Ignore what Timmy Fishook says.. (1 Viewer)

Voice_of_Reason said:

Fisher has NO right to make decisions relating to Coventry City Football Club Limited. Coventry City Football Club Limited, ACCORDING TO FOOTBALL LEAGUE RULES, is the only one it recognizes to play in the Football League. These are Football League rules.

Football League rules are firmly set in concrete -- the only way Fisher (SISU) can challenge these is under Commercial Law AFTER the Football League has made its decision and can challenge the Football Leagues rules in Court. (Ha Ha !)

Fisher can spout as much as he likes on behalf of Coventry City (Holdings) Limited - but they don't have a Football Club !!!!!

So, Timmy -- shut up !!!!

Click to expand...

If Timmy has a Football Club why has he not been Selling the New Kit ,taking bonds from fans in advance of the season Ticket release.

Just wondering.... If the player contracts and assests etc are in holdings, can the administrator get them transferred over to Ltd, by court ruling? And if not, does this mean ltd is worthless?

He obviously know the facts but seems to get some sort of sadistic pleasure by spreading these crazy notions. Hopefully most of us see through them but a lot of fans really worry, football clubs are the life and soul for some. I don't understand how a radio interview such as conducted yesterday doesn't pin him down for more direct answers and then question those answers. If most the listeners think he is talking garbage why doesn't the interviewer ? PWKH ripped what Fisher said to bits in minutes

It's all this question of 'beneficial ownership' though isn't it. This is where the waters are muddied.

The problem VOR is the football league legitimised Holdings by approving the transfer of player registrations last summer. This isn't cut and dry.

ccfc92 said:

Just wondering.... If the player contracts and assests etc are in holdings, can the administrator get them transferred over to Ltd, by court ruling? And if not, does this mean ltd is worthless?

Click to expand...

Alternatively Holdings are stuck with a mass of employees on expensive contracts that are unable to do their job as holdings have no right to field a football team.

Multiple cases of constructive dismissal here? Team become free agents and are then signed by Limited that are eligible to field a team in the league.

Jim said:

Alternatively Holdings are stuck with a mass of employees on expensive contracts that are unable to do their job as holdings have no right to field a football team.

Multiple cases of constructive dismissal here? Team become free agents and are then signed by Limited that are eligible to field a team in the league.

Click to expand...

But the football league can choose whether holdings or ltd have the right to the golden share. That's what ACLs preferred administrator brendon whatshisface. And Appleton said the importance of the golden share has been exaggerated by the media and social networks

Players contracts of clubs who go out of business become the property of the Football League. The only ones of any value are Murphy and Leon Clarke.

Jim said:

Alternatively Holdings are stuck with a mass of employees on expensive contracts that are unable to do their job as holdings have no right to field a football team.

Multiple cases of constructive dismissal here? Team become free agents and are then signed by Limited that are eligible to field a team in the league.

Click to expand...

Which is basically what Rangers did-it is then of course up to all employees as to whether they agree to switch or leave there and then.

Otis said:

It's all this question of 'beneficial ownership' though isn't it. This is where the waters are muddied.

Click to expand...

Its an Interesting one Otis.

OSB explained it on here at some point I think .

While it sounds onerous and difficult to oppose the notion,he made the distinction that Holdings don't pay things instead of LTd but on behalf of them ,that difference is subtle but significant .

So there's no way other teams can cherrypick our best players first? We have first refusal on them all or...?

ccfc92 said:

So there's no way other teams can cherrypick our best players first? We have first refusal on them all or...?

Click to expand...

Assuming such a scenario is plausible then it is entirely up to the players.

I managed to listen to SL interviews with both TF and PKBH in full.

According to TF there is nothing of value in Limited worth buying.

