Coventry City (Holdings) Ltd has no right to say where we will play. (1 Viewer)

[Voice_of_Reason]

All this nonsense about where we will play is a complete fabrication. Coventry City (Holdings) Limited has no right to say where we will play. If they "do a deal" for example, to play at Walsall, they could end up with egg on their face if Coventry City Football Club Limited is sold. Only the Administrator at the end of the day can decide where Coventry City Football Club Limited can play surely ?

 

---

[ajsccfc]

That's what Appleton seems to be hinting at. Fisher can make all the statements he likes but at the moment they're not from a position of authority.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

I was asking the same question the other day, if we are still in admin when it has to be finalised where we play will it be the administrators decision/choice where we play?

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Yes they can because no one in authority is willing to challenge them so until they do Fisher holds the master card Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

I was asking the same question the other day, if we are still in admin when it has to be finalised where we play will it be the administrators decision/choice where we play?

 

[stupot07]

What happens if the football league and FA grant the golden share to holdings?

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Then were

What happens if the football league and FA grant the golden share to holdings?

 

[SkybluG]

i am assuming they can, as at the moment they are still the ones paying all the wages and bills etc, and until someone else is paying the wages then i think they feel entiltled to make decisions

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

How amusing it would be for Fisher and Holdings to sign a contract to play at say, Walsall, for three years; whilst Arena Fisher was being built; just for the Golden Share to be adjudicated to be with 'Limited', who are then bought by a new investor, who also acquired the Ricoh and put together a decent side.

Culminating in Fisher and his floppy locks being hauled to court again for non-payment of a contracted rent for the football club he didn't have......

 

[stupot07]

It wouldn't be that funny as we'd lose Ryton and the academy who I believe are within holdings, as it payments we should be receiving as part of bigi and Keogh's transfers.

 

[chiefdave]

All this nonsense about where we will play is a complete fabrication. Coventry City (Holdings) Limited has no right to say where we will play. If they "do a deal" for example, to play at Walsall, they could end up with egg on their face if Coventry City Football Club Limited is sold. Only the Administrator at the end of the day can decide where Coventry City Football Club Limited can play surely ?

My feeling is if, as you say, Holdings have nothing to do with anything then let Fisher get on with whatever he's doing, it's not going to matter one way or the other to us he's just going to make himself look even more stupid than usual.

However if it turns out that somehow holdings is running the club then to be honest even if it's just a 0.1% that ACL will not talk to SISU then Fisher should be looking at alternatives. Much as we all want to be in Coventry ACL have made several statements saying they will not talk to SISU so should they end up in charge and Fisher hasn't got a contingency in place we run the risk of having nowhere to play and being thrown out of the league.

 

[Buster]

What would the legal ramifications be if the football league were to be seen to take away the golden share from a company that had already (according to them ) invested 60 million into football at coventry.:thinking about:

 

[WFC]

Well the argument would be they haven't taken anything away from them, the share was registered to Ltd and it would still be registered to Ltd, Holdings would disagree of course which is why it's most likely to come down to a court to ratify that the FL have operated within their own rules and processes if this becomes the situation. The only other legal challenge Holdings could mount would be to challenge the legality of the FL's rules that they have granted it to Ltd under. I class here the argument about whether the league were right in recording that the share was with Ltd initially in with the FL operating within their own rules.

Ramification? If the court overturned the ruling the FL and possibly Ltd could appeal the court decision and it could drag on a lot long while. If ultimately going Holdings way in court, significant damages paid by the FL to Holdings, FL forced to allow Holdings to play instead of Ltd, potential claim for damages on the FL from Ltd and CCFC would have no good faith with the league so I would expect in future all rules would be enforced with CCFC very rigorously, like non of the flexibility some other clubs get under the 'special dispensation' tag that the FL seem to grant whenever it suits them. If Holdings then failed to meet any of the criteria around their ground plans they'd probably jump at the chance to chuck you out the league.

PS. If anyone was foolish enough to go all the way to purchasing Ltd with an undertaking from the FL to grant the share you could equally have similar ramifications but with the parties reversed. FL is caught in the middle with everyone saying 'I'm spartacus!'

 

[James Smith]

Well the argument would be they haven't taken anything away from them, the share was registered to Ltd and it would still be registered to Ltd, Holdings would disagree of course which is why it's most likely to come down to a court to ratify that the FL have operated within their own rules and processes if this becomes the situation. The only other legal challenge Holdings could mount would be to challenge the legality of the FL's rules that they have granted it to Ltd under. I class here the argument about whether the league were right in recording that the share was with Ltd initially in with the FL operating within their own rules.

