This deserves its own thread Old Sky Blue (7 Viewers)

Wrenstreetcarpark · Apr 27, 2012

oldskyblue58 said:
I am pretty certain that both the charity and council will have appointed some high powered accountants and lawyers to help them deal with SISU. They have had plenty of experience as to how SISU operate and are fore warned.

Even if they have, and it would be surprising if they hadn't, they are having to deal with a bucket load of mercury tipped on a sloping board, or a bag full of snakes: take your pick, but dealing with Sisu can be no picnic. If Mutton does come out in public when Sisu press his buttons it can't be a surprise. Maybe it is what they want, another diversion.

The judges summing up on an earlier thread really shows what they are having to deal with:

Ms Seppala was the least satisfactory of all the witnesses. I fear Ms Seppala has a
distorted recollection of some events – particularly about what happened at the meetings
in New York in January 2005 – and, with the benefit of hindsight, has introduced a “spin”
(I am sorry not to be able to find a better word) which suits the Applicants’ case. She is
also prone to exaggerate – the Respondents would characterise it as lying, but I give her
the benefit of the doubt on that – for instance her suggestion (eventually withdrawn by
her) that Mr Wallace had “continually” represented to the Applicants that the RCF Banks
had a strong direct claim against TXU Corp when in fact he never said that at all. She also
recollects (and she may well have believed what she was saying) events which did not, as
I conclude, take place (namely a conversation with Mr Wallace “in a small room” and Mr
Olin reading and explaining a position paper in New York on 11 January 2005.

I repeat it without apology because at the centre of all of this is Joy Seppala, and this is her track record.

HateFootball · Apr 27, 2012

oldskyblue58 said:
I agree, these matters are best dealt with calmly away from the press however SISU's appointed representatives (the directors) have never been shy to paint the council in a poor light press wise in the past. It isnt all one sided and politicians are apt to seek publicity in election years as much as businessmen with an agenda use the press to their own ends when it suits.

The CCFC Board make announcements etc but trouble is SISU themselves say very very little and that has actually been counter productive. It wasnt the council that generated the atmosphere of mistrust that exists, that was very much derived from the Board of CCFC and its owners. They have been almost dismissive of the Council in the past and that was less than helpful.

Your point of view on SISU is a very popular one.

However, I believe SISU has retained a quiet dignity in all of this (aside from Leonard Brody's embarrassing attempts to 'humanise' them). The club's malaise began with financial mis-management many years ago. SISU's investment struck me as an act of mindless optimism, staking hard cash in a business whose only assets were continuing to cost money and walked on two legs.

It's clear that a secretive hedge fund is not going to win many fans when times get tough, but CCFC needed a dose of financial reality after getting punch drunk on and addicted to Murdoch's millions. SISU is weaning the club off its unsustainable dependency on hand-outs and not before time. It was inevitable that this correction would have consequences for the game, but I believe it was (and remains) necessary and inevitable.

We all need someone to blame and unresponsive, faceless financiers are an easy target.

I realise this view is far from the consensus, but that's how I see it.

coundonskyblue · Apr 27, 2012

HateFootball said:
Your point of view on SISU is a very popular one.

However, I believe SISU has retained a quiet dignity in all of this (aside from Leonard Brody's embarrassing attempts to 'humanise' them). The club's malaise began with financial mis-management many years ago. SISU's investment struck me as an act of mindless optimism, staking hard cash in a business whose only assets were continuing to cost money and walked on two legs.

It's clear that a secretive hedge fund is not going to win many fans when times get tough, but CCFC needed a dose of financial reality after getting punch drunk on and addicted to Murdoch's millions. SISU is weaning the club off its unsustainable dependency on hand-outs and not before time. It was inevitable that this correction would have consequences for the game, but I believe it was (and remains) necessary and inevitable.

We all need someone to blame and unresponsive, faceless financiers are an easy target.

I realise this view is far from the consensus, but that's how I see it.

I don't really think that Sisu have weaned the club off handouts, more like cold turkey!

I have no problem with the club paying for itself, but if you take over a football club (promising to turn it around), then you have a responsibility to at least try and do that!

Please tell me at what point Sisu have tried to make the club financially self sustaining? Have they tried to buy (not bully the council into getting it for free) the stadium? No

Have they increased income streams by encouraging more fans to games? No

Have they stopped handing out silly contracts to the likes of David Bell? No

Sisu haven't a clue how to turn this club around, even to the point that they admit they got it wrong last summer.

dongonzalos · Apr 27, 2012

HateFootball said:
Your point of view on SISU is a very popular one.

