Oldskyblue Getting Very Warm (1 Viewer)

[cofastreecity]

Old Sky Blue's forensic analysis is getting close to the truth. Keep going you are getting very warm, cross reference Limited with Holdings between 31May 2007 and the last accounts filed on 19 June 2012, ironically signed of by the same individual, study the content of both in detail, hint player registrations, match receipts and other income, dig deeper the answers are there, pity Mr Appleton seems incapable, although he is skating on very thin ice.

Posted by old sky blue
Just some questions

- what exactly are Mr Appletons terms of reference?
- if appointed to CCFC Ltd why does he feel able to tell CCFC H what to do ?
- How can he dismiss a claim from a creditor by saying someone else who he doesnt act for will pay it and why does he feel he can tell a third party to accept it. The contract at AEH or at ACL as yet is not broken until CCFC Ltd is liquidated or agreement reached?
- If he is acting for a non trading property subsidiary - surely the only decision he has is to liquidate, so the only reason it is still going it would seem is that he needs to to secure the League share for CCFC (the club) which is apparently operated by CCFC H Ltd, does that mean he is acting jointly with CCFC H Ltd? or that he believes the whole operation is wrong and the club is CCFC Ltd's?
- How difficult is it to establish what a non trading property subsidiary with just a lease has by way of assets, liabilities or income? There should be nothing other than the lease and an inter company debt
- If both CCFC Ltd and CCFC H Ltd have been charged by ARVO why did ARVO go after the company that apparently has no assets and leave the company with assets alone?
- How difficult can it be to establish who is registered as the owner of the share...... If the league has records he can obtain those but he can also obtain other records (as administrator under the insolvency acts he has rights to obtain information). It doesnt matter what the intended owner is, it does matter who the registered owner is. For example the Football League annual return to Company House 23/06/08 lists it as company number 3056875 ........ that is CCFC Ltd. So in 2008 that is who the Football League registered and recognised as the owner. Surely SISU have the relevant paperwork transferring that share since then ? The football league annual return 23/06/12 still lists it as CCFC Ltd so no change had been registered by that date. So how long can the paper trail be ? Intention doesnt matter, internal accounting jiggery pokery doesnt matter, what was registered and approved by the Football League?

Up until last June when the 2011 accounts were signed off the trade was clearly in CCFC Ltd (including the academy). The accounts could only be signed off because there were cash flows/budgets for 12 months from that date indicating the company (CCFC Ltd) was a going concern ie not non trading. We are still in that period. If the directors were aware at June 2012 that CCFC Ltd was not trading and that the trade was now in CCFCH then that is significant to anyone reading the accounts and should have been declared in the accounts. For instance had ACL been aware that CCFC Ltd no longer traded then their actions would almost certainly have been different. CCFC Ltd is portrayed as having nothing other than the lease, no income, if that were the case last June I suspect the club would have started the season under administration and embargo. The administrator will have to investigate this period thoroughly

There is a lot in this that just doesnt seem to stack up. Of course the administrators report will or should enlighten and clarify all this and other matters ...........

The administrators terms of reference seem to have very fluid boundaries though to me

Reply

 

---

[Bluegloucester]

Great post, spot on!

 

[Florence1898]

At last the truth may be about to be exposed, squeaky bump time for those SISU Directors, go for it OLD SKY BLUE it would seem your on to sometime, seems that Administrator may also be answering to higher authorities if he does not start to do his job

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Surely the it is entirely possible that the administrator has all the evidence & answers at his fingertips by now. The reporting of any answers he does have & questions still unanswered will not be disclosed until 16 May in court though, will they?

 

[Florence1898]

Surely the it is entirely possible that the administrator has all the evidence & answers at his fingertips by now. The reporting of any answers he does have & questions still unanswered will not be disclosed until 16 May in court though, will they?

It would seem the Administrator has his head buried in the sand, according to sources in SBT he seems only to be talking to Arvo, the football league and the legal process is hot on his heels.

