Snozz_is_god
New Member
That's 'Holdings' but what about 'Ltd' ?
That's 'Holdings' but what about 'Ltd' ?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
One party in this dispute openly engaged a PR firm. Why?
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
The way I see it how can Sisu give Acl 590k it goes against their strategy of distressing them. So obviously they will try to delay/ confuse the situation.
My only consideration is how this effects CCFC which now opens possible sanctions from the fl. This risk is not acceptable in my book !!
My only consideration is how this effects CCFC which now opens possible sanctions from the fl. This risk is not acceptable in my book !!
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Every side including the administrator engaged a PR firm. It's standard practice FFS. Put your tinfoil hat away.
@stupot: How was I defending ACL? I simply stated they aren't relevant to LASTs discussion about what we'd like to hear from the club. You and FP are obsessed. This is a CCFC forum, it's normal for people to discuss CCFC.
You continue to mention Weber Shandwick, however it is right to point out that there is nothing remotely illegal or wrong in doing that, and shouldn't be something they need to apologise for. Plus of course it would be interesting to note when they last issued a PR release on behalf of ACL. Probably a better criticism of ACL if that is what you want to do,is that for months they have hardly made any public comments, certainly not that they are constantly spinning anti SISU stories. As for SISU I don't think the problem is that they are no good at PR, more that the 'story' they have got to sell is so horrific that no PR could ever disguise what an utter disaster they have made of things. Or to put it more succinctly, how on earth do you polish a turd.Stop employing spin doctors? What exactly are weber Shandwick doing for ACL then?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Astute
Well-Known Member
What PR spin is coming from them then?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
the wrong party by the look of it.
despite every fan acknowledging that the rent was too high and ACL were too late to offer reduced rates the other party still feels the wrath of the vast majority of fans.
the old saying is true. you can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Not sure if it was on this thread or not but just to confirm the lease was not broken by the administration order in March 2013 nor by the rejection of the CVA 02/08/13 nor by the appointment of a liquidator 21/10/13. A lease can only be broken by the landlord cancelling it or by the liquidator disclaiming it. The liquidator disclaimed it 17/01/14 which is when the lease was broken.
I suspect that CCFC Ltd will not be liquidated until such time as the claims for rates are settled and any claim, that TF alluded to in the SCG minutes against ACL, for over charges on costs are settled. That could be sometime. My understanding is that if CCFC Ltd liquidated then the overcharge claims would die with the liquidation.
Question .... were we not told that all the expenses were actually paid by CCFC H? If so why is it CCFC Ltd remains and assuming the above correct has a claim for expenses & rates? Shouldn't it be CCFC H with the claim?
Question ....CCFC H held 100% of the shares in CCFC Ltd. CCFC H no longer exists so who holds the shares in CCFC Ltd? Does CCFC Ltd still exist if it has no shareholders?
Going on from all that CCFC Ltd is in liquidation (the process) as such it will not be liquidated until the liquidator files his final report and the relevant document is filed at Company House. It has not yet been liquidated and the process could be stopped although I see no reason why it would be.
Am, and not for the first time, confused by what ML was saying on CWR this morning. The deal for Otium to buy CCFC assets from CCFC Ltd was done 27/06/13 and monies paid over because expenses have been paid against it. The CVA was rejected 02/08/13. The golden share with its conditions was issued 02/08/13. The final report from the administrator 27/09/13 makes no mention of the £590k due to be paid by Otium, doesn't refer to any deal being dependent on any terms to be met. Yet the payment by Otium to ACL is dependent on the liquidation?
He is quite right the liquidator will calculate how much of the £1.5m (after deducting expenses) is to be paid to all creditors. At 27/09/13 there was £883k sitting in the administration bank account (after paying expenses of £656k to that date with another 313k still to pay at that date). In addition there are costs since 27/09/13 to be paid also. So the total pot available to all creditors is somewhere far less than £570k. So the amount from the liquidation due to ACL would seem to be
(ACl debt 636K/ Total debts owed 69.72m) x the pot available a max of £570k = £5200 or if the GR/MM £300k is deducted from the ACL debt it would be £2750
*edit the administrator himself indicates non acceptance of the CVA would result in a distribution to creditors of 0.59p in the pound.
ML also said that ACL insisted on the £590k payment being included in the FL/Otium deal for the golden share. There is no legal relationship between ACL and FL or even Otium so how and why did either Otium or FL accept such a demand?
but as usual nothing is straight forward
I suspect that CCFC Ltd will not be liquidated until such time as the claims for rates are settled and any claim, that TF alluded to in the SCG minutes against ACL, for over charges on costs are settled. That could be sometime. My understanding is that if CCFC Ltd liquidated then the overcharge claims would die with the liquidation.
Question .... were we not told that all the expenses were actually paid by CCFC H? If so why is it CCFC Ltd remains and assuming the above correct has a claim for expenses & rates? Shouldn't it be CCFC H with the claim?
Question ....CCFC H held 100% of the shares in CCFC Ltd. CCFC H no longer exists so who holds the shares in CCFC Ltd? Does CCFC Ltd still exist if it has no shareholders?
Going on from all that CCFC Ltd is in liquidation (the process) as such it will not be liquidated until the liquidator files his final report and the relevant document is filed at Company House. It has not yet been liquidated and the process could be stopped although I see no reason why it would be.
Am, and not for the first time, confused by what ML was saying on CWR this morning. The deal for Otium to buy CCFC assets from CCFC Ltd was done 27/06/13 and monies paid over because expenses have been paid against it. The CVA was rejected 02/08/13. The golden share with its conditions was issued 02/08/13. The final report from the administrator 27/09/13 makes no mention of the £590k due to be paid by Otium, doesn't refer to any deal being dependent on any terms to be met. Yet the payment by Otium to ACL is dependent on the liquidation?
He is quite right the liquidator will calculate how much of the £1.5m (after deducting expenses) is to be paid to all creditors. At 27/09/13 there was £883k sitting in the administration bank account (after paying expenses of £656k to that date with another 313k still to pay at that date). In addition there are costs since 27/09/13 to be paid also. So the total pot available to all creditors is somewhere far less than £570k. So the amount from the liquidation due to ACL would seem to be
(ACl debt 636K/ Total debts owed 69.72m) x the pot available a max of £570k = £5200 or if the GR/MM £300k is deducted from the ACL debt it would be £2750
*edit the administrator himself indicates non acceptance of the CVA would result in a distribution to creditors of 0.59p in the pound.
ML also said that ACL insisted on the £590k payment being included in the FL/Otium deal for the golden share. There is no legal relationship between ACL and FL or even Otium so how and why did either Otium or FL accept such a demand?
but as usual nothing is straight forward
Last edited:
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Because they did not have their own PR department?
Astute
Well-Known Member
Or more likely there wasn't such a demand if what the FL had said. They had worded it as though they had issued the demand IIRC.
Also very interesting to see what you have put about CCFC H and CCFC LTD. Is this another mistake that has been made in the process by Appleton or is it just another attempt by SISU to stretch it out as long as they can but getting the process wrong?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
It was, certain of CCFC H assets went to Otium but no details yet, yes good point ...... just wondered if the shares became property of liquidator or had they died with CCFCH. Nothing filed at company house to say one way or other.
The SBS&L 2013 accounts signed off 28/02/14 say CCFCH still owned the shares but CCFCH had applied to be struck off 21/01/14.
Sub
Well-Known Member
[h=3]on the offal
Club Statement - Coventry City will honour it's obligation to the Football League[/h] Mon 02 Jun 2014
Author: CCFC
The club has moved to reassure fans in a statement issued to the press over the weekend....
Coventry City Football Club issued a statement to the press regarding payment to ACL over the weekend.
Here it is in full...
We would like once again to reassure fans that the Club will honour its obligation to the Football League. It is totally wrong to suggest otherwise. We have undertaken to the League to pay ACL the amount that is legally owed to them.
ACL rejected this payment, which they could have received last summer, in order to start a liquidation process and cause a points deduction. So the only person who can determine the correct amount to be paid is the liquidator.
As instructed by the League, the Club has already paid a large sum of money into an escrow account, ready for payment to ACL as soon as the correct number has been calculated.
There is some uncertainty as to the correct amount because it appears that ACL may already have been paid monies under personal guarantees, which amounted to £500,000. If this is the case, there is a risk that they might be paid twice over. As soon as this uncertainty is resolved, the correct sum can be determined and released to ACL from the escrow account.
Read more at http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/...eague-020614-1592169.aspx#O1CiJvtykFpY2E7A.99
Club Statement - Coventry City will honour it's obligation to the Football League[/h] Mon 02 Jun 2014
Author: CCFC
The club has moved to reassure fans in a statement issued to the press over the weekend....
Coventry City Football Club issued a statement to the press regarding payment to ACL over the weekend.
Here it is in full...
We would like once again to reassure fans that the Club will honour its obligation to the Football League. It is totally wrong to suggest otherwise. We have undertaken to the League to pay ACL the amount that is legally owed to them.
ACL rejected this payment, which they could have received last summer, in order to start a liquidation process and cause a points deduction. So the only person who can determine the correct amount to be paid is the liquidator.
As instructed by the League, the Club has already paid a large sum of money into an escrow account, ready for payment to ACL as soon as the correct number has been calculated.
There is some uncertainty as to the correct amount because it appears that ACL may already have been paid monies under personal guarantees, which amounted to £500,000. If this is the case, there is a risk that they might be paid twice over. As soon as this uncertainty is resolved, the correct sum can be determined and released to ACL from the escrow account.
Read more at http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/...eague-020614-1592169.aspx#O1CiJvtykFpY2E7A.99
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Here is another thought
Say the pot available for creditors is £570k ACL is due £5200 say ............ the balance of £565K goes to ............ ARVO/SBS&L and Otium (because they acquired the assets of CCFC H )
So after the rates rebate 440k and the final distribution from the liquidation did Otium actually pay £1.5m for CCFC?
To be clear I am not saying there has been any wrong doing in any of this. It is actually clever use of the system and figures.
Say the pot available for creditors is £570k ACL is due £5200 say ............ the balance of £565K goes to ............ ARVO/SBS&L and Otium (because they acquired the assets of CCFC H )
So after the rates rebate 440k and the final distribution from the liquidation did Otium actually pay £1.5m for CCFC?
To be clear I am not saying there has been any wrong doing in any of this. It is actually clever use of the system and figures.
Last edited:
Astute
Well-Known Member
on the offal
Club Statement - Coventry City will honour it's obligation to the Football League
Mon 02 Jun 2014
Author: CCFC
The club has moved to reassure fans in a statement issued to the press over the weekend....
Coventry City Football Club issued a statement to the press regarding payment to ACL over the weekend.
Here it is in full...
We would like once again to reassure fans that the Club will honour its obligation to the Football League. It is totally wrong to suggest otherwise. We have undertaken to the League to pay ACL the amount that is legally owed to them.
ACL rejected this payment, which they could have received last summer, in order to start a liquidation process and cause a points deduction. So the only person who can determine the correct amount to be paid is the liquidator.
As instructed by the League, the Club has already paid a large sum of money into an escrow account, ready for payment to ACL as soon as the correct number has been calculated.
There is some uncertainty as to the correct amount because it appears that ACL may already have been paid monies under personal guarantees, which amounted to £500,000. If this is the case, there is a risk that they might be paid twice over. As soon as this uncertainty is resolved, the correct sum can be determined and released to ACL from the escrow account.
Read more at http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/...eague-020614-1592169.aspx#O1CiJvtykFpY2E7A.99
Which is the same as was in the CET. But we all know that 500k wasn't paid. It was 300k. But the FL said it was 590k that needed paying and this wasn't for non payment of rent.
And ACL threatened admin and not liquidation. It was SISU that were threatening liquidation that caused ACL to threaten admin. And the 10 points were lost when SISU filed for admin. So much for expecting a bit of truth from SISU.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Grendel
Well-Known Member
They are referring to the CVA not the administration order.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
This is the bit I find a little misleading..... the guarantees were to a maximum of £500k. The statement can be read that they paid £500k which of course they did not.
Would be interesting to see how the FL worded the condition on the payment. I have a suspicion they told Otium to pay the rent owed of £590k. When in fact the CVA £590k represented a calculation including compensation for breaking the lease. The actual rent owed was £636k per the amount accepted by Appleton. That I would guess gave Otium room to argue. Who wouldn't argue with such amounts of money due?
Really do not see why FL made it a term at all. Just means further debt for the club and the resulting legal arguments and costs.
Last edited:
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
It's not a legal matter is it? If the company being liquidated legally had to pay ACL an amount why would the FL get involved? Non payment would be illegal and ACL would have a course of action to pursue should that amount not be paid.
The payment is a condition for the issuing of the golden share made by the FL. The amount may have been based on figures in the CVA, you would expect the administrator to be able to get that kind of figure right, but it is not a CVA payment, payment as part of liquidation or rent payment as the FL have absolutely no authority in those areas.
I would be a lot more comfortable with a statement from the FL stating what was going on from their perspective. Maybe the Trust or the CET can approach them for some clarification.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Last edited by a moderator:
SimonGilbert
Telegraph Tea Boy
As per the last story, the FL won't comment publicly until after its annual conference.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Good to see they're making sure they fans are kept informed and not left wondering what the hell is going on!
Astute
Well-Known Member
I know what they are referring to. But they said 'ACL rejected this payment, which they could have received last summer, in order to start a liquidation process and cause a points deduction.'
So they are accusing ACL of starting a liquidation process. Are you saying this is true, they are lying or are you saying that they misunderstand what is going on?
Astute
Well-Known Member
Are they saying that the annual conference is about our club, SISU, and the best way of dealing with this mess?
duffer
Well-Known Member
Which, in itself, is ridiculous. I'm not blaming SISU for this farce - we know they'll do anything to avoid paying ACL the money. I'm blaming the FL - they're a bunch of clowns. If they wanted to insist on this as a condition for the golden share, why didn't they do it before the last season started.
All SISU have to do is drag this out until the fixtures are published, and the FL will back down like the gutless, spineless poodles they are. At worst a points deduction, at best a slap on the wrist. (I fancy SISU will take another points deduction over paying ACL, they've yet to show that they worry overmuch about league position)
I hope every club in the country threatened by the FL for something or other, illegal payments, unregistered players, FFP or whatever takes note and takes the same approach as SISU. All you've got to do is threaten them with court action and the FL crawl back under their rock. Bottleless cretins.
Anyone charged with bringing the game into disrepute by the FA should make the point that they and the FL have been doing it for years....
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
What are you on about? The rejection of the CVA prevented the club from exiting administration voluntarily so caused the company to be liquidated.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Liquidation doesn't have to follow the rejection of a CVA. The administrator has other options such as coming back with an improved CVA from either the existing preferred bidder or a new preferred bidder.
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
ACL rejected the CVA yes. However at that point onward it was Paul Appleton that initiated liquidation proceedings.
There was absolutely nothing stopping Appleton from putting together a different CVA to see if that was acceptable to ACL.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Either you don't understand what has been going on or you are trying to make everyone think differently to the truth.
SkyBlueScottie
Well-Known Member
The original CVA included an offer to pay the 590 k to ACL, I believe this was the full amount owed, is that correct?
If so what other CVA could have been offered?
If so what other CVA could have been offered?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
What part of the statement then isn't true?
Astute
Well-Known Member
Full amount for what?
Hobo
Well-Known Member
They had the right to reject it and the administrator has various options. The administrator decides on liquidation not a third party like ACL.
