Why should they remain anonymous (1 Viewer)

Because they are protesting about our owners being hidden and not open but are anonymous themselves.. Can you see the irony?

I don't expect them to be unmasked, I just think it takes credibility away for some.

Jack Griffin said:

Why do the owners of Coventry City remain anonymous.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-fc-owner-joy-6096912



After seven years they are still hiding behind Joy Seppala.

Isn't it totally hypocritical of Les Reid to demand the organisers of this protest reveal themselves without him expecting the owners of the club to remain reveal who they are?

Click to expand...

The old 'do as I say but not as I do' line....

Why does anyone care about what Les Reid says or thinks?

skybluebeduff said:

Why does anyone care about what Les Reid says or thinks?

Click to expand...

Agreed he has nothing of any use to say.

Imagine if Tim Fisher came out and said moving football clubs was wrong, what reaction would he get?

I'm trying to make it as simple as possible here but it is clear people just choose to see what they want to see, not what is staring them in the face.

People stopped caring about what he had to say because he stopped serving a purpose to the anti-SISU movement.

Ian1779 said:

People stopped caring about what he had to say because he stopped serving a purpose to the anti-SISU movement.

Click to expand...

He has certainly made a big switch.

Jack Griffin said:

Why do the owners of Coventry City remain anonymous.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-fc-owner-joy-6096912



After seven years they are still hiding behind Joy Seppala.

Isn't it totally hypocritical of Les Reid to demand the organisers of this protest reveal themselves without him expecting the owners of the club to remain reveal who they are?

Click to expand...

Seppala also hid away for years.

Jack Griffin said:

Isn't it totally hypocritical of Les Reid to demand the organisers of this protest reveal themselves without him expecting the owners of the club to remain reveal who they are?

Click to expand...

Isn't it totally hypocritical of this protest to demand SISU reveal themselves / start being open without being open themselves?

It is exactly the same thing, it is just a shame that people will only see it one way....

This is the problem. Blind hatred, no thought, just blind hatred.

Good to see Joy stood firm on the headline in that article.

Thing is, we have always had a public face, whether it be Fisher, Waggott, Igwe, Brody or Dulieu. They are / were responsible for the day to day management of the football club. Who is the public face of the protest group?

Nick said:

Because they are protesting about our owners being hidden and not open but are anonymous themselves.. Can you see the irony?

I don't expect them to be unmasked, I just think it takes credibility away for some.

Click to expand...

A Case of who hid first. Or dont be like me.

"There is no way we would go back to a rental deal."

How did the humble pie taste eh Joy?

I was bored the other day and started to look at the structure of ownership and its quite confusing as of the last filed accounts 2013.

Sky Blue Sports and Leisure is 96% owned by Sconset and 4% by Leonard Brody with Liabilities over £47 million (2013 accounts) interestingly this went up from £12m the previous year. Sconset is a hedge fund controlled by SISU.

Otium Is Owned by SBSL. Otium is 99% owned by Avro Master fund. Avro is based in the Caymen islands Otium has liabilities of £5m (2013) up from 0 in 2012.

in Turn Otium owns Coventry City Football Club (holdings) Limited with Liabilities over £49m (last Filed 2011)

Coventry City Football club Limited (in Liqiuidation) Had liabilities of £57million.

which ever way you look there is a pile of debt and no controlling shareholder director names.

Jack Griffin said:

You are so stupid, the owners are rich people probably living abroad, Brody is the only one with the balls to disclose his identity.

The protesters (and I do not know who they are) I suspect live locally and are not wealthy individuals. It is understandable that they wish to remain under the radar.

There were no published photographs of Seppala until the Cov Telegraph got some when she attended the courts at Birmingham. Can't you see the hypocrisy in that?

Click to expand...

Why does it matter how much money they have? It's clearly you who needs to lookup hypocrisy, clearly

Jack Griffin said:

I won't bother explain it to you, you clearly have trouble understanding obvious arguments.

Click to expand...

What like somebody protesting about people being hidden away while being hidden away? Maybe that's too obvious?

Jack Griffin said:

Why do the owners of Coventry City remain anonymous.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-fc-owner-joy-6096912



After seven years they are still hiding behind Joy Seppala.

Isn't it totally hypocritical of Les Reid to demand the organisers of this protest reveal themselves without him expecting the owners of the club to reveal who they are?

Click to expand...

Does anyone know who owns anything these days? Even Buckingham Palace is probably owned by Arabs.

Nick said:

Isn't it totally hypocritical of this protest to demand SISU reveal themselves / start being open without being open themselves?

It is exactly the same thing, it is just a shame that people will only see it one way....

This is the problem. Blind hatred, no thought, just blind hatred.

Click to expand...

I don't agree at all, if this group were trying to buy the club and they wanted to remain anonymous you would have a point, if they were trying to raise funds on kickstarter or something you've have a point, but they are organising a protest and who they are is completely irrelevant to that.

I don't see what difference it makes who they are, either you agree with the protest in which case take part, or you don't in which case don't. If they are just normal fans thats fine, if they are businessmen and actually wanting to take over the club thats even better (in fact fucking wonderful) if they are the later there will come a time we should absolutely be demanding to know who they are but at this point is it actually helpful to know? or does it just give sisu more power?