My thoughts on this is that, at the time that ACL applied to HC to put CCFC Ltd in administration, Ltd held assets of value. Between that point and SISU putting Ltd in administration themselves, those assets had been transferred to Holdings. All that was left in Limited were liabilities and the Golden Share. Quite why the Golden Share was left in Limited I can only assume was a huge cock up.
Based on what TF has said about Limited, one would assume that CCFC Holdings/SISU et al would therefore not be interested in buying Limited out of administration and are banking on Limited being liquidated and the Golden Share being handed over to Holdings.

PKBH has said that ACL have spoken to 5 interested parties yet the administrator has said there are 8 interested parties.

My thoughts on this are that ACL would only know about which interested parties wish to purchase a share of ACL. The Administrator would not reveal to anyone who the bidders are. So there are another 3 interested parties which ACL have no knowledge of. Are these 3 parties SISU related, or even TF himself. This would explain why ACL have no knowledge of them, because those parties would not be interested in anything ACL/CCC related. If this were the case, it shoots down in flames TF statement about nothing of value in Ltd.

My conclusion therefore, is that once again, TF is full of shit.

My expectations are that nobody will bid for Limited by deadline of 31st May. So far there are only expressions of interest subject to etc etc.
Limited will be wound up and the GS will go to Holdings.:facepalm:

sorry guys im sure its probably been mentioned before but if sisu were to bid to buy the club would they be seen as the prefered bidder.

'If?'

If they are building a new stadium they have to bid don't they?

BrisbaneBronco said:

I managed to listen to SL interviews with both TF and PKBH in full.

According to TF there is nothing of value in Limited worth buying.

My thoughts on this is that, at the time that ACL applied to HC to put CCFC Ltd in administration, Ltd held assets of value. Between that point and SISU putting Ltd in administration themselves, those assets had been transferred to Holdings. All that was left in Limited were liabilities and the Golden Share. Quite why the Golden Share was left in Limited I can only assume was a huge cock up.
Based on what TF has said about Limited, one would assume that CCFC Holdings/SISU et al would therefore not be interested in buying Limited out of administration and are banking on Limited being liquidated and the Golden Share being handed over to Holdings.

PKBH has said that ACL have spoken to 5 interested parties yet the administrator has said there are 8 interested parties.

My thoughts on this are that ACL would only know about which interested parties wish to purchase a share of ACL. The Administrator would not reveal to anyone who the bidders are. So there are another 3 interested parties which ACL have no knowledge of. Are these 3 parties SISU related, or even TF himself. This would explain why ACL have no knowledge of them, because those parties would not be interested in anything ACL/CCC related. If this were the case, it shoots down in flames TF statement about nothing of value in Ltd.

My conclusion therefore, is that once again, TF is full of shit.

My expectations are that nobody will bid for Limited by deadline of 31st May. So far there are only expressions of interest subject to etc etc.
Limited will be wound up and the GS will go to Holdings.:facepalm:

Click to expand...

Good post but as you say there is Value in LTD and 8 bidders may inflate that price,once past that Hurdle you are one on one with Holdings ,Currently what is Holdings Worth.

Otis said:

'If?'

If they are building a new stadium they have to bid don't they?

Click to expand...

You would like to think so!!!

Otis said:

'If?'

If they are building a new stadium they have to bid don't they?

Click to expand...

the "if"wasnt a big "if", just a liitle one in the sentence. i should have used as. really sorry for the misunderstanding otis

I wish Linnell would have quizzed him more on some of his answers.

He said at one point that the football side has always been in holdings, and yet the accounts of Ltd from 2011 shows a turnover of £10.2m and a wage bill of £10.3m - so what do these represent??? - remember these were accounts signed off by Fisher himself so he should know the answer.

The principal activity of Ltd is listed as "PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB"
The principal activity of Holdings is listed as "HOLDING COMPANY WHOSE SUBSIDIARY IS ENGAGED IN PLAYING ACTIVITIES OF A PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB"

jas365 said:

I wish Linnell would have quizzed him more on some of his answers.

He said at one point that the football side has always been in holdings, and yet the accounts of Ltd from 2011 shows a turnover of £10.2m and a wage bill of £10.3m - so what do these represent??? - remember these were accounts signed off by Fisher himself so he should know the answer.

