talk sport asking for cov fans to call in - Fisher Interview (1 Viewer)

Well like it or lump it but 1 of the best ways to get rid of this mob is to go and support the team...it gives Shitsu money, you can sit at home on principles if you like but the real way to get rid of these fuckers is get out support the team make the profit bigger make the club more saleable. Pains me to say it but by starving them of money is only affecting the team...ohh I don't fucking know what the answer is I am on a ramble but please let these fucking care-less bastards goooooooo

Tonight we need informed callers to pose searching questions of TF rather than all the emotion since TF obviously doesn't care about being emotionally engaged. He's been given a brief to 'steady the ship' and hold the asset whilst awaiting the right bid. He actually thinks he's done a good job by reducing 15MM losses and turning a 1MM profit. SISU think he's a genius, the more flack he takes the more impressed they are.

Kind of curious how they can invest 70m+ in the club --- the debt on the books is nowhere that figure and they claim to never taken a penny out of the club.
accounts certainly don't show 70m going in.

stupot07 said:

No idea on dann but leaked documents on fox (on CT) was substantially less than the paper talk. After the sell on clause IIRC thr profit was a mere £225k. That leads me to suspect most 'reported' figures are way out.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Yeah, but the accounts don't lie. Player sales income would be identified in accounts, both 'up front' fees and staged payments. Over time it'll be fully declared in accounts. I was wondering if anyone has tracked accounts over the 9 year tenure and looked at total expenditure against total income and seen the true net balance - which I think would be very, very positive; and to understand how this sits against the claimed £70m 'invested'. I would just like this 'lie' outed once and for all, by a decent interviewer, armed with facts, not Fisher's fantasy

skybluesam66 said:

we got 700k for borrowdale - 1m for loan of conor thomas. Both confirmed to be by ranson

Click to expand...

That sounds like amazing business!

The other problem with TF is he thinks he's a 'football man' talking bollocks about tactics and how Burton 'found Mowbray out' tactically. So when he hears supporters saying we need 'football people' running the club, he actually thinks he is. He has said that we currently have no offers on the table and his brief is to hold out until we do. It's only then that SISU cover some of the losses potentially.

oldskyblue58 said:

It's times like this I wish I was back in the office not able to waste time listening to that bollocks.

Only new thing was about the ball boys.

Sisu not part of the club just investors....... employees of the company make day to day decisions (buying paper clips etc) ....... Sisu decide on things like sales of assets (players,land etc)..... doesn't sound uninvolved to me, which is the more important decisions? Which decisions are fundamental to the club

Invested 70m upwards.... How where? .... if so the accounts he signed off are fundamentally wrong.

The fans are scaring investors away, detrimental to player performance with their protests, are a bad advert......... perhaps he would prefer his customers and major source of income didn't turn up at all.

It's a good business and the aim is to breakeven...... really, in any other business sector it would have gone bust, the only way it breakeven is by getting smaller and smaller and keeping fingers crossed....... What is the definition of breakeven, is the 1m profit before for after interest?

Same old smoke and mirrors, misdirection, and lack of responsibility.

I wouldn't get hopes up for tonight on cwr

Click to expand...

please can you ring up this evening and pin him down on some of these things?

Grendel said:

I think it's saying the opposite. As a non loss making concern the strategy is far far more likely to be remain rather than recognise losses and write them off.

Click to expand...

In fact that was one of the points fisher made

He will evade

tisza said:

please can you ring up this evening and pin him down on some of these things?

Click to expand...

I would pay good money to listen to OSB58 grilling Fisher. Pull up by the wireless with a few mince pies and listen to him being pulled apart seems to be a grand start to the weekend

all this about realised losses etc. sisus auditors should be challenged as an investment should be valued at lowest of cost and value - and any shortfall should be written off when recognised (not when realised) = so some dodgy accounting going on there Tim

Sterling Archer said:

........

SISU now see that we are no longer hemorrhaging £15m a year and running at £1m a year. As far as they are concerned, they have an asset which is making them £1m a year. Makes sense from a business sense why they haven't just washed their hands off us now. Makes zero sense if you remember a football club is not and shouldn't be treated like a business.

Click to expand...

We're slipping down the league, relegation a real possiblity, which means less TV money, less bums on seats, less revenue. If that happens and TF cuts his cloth accordingly, that presumably means he has to cut the budget to break even.
So, while it's currently making £1M a year (and thats presumably because of player sales), the value surely will go down as will that profit margin. It'll never be worth what they alledgedly have put into it.

Fisher famously said you don't sell at the bottom of a cycle. Thing is with cycles, they go round. We aren't in a cycle, we're in a downward spiral. Someone has to break that spiral, turn it into a cycle, and SISU aren't prepared to get involved and do that.

So I'd like to ask Fisher, how much would SISU accept from a buyer to sell? Say some fool offered them £20M. CURRENTLY, It'll take SISU at least 20 years to make that in the current Fisher bowel. And thats assuming the above doesn't happen, and we dont make any profits.

Why not take that £20M, stick it in the bank, and make more profit that you ever will at CCFC with your lack of investment and ambition.