Assuming as seems likely they are just fans I'd like to say there is no reason to stay anonymous and they should say who they are just to shut up this distraction but sisu are litigious and willing to sue fans so I'm not convinced they should. I see no benefit too it and only risks.

Nick said:

Because they are protesting about our owners being hidden and not open but are anonymous themselves.. Can you see the irony?

I don't expect them to be unmasked, I just think it takes credibility away for some.

Click to expand...

Nick,

I have read the original post 'Press Release' an there is no mention of the protest having anything to do with the owners being anonymous? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Mark

Nick said:

Isn't it totally hypocritical of this protest to demand SISU reveal themselves / start being open without being open themselves?

It is exactly the same thing, it is just a shame that people will only see it one way....

This is the problem. Blind hatred, no thought, just blind hatred.

Click to expand...

Have they said they want SISU to reveal themselves? I haven't seen them say anything other than they just want SISU gone.

It's a bit weird for the protesters to be anonymous, but in the long run I'm far more concerned about the accountability of those running the football club, than those running a one-off protest in Block 15, so it's a strange diversion.

mark_ccfc said:

Nick,

I have read the original post 'Press Release' an there is no mention of the protest having anything to do with the owners being anonymous? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Mark

Click to expand...

No Mark you are right,
it is just that some people like to make things up to fight their arguments, but at the same time accuse others of doing the same.....


I believe they call it Hypocrisy.......

letsallsingtogether said:

No Mark you are right,
it is just that some people like to make things up to fight their arguments, but at the same time accuse others of doing the same.....


I believe they call it Hypocrisy.......

Click to expand...

There's no mention of them supporting the team either in the press release... So how do you justify that away??

Ian1779 said:

There's no mention of them supporting the team either in the press release... So how do you justify that away??

Click to expand...

No your right there is no mention of sisu supporting the team.

You don't need to justify anything you ether back Sisu or you don't pretty simple really.
Shame I can't be there on Monday just been told I'm on nights next week I would have loved to see all the sisu lovers moaning at any demonstration.

Ian1779 said:

People stopped caring about what he had to say because he stopped serving a purpose to the anti-SISU movement.

Click to expand...

Sorry but never thought he had anything good to say. Cut from the same cloth as people like Blair and Cameron, it's all about them. He's hardly John Pilger yet some read his private eye articles like he was telling you the whereabouts of the holy grail itself. Sorry but he's just another twat to add to the ever growing list of twats involved with this debacle.

albatross said:

I was bored the other day and started to look at the structure of ownership and its quite confusing as of the last filed accounts 2013.

Sky Blue Sports and Leisure is 96% owned by Sconset and 4% by Leonard Brody with Liabilities over £47 million (2013 accounts) interestingly this went up from £12m the previous year. Sconset is a hedge fund controlled by SISU.

Otium Is Owned by SBSL. Otium is 99% owned by Avro Master fund. Avro is based in the Caymen islands Otium has liabilities of £5m (2013) up from 0 in 2012.

in Turn Otium owns Coventry City Football Club (holdings) Limited with Liabilities over £49m (last Filed 2011)

Coventry City Football club Limited (in Liqiuidation) Had liabilities of £57million.

which ever way you look there is a pile of debt and no controlling shareholder director names.

Click to expand...

Sorry but there are some things that are not correct in that

SISU capital is owned and controlled by Wynacre limited - very few details available on that company other than it is registered in the British Virgin Islands. Therefore if SISU are seen as the owner (per TF they seem to be) the ultimate ownership of the group must be Wynacre Limited unless there is another entity behind that

Sconset own 96% of SBS&L certainly, SConset being an entity controlled by SISU Capital Ltd. SBS&L own and control Otium. It is the voting shares that denote control and ownership and SBS&L own 90.1%. The other shares 9.9% are owned by ARVO. Yes ARVO own the other shares issued but these are all non voting so carry no control on the basis of the shares.

What ARVO do have is charges over all the assets and charges over the shares of SBS&L together with certain rights on disposal of group companies. In effect nothing can be done without reference to ARVO. Joy Seppala acts as a signatory for ARVO at least, and could well be a director or control ARVO but have seen no evidence of the ownership of ARVO Master Fund so cant say for sure

Otium no longer owns CCFC H Ltd because that company has been dissolved. Much of the debt in CCFC Ltd and CCFC H Ltd was historic dating before 2008 which was discounted in the takeover but such discount not reflected in the CCFC Ltd or CCFC H Ltd accounts. CCFC Ltd will be liquidated once the court cases are done. However the liquidation of both of these has not changed the actual liabilities to SISU or ARVO because their loans remain the same. Just how the group structure has been set up and used.

The only debt that remains is the external debt of the SBS&L group which stood at 47m 31/05/13. of that figure 28.5m was due to the SISU Capital investors loans and 13.4m to ARVO Master Fund

The current liabilities in 2013 were 47m but in 2012 the liabilities were split between current 12m and longer term 31m, total 43m.