 

[ampthill_sba]

Could Oldskyblue declare his prediction on this whole fiasco on http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threa...ver-the-summer-and-beyond?p=425009#post425009

It would make an interesting read.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

It would seem the Administrator has his head buried in the sand, according to sources in SBT he seems only to be talking to Arvo, the football league and the legal process is hot on his heels.

But it might in fact be quite straightforward & clear-cut & his hardest job has been done. All he now may need to do is report his findings back. The findings may be quite damning...or may not be. We still won't know until 16th May. Anything else is guessing &/or speculation &/or rumour &/or conjecture.

 

[Steve.B50]

Could an administrator be struck off for not being honest and doing what's right or are they able to do as thy want after being appointed?

 

[mattylad]

here we go again with the stupid conspiracy theories! he has a date to report back so let's wait until he does and then look at the facts

 

[Ashdown1]

Everyone has his price Steve..............Didn't SISU bang us into admin to be able to appoint their favoured administrator???

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

I'm no expert on administration, so I'm happy to be corrected by someone who is - however, my understanding was that the May Court date for the administrator to report back was the latest deadline for him to do this, not the first day that he was able to "do anything".

Some administrations are sorted in a few days, so I'm genuinely confused why the administration of a "non-trading company that only has property assets" (I think that was pretty close to TF's quote) should take so long.

 

[dongonzalos]

Could an administrator be struck off for not being honest and doing what's right or are they able to do as thy want after being appointed?

There is an investigatory body that deals with administrators.

 

[dongonzalos]

Looks like judges can quest whether the administrator is objective or not as well


http://m.ifaonline.co.uk/ifaonline/...rator-under-investigation-by-accountancy-body

 

[ajsccfc]

Everyone has his price Steve..............Didn't SISU bang us into admin to be able to appoint their favoured administrator???

Hinting at corruption with no actual basis other than nothing having happened yet probably isn't the best idea.

 

[dongonzalos]

Our Accountability for Authorisation and Regulation

We are subject to oversight and inspection by the Insolvency Service acting for the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation & Skills and the DETI Insolvency Service acting for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in relation to our recognition within a statutory framework set by the Memorandum of Understanding and Principles of Monitoring which underpin our (and other bodies') recognition to authorise and regulate IPs.

 

[dongonzalos]

It looks like this type of thing is regulated.

However you can still play well within the rules and still act favourably to the people that appointed you.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

It looks like this type of thing is regulated.

However you can still play well within the rules and still act favourably to the people that appointed you.

Yes...wasn't it the case that Parliamentary expenses were monitored & regulated etc?
I do hope the authorities/parties involved do not wonder why any of the general public are ever anything other than sceptical about such things, given their historic cynical manipulation of almost everything.

 

[lordsummerisle]

Portsmouth took over a year to come out of administration(if they actually have now?).

Why the panic about this one?

 

[dongonzalos]

Portsmouth took over a year to come out of administration(if they actually have now?).

Why the panic about this one?

Did they have a multimillionaire yank saying he wants to take over but he won't wait for ever?

 

[lordsummerisle]

Did they have a multimillionaire yank saying he wants to take over but he won't wait for ever?

A multimillionaire yank wanting to take over will surely want to due to do due diligence unlike Sisu did I imagine.

He may not be as keen on spunking away millions blindly as you might be for him to do so.

One of the major(justified) criticisms of Sisu is that they didn't do full due diligence before taking over, can't expect anybody else looking to take over not to do so.

Besides, if we are as good an investment as many seem to think, he won't mind waiting a bit.

Smacks a bit of getting your excuses in early just in case to me.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

Portsmouth took over a year to come out of administration(if they actually have now?).

Why the panic about this one?

Because if you believe what SISU say, the company in administration is a non-trading subsidiary that only has "property assets", on that basis it should be pretty straightforward.

 

[lordsummerisle]

Because if you believe what SISU say, the company in administration is a non-trading subsidiary that only has "property assets", on that basis it should be pretty straightforward.

Christ, people believing what Sisu say now?

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

Christ, people believing what Sisu say now?

That would be odd, wouldn't it!

 

[Senior Vick from Alicante]

Old Sky Blue's forensic analysis is getting close to the truth. Keep going you are getting very warm, cross reference Limited with Holdings between 31May 2007 and the last accounts filed on 19 June 2012, ironically signed of by the same individual, study the content of both in detail, hint player registrations, match receipts and other income, dig deeper the answers are there, pity Mr Appleton seems incapable, although he is skating on very thin ice.

Posted by old sky blue
Just some questions

- what exactly are Mr Appletons terms of reference?
- if appointed to CCFC Ltd why does he feel able to tell CCFC H what to do ?
- How can he dismiss a claim from a creditor by saying someone else who he doesnt act for will pay it and why does he feel he can tell a third party to accept it. The contract at AEH or at ACL as yet is not broken until CCFC Ltd is liquidated or agreement reached?
- If he is acting for a non trading property subsidiary - surely the only decision he has is to liquidate, so the only reason it is still going it would seem is that he needs to to secure the League share for CCFC (the club) which is apparently operated by CCFC H Ltd, does that mean he is acting jointly with CCFC H Ltd? or that he believes the whole operation is wrong and the club is CCFC Ltd's?
- How difficult is it to establish what a non trading property subsidiary with just a lease has by way of assets, liabilities or income? There should be nothing other than the lease and an inter company debt
- If both CCFC Ltd and CCFC H Ltd have been charged by ARVO why did ARVO go after the company that apparently has no assets and leave the company with assets alone?
- How difficult can it be to establish who is registered as the owner of the share...... If the league has records he can obtain those but he can also obtain other records (as administrator under the insolvency acts he has rights to obtain information). It doesnt matter what the intended owner is, it does matter who the registered owner is. For example the Football League annual return to Company House 23/06/08 lists it as company number 3056875 ........ that is CCFC Ltd. So in 2008 that is who the Football League registered and recognised as the owner. Surely SISU have the relevant paperwork transferring that share since then ? The football league annual return 23/06/12 still lists it as CCFC Ltd so no change had been registered by that date. So how long can the paper trail be ? Intention doesnt matter, internal accounting jiggery pokery doesnt matter, what was registered and approved by the Football League?

Up until last June when the 2011 accounts were signed off the trade was clearly in CCFC Ltd (including the academy). The accounts could only be signed off because there were cash flows/budgets for 12 months from that date indicating the company (CCFC Ltd) was a going concern ie not non trading. We are still in that period. If the directors were aware at June 2012 that CCFC Ltd was not trading and that the trade was now in CCFCH then that is significant to anyone reading the accounts and should have been declared in the accounts. For instance had ACL been aware that CCFC Ltd no longer traded then their actions would almost certainly have been different. CCFC Ltd is portrayed as having nothing other than the lease, no income, if that were the case last June I suspect the club would have started the season under administration and embargo. The administrator will have to investigate this period thoroughly

There is a lot in this that just doesnt seem to stack up. Of course the administrators report will or should enlighten and clarify all this and other matters ...........

The administrators terms of reference seem to have very fluid boundaries though to me

Reply

Are you a new poster? This post hints at someone with insider knowledge that is guiding OSB towards the sharp end of the stick. If thats the case why not email him directly if you have something to loose by letting the cat out of the bag. This is, as you would imagine, something that is important to all Skyblue supporters. Keep the faith.

 

[dongonzalos]

A multimillionaire yank wanting to take over will surely want to due to do due diligence unlike Sisu did I imagine.

He may not be as keen on spunking away millions blindly as you might be for him to do so.

One of the major(justified) criticisms of Sisu is that they didn't do full due diligence before taking over, can't expect anybody else looking to take over not to do so.