Ramification? If the court overturned the ruling the FL and possibly Ltd could appeal the court decision and it could drag on a lot long while. If ultimately going Holdings way in court, significant damages paid by the FL to Holdings, FL forced to allow Holdings to play instead of Ltd, potential claim for damages on the FL from Ltd and CCFC would have no good faith with the league so I would expect in future all rules would be enforced with CCFC very rigorously, like non of the flexibility some other clubs get under the 'special dispensation' tag that the FL seem to grant whenever it suits them. If Holdings then failed to meet any of the criteria around their ground plans they'd probably jump at the chance to chuck you out the league.

PS. If anyone was foolish enough to go all the way to purchasing Ltd with an undertaking from the FL to grant the share you could equally have similar ramifications but with the parties reversed. FL is caught in the middle with everyone saying 'I'm spartacus!'

So to sum up, we're screwed whatever happens?

 

[Buster]

Lots of court decisions--- Lots of challenges and a few apeals to boot . I hope most of us loyal supporters remain to pick up the pieces when this sorry mess is all over

 

[covmark]

So to sum up, we're screwed whatever happens?

My thoughts exactly

 

[WFC]

So to sum up, we're screwed whatever happens?

Well, let's just say whatever happens it's going to be a messy divorce where someone ends up with custody of the kids and everyone involved including some outside parties end up bitter, twisted and financially worse off.

Just hope it's not one of those sad cases like in France this week where one of the parties can't face loosing custody and slits the throat of the kids before their own demise.

 

[deanocity3]

I hope that the fat lady sings soon,because I'm getting really pissed off with all of this none action.:thinking about:

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

I hope that the fat lady sings soon,because I'm getting really pissed off with all of this none action.:thinking about:

So long as its not Joy

 

[psgm1]

I was under the impression its the FL's ultimate decision who has claim to the golden share. I wonder exactly what sisu could argue at the courts if the league decides against them. After all it is ultimately down to the leagues discretion, and their is no divine right, as it is a licence it can be assigned and revoked according to the leagues rules.

The courts can only act on points of law, and unless there is a new law specifically aimed at FL rules, I doubt sisu or indeed Ltd if it goes pear shape would get anywhere by taking it to the courts.

What sisu could possibly argue is the clubs assets, but since these consist of players contracts, if as I hope and the league pointed to Ltd is assigned the share, those contracts will instantly become worthless, because there is no point having the contracts if the players cannot play in the league!

It may well even mean those current players would have to re-negotiate, which would mean we say goodbye to the dead wood (why would Ltd sign a new deal with Bell on the same terms?)

But the deadline for the fixtures is drawing ever nearer. We need to know one way or another!

 

[chiefdave]

business law is a complex thing and even if it ended up going the leagues way there's every chance SISU could drag things out over months if not years. the league will not want to go to court as it could cost them a fortune and you never can be sure what will happen. even if the league is certain they are in the right you can't always count on a crazy judge not to make some weird ruling.

 

[Diehard Si]

It wouldn't be that funny as we'd lose Ryton and the academy who I believe are within holdings, as it payments we should be receiving as part of bigi and Keogh's transfers.

Easier to build a training ground than a new stadium.

 

[duffer]

FWIW, I think taking on the FL in court would be pretty tricky unless there's a watertight case. Stevenage tried and failed, and the judgement said...

"The onus of showing that a restraint is reasonable as between the parties lies on the party seeking to impose the restraint. But where the restraint is part of a system of control imposed by a body exercising regulatory powers in the public interest the onus of proving that the particular restraint is unreasonable, because it is contrary to the public interest, lies on the party who makes that assertion. If admission criteria are shown to be arbitrary or capricious in effect, whether because of their content or the way they are applied, they are open to challenge. But the onus is on the challenger, and the Court will give due weight to the judgment of the responsible bodies."

http://www.5rb.com/case/Stevenage-Borough-FC-v-The-Football-League

Wordy, but in essence saying that as long as the FL have stayed within their own rules, and those rules aren't "arbitrary or capricious", then trying to sue them for stuff like restraint of trade (based on not getting the 'golden' share) is going to be hard work.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

How many times have HMRC tried to take on the FL and won?

 

[psgm1]

FWIW, I think taking on the FL in court would be pretty tricky unless there's a watertight case. Stevenage tried and failed, and the judgement said...

"The onus of showing that a restraint is reasonable as between the parties lies on the party seeking to impose the restraint. But where the restraint is part of a system of control imposed by a body exercising regulatory powers in the public interest the onus of proving that the particular restraint is unreasonable, because it is contrary to the public interest, lies on the party who makes that assertion. If admission criteria are shown to be arbitrary or capricious in effect, whether because of their content or the way they are applied, they are open to challenge. But the onus is on the challenger, and the Court will give due weight to the judgment of the responsible bodies."

http://www.5rb.com/case/Stevenage-Borough-FC-v-The-Football-League

Wordy, but in essence saying that as long as the FL have stayed within their own rules, and those rules aren't "arbitrary or capricious", then trying to sue them for stuff like restraint of trade (based on not getting the 'golden' share) is going to be hard work.

By Stevenage taking the league to court and failing, then in law there is a precedent. As such, unless sisu can show something completely original, or different to Stevenage, then the judge must comply with that precedent. By setting up so many companies, by deliberately arranging their affairs in a confusing manner, I cannot see how they can argue the league is being unreasonable IF they agree with Ltd as holder of the licence.

Lets not forget the share / licence whatever is under the name CCFC Ltd. The league made their preliminary ruling based on this. Sisu may try, but that will take years (if it ever gets to court) and by that time no doubt Ltd will be taken over by another owner, and they will have the upper hand.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Let this be true, and do not let sisu defy natural justice.

 

[Jack Griffin]

What would the legal ramifications be if the football league were to be seen to take away the golden share from a company that had already (according to them ) invested 60 million into football at coventry.:thinking about:

They haven't invested that sum, that is just the book debt.. the majority of it (at least £35M) was from the Richarson/Robinson/McGinnity era,

I wonder if the high interest loans they wrote off are now being charged to SISU?

 

[Paxman II]

The golden share is thought to be with CCFC Ltd as far as we know. However SISU are arguing that assertion. They suggest according to stuff we have heard, that it was transfreed to Holdings? It has also been suggested that the football club is Holdings, and proof of that is very clear tbh. It's also suggested the 'beneficial rights' to the golden share is the real argument here with Holdings clearly running a football club with players and all the rest of it. The lease of a stadium hardly comes into - get another lease somewhere else or build a stadium. So what CCFC Ltd had (a lease) has little relevance.

If it was so simple as in CCFC Ltd, then this would have been sorted long ago and Mr Haskell's bid and that of SISU or any other interested party wanting CCFC Ltd could be accepted or rejected.

My gut says the FL have made a real mess and a grave error somewhere. the strength of SISU's case may be strong.

The big question is: "how the hell can there be such confusion over a simple matter" ?

 

[TheParsonsHose]

By Stevenage taking the league to court and failing, then in law there is a precedent. As such, unless sisu can show something completely original, or different to Stevenage, then the judge must comply with that precedent. By setting up so many companies, by deliberately arranging their affairs in a confusing manner, I cannot see how they can argue the league is being unreasonable IF they agree with Ltd as holder of the licence.

Lets not forget the share / licence whatever is under the name CCFC Ltd. The league made their preliminary ruling based on this. Sisu may try, but that will take years (if it ever gets to court) and by that time no doubt Ltd will be taken over by another owner, and they will have the upper hand.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Let this be true, and do not let sisu defy natural justice.

Must the law comply though and is this not just a reference point from which legal council will argue a case? I do hope you are right.

 

[Stafford_SkBlue]

The issue is not about who owns what anymore, it's about who will Appleton sell to;
1. Not sisu - this will lead to sisu contesting in courts etc, which will delay the transaction.
2. To sisu and everything ends up as it was, except no stadium to play at.

Appleton statement states he is in talks this week to decide.

My money is on to sisu and the price includes the fees and full amount owing to ACL (£500,0000). won't be a popular decision.

 

[WFC]

As a couple of others have said above and indeed the administrator has said. It is within the power of the FL to transfer the share to whoever they want. The proviso is that it is within the rules they have set out and those rules are all legal. To as certain extent it is not important who the share has been given to previously in that respect. They could expel any team currently in the league and give permission (the share) to any other team so long as they do so in accordance with their own rules and those rules are legal.

What might be affected by where the share was allocated previously and where certain assets within the various companies were is whether the integrity of the league has been compromised in previous seasons.

The one complication around this which is linked to the share is when deciding whether the FL's rules have been applied correctly you need to know who the member of the league is to which the rules are to be applied otherwise how can you decide whether they have been applied correctly ( this was the crux of the argument around whether you should suffer a points deduction).

 

[SkyBlueBlood]

That's what Appleton seems to be hinting at. Fisher can make all the statements he likes but at the moment they're not from a position of authority.

Maybe we should worry about Fishers mental state if he still thinks he has a club to run. He would be better off searching the job pages than releasing more bullshit.