? Therefore, the wrong company has gone into administration. Where do we start with that? Why not ask TF what happens next?
However, as far as I'm aware, when you take control of a company, a period of due diligence ensures that the any complexities are sorted and then the new owners are responsible for the previous mistakes/errors etc of that company. It becomes their 'mess' to quote TF.
Correct. Fisher explained that limited in 95 was setup to be a vehicle for third party player trading. He mentioned Robbie Keane being a player funded by third parties. At the same time all other football related businesses was done through holdings.
- whether he would care to comment on the 1996 Memorandum & Articles (approved by directors, shareholders, company house and The Football League) which reads as follows
"the Companys (CCFC Ltd) objects are:
To acquire from its parent company, The Coventry City Football Club Limited (later to be called CCFC H) as a going concern the business of the playing activities of that company and to carry on such business under the name of "COVENTYRY CITY FOOTBALL CLUB"
You cannot faithfully suggest you are unbiased as you are only seeking answers that you think - or hope - could bring Fisher in trouble.
He never said the Robbie Keane details were not recorded properly. He said (to my understanding) that most of the mess came about after they stopped third party ownership, but for some time kept trading players through limited.
I never said Fisher doesn't understand the group structure - that is you twisting my words. I said he had a tough time explanating it through the boo's and wise remarks from the audience who clearly didn't wanted to know.
Yeah, he said that but .... read what OSB found out
Seems to be the whole business of the football related activities of the club.. not just trading.. and anyway haven't player trades been carried through this vehicle in recent years when 3rd party trading has been against league rules. One of the speakers at last Thursdays forum said that within the last 14 months they had seen a player loan agreement undertaken through CCFC Ltd....
You are quite right, of course, and as he tried to explain (not well, but again, I think he was trying to choose his words carefully) the due diligence that was carried out under the original Sisu management was not as it might have been.
As for which company was placed into administration, that is surely down to ACL. They initiated the action against "Ltd", and would have put "Ltd" into administration if Sisu hadn't done so the night before.
My intention has always been to raise questions. I don't have access to the information that would provide answers. Directors of companies generally have that access. That is why I feel we should question TF and question him rigorously. No-one in the media to my knowledge has done so thus far.
Re the structure: I'm only going on what you posted - I wasn't there, unfortunately. I thought you were implying that he was unable to explain the structure so that you were able to understand it, not that the constant interruptions were the problem.
Must go for now chaps. Thanks for the time being.
Again (as above) that is not the venue for those kind of questions.
I am sure the administrator is 'on the case' anyway and will reveal his findings in due course.
Where should the questions be asked then? In the Telegraph? On the radio?
Really interested to know where you think is appropriate, as you regularly suggest its not the forums.
Although I have spoken to Michael Byng, I have not had the opportunity of interviewing him. I don't know the circumstances about how his bid was submitted, only that he has assured me that it has been and that he has spoken about it to Paul Appleton. I believe he has worked extensively in the Far East and has built up a network of contacts.
Re Forums - all I would add to what I have already said, is that these were Coventry City Football Club events and, although I and Clive Eakin tried to conduct them as closely as we could to how it would be done if it were a BBC event, at the end of the day they were only ever going to respond or not in their own way.
Re the Football League - I disagree; they have chosen their language very carefully and I think they may have no alternative than to take "beneficial ownership" into account.
In a venue where professionals can have access to the documentation and follow the explainations through the paperwork to prove or disprove the claims.
That would likely be either by the administrator - or by the courts.
I may be naive (I know I am) but the Trust could send the club a formal letter asking to see documentations for his claims under some kind of confidentiallity agreement.
Where should the questions be asked then? In the Telegraph? On the radio?
Really interested to know where you think is appropriate, as you regularly suggest its not the forums.
you need a setting where a small number of people who know what they're talking about can put the facts to those in charge and question the answers they receive in a calm way. a forums never going to give you that as people are too busy yelling. if, as some people believe, there is something we're not being told that's the way to really put the pressure on.
It really is nothing to do with the intelligence of anyone. It is do with the level of knowledge and understanding of the questions asked and the answers given. You may consider them to be straightforward, many do not - and I disagree with your observations about posters here. Some may follow it to the letter. Many clearly do not.
Whatever answers you may receive, they will usually require interpretation so that they can be fully appreciated by a wider audience and the problem you have is that you and others (no criticism intended) start from a particular perspective. Not matter how objective you claim to be, your interpretation and response to the answers given will always be viewed through that prism.
You are entitled to ask your questions. They are perfectly valid and I do not rule out addressing the issues you raise on air when an appropriate opportunity arises (which is not necessarily the next interview with Tim Fisher, though it may be), but do not expect consequences of any significance when they are answered.
So simple questions such as 'why do you think the accounts you signed off Mr Fisher were incorrect' can only be asked in a court, even though TF states that the accounts were wrong repeatedly, to the press and on the radio. Can only a court be expected to receive a more detailed answer than 'its a bit of a mess'?
Funny that he gives the same answer to the same question every time, isn't it?
When did Fisher realize the accounts were 'a mess'? That's the key question.
If he didn't know when he signed the one set of accounts he has signed, then surely you can't really blame him.
He actually gave a detailed answer, but for the n'th time - it drowned in the noise from an audience who wasn't there to listen.
Defending your boys to the last Godiva...can you blame him for signing off what seemingly looks like an incorrect set of accounts? Well yes actually I can...Not sure what forum you went to but at the one I was at last night he gave no detailed answers....at least not in answering the questions he was asked.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?