Official statement (1 Viewer)

sw88 · Mar 26, 2013

Coventry City Football Club have released a statement following the outcome of this morning's High Court hearing.

Tim Fisher, CEO Coventry Football Club said: "I acknowledge that ACL has now accepted that it must withdraw its administration application from the High Court notwithstanding the fact that this was an unwelcome and unnecessary distraction.

"I hope all parties will now focus on re-establishing a constructive dialogue for the good of the Club and football in Coventry. We would like to ensure that Coventry City Football Club can, in the first instance, continue to play its remaining home matches this season at the Ricoh Arena.”

sw88 · Mar 26, 2013

I don't like the first paragraph. Seems the club are still being childish and pointing blame at ACL, as if they've done something wrong!

I somehow for think ACL caused an "unwelcome and unnecessary distraction" all on their own did they Fisher

warwickcccfc · Mar 26, 2013

So it's not Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd. now, eh, Timmy?

He sounds like he is declaring victory....

The Penguin · Mar 26, 2013

An "unwelcome and unnecessary distraction" it may have been, but a bit rich considering we were put into administration by our own owners!

warwickcccfc · Mar 26, 2013

There needs to be some protests against this prick on Friday.

Gray · Mar 26, 2013

warwickcccfc said:
There needs to be some protests against this prick on Friday.

get the bed sheets out! (and dont forget the fire certificate)

Delboycov · Mar 26, 2013

It beggars belief the arrogance of that man...amateurish crap as per usual.

ashbyjan · Mar 26, 2013

Question - will ACL have to do a deal with CCFC or administrator over last three matches? If its administrator its out of Fishers hands.

chiefdave · Mar 26, 2013

he hasn't said it's business as usual, I'm worried!

warwickcccfc · Mar 26, 2013

ashbyjan said:
Question - will ACL have to do a deal with CCFC or administrator over last three matches? If its administrator its out of Fishers hands.

But, Jan, if the administrator has been appointed by SISU, then I assume that he will be serving SISU's and Timmy's interests...??

chiefdave · Mar 26, 2013

ashbyjan said:
Question - will ACL have to do a deal with CCFC or administrator over last three matches? If its administrator its out of Fishers hands.

As far as I'm aware from what's been happening down here with Pompey the administator has total control which makes it a bit odd that TF is the one making statements.

ajsccfc · Mar 26, 2013

It's impressive that he wrote such a professional statement whilst seemingly jamming his fingers in his ears and shouting LALALALALALALA

ashbyjan · Mar 26, 2013

warwickcccfc said:
But, Jan, if the administrator has been appointed by SISU, then I assume that he will be serving SISU's and Timmy's interests...??

In effect he will be running the club - thats not the same as doing Fisher's bidding. Basically Fisher has no right to be issuing statements as he is no longer in charge Paul Appleton is.

oldskyblue58 · Mar 26, 2013

From TF's point of view though he is still saying CCFCH is running the football club so he is entitled to issue statements. Yes I know the facts apparently do not support that but hey when has that stopped TF saying something. CCFCH as yet is not in administration.

Sub · Mar 26, 2013

is fisher on drugs? how deluded can one person be? we are in administration, a 10 points deduction, more or less homless, no money and he carries on like nothing is wrong :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

warwickcccfc · Mar 26, 2013

ashbyjan said:
In effect he will be running the club - thats not the same as doing Fisher's bidding. Basically Fisher has no right to be issuing statements as he is no longer in charge Paul Appleton is.

I agree with that, Jan...but in business we know that all is not fair.

So, why did SISU so desperately want to appoint their own administrator? Does it put their interest first?

mattylad · Mar 26, 2013

ashbyjan said:
In effect he will be running the club - thats not the same as doing Fisher's bidding. Basically Fisher has no right to be issuing statements as he is no longer in charge Paul Appleton is.

thats not right, TF remains the CEO regardless and as long as he is not making financial statements can say whatever he likes.

SonofErnie · Mar 26, 2013

An administrator has legal obligations. If he doesn't discharge these in the right and prope manner then I assume he can become liable, which is the underlying reason for the clearnace of the club shop etc. In other words SISU shouldn't have undue influence over his actions.

ajsccfc · Mar 26, 2013

warwickcccfc said:
So, why did SISU so desperately want to appoint their own administrator? Does it put their interest first?

It might be a face-saving exercise, where they can portray it as their choice rather than something forced upon them. Choosing an administrator is really as much influence as they ought to have over the matter now.

CovLis86 · Mar 26, 2013

What a ridiculous statement. Hoping that people only read off the official sites. Only takes reading the quotes from the lawyers at the court to see acl withdrew as the company was already in administration... As put in by SISU themselves! So if administration is an unwelcome distraction... They did it to themselves!

BrisbaneBronco · Mar 26, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
From TF's point of view though he is still saying CCFCH is running the football club so he is entitled to issue statements. Yes I know the facts apparently do not support that but hey when has that stopped TF saying something. CCFCH as yet is not in administration.

CCFCH not in admin till after 2pm today if judge decides they already are, and if not could ACL lodge new application and go after CCFCH to stop liquidation???

SonofErnie · Mar 26, 2013

BrisbaneBronco said:
CCFCH not in admin till after 2pm today if judge decides they already are, and if not could ACL lodge new application and go after CCFCH to stop liquidation???

Even so, the bit with the league share cannot be liquidated by SISU (it can by the administrator). Is it therefore possible for a new owner the take over the league share and start up with a completely new squad of players ? I suppose this would bring into question the ownership of Coventry City the brand, it's history and the physical assets such as Ryton.

mattylad · Mar 26, 2013

BrisbaneBronco said:
CCFCH not in admin till after 2pm today if judge decides they already are, and if not could ACL lodge new application and go after CCFCH to stop liquidation???

Why would they even if they could, its already been established that the debt is owed by CCFC Ltd and that the FL share is with CCFC Ltd?

procdoc · Mar 26, 2013

ARE WE IN ADMIN OR NOT??? I am really confused about this!

Stevec189 · Mar 26, 2013

procdoc said:
ARE WE IN ADMIN OR NOT??? I am really confused about this!

Yes and er no! CCFC Ltd yes, CCFC Holdings to be decided...........(but should be IMHO).

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 26, 2013

What a fecking antagonistic amateur. Using the club's website to spout his politik half way through a day in court? And people wonder why a deal can't be struck with this imbecile?!?

rob9872 · Mar 26, 2013

ACL can not go after CCFCH becuase they don't owe them anything.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 26, 2013

rob9872 said:
ACL can not go after CCFCH becuase they don't owe them anything.

Unless they can prove that CCFCH and CCFC Limited are effectively one entity; with assets and liabilities moved betwixt and between purely to suit the ambition of the owner, surely?

After all, Fisher himself stated: 'In day-to-day activities there is little distinction between the two companies'?!?

Brighton Sky Blue · Mar 26, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
What a fecking antagonistic amateur. Using the club's website to spout his politik half way through a day in court? And people wonder why a deal can't be struck with this imbecile?!?

If even Grendel has turned against him his days must surely be numbered.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 26, 2013

Brighton Sky Blue said:
If even Grendel has turned against him his days must surely be numbered.

Surely, this must signal the ultimate coup de grace is imminent for the floppy-haired one?

Brighton Sky Blue · Mar 26, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Surely, this must signal the ultimate coup de grace is imminent for the floppy-haired one?

You'd have to think so. His actions will now lead to a points deduction-how much remains to be seen but it's utterly unforgiveable.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 26, 2013

Brighton Sky Blue said:
If even Grendel has turned against him his days must surely be numbered.

I tell you what gets me, Brighton (well, many things do, actually but specifically on this one); in SISU's recent opportunity to be 'open' with the Trust, they answered no questions; in stark contrast to ACL's position - citing sub judice in response to every point.

Then, use the official site to post a 'view' on there on Saturday morning, which they then have to pull, redact and repost after it's evident they've misrepresented ACL's position; and then today, they're offering up this crap half way through a day in court.

In fact, who even owns the domain name they're using? CCFCH? CCFCL?

TurkeyTrot · Mar 26, 2013

MMM they answered the questions, then after the answers were sent back to both ACL and SISU, ACL replied saying print SISU said the Trust couldn't print their answers claiming sub judice.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 26, 2013

TurkeyTrot said:
MMM they answered the questions, then after the answers were sent back to both ACL and SISU, ACL replied saying print SISU said the Trust couldn't print their answers claiming sub judice.

Ah. I see. That's useful. A bit like Jim Bowen bringing out the speedboat on Bullseye when the couple from Corby hadn't got 101 'or more'?

Brighton Sky Blue · Mar 26, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I tell you what gets me, Brighton (well, many things do, actually but specifically on this one); in SISU's recent opportunity to be 'open' with the Trust, they answered no questions; in stark contrast to ACL's position - citing sub judice in response to every point.

Then, use the official site to post a 'view' on there on Saturday morning, which they then have to pull, redact and repost after it's evident they've misrepresented ACL's position; and then today, they're offering up this crap half way through a day in court.

In fact, who even owns the domain name they're using? CCFCH? CCFCL?

As has already been stated they gave answers but were 'advised' not to publish them. You are right though that it seems a little contradictory to this to go and release factually incorrect statements relating to the case.

Official statement (1 Viewer)

Chief Commentator!

Chief Commentator!

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

New Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency