Trust response to Tim Fisher (1 Viewer)

[Grendel]

You may well be right about a signed contract , because SISU, would not sign it , and if they did, going by SISU past record they probably wouldn't honour it, leaving themselves open to a beach of contract and litigation .

So if you were the landlords, and going by SISU past record , i think they would have made it very clear during last year's agreement " drop the legals " and we will talk .

A variable agreement is binging in law , harder to prove I know, but all of the those meetings would have been minuted and both parties would have copies .

So may I suggest it's more than just soundbites .

No it’s a cheap sound bite. Wasps lie all the time.

 

---

[chiefdave]

If OSB is right (and he normally is) then he personally and his actions unquestionably link the club directly the legal proceedings. If he’s gone that link is removed. Might also be enough to break the stand off.

I think the point is though that Fisher must have signed off on the legal action being done in the clubs name if it’s legally required of him to do so as his roll. Any new patsy wouldn’t carry that connection so the clubs argument that they have no control over the legals would stand up more.

How would that work in practice? Fisher would have signed off as the representative of Otium, not himself personally, so removing him doesn't remove that link.

There's a decent chance that at least in the short term Boddy would assume Fishers duties which would remove his separation from the legal proceedings and if anything makes things worse. At the moment he can legitimately go in to meetings with Wasps and say the legals are nothing to do with him, why would we want to create a situation that changed that?
​

 

[Earlsdon-Loyal-Blue]

Who are the trust claiming to speak for these days? Despite signing up way back when, I can't remember the last time I was contacted by them.

As long as they clearly state who they're actually putting out statements on behalf of (i.e. "Four members of the trust board met last night and decided to put out this statement"), then I'm OK with it.

Otherwise they're no better than all of the other parties in my opinion.

As far as I'm concerned they've gone way beyond their remit and they've completely lost the plot in terms of only focusing on one side of the issue. The people putting out this stuff can call themselves whatever they want, but they can't claim to speak for their fans or even their membership if they manage themselves like this. I don't know the history behind the multiple twitter accounts etc. but if the trust are stooping to the level of honesty that SISU and the Council have fallen to then they've lost already!

Bluntly then, I don't want my quid back, but I certainly don't want them claiming to speak for me.

Well said. They Trust are calling for transparency from Fisher and SISU but being deliberately untransparent themselves.

The Trust don’t speak for myself or many other fans that aren’t registered or signed up to their Scouts meetings. They also repeatedly fail to state who’s issuing these statements as I’ve heard it’s only 3/4 clowns putting these statements out - all of which never criticise or question the council or Wasps...

For me, SISU, Fisher, Seppala, the Council, Wasps, the Trust and even Jimbo, all have blood on their hands. The Trust are not much better than SISU despite portraying they’re the saviours in shining armour.

Where’s the simpsons pitchfork and torch gif when you need it...

 

[Nick]

What I don't get is why it is being made out that other Fan's Groups back the legal action because they agreed about the statement about keeping the club playing in Coventry? Is that not just doing to cause even more division?

Is it just a co-incidence that as soon as there's a bit of a sniff of a chance of any pressure against the Council and Wasps the Trust and those involved jump right in the middle to try and divide? It's all well and good people saying that Fisher is divisive, why are the Trust trying to outdo him? Are they really out of touch to think that because somebody wants the club to play in Coventry regardless of legal action that means they are backing the legal action?

There has been no clear plan as to why the statements are made, what is the aim / the plan? It is as if somebody gets worked up and has the Trust login to make the statements. People like NW and Schmeee have made great, concise points that could be used as an example that questions all parties on various things (without the silly digs or remarks).

 

[shmmeee]

John Sharpe has already said that they won’t deal with the club on a ground share while Sisu are involved.

Then that’s a fourth avenue for pressure.

We can’t be pissed at Wasps and the Council taking that stance but not CRFC

 

[Ashdown]

Then that’s a fourth avenue for pressure.

We can’t be pissed at Wasps and the Council taking that stance but not CRFC

What a fucking crock of shit. CRFC need to keep well away from any of those London hedge funds. They have no obligation to do anything and why should they, who would possibly get involved with those litigious morons by choice.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Then that’s a fourth avenue for pressure.

We can’t be pissed at Wasps and the Council taking that stance but not CRFC

FWIW, and reading between the lines, it does seem CRFC were happy to deal with us... but CCC were less happy for them to do so!

One thing CRFC do realise is you need the local authority onside, so their path of least resistance is to cut the club off and go their own way.

 

[Nick]

What a fucking crock of shit. CRFC need to keep well away from any of those London hedge funds. They have no obligation to do anything and why should they, who would possibly get involved with those litigious morons by choice.

Nobody has said they do have an obligation do they? CRFC are already involved with the club. There was also the issue of the council not being happy with the thought of CCFC doing much there, hence their fast move to try and block it. Would they be more willing if there wasn't any pressure or risk of CRFC burning bridges with the council if they worked with CCFC?