The principal activity of Ltd is listed as "PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB"
The principal activity of Holdings is listed as "HOLDING COMPANY WHOSE SUBSIDIARY IS ENGAGED IN PLAYING ACTIVITIES OF A PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB"

Click to expand...

It's difficult to believe that SL isn't aware of these facts, so why didn't he ask these - very obvious and very important - questions?

Voice_of_Reason said:

I keep saying, ignore what Fisher says ! In my opinion he just spouts rubbish ! Linnel yesterday ? What a crap interview and the bloke who phoned in was just as bad !

Click to expand...

It might be crap he's coming out with, but when he does the interviewer (who you would think would have access to the same info we do and has done his research) should be grilling him - Fisher get's too easy a ride on CWR and in the CET - hopefully the forums will be different.

I'd like to go to one to try and put these questions to him but I won't get an invite after what I put on the recent survey.

Fisher only appeared because Linnel is a patsy.
Linnel: pathologically incapable of asking a straight question which runs contrary to his own prejudice.
He comes over as a bit thick, t b brutally honest.

If this goes to court its because Sisu have appealed against the FA telling the LTD company has the right to sell tickets, use the name and most importantly the right to join the league...If this happens Sisu are left with nothing no ground no income no rights just alot of staff who need payin,, players will leave due to breach of contract and become free agents......Just my guess and opinion, all can post alternatives but the FA will make the rule and that when we will see what fight TF has..

Sisu FIT AND PROPER my arse!!!! fit and proper to fook things up while playing with a club that has been a part of our cities heart for a very long time....

Players should do what they did at Rangers

Fisher seems to believe that after this 3 or whatever year period in exile, the club will come back to the Coventry area and all the supporters will dutifully turn up, irrespective of what League we are playing in by then. Many fans have already said they will not go to "home games" at Walsall or wherever. There will also be fans who perhaps don't use internet forums who will not go because they can't afford the travelling costs or the extra time involved. There is a great danger that there will be nothing for the club to come back to. People are creatures of habit, they will have found something else to do on Saturday afternoons, whether it is shopping with the family, DIY, watching Jeff Stelling on TV or maybe watching a local non-league side. It will be very difficult to persuade people to come to the SISU arena and watch League 2 or even Blue Square Premier football.

RogerH said:

Fisher seems to believe that after this 3 or whatever year period in exile, the club will come back to the Coventry area and all the supporters will dutifully turn up, irrespective of what League we are playing in by then. Many fans have already said they will not go to "home games" at Walsall or wherever. There will also be fans who perhaps don't use internet forums who will not go because they can't afford the travelling costs or the extra time involved. There is a great danger that there will be nothing for the club to come back to. People are creatures of habit, they will have found something else to do on Saturday afternoons, whether it is shopping with the family, DIY, watching Jeff Stelling on TV or maybe watching a local non-league side. It will be very difficult to persuade people to come to the SISU arena and watch League 2 or even Blue Square Premier football.

Click to expand...

Spot on.just one point the club will not be coming back to coventry.the land they are after is under another council durastiction.rugby or Nuneaton and beduff coventry won't have a club in coventry if the lunatic gets his way.

DazzleTommyDazzle said:

It's difficult to believe that SL isn't aware of these facts, so why didn't he ask these - very obvious and very important - questions?

Click to expand...

He's got a different Agenda ,be that dubious or based in Political intrigues .RICOHGATE headlines are beckoning .A Deepthroat moment is

imminent .The Agenda is set in Tandem with Inside Track,.An Expose of a Triangle of Enormous deceptions,where each party is unaware of

the Clandestine offers being made to one or other parties "Simultaniously".

Then just as Security an Illegal plot to defruad a Bank .If only we were privelidged enough to see these Documents ,all would become

Evident .Did'nt the Watergate Scandal originate through the use of recording technology. Play us the Tape SL ,it would be Crass naivety to

approach these types of negotiation without word for word transcripts,would'nt it??

jas365 said:

I wish Linnell would have quizzed him more on some of his answers.