However, I believe SISU has retained a quiet dignity in all of this (aside from Leonard Brody's embarrassing attempts to 'humanise' them). The club's malaise began with financial mis-management many years ago. SISU's investment struck me as an act of mindless optimism, staking hard cash in a business whose only assets were continuing to cost money and walked on two legs.

It's clear that a secretive hedge fund is not going to win many fans when times get tough, but CCFC needed a dose of financial reality after getting punch drunk on and addicted to Murdoch's millions. SISU is weaning the club off its unsustainable dependency on hand-outs and not before time. It was inevitable that this correction would have consequences for the game, but I believe it was (and remains) necessary and inevitable.

We all need someone to blame and unresponsive, faceless financiers are an easy target.

I realise this view is far from the consensus, but that's how I see it.

Sorry but you can't look past sisu. They are ruthless business people. Their job is invest others money and make money. They would have scrutinized those books when they took over coventry. Their dignified silence after scrutinizing the books was a very load undignified promise to have us promoted and owning half our stadium in three years. 5 years later no stadium and relegation. This is when we get the silence. Instead of a detailed plan for the future. This silence is allowing all these accusations. These are the type of people who deal with false accusations and ignore the truthful ones they can't repel.
You cannot free them of blame for our current situation. We were 20 mins from administration when they came in. Who knows who would have being in charge of us now if they had no saved they day with their messed up business plan. Admin would have killed most our debts.
So sorry sisu knew exactly what they were getting into. They came up with a bad business plan. They have made things worse. Now we maybe beyond saving.

coundonskyblue · Apr 27, 2012

Also does anyone else find it a little concerning that the Telegraph get their details mixed up over this Barber fellow and the club release a statement immediately setting the record straight, yet when CWR/Free Radio report that there are rumours of Liquidation the club is completely silent?

dongonzalos · Apr 27, 2012

coundonskyblue said:
Also does anyone else find it a little concerning that the Telegraph get their details mixed up over this Barber fellow and the club release a statement immediately setting the record straight, yet when CWR/Free Radio report that there are rumours of Liquidation the club is completely silent?

Exactly not just free radio but national radio and they have been pointing the finger directly at sisu

HateFootball · Apr 27, 2012

dongonzalos said:
Sorry but you can't look past sisu. They are ruthless business people. Their job is invest others money and make money. They would have scrutinized those books when they took over coventry. Their dignified silence after scrutinizing the books was a very load undignified promise to have us promoted and owning half our stadium in three years. 5 years later no stadium and relegation. This is when we get the silence. Instead of a detailed plan for the future. This silence is allowing all these accusations. These are the type of people who deal with false accusations and ignore the truthful ones they can't repel.
You cannot free them of blame for our current situation. We were 20 mins from administration when they came in. Who knows who would have being in charge of us now if they had no saved they day with their messed up business plan. Admin would have killed most our debts.
So sorry sisu knew exactly what they were getting into. They came up with a bad business plan. They have made things worse. Now we maybe beyond saving.

It's hard to argue with anything you say. I've said I disagreed with their investment in the first place, but the seeds of the current predicament were sown long before SISU spent some £40m of their investors' money. (How did you feel when the club was 'saved'?)

There were some pretty questionable land development deals and tax write-offs going on in 2005. We shouldn't ignore the directors' actions back then. This is where it started. Asset-stripping the club and a network of deals, (the details of which might one day come to light) culminating in a gun being held to shareholders' heads).

SISU tried to make a go of it but have failed so far. It's not without cost to them either. They took on a basket case and it would have been a minor miracle were it to have succeeded.

dongonzalos · Apr 27, 2012

HateFootball said:
It's hard to argue with anything you say. I've said I disagreed with their investment in the first place, but the seeds of the current predicament were sown long before SISU spent some £40m of their investors' money. (How did you feel when the club was 'saved'?)

There were some pretty questionable land development deals and tax write-offs going on in 2005. We shouldn't ignore the directors' actions back then. This is where it started. Asset-stripping the club and a network of deals, (the details of which might one day come to light) culminating in a gun being held to shareholders' heads).

SISU tried to make a go of it but have failed so far. It's not without cost to them either. They took on a basket case and it would have been a minor miracle were it to have succeeded.

