We need to wait and see what is said in the admin report regards amount owed and to whom..it is possible that the amount had been technically written off due to the age of the debt but that SISU were still expecting to show this as a recovery at a later point say if we got promoted to the premiership.Question 26 the big interest for me!! 45m to 60m how?? Other interesting answers nothing giving rise to delaying their publication
..and as for £4 for every spectator over 16K in the PL, you've got to be fucking kidding me?
Not content then with the massive boost it would give to the local area from having a PL football club (just listen to what Swansea council have said recently about the massive boost in investment since the Swans achieved PL status), they would also seek to eek more money out of the football club by levying a surcharge on match tickets.
Overall, ACL answered their questions honestly and with clarity, far more so than SISU, but there are a couple of things that come out of the answers provided that reflect badly on ACL imo. Cue shouts of SISU-apologist.
No I agree. You have to read it all carefully. ACL are squeezing the life blood from the football club even after the football club came knocking at the door to find a way forward. ACL just see themselves as a stadium company and the football club another renter believing they don't need the football club. I just don't think they are as bright as SISU in all this.
Outright refusal to allow a mediator is not good by ACL.
So the picture becomes clear-Fisher only ever had authority to agree to a deal if it meant the club could achieve a break even position next season. That being because SISU had no intention of funding losses any longer.
Did he ever mention this to ACL?
Did he ever mention this to ACL?
<b>"29: Can ACL and the Ricoh survive without CCFC?</b></p>
<p> ACL: This is not what we want – but yes we can. We have detailed business plans supporting this. ACL is a solvent and successful business. <b>Our accounts, which have been lodged with Companies House demonstrates this.</b></p>
<p> CCFC: I personally doubt it – our analysis of the ACL business show the company’s business model to be very challenging without the club and possibly require further cash injections from the Council. Without the revenue currently received from CCFC the council will be called on for more money to prop up a failing business in the future."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Nice little dig there, hey?
"29: Can ACL and the Ricoh survive without CCFC?
ACL: This is not what we want – but yes we can. We have detailed business plans supporting this. ACL is a solvent and successful business. Our accounts, which have been lodged with Companies House demonstrates this.
CCFC: I personally doubt it – our analysis of the ACL business show the company’s business model to be very challenging without the club and possibly require further cash injections from the Council. Without the revenue currently received from CCFC the council will be called on for more money to prop up a failing business in the future."
Nice little dig there, hey?
Yes. As I posted yesterday, the utterances of an antagonistic amateur. Let's be candid, he's answered with 'I don't know' to many points he should - given his position - be able to answer either directly, or with mild investogative endeavour: but not used the same disclaimer in response to the question for which it's use seems most appropriate
So Tim Fisher could only agree a deal if it lead to break even point, playing for free at the Richoh isn't enough to make the club break even, so it follows no deal could possibly have been reached.
29: Can ACL and the Ricoh survive without CCFC?
ACL: This is not what we want – but yes we can. We have detailed business plans supporting this. ACL is a solvent and successful business. Our accounts, which have been lodged with Companies House demonstrates this.
CCFC: I personally doubt it – our analysis of the ACL business show the company’s business model to be very challenging without the club and possibly require further cash injections from the Council. Without the revenue currently received from CCFC the council will be called on for more money to prop up a failing business in the future.
How was this interview conducted out of interest? Did they have time to prepare answers (in which case there is no excuse for a 'don't know'), or was it an off-the-cuff interview? It seems to me they were written responses, but could be wrong.
How was this interview conducted out of interest? Did they have time to prepare answers (in which case there is no excuse for a 'don't know'), or was it an off-the-cuff interview? It seems to me they were written responses, but could be wrong.
No I agree. You have to read it all carefully. ACL are squeezing the life blood from the football club even after the football club came knocking at the door to find a way forward. ACL just see themselves as a stadium company and the football club another renter believing they don't need the football club. I just don't think they are as bright as SISU in all this.
Outright refusal to allow a mediator is not good by ACL.
If you want the truth dont ask too many questions.
This I don't know dear chap. However, with preparation, such a lack of knowledge is unforgivable. Or disingenuous. Even if more ad hoc, being frank I wouldn't consider myself sufficiently well prepared to negotiate on issues of such criticality without being able to summon such facts accurately and immediately. And Fisher should share the same mindset.
Either way, therefore, to me it's a poor show
It that meant to be profound or are you just a little weird?
Weird is good though.
Parrrr :facepalm:
<p>
Why would ccfc want a share of a failing business?
Also, if acl are a failing business, does it not support their claim that the physically can't offer anymore?
"29: Can ACL and the Ricoh survive without CCFC?
ACL: This is not what we want – but yes we can. We have detailed business plans supporting this. ACL is a solvent and successful business. Our accounts, which have been lodged with Companies House demonstrates this.
CCFC: I personally doubt it – our analysis of the ACL business show the company’s business model to be very challenging without the club and possibly require further cash injections from the Council. Without the revenue currently received from CCFC the council will be called on for more money to prop up a failing business in the future."
Nice little dig there, hey?
To be fair, it is quite feasible if there is no audit trail for someone not to have all of the facts. Better to say you don't know than to try and make up some bs story.
Okay. One small example. He was asked if anyone had approached the ACL ahead of April 2012 with regards a rent reduction or change of term. By that time, SISU was in it's fourth year at the club. You're happy he didn't know if any of his predecessors, sharing the same employer and string-puller had ever spoken to the ACL about this issue which he latterly claims is of sufficient magnitude as to threaten the very existence of the club?
It that meant to be profound or are you just a little weird?
Weird is good though.
The question was ccfc not necessarily just the Sisu years. He might know that during the Sisu years this has never been done, but prior to that he may not know whether Robinson et al had done so or not.
I'm aware of that. But THE SISU relevant history should have been there in a full splendid chronology for him to recite
I can't believe that even now further information coming out we still have people defending Sisu !!!
But the question doesn't say "during sisu's reign have you approached ACL prior to April 2012' - perhaps the SBT should have been more explicit with that question?
If, after entering their fifth season with the club, they hadn't grasped the magnitude of this issue which us now sufficiently important to fold the club over, what would that infer about SISU's governance?
Or even during the SISU tenure...who knows every enquiry that their predecessor made in their current role? (let alone predecessors) I certainly don't and I share the same management structure that they did.We know their governance has been shit. Still doesnt mean that fisher should know the details of an approach that happened prior to Sisu.
Ashdown1:
Does it matter where or how the money you mention is or has gone? It's all paperwork by clever accounting for the most part and no way can ACL assume they are more knowledgeable in all this. They are not.
What needed to be understood by ACL and for me they simply won't get it - is any football club can not be sustainable at the Ricoh under the current conditions of tenancy. They wish to drip feed bits back to the football under duress it would appear to benefit themselves. I can't say that's wrong but it brings me to the reason why CCC formed this 'middle company' in the first place that have to make profit to exist like any company but they too long term are surely not sustainable under the current conditions.
Or even during the SISU tenure...who knows every enquiry that their predecessor made in their current role? (let alone predecessors) I certainly don't and I share the same management structure that they did.
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?