He said at one point that the football side has always been in holdings, and yet the accounts of Ltd from 2011 shows a turnover of £10.2m and a wage bill of £10.3m - so what do these represent??? - remember these were accounts signed off by Fisher himself so he should know the answer.

The principal activity of Ltd is listed as "PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB"
The principal activity of Holdings is listed as "HOLDING COMPANY WHOSE SUBSIDIARY IS ENGAGED IN PLAYING ACTIVITIES OF A PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB"

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure OSB posted something last week saying that Holdings had been in operation from 1908 (?) and that ltd was only created in 1995. So perhaps that's what he was inplying?

stupot07 said:

I'm pretty sure OSB posted something last week saying that Holdings had been in operation from 1908 (?) and that ltd was only created in 1995. So perhaps that's what he was inplying?

Click to expand...

But the principal activity of each company clearly shows that Ltd is the football club, not Holdings. Remember these are in the published accounts signed off by Fisher himself

ccfc92 said:

Just wondering.... If the player contracts and assests etc are in holdings, can the administrator get them transferred over to Ltd, by court ruling? And if not, does this mean ltd is worthless?

Click to expand...

Or if CCFC Ltd is the football club can the Football League transfer them to the club that is one of their members instead of a third party with no club and no stadium?

Does the option to purchase 50% of the Ricoh from ACL vest in CCFC Ltd or CCFC(Holdings) Ltd.

If it is held by CCFC Ltd (as I suspect) and that company is liquidated then the option must be null and void and the field is opened for any 3rd party to come in and buy 50% of the Arena, including the owners of another football club.

Latest odds from Betfair:

Preston Haskell IV takes over CCFC Ltd, buys Higgs share in ACL, gets golden share from FL and FA: 6/5

Mystery buyer takes over CCFC Ltd, buys Higgs share in ACL, gets golden share from FL and FA: 12/1

Situation unresolved by FL deadline - CCFC denied entry to League 1: 20/1

CCFC liquidated: 33/1

Sisu retain control, groundshare at Walsall while building a new stadium: 100/1

jas365 said:

But the principal activity of each company clearly shows that Ltd is the football club, not Holdings. Remember these are in the published accounts signed off by Fisher himself

Click to expand...

This is absolutely the point. What Fisher signs (accounts etc) is at odds with what he says. That is the problem.

I was a shareholder up until the SISU takeover. For the record I didn't sign my shares over to them and I still have the shareholders certificate. Historically Holdings was not the football club and it seems to be the case with the last accounts signed by Fisher.

I work with administrators on occasion and I spoke to one the other day about this. CCFC Ltd's administrator has said that he will investigate the conduct of the directors who have served over the last few years. This is very important. The auditors failed to sign accounts last year until undertakings were given by SISU which it could be argued make the case that without the funding from SISU the club was already insolvent. It is illegal to trade an insolvent company however, the company wouldn't be insolvent with the SISU funding. It is also illegal to transfer assets out of an insolvent (or nearly insolvent) company where those asset transfers are to the detriment of creditors. IF the club moved player registrations over the last season or so from CCFC Ltd to Holdings then this could constitute wrongfully transferring assets (that have a value) to another business in order to avoid loss of those assets in a case of insolvency.

From what I read it seems that assets (players / contracts etc) might have been transferred to Holdings during the period where the company was distressed. They then stopped paying rent to a major supplier and then claimed that there were no assets in the company. This might constitute a deliberate act to bankrupt the club without its assets and could prove costly to the directors and / owners as it deflates the value available to creditors - especially if the transfers were made without the knowledge of creditors.


This saga has a very long way to run and will end up making lawyers very rich and might cause some of the club's former board members some future difficulties. As a director of a limited company (I am one) the concept of 'limited liability' is really not there. If the directors of any company transfer assets to another group business in an effort to dump debt prior to insolvency they could be in some bother under the Companies Act(s).