It would mean the forums had more point, definitely.
Even if they wanted to give full answers, the format just doesn't allow it. May as well have been a series of phone-ins and not wasted everyone's time having to travel.
Pity SL never followed it up ,its been so easy for them to skirt the very detail which exposes the Chicanery .
Thought there were some good questions last night from a number of people............. none of which got a proper reply
Had to smile when the young lad in front of me and asked why TF didnt go talk to ACl, when TF said ACL wont talk to him and he had the papers to prove it the young lad well can we see the letters then to which TF said no and everyone laughed
Well done young man !
Thought that was brilliant! But another time TF was let off the hook as he should've been pressed on why
I for one want to that OSB for all he has done on here, tearing apart what is coming out of holdings. Pity the telegraph cannot employ you to point out what is going on. I did wonder if your attending the forum monday, could be the reason that it was not on the radio.
Again agreed.
There are even valid reasons he could give to why, it would just be nice to see if he chooses to use them!
He just didn't seem bothered in putting up any defence last night! I was just shocked at how completely disinterested he seemed...
Do you find it strange that OSB has not commented?
Put yourself in his shoes though, at the end of the day he is just an employee/figurehead.
Not sure when he joined the club he expected to be asked to front up a room of shouting men, so to do it 3 work nights on the trot is going to sap your enthusiasm a little!
I'm not shouting down on people, It's the complete opposite, Bellend, twat, mug, chump, all used AT ME, that's me insulting people is it? From the word off, I said a simple point, why are people pinning richardsons problems on SISU? And saying you won't support the team you apparently love because of someone in a suit, that doesn't make you a fan at all
It would mean the forums had more point, definitely.
Even if they wanted to give full answers, the format just doesn't allow it. May as well have been a series of phone-ins and not wasted everyone's time having to travel.
Nick-nothing does mateOne reason why all of the pointless questions and rants should be ignored as they give Fisher a way out as they move on and skirt aside without answering
While people cheer the sisu out comments, it doesn't gain anything.
Well when somebody who knows what they are talking about is quizzing them and is getting somewhere then surely they shouldn't be stopped for somebody just to say "get of our town sisu". It was the point I was trying to make after I listened to the first one.
Or the person who next gets the mic could have just sent Lineell back to the original questioner, and given up their 15 seconds of fame.
Having been asked as to who i am and was i there then I confirm that I was the one giving Mr Brookfield a grilling
Yes I was at the creditors meeting representing a client, The Alan Higgs Centre Trust in my professional capacity. All above board, with letters of engagement, signed in at that meeting etc. It was a one off appointment for that day which gave me the opportunity to question the administrator on their behalf and to assist a local charity. I have not acted for them before or since and I am not part of The Higgs Charity, ACL, the Council etc nor have I ever been.
As my name is out there I will also make clear that I have been helping, in a non professional capacity, the Sky Blue Trust in getting a handle on the financial situation at CCFC. Nothing to hide there either. Hopefully it helps the Trust get their heads round complex/messy financial matters.
Think I have proven my financial skills and been right on more than a few ocassions
I view the current situation as so serious that hiding behind a keyboard is neither relevant or useful. If any of the above upsets, devalues my contribution or disappoints some on here then so be it. My input here and other places has always been truthful and to the best of my ability and I am very comfortable with that. Oh and if I offered an opinion it was honest and I am entitled to express it just as much as anyone else
Got some questions .......
Last night I asked Mr Brookfield
- if the accounts were right or wrong, was the basis of their preparation incorrect ?
- if he had ever encountered a group banking situation whereby all bankings and payments are made from one account?
- whether it is who paid or who had the liability to pay that dictates what is in the accounts?
- 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" " ..................... could he comment as to why CCFC Ltd was a non trading property subsidiary when the Company's own statutory rules said it was not
I stated the basis of those memorandum & articles had not been changed by later amendments.
Mr Brookfield is Finance director of CCFC appointed over a year ago............ these are not difficult questions.......... you might expect any director to understand the entity he is in charge of
Instead there was no real reply and the retort was "were you at the creditors meeting with the Alan Higgs Trust" - to which I immediately answered truthfully yes
Got to wonder what relevance my being at the creditors meeting had to any of the questions I asked and did not get answered :facepalm::thinking about:
They were not difficult questions
That is the truth.
If this ends up in the courts they won't be able to skirt the answers, best get your thinking caps on timmy and co as that's where i see it ending up.
Thanks for the good work OSB
Having been asked as to who i am and was i there then I confirm that I was the one giving Mr Brookfield a grilling
Yes I was at the creditors meeting representing a client, The Alan Higgs Centre Trust in my professional capacity. All above board, with letters of engagement, signed in at that meeting etc. It was a one off appointment for that day which gave me the opportunity to question the administrator on their behalf and to assist a local charity. I have not acted for them before or since and I am not part of The Higgs Charity, ACL, the Council etc nor have I ever been.
As my name is out there I will also make clear that I have been helping, in a non professional capacity, the Sky Blue Trust in getting a handle on the financial situation at CCFC. Nothing to hide there either. Hopefully it helps the Trust get their heads round complex/messy financial matters.
Think I have proven my financial skills and been right on more than a few ocassions
I view the current situation as so serious that hiding behind a keyboard is neither relevant or useful. If any of the above upsets, devalues my contribution or disappoints some on here then so be it. My input here and other places has always been truthful and to the best of my ability and I am very comfortable with that. Oh and if I offered an opinion it was honest and I am entitled to express it just as much as anyone else
Got some questions .......
Last night I asked Mr Brookfield
- if the accounts were right or wrong, was the basis of their preparation incorrect ?
- if he had ever encountered a group banking situation whereby all bankings and payments are made from one account?
- whether it is who paid or who had the liability to pay that dictates what is in the accounts?
- 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" " ..................... could he comment as to why CCFC Ltd was a non trading property subsidiary when the Company's own statutory rules said it was not
I stated the basis of those memorandum & articles had not been changed by later amendments.
Mr Brookfield is Finance director of CCFC appointed over a year ago............ these are not difficult questions.......... you might expect any director to understand the entity he is in charge of
Instead there was no real reply and the retort was "were you at the creditors meeting with the Alan Higgs Trust" - to which I immediately answered truthfully yes
Got to wonder what relevance my being at the creditors meeting had to any of the questions I asked and did not get answered :facepalm::thinking about:
They were not difficult questions
That is the truth.
OSB is not being completely fair I think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMW6rVXDhlY (part 5).
Starting from the beginning of part 5 and for the duration of 3:40 minutes Steve Brookfield explain (tries to) the difference between limited and holdings.
OSB follows up with a series of questions and there is a 3 minute debate between SB and OSB. Then at 7:15 Fisher ask if OSB was at the creditors meeting. Stuart Linnell then takes over and issue a follow up question and the exchange between SB and OSB continues until OSB effectively ends the debate with a crack remark. Stuart Linnell then move on to the next person.
So in most of 9 minutes it was all about the difference between limited and holdings - the trade, the assets, the registrations, the difference between now and 95, company rules and so on. OSB seemed to have one aim - to get SB to admit that ccfc ltd always was and still is the football club and that limited should hold all the assets. SB didn't agree and they could have gone on for hours without ever getting closer to an agreement.
But listen for yourself - it's complicated stuff and contrary to what OSB says - it IS difficult to comprehend!
The part I enjoyed was when Fisher said 'welcome to my world, we have accountants all over the place. It's just so painful'.
Seems to be working Cloughie however the Audio level is shite.
Its working for me but it is part 4 not part 5.
The accountants talking about details of how the accounts have been done in detail, does not prove anything very useful.
I have suspected for some time that osb had acquired a weighted agenda, and I think this is most unfortunate. I have respected the insight his posts have given in the past but now he has been signed up by PWKH his contributions cannot be regarded as impartial.
His main point seems to be trying to maintain that the business was run through Ltd. Even if that point is accepted it does not take us much further. The fact is Ltd is owned by SISU as is Holdings and without doubt SISU own the club whether the main part is in one or the other. If any other bidder acquires Ltd they would be in a precarious position to try and run the club without negotiating with Holdings for their cooperation and the whole interest.
It may even be that osb promoted the idea that ACL should table an initial offer perhaps to get access to more detail in the accounts. This has resulted in Byngs backers being concerned and withdrawing their bid, again very unfortunate.
imp:
I very much doubt that would be a reason for withdrawing from the bid if you were seriously intersted.
More like a face saving excuse from Byng, as lets face it he changes his version of events everyday.
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?