I don't know bud I just have serious case if the fuckums. Just wish SISU would address accusations by keys Gould ACL and the council. Their reputation is been attacked. If they are not up to something why are they not taking this head on.
It tells me they are up to it. I just think we deserve a bit of honesty. Instead as we speak I think there are poor buggers out their spending their hard earned cash on season tickets. It is criminal.

Brighton Sky Blue · Apr 27, 2012

Agreed dongonzalos-and ticket sales are already pitiful even without this news.

blueflint · Apr 27, 2012

this dont look good what a shambles its our football club going down the drain

oldskyblue58 · Apr 27, 2012

HateFootball said:
Your point of view on SISU is a very popular one.

However, I believe SISU has retained a quiet dignity in all of this (aside from Leonard Brody's embarrassing attempts to 'humanise' them). The club's malaise began with financial mis-management many years ago. SISU's investment struck me as an act of mindless optimism, staking hard cash in a business whose only assets were continuing to cost money and walked on two legs.

It's clear that a secretive hedge fund is not going to win many fans when times get tough, but CCFC needed a dose of financial reality after getting punch drunk on and addicted to Murdoch's millions. SISU is weaning the club off its unsustainable dependency on hand-outs and not before time. It was inevitable that this correction would have consequences for the game, but I believe it was (and remains) necessary and inevitable.

We all need someone to blame and unresponsive, faceless financiers are an easy target.

I realise this view is far from the consensus, but that's how I see it.

with respect we were not talking about the financial causes of all this we were discussing the failure on both sides in the quality of communication. Most organisations will lose their way, alienate clients if the owners are not clear in their objectives, their plan to achieve them and their ability to communicate it. Few would or could argue there was clarity of plan or a willingness to engage or communicate on SISU's part.

Communication is a two way thing and CCFC is not a engineering company where the owners may choose to keep such communication to a minimum and remain aloof. Ownership of a football club carries a higher level of responsibility to the community in terms of communication. In that the Board and owners of the club have failed - a fact acknowledged only this week by Tim Fisher and previously by a director of SISU

You will not get an argument from me about the need to achieve fiscal balance and control - but then you wouldn't have got that argument 10 years ago either given my professional background. Plenty of evidence of my opinions in this respect on this site. Nor will you find that i single out the poor faceless money men for blame.

As for their original investment you really have to question why they made it in the first place. These are supposed to be skilled money men - makes you wonder about those skills. Hedge funds are a very different kind of football investor and back in 2005/06 I was warning with a few others about what could be coming our way. The only thing that has surprised me was that they lost direction and control from the off and it took 3 years plus to deal with the real issue. No club can live beyond its means and expect long term survival.

I would also take issue that the club has been weaned off the handouts. At the start the agreed plan of RR and SISU was based on handouts, it was from what i can see poorly controlled and executed. 3 years into the project they didnt wean CCFC off the hand outs so much as turn the tap off, that is knee jerk not a plan. The issue of wages and other overheads should have been tackled from the start yet instead a series of Boards failed to get to grips with it. This has resulted in where we are now, the brink of bankruptcy, a climate of distrust and alienated customers. It could be blamed just on the Board but SISU were fully engaged with that Board. There has been precious little addressing of the issues and even less quality of communication. You can argue that SISU are taking a dignified quiet stance if you like but right now they are at the centre of all decisions and the future is looking as bleak as it ever has.

Football is a people business - people engage best when there is clear communication. Supporters trust in the owners of clubs and that trust takes ages to build and minutes to break. SISU cannot be excused their part in the failure of these two aspects

I don't look for easy targets I look for responsibility - in that SISU share and as owners it is not a small share.

just my opinion

CCFCSteve · Apr 27, 2012

All interesting stuff. Fact is a debenture can only secure new monies invested. I'm surprised sisu didn't have a debenture from day one, I would've if I was investing millions into something. Strange they have suddenly done this now as in my eyes all the historical cash wouldn't be secured.

Is this a way of securing on going investment or them trying to do something a bit fishy ?!

Brighton Sky Blue · Apr 27, 2012

Very well put by OSB-at the end of the day, repeated lack of communication builds up distrust by the day. When supporters are digging up more information than local journalists, it's difficult to know who of the higher ups in Coventry are still worth trusting.

oldskyblue58 · Apr 27, 2012

CCFCSteve said:
All interesting stuff. Fact is a debenture can only secure new monies invested. I'm surprised sisu didn't have a debenture from day one, I would've if I was investing millions into something. Strange they have suddenly done this now as in my eyes all the historical cash wouldn't be secured.

Is this a way of securing on going investment or them trying to do something a bit fishy ?!

Not always so .....

say for example that ARVO provided some services to CCFC ............ not saying this is so but say ARVO obtained the services of certain advisors at say favourable amounts in respect of the club................. then they recharged this sum to CCFC at full value or a premium.... a sum they knew that CCFC couldnt repay..... that debt could be converted to a loan and secured by the assets covered by the debenture. Now is that new investment or is it a way of securing the assets to ARVO and taking those assets firmly out of the grasp of other creditors?

CCFCSteve · Apr 27, 2012

Agreed. But very much challengeable. Not sure how longs left of Lease but acl have a large contingent creditor claim and should/would be all over this.

Don't disagree that this might be the plan though

oldskyblue58 · Apr 27, 2012

CCFCSteve said:
Agreed. But very much challengeable. Not sure how longs left of Lease but acl have a large contingent creditor claim and should/would be all over this.

Don't disagree that this might be the plan though

CCFC have a 40 year lease on the Ricoh. If all the assets of CCFC are charged to ARVO then ACL can have a huge contingent liability claim it wont matter because there are no assets they can chase to satisfy it. The only remedy they have is to kick CCFC out

CCFCSteve · Apr 27, 2012

I'm suggesting as a substantial unsecured creditor they would challenge the debenture if arvo claimed it was valid. In my opinion it wouldn't be apart from over new investment in the club.

oldskyblue58 · Apr 27, 2012

dont think the debt is anywhere near as big as ARVO but i think the debt that will always control it is the amount owed to Sconset which is unsecured. Both are controlled by SISU. I think SISU are making this pretty water tight. But I see what you are saying .

A limiting factor is going to be time. To challenge it in court will take time and I dont think CCFc have much time to sort this out

Brighton Sky Blue · Apr 27, 2012

What's the betting on how long it takes this news to reach the CET?

CCFCSteve · Apr 27, 2012

They're not stupid that's for certain (apart from investing in a football club in the first place !!!!) Still think they could/should have secured their position a lot earlier and the debenture isnt currently worth much (unless left unchallenged). None of this fills me with much confidence though !

PVA · Apr 27, 2012

My word this thread has confused me. I'm not going to try and get my head round the details, so could someone summarise this news if possible by giving the following a percentage chance of happening...

Likelihood of us being liquidated
Likelihood of us going into admin
Not going into admin or being liquidated

Thanks

ccfcway · Apr 27, 2012

turn off the life support and lets start again....

I can honestly say that for the 1st time in years, not only will i not be either at the match or glued to the radio tomorrow, i wont even watch it if we are on tv.....

how ANYONE he given SISU 1p of funding for the coming season is beyond me.

dongonzalos · Apr 27, 2012

I have to agree, no one should be giving a penny to SISU until this matter is clarified

wingy · Apr 27, 2012

CCFCSteve said:
All interesting stuff. Fact is a debenture can only secure new monies invested. I'm surprised sisu didn't have a debenture from day one, I would've if I was investing millions into something. Strange they have suddenly done this now as in my eyes all the historical cash wouldn't be secured.

Is this a way of securing on going investment or them trying to do something a bit fishy ?!

Maybe this was investment but different from others as more recent and from one individual ,possibly the wife of a very rich American industrialist whose family Seppalla is very close too and proffessionally linked,rather than groups or organisatons investing ,apparently she will put in no more.

wingy · Apr 27, 2012

If this scenario pans out does it make us more saleable ,ie;the loans are toxic and gone ,so can they get more money up front to go?:thinking about:

dongonzalos · Apr 27, 2012

How can we ask this question to SISU? Does anybody know this John Clarke?

Grendel · Apr 27, 2012

dongonzalos said:
How can we ask this question to SISU? Does anybody know this John Clarke?

I have it on good authority he uses the same hair stylist as Joe Elliot.

MayallMan · Apr 28, 2012

kduffy said:
I have it on good authority he uses the same hair stylist as Joe Elliot.

Bigi's brother?

Wrenstreetcarpark · Apr 28, 2012

John Clarke is as irrelevant as he is obese. Rather than a puppet he is an inflatable michelin man put up by Sisu to give the appearance of someone local being involved. Seppala, advised by Deluded thought that this would give the Board some credibility but it has just added to the roll call of circus clowns we have had on the Board.

HateFootball · Apr 28, 2012

oldskyblue58 said:
with respect we were not talking about the financial causes of all this we were discussing the failure on both sides in the quality of communication. Most organisations will lose their way, alienate clients if the owners are not clear in their objectives, their plan to achieve them and their ability to communicate it. Few would or could argue there was clarity of plan or a willingness to engage or communicate on SISU's part.

Communication is a two way thing and CCFC is not a engineering company where the owners may choose to keep such communication to a minimum and remain aloof. Ownership of a football club carries a higher level of responsibility to the community in terms of communication. In that the Board and owners of the club have failed - a fact acknowledged only this week by Tim Fisher and previously by a director of SISU

You will not get an argument from me about the need to achieve fiscal balance and control - but then you wouldn't have got that argument 10 years ago either given my professional background. Plenty of evidence of my opinions in this respect on this site. Nor will you find that i single out the poor faceless money men for blame.

As for their original investment you really have to question why they made it in the first place. These are supposed to be skilled money men - makes you wonder about those skills. Hedge funds are a very different kind of football investor and back in 2005/06 I was warning with a few others about what could be coming our way. The only thing that has surprised me was that they lost direction and control from the off and it took 3 years plus to deal with the real issue. No club can live beyond its means and expect long term survival.

I would also take issue that the club has been weaned off the handouts. At the start the agreed plan of RR and SISU was based on handouts, it was from what i can see poorly controlled and executed. 3 years into the project they didnt wean CCFC off the hand outs so much as turn the tap off, that is knee jerk not a plan. The issue of wages and other overheads should have been tackled from the start yet instead a series of Boards failed to get to grips with it. This has resulted in where we are now, the brink of bankruptcy, a climate of distrust and alienated customers. It could be blamed just on the Board but SISU were fully engaged with that Board. There has been precious little addressing of the issues and even less quality of communication. You can argue that SISU are taking a dignified quiet stance if you like but right now they are at the centre of all decisions and the future is looking as bleak as it ever has.

Football is a people business - people engage best when there is clear communication. Supporters trust in the owners of clubs and that trust takes ages to build and minutes to break. SISU cannot be excused their part in the failure of these two aspects

I don't look for easy targets I look for responsibility - in that SISU share and as owners it is not a small share.

just my opinion

You're correct, I deviated from the main subject, but it's difficult not to when almost every post has a throw-away criticism of SISU. It's not just an undercurrent.

As for the objectives of a secretive hedge-fund, well they're not going to tell you are they?! I cannot understand why they wanted to get into league football except for the favourable debt arrangements clubs enjoy at the expense of the tax-payer. If it wasn't Derby or Man. C or Southampton, then any club would do. Just happened to be CCFC.

I've worked for a secretive hedge fund in London (bigger than SISU) and I can tell you that all they are interested in making as much money with as little risk as possible.

No emotion, no sentimentality, no commitment beyond RoI. Can't blame them for that. If you don't like it and you think you can do better, put a prospectus together, raise your own cash from investors and have a go yourself.

Harsh maybe, but that's the world we live in.

As for communication from a hedge fund. Well maybe fans' expectations were out of kilter with the realities of how fund managers like to keep their next move under wraps.

Where CCFC is concerned, SISU's strengths lie in the debt model of financing. If this goes to the end game, they will be playing at their home ground, with 12 men and a 2-0 aggregate from the first leg.

Tom Donnelly

oldskyblue58 · Apr 28, 2012

it isnt a matter of whether i like it or not is it ...... we have to deal with what is. Do i think it could have been done better - well yes but I bet SISU feel the same.

As for communication, well the whole game is based on communication - it isnt the fans that are out of kilter. Like it or not fans, managers, players, media etc have an expectation of communication that in the majority of clubs is addressed far better by the owners than at CCFC

Your summation of hedge funds is exactly what I thought from the off in 2006 - so no surprises there. To be honest the worst thing that any club can do is to become owned by one because the one is driven by cold hard money/profit the other by passion and loss. Hardly a marriage made in heaven. Do I blame them for living up to their objectives no, could they in general terms have been more communicative yes. No one expects them to give chapter and verse. Just because they have always been a certain way with regard to communication doesnt make it right and the lack of flexibility in out look is a weakness.

just my opinion

Wrenstreetcarpark · Apr 28, 2012

so perhaps some credit is due to Mutton, the Council, ACL etc for not just rolling over and believing what they are told by Seppala and Sisu.

HateFootball · Apr 28, 2012

PVA said:
My word this thread has confused me. I'm not going to try and get my head round the details, so could someone summarise this news if possible by giving the following a percentage chance of happening...

Likelihood of us being liquidated
Likelihood of us going into admin
Not going into admin or being liquidated

Thanks

Administration is a process to try and rescue a financially distressed organisation.

If the process fails, then it's the appointed receiver's duty to sell (liquidate) assets to pay creditors.

A business goes into adminstration either voluntarily or because a creditor has filed a petition to recover his or her monies and the company is found to be insolvent.

It's dangerous for a creditor to do this unless they are sure the company is totally without access to capital and then the need to move quickly to recover what's left before it's spent on salaries and premises becomes vital.

In CCFCs case, things are slightly different. The owners constructed their investment as debt (loan) to CCFC. So they are at once the owners and the biggest creditors.

The 50,000 foot financials of CCFC tell you that it's not a going concern unless SISU underwrite their obligations. SISU can make that call as they have access to the balance sheet and cash-flow projections.

The only business likely to put the club into administration is SISU itself (CCC wouldn't want their fingerprints on CCFC's demise).

How likely? Given that CCFC is losing cash at a prodigious rate and loses access to the £3m parachute payments from the second tier, I'd say SISU would be crazy not to put the club into administration at some point.

But - they were crazy to invest in the first place, so maybe they'll surprise us!

It's all about timing and when debts fall due. Clearly while there was hope in the second tier, the points deduction would not make sense. Furthermore if large invoices are coming due, it's best to wait until you have a pile of bills to pay before attempting to liquidate the assets. That way, the 'newco' would rid itself of a lot more debt.

A business has legal obligation to appoint administrators if they become insolvent at any time. SISU could argue that they are in a position (as owner, not as creditor) to inject cash at any time and thus are in total control of when the trigger is pulled.

UK insolvency laws are very unjust (I have first hand experience in UK and USA unfortunately). UK approach is senior-debt-takes-all; whereas the provisions of Chapter 11 bankruptcy in USA rewards companies that make a true effort to re-emerge a better company with employees and main assets intact often with some return for share-holders as well as debt-holders.

SISU knows very well what it's doing here and I'd say they were biding their time. They're just about to make a ton of cash from a telco investment in Europe. There's no rush just yet.

Tom Donnelly

HateFootball · Apr 28, 2012

There is a mortgage on the Ricoh I believe. Mutton's 3,000 votes as a councillor in Willenhall ward does not permit him to speak on behalf of 300,000 Coventrians. His views are welcome but it's not his money.

Godiva · Apr 28, 2012

HateFottball, OSB,

Hedge funds - Their objective is to make money. How does that make them any different than other investors?
The difference I see is Hedge Funds are specialized in making money from debt ridden and almost out-of-business companies, whereas 'normal' investors make money from already profitable (or likely to be in a short time window - a window that is bigger in good times and smaller in bad times).
Five years ago, when the financial world was booming, we probably could have attracted 'normal' investors as their patience to long term investments were bigger, but today we don't really have a choice. So unless there are normal investors out there being promissed they can have it all - the Ricoh, all income streams, all surrounding building prospects if only they accept to take along the football club, then we are stuck with what we have.

Communication - Hedge funds don't do public communications for a lot of reasons, but mostly because of what they do. They are in the public oppinion seen as vultures who thrive on others misfortune. In our case they left all communications to Ranson. And he did communicate in the beginning, but he became more silent as the income failed to match the budgets and he realized that a hedge fund is no sugardaddy.
When he was ousted and sisu took over the board they did try to communicate, but that didn't really go well. Clash of ego's in Brody and Dulieu who are both very communicative, but have very different - ehm - skill levels. KD was chairman and bound to win that contest, so LB went back to Canada .... and KD went back to Switzerland or whereever he lives. It all went from bad to worse. Now Tim Fisher is installed to do whatever communication he can, but even if I think he is doing a pretty decent job, nobody is ever going to listen or even trust his words. He will need 2 or 3 years to restore trust, but he is probably never going to get that.

The situation is looking very desperate and everybody is very creative in finding facts that our current owners have gotten this and that wrong. But is it helpful at this moment?
Is there no way we can help save the club?

This deserves its own thread Old Sky Blue (7 Viewers)

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

CCFC Finance Director

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency