Administrator denies he's concluded share was with limited (1 Viewer)
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Whats he frustrated about listen its simple CCFC limited is in administration he is the administrator this is a legal process he is in charge that is his job hence his title thats what he is paid for. If he is finding this too difficult to sort out then he should go back to the High Court and say so and let them appoint an administrator. If any party are using stalling tactics hidding information or anything underhand to make the process more difficult for him then he should make the relevant authorities aware of this,if not the politics make no difference to his brief and he should just get on with it in my humble opinion
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
I agree with you (although I cannot believe I'm saying that! Never thought I'd see the day!!!)
To me it's just a case of how tangled a web SISU have weaved. It would not surprise me a jot if they have worked extremely hard to identify every possible loophole to exploit in order to maximise their longer term payback.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
A simplistic/common-sense view that I can't argue against... Sadly the law is such an ass it places lots of obstacles to what you & I deem fair/reasonable/sensible for reasons I cannot understand.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
I applaud the general intentions of the trust. At present I am in a VERY cynical frame of mind about our situation - so even if every fan joined the trust & they asked the questions...I'm not sure I would have much faith in the answers. Even with genuine answers...I'm not sure that the trust would have much/any impact on the outcomes. I feel confused, frustrated, despairing & lost by it all now.
What will be, will be & I'll deal with what will be when it happens.
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Brilliant its one pound and you're not sure:facepalm:
georgehudson
Well-Known Member
just seems so obvious, join the skybluetrust for the sake of our club,
whilst the tedious arguments continue the more CCFC fans join, the stronger OUR point is,
it is nothing more than a rallying call to all 'city / sky blue fans',
we've had enough of this farce,
we're not in the business of trying to screw anyone over,
OUR CLUB, OUR CITY,
PUSB !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
whilst the tedious arguments continue the more CCFC fans join, the stronger OUR point is,
it is nothing more than a rallying call to all 'city / sky blue fans',
we've had enough of this farce,
we're not in the business of trying to screw anyone over,
OUR CLUB, OUR CITY,
PUSB !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
Am I on a different planet to you?
A. What is "one pound"?
B. As I have no idea what you are referring to - how can I not be sure about it?
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Simple it is only a quid to join, so what is the problem, get in there!
The trust aren't ANY USE!! Its a bunch of clueless blokes who meet up in a pub! Why do people think the trust can or will do anything? Just look at the website - its all cut & paste! You honestly expect these guys to forensically question an administrator - they are IRRELEVANT! Save your quid, may as well piss it away on a lottery ticket, as it is NOT going to go to the fighting fund for buying the club (AGAIN this was their SOLE PURPOSE for existence supposedly!)
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
Seems to me there's life in the old dog yet? If it was so simple to confirm where the GS was then we would not be having this conversation. SISU have maintained it was not in LTD remember and I'm guessing (that's all we can do) there may be some weight in this argument and why SISU have taken the stance they have with confidence.
If it is with LTD and not Holdings then SISU are in a very difficult place. But please remember SISU are (through associated companies) the main creditor of LTD. They still hold plenty of cards. It's all about the GS being with LTD and if that is eventually confirmed then the pressure is ranked up on SISU by the likes of the Haskell deal in the wings (hopefully) but I would not hold your breath. If it's leaglly with Holdings that's a whole different ball game.
If it is with LTD and not Holdings then SISU are in a very difficult place. But please remember SISU are (through associated companies) the main creditor of LTD. They still hold plenty of cards. It's all about the GS being with LTD and if that is eventually confirmed then the pressure is ranked up on SISU by the likes of the Haskell deal in the wings (hopefully) but I would not hold your breath. If it's leaglly with Holdings that's a whole different ball game.
The issue may not be where it is. I think that the actual statement was something like holdings had laid claim to it so it being in Ltd may not be in dispute as such just whether there is any validity in holdings claim to it. If that is the case it would certainly explain why it's taking so long to sort out as there would probably be lots of argument and counter argument about the claims validity and could even end up with yet another court case to decide that spinning things out even longer. Let's hope that's not the case.
Last edited:
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Surely you all want him to check whether it's been moved without the league's knowledge, and how legal that move is if it happened?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
You evidently have no clue what you're on about. The point of the trust is to represent the views of its members. Nothing about a fighting fund in the constitution afaik.
They represent over 20% of the regular gate and are as strong and as relevant as their membership.
So either a) you can do better and should join to improve the only mouthpiece we have in this
Or
B) you're an Internet tough guy who lacks the ability or experience to invoke positive change in the world and instead snipes that everything is crap from behind thir keyboard. Because not tryin is cool and if you don't try then you can't fail and Daddy will love you.
Which is it?
Last edited:
So do enlighten us as to what long term use the trust have. How exactly are the trust going to resolve the issues and make us a sustainable club again? I look forward to your short response.
Didn't the trust meet with the administrator very recently and didn't ask these questions for us?
Asking why it is taking so long and what is the hold up in confirming weather by far the most valuable asset of the company he is supposedly running exists or not seems like a no brainer question for the trust and our alleged journalists at the cet, yet no one seems to be asking it. Why does he not know yet? how can he possibly not know yet?
