Non-Operating Subsidiary (1 Viewer)

[coundonskyblue]

Can someone in the know please give a definition of a Non-Operating Subsidiary?

It suggests to me part of a business group that doesn't actually do anything.

If it doesn't do anything, whats the point of putting it into admin?

 

---

[mattylad]

they are the people who own the debt of Ccfc

 

[wingy]

they are the people who own the debt of Ccfc

And its one andonly tangible asset.

 

[coundonskyblue]

they are the people who own the debt of Ccfc

In that case surely it is an opertaing company then?

 

[coundonskyblue]

And its one andonly tangible asset.

Ryton training ground?

 

[Diehard Si]

they are the people who own the debt of Ccfc

Now you see Arvo own the debt, and I'm thinking it's actually not them under admin. It's coventry City FC limited. I'm not sure what their real situation is.

A non operating subsidiary will generally just exist for balance sheet movements but not trade.

 

[coundonskyblue]

Now you see Arvo own the debt, and I'm thinking it's actually not them under admin. It's coventry City FC limited. I'm not sure what their real situation is.

A non operating subsidiary will generally just exist for balance sheet movements but not trade.

The company that dealt with ACL then surely can't be classed as a non operating subsidiary?

 

[ccfcway]

apparently they are a Non Operating Notion Subsiddary Entity

or NONSE for short

 

[CJparker]

I presume that the holding company is non-trading/non-operational, as that is the umbrella for the various active companies - all under the CCFC umbrella. There has to be one entity as the umbrella entity, which does not in itself have to trade - I guess that it is this entity which has been placed into admin.

The consequence is likely to be the points pentalty.

 

[coundonskyblue]

I presume that the holding company is non-trading/non-operational, as that is the umbrella for the various active companies - all under the CCFC umbrella. There has to be one entity as the umbrella entity, which does not in itself have to trade - I guess that it is this entity which has been placed into admin.

The consequence is likely to be the points pentalty.

But if the company doesn't trade, it doesn't have any agreements with ACL. So whats the point?

 

[SkyblueBazza]

But if the company doesn't trade, it doesn't have any agreements with ACL. So whats the point?

If the company doesn't trade it surely is not a business in legal terms. It's simply a label...I think a company has to do some kind of trade to come under the classification of a business surely.???
Although nothing surprises me anymore...the whole world is run on bullshit. From starting wars, running health services & protecting borders right down to running football clubs, decision-making & reporting news - every public-spouted message from the powers that be refers/claims to subscribe to the term "transparency"...but time & again it is all eventually proven to be complete & utter bullshit.

 

[Diehard Si]

The company that dealt with ACL then surely can't be classed as a non operating subsidiary?

Correct. But it sounds like they've done a quick jiggle around.

The legal ramifications of this will be massive. This won't be a quick resolve. This could set a precedent for all football and other sports.

 

[oldskyblue58]

The clue is in the statement it says that CCFC Holdings is paying players etc....... that wasnt the case before.

CCFC limited own the lease and licence at the Ricoh ....... SISU have shifted everything including the trade out of that company in to CCFCH to leave CCFC only owning lease at the Ricoh. Then put CCFC Limited into administration. Broke the lease.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Yeah, it is an attempt to avoid paying ACL, but the case against Southampton sets a precedent, there will be some time before this is settled, in the meantime what happens about use of the stadium next Friday.

However, in April 2009, the Football League set its own precedence when they ruled that Southampton Football Club should be deducted points after their Holdings Company collapsed. The League's logic at the time was that "the company (in administration) and the football club are inextricably linked as one economic entity". In a statement the League said of the Saints' financial position:

"The holding company has no income of its own; all revenue and expenditure is derived from the operation of Southampton Football Club and the associated stadium company. The holding company is solvent in its own right. It only becomes insolvent when account is taken of the position of Southampton football club and the other group companies."

On that occasion, it took the Football League a total of 23 days to reach a decision on Southampton's finances, sending in a team of forensic accountants to determine whether they should be deducted points, with Southampton claiming the two companies were operationally independent. The League ruled otherwise, and invoked the 10 point penalty. It would not be a great surprise if they have to tread down the same path again with the Sky Blues.

 

[Diehard Si]

The clue is in the statement it says that CCFC Holdings is paying players etc....... that wasnt the case before.

CCFC limited own the lease and licence at the Ricoh ....... SISU have shifted everything including the trade out of that company in to CCFCH to leave CCFC only owning lease at the Ricoh. Then put CCFC Limited into administration. Broke the lease.

Is that likely to stand up in court?

 

[oldskyblue58]

I think that is what we are going to find out

It seems to be a device to prejudice the rights of a creditor.........

The League will have decisions to make on this because it sets a dangerous precedent that will be exploited time and again in future

 

[chiefdave]

Is that likely to stand up in court?

Would imagine you could transfer whatever you like between your own companies. Think the only thing that was tied to a particular company is / was the lease. Don't really see on what grounds ACL could challenge it but I'm far from an expert! It may come down to if ACL have a clause that says the lease and football club must remain in the same company.

 

[CJparker]

The clue is in the statement it says that CCFC Holdings is paying players etc....... that wasnt the case before.

CCFC limited own the lease and licence at the Ricoh ....... SISU have shifted everything including the trade out of that company in to CCFCH to leave CCFC only owning lease at the Ricoh. Then put CCFC Limited into administration. Broke the lease.

If you are right - and that is a big if....then we really are leaving the Ricoh!

 

[oldskyblue58]

If you are right - and that is a big if....then we really are leaving the Ricoh!

not necessarily long term ....... still a thought that they are still trying to break ACL