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:

Yeah, but the accounts don't lie. Player sales income would be identified in accounts, both 'up front' fees and staged payments. Over time it'll be fully declared in accounts. I was wondering if anyone has tracked accounts over the 9 year tenure and looked at total expenditure against total income and seen the true net balance - which I think would be very, very positive; and to understand how this sits against the claimed £70m 'invested'. I would just like this 'lie' outed once and for all, by a decent interviewer, armed with facts, not Fisher's fantasy

Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with you re: the £70m, I would think it would be more around half that, nowhere near £70m, I just don't believe our owners had the competence to get decent money for players and I take the reported figure with a pinch of salt.

I'd be surprised if OSB hasn't looked into this.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

remind you of anyone?

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:

Okay, what did we get then? It was 'reported' we got £4m for Dann - and I was using it by means of example, but if you've got an increased level of wisdom, let's have it. It'll add to the main ambition of my request, after all

http://www.coventrycity-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/divided_opinion_over_dann_sale_450391/index.shtml

Click to expand...

The net earnings on transfer fees were positive but let's remember when the club were taking over it was losing thousands a day

The wage bill was a huge issue. Ranson never addressed it and failed to make a penny on many players whose contracts ran down.

We then had the nonsensical decision to offer big contracts to the likes of Bell we ended up having to pay up. We've had bomb squads manager compensations and wage bills all exceeding revenues coming in.

stupot07 said:

I'm not disagreeing with you re: the £70m, I would think it would be more around half that, nowhere near £70m, I just don't believe our owners had the competence to get decent money for players and I take the reported figure with a pinch of salt.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I would be surprised if it's a quarter of that. All I'm asking for is the statement of expenditure and income for players from accounts. That'll out all lies, and dampen hyperbole from excitable media reporting. Then to understand the true net position. At least then, Fisher - if challenged and unable to argue effectively back - might have to start in terms of talking about a true figure

tisza said:

please can you ring up this evening and pin him down on some of these things?

Click to expand...

Have met and tried face to face before and the result from Mr fisher was exactly what you would expect...... glib statements, little facts, contradictions and going off at tangents, ..... It's a pointless frustrating exercise and he doesn't care

Just my opinion of course

Grendel said:

The net earnings on transfer fees were positive but let's remember when the club were taking over it was losing thousands a day

The wage bill was a huge issue. Ranson never addressed it and failed to make a penny on many players whose contracts ran down.

We then had the nonsensical decision to offer big contracts to the likes of Bell we ended up having to pay up. We've had bomb squads manager compensations and wage bills all exceeding revenues coming in.

Click to expand...

Surely, your first point suggests that administration was the best option then; giving opportunity to renegotiate contracts - including that of the council and it's ludicrous rent too?

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:

I would be surprised if it's a quarter of that. All I'm asking for is the statement of expenditure and income for players from accounts. That'll out all lies, and dampen hyperbole from excitable media reporting. Then to understand the true net position. At least then, Fisher - if challenged and unable to argue effectively back - might have to start in terms of talking about a true figure

Click to expand...

Surely it isn't just about players bought or sold though?

ceetee said:

You can't come out with anything new if there''s nothing new to come out with.
Actually that's the first time I've heard the club officially say that they are going to appoint a new manager in january and there will be player business done

Click to expand...

We have a Budget (total costs including managers, coaches, players Wages & transfer fees) of over £2million, 90% of that is probably already spent leaving a tenner to buy a Nuneaton Player on £50 per week.

A new manager coming wanting his own backroom staff - more of the budget gone.
Sacking the existing backroom staff - payoffs will need to be made - more of the budget gone.

I think even Jim White is expecting the £2million budget to possibly be on Transfer fees alone - as he said he has Fishers' contact details and will be looking at what players come in.

I suppose the irony is his solution is to appoint the a different manager, with the same budget and then expects different results? This is the equivalent of the Captain of the titanic ignoring the fact that we're sinking but reorganizing the deck chairs.

2.5MM sounds a lot but if you look at it logically, since it has to cover transfer fees and wages then;

500K on assorted transfer fees and agents costs leaves 2.0MM

2.0 MM to cover a squad of 30 players = 65K average which means an average offering of 1.25K per week.

Not incredibly attractive is it, which why we're no in the lower reaches of the league 1 playing budget.

Sumo the Micky Quinn said:

We have a Budget (total costs including managers, coaches, players Wages & transfer fees) of over £2million, 90% of that is probably already spent leaving a tenner to buy a Nuneaton Player on £50 per week.

A new manager coming wanting his own backroom staff - more of the budget gone.
Sacking the existing backroom staff - payoffs will need to be made - more of the budget gone.

I think even Jim White is expecting the £2million budget to possibly be on Transfer fees alone - as he said he has Fishers' contact details and will be looking at what players come in.

Click to expand...

Why would it be on transfer fees alone?

it still comes down to the owners' definition of success now is not losing money rather than any football achievement.
this will generally always be opposite to what supporters want (within the bounds of sensible finances)

a question for Fisher is genuinely how to you intend to reconnect with the fanbase that still attends and with those that have stopped going if the focus is all about balancing the books?

Sterling Archer said:

I think the interesting point was mid L1, possibly slightly lower L1 budget.

So not top 6 and not bottom 6.

Click to expand...

Bit isn't just slightly lower than midtable, just above the relegation zone?

Doesn't that sort of point to only a slight underperformance at the moment?

We're probably just a win and a draw away from lower midtable.

Doesn't exactly fill us all with hope does it. How are we going to get out of this division with a lower than midtable budget?

Nick said:

Surely it isn't just about players bought or sold though?

Click to expand...

No, I agree. But if the figure - be it £70m, £40m or £30m - is only looking at expense, and ignoring income; then it's disingenuous. Almost every player - I think - we've invested money in, we've got that back plus more. Players, as assets are unique in being able to provide a return on investment.

It's like going to the bookies; placing a £20 bet and winning at 3/1 and still claiming you're £20 'down' as you originally handed the bookie a twenty

But other teams are managing to do it, they have players that would make a difference in our team,they manage to find players from somewhere...If we had the right manager ie someone who can actually spot a decent player as an asset rather than a fucking disgrace maybe the club might move forward instead of moving further back after every manager we have in charge !!

Otis said:

Bit isn't just slightly lower than midtable, just above the relegation zone?

Doesn't that sort of point to only a slight underperformance at the moment?

We're probably just a win and a draw away from lower midtable.

Doesn't exactly fill us all with hope does it. How are we going to get out of this division with a lower than midtable budget?

Click to expand...

quite easily- carry on the underperformance to the end of the season

Otis said:

Bit isn't just slightly lower than midtable, just above the relegation zone?

Doesn't that sort of point to only a slight underperformance at the moment?

We're probably just a win and a draw away from lower midtable.

Doesn't exactly fill us all with hope does it. How are we going to get out of this division with a lower than midtable budget?

Click to expand...

Which is exactly why he said it.

Budgets mean nothing - you could have the smallest budget in the league but the highest wage bill - it means nothing

He finally admitted that it is lower/mid league one budget!!!
It's 2 million.
Same old same old
Owners want success for football club.
Losing 15 million a year when he came in.
This year 1 million profit.
His aim is still and will continue to be to 'Breakeven' !!!!
SISU are not at the games. (Trying to suggest protest towards SISU at games. Pointless as they are not there)
Distancing himself from SISU.
If he gets it to breakeven they will not lose money and not realise their loses and they can just sit on it until the right bid comes along.
(Basically it would be bad for them to walk away as they then have to realise the loss at that point.)
(They are waiting for a bid then, so what is the figure???)
He thinks protests will put off new bidders (again trying to put off protests)
He thinks it is a good investment !!!!!!
Ha Jim white 'what new manager would want it?'
'Tim fisher I agree after last night'
Jim White 'no I mean why would they want it under SISU'

All the rubbish looking to co locate academy and first team.

Can SISU win over supporters?
No?
Then he attacked the protest again.
Tried to suggest protest has caused the players performance to dip.
Jim white defending fans saying they are good people and they have a case.
Fair play Jim White.

Saying ballboys frightened and crying and he had a message saying someone was ashamed to be a CCFC fan.

Admits SISU make decisions on player sales (despite trying to disassociate SISU and CCFC)

Won't say how much new manager will have.

It is quite clear from this interview the protests are definitely having an impact and SISU want them stopped!!!

So folks his number 1 priority is breakeven. We are not there yet, and we have a mid low division 3 budget.
It will only get worse. !!!

He has screwed up a bit in trying to halt the protests he was making out SISU won't know about the protests. Talksport are taking that as the owners aren't interested in the club.
Mr Fisher had to backtrack a bit then saying maybe they are listening to this interview maybe they were watching last night 'who knows'
Hilarious they were watching and listening and he knows that.

(Posted this at the time of the interview on the wrong thread sorry)

january will be loans out/new loans in

maybe 1 or 2 perms if out of contract or their club mutual termination of contract

skybluesam66 said:

if no money is spent in january talksport will be knocking on his door

Click to expand...

Of course money will be spent in January. We will have to sell players first though and I bet there is more money coming in than going out.

Adjustments will be made for the lower attendances.

Therefore expect Willis and Stevenson to go and cheaper alternatives to come in.

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:

No, I agree. But if the figure - be it £70m, £40m or £30m - is only looking at expense, and ignoring income; then it's disingenuous. Almost every player - I think - we've invested money in, we've got that back plus more. Players, as assets are unique in being able to provide a return on investment.

It's like going to the bookies; placing a £20 bet and winning at 3/1 and still claiming you're £20 'down' as you originally handed the bookie a twenty

Click to expand...

It's not about we as in CCFC though, they are on about the money SISU have invested aren't they?

maybe he is including the historic debt they converted into shares in this 70m+ ?

Nick said:

It's not about we as in CCFC though, they are on about the money SISU have invested aren't they?

Click to expand...

He'll be talking about headline investment - which ignores any offset income if players are latterly sold. That's the point I'm making