I don't think he was suggesting go and picket CRFC or pitch invade, more just ask them a constructive question to see what happens.

That's another thing, the council haven't really been asked why they wanted to try and block things at the Butts.

 

[Otis]

Yeah, the Butts isn't an option for plan B. There is no plan B that keeps us in Cov

Things do change though. History has taught us that.

I think if it comes to City no longer existing at all as a club, stances may well soften.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Is it just a co-incidence that as soon as there's a bit of a sniff of a chance of any pressure against the Council and Wasps the Trust and those involved jump right in the middle to try and divide? It's all well and good people saying that Fisher is divisive, why are the Trust trying to outdo him? Are they really out of touch to think that because somebody wants the club to play in Coventry regardless of legal action that means they are backing the legal action?

I would also say that, tbf, they could have cut those words about legal action out of the statement, and nobody would have ever noticed!

Personally, I think the Trust should have swallowed it and gone along with it anyway, as it's not a huge deal but... I also don't quite understand why it *had* to go into that statement at all. The message would have been the same, anyway!

 

[Captain Dart]

I would suggest that it is not local people we need but competent people. See Leicester City for details.

Competence and a genuine love of the club who set realistic goals.

We still don't feel sure what SISU's objective is, it may be to recoup money from their failed investments then butt out regardless of consequences to the club, can anyone assure me it isn't?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

What really should be coming out, however... and often doesn't, is showing we learn from the SISU school of how not to do things.

Therefore, all pressure has to be positive encouragement, building relationships, showing what a deal for CCFC to remain in the city brings to all parties.

This isn't the time to set against peoples' strategy but, rather, to persuade them why they should look at changing it.

 

[Nick]

Competence and a genuine love of the club who set realistic goals.

We still don't feel sure what SISU's objective is, it may be to recoup money from their failed investments then butt out regardless of consequences to the club, can anyone assure me it isn't?

You could argue that if you take away the legal action, since Boddy has come in the competence level in terms of running the club day to day has gone up massively. Couldn't you?

 

[COVKIDSNEVERQUIT]

Stop putting stuff in bold, it doesn't make your ramblings any more profound

Are you on a mission, you keep having bigs ?


Sorry i didn't know i need your permission


If your going to be patronising, then so can I.


Run along now there's a good chap. !

 

[Nick]

What really should be coming out, however... and often doesn't, is showing we learn from the SISU school of how not to do things.

Exactly, it should be see how they bullshit and do the exact opposite. We have seen it when anybody questions the trust it's "well SISU / Fisher lie all the time".

A fans group shouldn't even be able to be compared to SISU in any way, should be the exact opposite. Not doing as they do.

 

[Grendel]

I would also say that, tbf, they could have cut those words about legal action out of the statement, and nobody would have ever noticed!

Personally, I think the Trust should have swallowed it and gone along with it anyway, as it's not a huge deal but... I also don't quite understand why it *had* to go into that statement at all. The message would have been the same, anyway!

The Trust and that madman who fronts the Jimmy Hill Way I believe have long concluded they would rather the club go to the wall than exist under the current owners.

I have come to the conclusion that they are obsessed with “fan” ownership. What this really means is a seat at the top table for the Trust.

Thus was apparent when they became involved with Haskell and co as he promised the same. The fact he was a shameless chancer seemed to escape their attention.

They keep saying they are the voice of the fans. Well prove it. Ballot members on the direction they are going in. Have a confidence vote on themselves.

 

[Ashdown]

Nobody has said they do have an obligation do they? CRFC are already involved with the club. There was also the issue of the council not being happy with the thought of CCFC doing much there, hence their fast move to try and block it. Would they be more willing if there wasn't any pressure or risk of CRFC burning bridges with the council if they worked with CCFC?

I don't think he was suggesting go and picket CRFC or pitch invade, more just ask them a constructive question to see what happens.

That's another thing, the council haven't really been asked why they wanted to try and block things at the Butts.

How are they involved with the football club ?

 

[Nick]

The Trust and that madman who fronts the Jimmy Hill Way I believe have long concluded they would rather the club go to the wall than exist under the current owners.

I have come to the conclusion that they are obsessed with “fan” ownership. What this really means is a seat at the top table for the Trust.

Thus was apparent when they became involved with Haskell and co as he promised the same. The fact he was a shameless chancer seemed to escape their attention.

They keep saying they are the voice of the fans. Well prove it. Ballot members on the direction they are going in. Have a confidence vote on themselves.

It does look as if the obsession is with fan ownership and the politics away from it. It's the same as the whole stuff with the SCG where they were fighting over a seat at a board meeting.

It needs to go back to the priority being CCFC first and foremost and going from there which is the approach the other fan groups take. It doesn't mean they love SISU or want a front row seat for the court action, their priority is CCFC before their hatred for the other parties.

 

[Captain Dart]

You could argue that if you take away the legal action, since Boddy has come in the competence level in terms of running the club day to day has gone up massively. Couldn't you?

Boddy doesn't seem to be doing a bad job of day to day running but he is not a Director.
Otium (ie CCFC) is a single director company which is unusual for an enterprise of the club's size, you need input from various competences and ideas need to be challenged and tested.
Remember previously the old board took their eye off the ball so to speak and let Richardson have too much control, consequently he led the club into terrible debt.
The idea of a board of directors is to discuss strategy and jointly agree the best way forward. Oucho's comment is quite reasonable, a full active & committed board is more healthy.

 

[Grendel]

Boddy doesn't seem to be doing a bad job of day to day running but he is not a Director.
Otium (ie CCFC) is a single director company which is unusual for an enterprise of the club's size, you need input from various competences and ideas need to be challenged and tested.
Remember previously the old board took their eye off the ball so to speak and let Richardson have too much control, consequently he led the club into terrible debt.
The idea of a board of directors is to discuss strategy and jointly agree the best way forward. Oucho's comment is quite reasonable, a full active & committed board is more healthy.

Fisher has no strategic impact into the club. He has no control and no influence

 

[Covstu]

Are you on a mission, you keep having bigs ?


Sorry i didn't know i need your permission


If your going to be patronising, then so can I.


Run along now there's a good chap. !

ompus:ompus:

 

[Covstu]

More importantly I want my pound back!

 

[Nick]

I get your point .

The trouble is, it's a private meeting , so who agreed to what and who said what is just open to speculation.

Perhaps the two parties just don't trust each other, Now there's an understatement !

Well it's not if it is there in black and white in a contract. If it was there you would think Wasps would refer to that which would then be a reply to "but why did you do a deal last year" things that are being said.

If it is however whispered to somebody on the side to then "spread it" then it does the job doesn't it?

 

[Ashdown]

Fisher has no strategic impact into the club. He has no control and no influence

He actually contributes nothing, so why are we paying him ? Even if it is only in the form of expenses ?

 

[Captain Dart]

Fisher has no strategic impact into the club. He has no control and no influence

I tend to agree. Its all dictat from Joy. But he was probably involved in evolving the academy/transfer strategy & replacing internally run functions with short term contracts.
I think that has helped the club to be run with much better fiscal management but it is also set up for a quick exit.
The ground issue is vital though and until it is resolved the club faces an uncertain future.

 

[shmmeee]

FWIW, and reading between the lines, it does seem CRFC were happy to deal with us... but CCC were less happy for them to do so!

One thing CRFC do realise is you need the local authority onside, so their path of least resistance is to cut the club off and go their own way.

Then back to my original point that CCC need to show support for all options that keep the club in Coventry. No one is happy with any of the outcomes so “I don’t like it” doesn’t wash too well with me.

 

[COVKIDSNEVERQUIT]

Fisher has no strategic impact into the club. He has no control and no influence

He actually contributes nothing, so why are we paying him ? Even if it is only in the form of expenses ?

Yes what is the point of Mr Fisher, other than having a free lunch at games (when he bothers to turn up )
And not forgetting Wembley, twice.

But I do agree, getting rid of him wouldn't make any difference to the present situation .

But I have say, it would make my match day experience that much better not having to see his smug face in the directors box.

Yes i can see him from my seat and l'm not moving , I was here before him and ill be here after him .

 

[shmmeee]

It does look as if the obsession is with fan ownership and the politics away from it. It's the same as the whole stuff with the SCG where they were fighting over a seat at a board meeting.

It needs to go back to the priority being CCFC first and foremost and going from there which is the approach the other fan groups take. It doesn't mean they love SISU or want a front row seat for the court action, their priority is CCFC before their hatred for the other parties.

Isn’t the entire point of the Trust to get some level of fan ownership? I’m sure it’s in the constitution or something. Could be wrong.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Then back to my original point that CCC need to show support for all options that keep the club in Coventry. No one is happy with any of the outcomes so “I don’t like it” doesn’t wash too well with me.

Am all for that.

 

[chiefdave]

The Trust and that madman who fronts the Jimmy Hill Way I believe have long concluded they would rather the club go to the wall than exist under the current owners.

I have come to the conclusion that they are obsessed with “fan” ownership. What this really means is a seat at the top table for the Trust.

Suspect this is correct. They seem to have some misguided notion that if Otium folds the club will be handed over to them when in reality it will cease to exist. There's even a note in the minutes of a recent Trust board meeting for them to get an update off Hoffman!

 

[fernandopartridge]

Are you on a mission, you keep having bigs ?


Sorry i didn't know i need your permission


If your going to be patronising, then so can I.


Run along now there's a good chap. !

You're*

 

[Liquid Gold]

You're*

I think you mean you're

 

[ceetee]

May I be the next pedant by pointing out that you're is short for you are

Sorry i didn't know I need your permission is correct use of your

 

[BigadamL]

Dont worry all, this will blow over when SISU batter everybody in court.

 

[Nick]

May I be the next pedant by pointing out that you're is short for you are

Sorry i didn't know I need your permission is correct use of your

I assume he meant:

If your going to be patronising, then so can I.