You may be right, but 'public opinion', important though it obviously is, is probably not going to force the various parties to get round the table. It either needs (a) someone with a huge amount of available funds to move in and attempt to construct a deal or (b) everyone to agree to tear up all existing deals and start from scratch. I don't think either is likely to happen.
The Forums (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter SLOnAir
- Start date
You may be right, but 'public opinion', important though it obviously is, is probably not going to force the various parties to get round the table. It either needs (a) someone with a huge amount of available funds to move in and attempt to construct a deal or (b) everyone to agree to tear up all existing deals and start from scratch. I don't think either is likely to happen.
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
No i think your quite right on point a) Stuart, it took me a couple times (Admittedly after a wee bit of excitement) to realise that the deal is only for while CCFC Ltd is in Admin. It's difficult they surely can't just accept sit back and watch CCFC deny the chance to play in it's namesake, I suppose while CCFC Ltd is in Admin the club is effectively in Paul Applteon's hands so his input here will be key..
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Bing
I hope they do not bid if you are not sure about something like this you can't go into it half heartedly.
Also it questions professionalism surely if a bid cannot be put in on time.
Have you had an opportunity to ask him to do an interview with you about what the Asian consortiums plans actually are?
If you do would you mind asking why a multimillion pound international conglomerate chose him to provide them with a footprint in the west mids.
Rent Free
ACL cannot make the offer to Holdings as ACL maintain the football club is in Ltd. (which is in administration). The offer has to be during administration otherwise they may end up giving a billionaire free rent once it is out of administration.
Forum
Regarding the hosting of the event by all accounts you did yourself proud and changed a lot of perceptions by the fans that you are in some way obligated to SISU.
However if it ever happens in the future (god forbid)
Try and do it if possible like question time and don't move on till the question has been answered. It is not the volume of questions but the quality, if a question is crap or was previously answered just move on.
( just my humble opinion) which I am sure you can take or leave it. Lot easier for me to say it rather than do it.
However if Steve did just answer OSB with 'you were at a creditors meeting', for example then say that did not answer the question asked.
Or if Mr Fisher said to that lad you can't see the paperwork.
Ask him to explain why.
FL
I think they have been quite clear they state it is in Ltd.
The administrator now agrees with them.
What is not clear is SISU claim beneficial ownership.
The FL ignore this.
The administrator is careful to give the claim credence and backs away saying a court must decide
Last edited:
Skybluesquirrel
New Member
Thanks for the reply. I am surprised to hear what low regard you have for the intelligence of football supporters (and presumably the listeners to your show)
I've had a lot of feedback, comments and contact from the blog that shows people can understand the accounts, are able to understand what is going on and are appalled at the actions of the companies and individuals involved. Posters on SBT also appear to be more than capable of understanding.
For those unable to follow complex accounts, you could try:
Mr Fisher. If your assertions are indeed correct, why did you sign off accounts that you clearly knew were incorrect?
Mr Fisher. If you were not in a position to know how inaccurate the accounts were, why did you sign them off?
Mr Fisher. Why did no-one else notice the accounts were wrong in the previous 15 years, as you claim?
Mr Fisher. Why have you not corrected the errors (for CCFC Holdings Ltd) within 28 days from finding the errors, as set down by Company law?
Mr Fisher. Why did you not inform any creditors that were offering your credit terms that they were dealing with a company that had no assets?
Quite simple really.
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Is it though or are they looking at this from a Business aspect, SISU have alegedly pumped £45,000,000 into CCFC since taking over, they are currently losing money hand over fist while trying to sustain and mount a push on, every other club around is earning all sorts of revenue which at the moment Coventry City FC is not SISU's fault yet when they came in they could have and should have rectified this, considering they want a potential return on their investment or to make CCFC a suitable financial business model they look for an alternative to the current model and unfortunately Rome wasn't built in a day and neither will be a new stadium. Continuing to play at the Ricoh while building a new ground sounds great, but are ACL offering new terms on revenue with this supposed free rent offer? No, which means SISU must look to maximise their revenue streams while they are investing even more money into the club in a big way.
During the forums Tim Fisher has seemed disinterested at times I admit and I think we got more out Steve Brookfield in terms of a response than Tim Fisher and I am no way saying I am defending what they're doing, but for SISU's investors how can they go on the way they have been without a serious change? Some would argue sell, but unless they buy CCFC Ltd out of Admin and then sell for a profit to the highest bidder they won't get a return to what they believe is the potential standard..
Then they are entitled and will reap what they sow.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
The accounts aren't difficult to extract the key information from provided you're clear about what you're looking for. I am no accountant or finance expert but the bigger picture is clear to see from SBS+L's accounts.
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.
Last edited:
Skybluesquirrel
New Member
When SISU took control of the club, according to the accounts submitted, they were able to immediately write off £43 million of the debt outstanding as no longer due. They did this in Sky Blue Sports and Leisure Ltd - the parent company. According to the accounts, they did not apply this across the group of companies, so the 'debt' remains in CCFC Ltd and CCFC Holdings Ltd.
Stuart - why not ask TF if this is a correct interpretation, and if so, why this was done?
I am a CEO and have signed off many accounts without having the background to know if every item is posted and categorized correctly. That I always leave to the CFO and the auditors.
I would guess Fisher is in the darkness as I am when it comes to accounting and I guess if he feels the key figures approximately matches his expectation then he is in no position to argue against them.
He has only signed off one set of accounts. I think the discovery of the accounting standard was made after he signed them - probably when it became clear the club was heading for administration.
We should blame Fisher for the actions and the future strategy. Not accounting details he most likely don't have a chance to speak about - let alone in a way we mortals could understand.
Lord_Nampil
Well-Known Member
I agree you have too, but having taken a step back from everything and looked at it, it's still a plan, a plan I can see holdings have been put into due to ACL saying they are only talking to Ltd and the administrator. If sisu buy back ltd, then ACL will have to talk to sisu! Tim Fisher as holdings director has said no deal with ACL, but as director of limited he hasn't said anything as currently he's not the director, I think if he regains that title he will talk to them, as long ACL keep there word! Only my opinion btw, but it's the way I see it.
But if someone else buys back ltd it changes everything!
Skybluesquirrel
New Member
Agree about 'every item' and 'detail'. But you would be aware if all of the income, all of the major assets and all of the salary costs were recorded incorrectly in the wrong company. Most CEO's I have encountered have been very sharp on such matters. I imagine Ranson was aware of the structure too, but he happily signed them off for both companies.
He is suggesting, according to newspaper reports, that the accounts have been incorrect since either 1995 or since SISU took over (2007). And no-one noticed. Including the auditors?
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.
I wouldn't know the answer. I am sure they have more than one option.
Yes, it's a good question, but don't be surprised if his answer is that it was a decision taken by his predecessors within Sisu - people who are no longer involved.
I understand entirely why people are pursuing this line. All I would add to what has already been said is that it is important to distinguish between the group's affairs being handled in a a complex way that satisfied auditors and company law, etc..., but left everything in "a mess", and things being done 'incorrectly''. For the latter to be proved, you would have to be able to cross-examine all those who influenced the way things were done and explore what their intentions were.
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.
But just listen to how difficult it was for him to explain the history of the group structure. I am still not sure I understand it fully. And it is especially difficult to follow an explanation constantly interupted by boo's and ironic remarks.
Skybluesquirrel
New Member
Why not let the fans decide if they understand the complexities? We could always google bits to find out the answers.
Also, I may be from Coventry, but have a background in academic sports research, so do take offence at the suggestion that I have approached this as subjectively as you suggest. We can never be truly objective as we will always be inside the topic of research. But, far more objective than you suggest.
Do you think TF approached this objectively? How objective are you being, when you end with ''but do not expect consequences of any significance when they are answered."? It sounds as though you already know the answers but are not sharing them with the great unwashed.
Quite so, and I am also certain that he would be careful in what he said about the affairs of the club pre-Sisu. In fact, I am a little surprised he has gone as far as he has.
bamalamafizzfazz
New Member
Stuart thanks for hosting especially last night as it was unpaid and ran over the allotted time slot.
I spoke to Tim after and asked if SISU were the winning bidders of ltd would they be willing to hold more forums like these for fans to raise points when they can make informed decisions? He advised me there will be definitely.
I ask for yourself to chase this up in future please.
It will be important to show the club how we feel when details of a groundshare and a potential new ground location are announced.
Thank you.
I spoke to Tim after and asked if SISU were the winning bidders of ltd would they be willing to hold more forums like these for fans to raise points when they can make informed decisions? He advised me there will be definitely.
I ask for yourself to chase this up in future please.
It will be important to show the club how we feel when details of a groundshare and a potential new ground location are announced.
Thank you.
Skybluesquirrel
New Member
So Fisher is aware of what was happening in 1995 with Robbie Keane (in detail) but cannot explain why this wasn't recorded properly because he wasn't there and can't be expected to know the details?
The CEO doesn't understand, and isn't able to explain, the structure of his own company? Whats he doing in charge then?!
<br />
<br />
I claim no great insight. What I mean is, whatever the answers, what do you imagine happens thereafter? Again, not suggesting the questions should not be asked, nor challenging your personal qualifications to ask them, but I am genuinely intrigued by what you think follows once they've been answered.
Skybluesquirrel
New Member
Has TF done this before releasing his interpretation to the press?
I have no doubt that further forums - on air and off - would follow.
I have no idea what his future media plans are.
It may very well be that he does know what occurred under previous ownership, but can only go so far in stating it. As for the structure, he and Steve Brookfield both started and went some way down the line to explaining it, but were regularly interrupted and heckled by people who apparently wanted to just shout them down or jeer bits of detail without waiting to hear the full answer. It may very well be that people disagree with his perspective or wanted to challenge it, but I'm not sure that the interruptions helped.
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.
Skybluesquirrel
New Member
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.
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
I take it seriously, but much like a vegetarian faced with a plate of tripe, I can't swallow it.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I'd say I'm more symnpathetic than most to the concept of a new ground, but I see little evidence of one being designed.
Have you seen any plans, or on paper projections that would give confidence it's more than an abstract idea?
Limited has according to Fisher been used mainly for holding the lease to play at the Ricoh and is therefor responsible for the rent (although paid by Holdings). So the right company went into administration. He explained that too - although it also partly drowned in shouting from the audience.
The due dilligence was performed by Ray Ranson - you can't hold Fisher responsible for that either.