Snozz_is_god
New Member
Of course he knows where the Golden Share is, he would of known that before he was even appointed, the problem is it's not where SISU want it to be.
SonofErnie
Well-Known Member
I get the feeling this is all part of SISU's strategy. Delaying tactics, as evidenced by the slow response of the administrator, Joy 'travelling' and Mr Fisher disappearing. On another front, why is the administrator issuing statements which clearly back SISU's position over the Academy and stadium situation ? I also believe that an adjournment will be requested when the administrator is due to report back in May.
I questioned the Administrators impartiality, and questioned the time it was taking for him to locate the whereabouts of the G/S on here a couple of days ago, only to receive a polite slap, from another poster,pleased to read I'm not on my own, and I'll say again , Whats the ***kin Holdup, Its either there or it isn't, is Appleton dragging his feet, to buy time for sisu to establish CCFC INC...Beginning to Whiff a Rodent.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
The administrator is making more money the longer he drags it out. This probably suits Sisu as well. The administrator will be hoping for a portsmouth type dragged out situation.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Haven't we been asking for someone to check and double check how the club works and its paper trail for years?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Suggesting a court appointed administrator is anything but impartial is a very dangerous accusation.
Do you have any evidence? What do you think they do? Wander into the office and look for a share certificate hiding behind a book shelf?
SonofErnie
Well-Known Member
Issuing statements clearly backing one creditor's position against another's doesn't look that impartial to me.
@richh87
Member
My understanding is he needs to act in the best interests of the creditors (the main one being SISU via Avro), so I think SISU have a huge influence over the guy.
@richh87
Member
It's all a smokescreen. They know it's with Ltd but they're trying to find a way around it.
singers_pore
Well-Known Member
The odds are even worse than that I am afraid because part of SISU's debt is secured on the club's "assets" while ACL's debt is not secured. So SISU could "buy" back Ltd (without the obligation to ACL) simply by writing off a proportion of their secured debt. In other words, SISU don't have to pay anything and they can get back full control of the golden share. As long as Haskell IV is not willing to pay all of SISU's secured debt, SISU will remain in control. I guess the administrator knows this which is why he is effectively SISU's stool pigeon.
Obviously this is going to severely piss off ACL and the council so my bet is that SISU will remain in control and we will be playing somewhere other than the Ricoh next year.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
So don't you want him to check the paperwork and sort it out? Isn't that what he's there for?
@richh87
Member
Join it and create the plans for the future. It's not the general election, people shouldn't have to produce a manifesto to entice you.
They want to make the club stronger and better. How they do this will be shaped by the ideas of its members. It's as good as the contributors make it - so contribute!
singers_pore
Well-Known Member
Nonsense. The administrator's first responsibility is to the secured creditors, then the unsecured creditors, then the shareholders. If PHIV is not willing to pay off the secured creditors then ACL will receive nothing and SISU will retain the golden share simply by writing off part of their secured loans. Impartiality has nothing to do without. Clearly, the administrator knows this which is why he appears from the outside to be acting on behalf of SISU.
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
we cannot lose category 2 academy, fuckin should have known things will get worse yet
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Haskell states he wants a level one academy he says level two is pointless as the genuine best talent goes elsewhere.
You're missing the point he made entirely. The suggestion from some quarters is that the administrator was SISU appointed and therefore a SISU 'plant' with an agenda. As you say yourself, the administrator has a responsibility to the creditors, first secured and then unsecured and so on. That is their obligation, and that would have been the case whoever had appointed the administrator.
You misunderstood what he meant by impartial - which I took to mean failing in his legal obligation. Of course the administrator is acting on behalf of SISU - that is exactly what he is meant to do.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
The odds are even worse than that I am afraid because part of SISU's debt is secured on the club's "assets" while ACL's debt is not secured. So SISU could "buy" back Ltd (without the obligation to ACL) simply by writing off a proportion of their secured debt. In other words, SISU don't have to pay anything and they can get back full control of the golden share. As long as Haskell IV is not willing to pay all of SISU's secured debt, SISU will remain in control. I guess the administrator knows this which is why he is effectively SISU's stool pigeon.
Obviously this is going to severely piss off ACL and the council so my bet is that SISU will remain in control and we will be playing somewhere other than the Ricoh next year.
If this happens That is when if I was Haskell I would attempt to buy Nuneaton and put them in the Ricoh.
Take 3 years to get them in the championship whilst developing the Ricoh.
The administrator has a responsibility to all creditors. Yes the secured creditors get paid first but ultimately they need to a deal which is best for everyone.
I've said before that actual money will have to be paid as the costs of the process will have to come out of the realistions as would a prescribed part distribution to unsecured creditors of up to 600k (this is dependent in the level of the final acl liability).
Finally the administrator also needs to review the validity of arvos security and confirm what actual amount is due to them and what is secured.
I've said before that actual money will have to be paid as the costs of the process will have to come out of the realistions as would a prescribed part distribution to unsecured creditors of up to 600k (this is dependent in the level of the final acl liability).
Finally the administrator also needs to review the validity of arvos security and confirm what actual amount is due to them and what is secured.