Besides, if we are as good an investment as many seem to think, he won't mind waiting a bit.

Smacks a bit of getting your excuses in early just in case to me.

He can't do his due diligence as the administrator is dithering.

He needs the facts and figures to do his due diligence.
Once he has done it he may walk away.

He needs the administrator to say the share is here the club is up for sale.

Here are the figures come back and bid if you want.

 

[dongonzalos]

A multimillionaire yank wanting to take over will surely want to due to do due diligence unlike Sisu did I imagine.

He may not be as keen on spunking away millions blindly as you might be for him to do so.

One of the major(justified) criticisms of Sisu is that they didn't do full due diligence before taking over, can't expect anybody else looking to take over not to do so.

Besides, if we are as good an investment as many seem to think, he won't mind waiting a bit.

Smacks a bit of getting your excuses in early just in case to me.

Also if something better comes along he will go for it. That's life.

 

[singers_pore]

I have looked at more than hundred cases of administration through my line of work, many of them involving large public companies. In the vast majority of cases it takes the administrator only 2-3 weeks to file the first report for creditors at Companies House.The fact that it is taking our administrator so long to issue his report could be due to three possible factors:

1. The administrator does not view this project as his high priority as there is no long list of creditors and the company is relatively small. The administrator may have other projects that are taking his priority.

2. The administrator has found serious irregularities requiring further investigation.

Whatever the explanation, I do find it surprising that it is taking so long even to announce where is the location of the "golden share".

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

A multimillionaire yank wanting to take over will surely want to due to do due diligence unlike Sisu did I imagine.

He may not be as keen on spunking away millions blindly as you might be for him to do so.

One of the major(justified) criticisms of Sisu is that they didn't do full due diligence before taking over, can't expect anybody else looking to take over not to do so.

Besides, if we are as good an investment as many seem to think, he won't mind waiting a bit.

Smacks a bit of getting your excuses in early just in case to me.

Smacks a bit of wanting the status quo preserved in the name of oneupmanship to me.

 

[lordsummerisle]

Smacks a bit of wanting the status quo preserved in the name of oneupmanship to me.

More a case of "fool me once, you're the fool, fool me twice I'm the fool".

God alone what being fooled three times makes somebody.

Though it very similar to keeping the Staus Quo, they also only played the same two chords over and over and had a massive amount of fans for doing so.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

I have looked at more than hundred cases of administration through my line of work, many of them involving large public companies. In the vast majority of cases it takes the administrator only 2-3 weeks to file the first report for creditors at Companies House.The fact that it is taking our administrator so long to issue his report could be due to three possible factors:

1. The administrator does not view this project as his high priority as there is no long list of creditors and the company is relatively small. The administrator may have other projects that are taking his priority.

2. The administrator has found serious irregularities requiring further investigation.

Whatever the explanation, I do find it surprising that it is taking so long even to announce where is the location of the "golden share".

And the third is..?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

More a case of "fool me once, you're the fool, fool me twice I'm the fool".

God alone what being fooled three times makes somebody.

Though it very similar to keeping the Staus Quo, they also only played the same two chords over and over and had a massive amount of fans for doing so.

SISU's departure will boost ST sales by thousands. If they're still here in August crowds will drop even further and our chances of success will be minimal.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

More a case of "fool me once, you're the fool, fool me twice I'm the fool".

God alone what being fooled three times makes somebody.

Though it very similar to keeping the Staus Quo, they also only played the same two chords over and over and had a massive amount of fans for doing so.

So just to be clear...

Given that at the moment we appear to be left with either the continuance of SISU, or the possibility of a takeover by Hoffman et al, am I correct in thinking that your preference would be to keep SISU?

 

[SkyblueBazza]

SISU's departure will boost ST sales by thousands. If they're still here in August crowds will drop even further and our chances of success will be minimal.

You are guessing there though aren't you?

 

[@richh87]

You are guessing there though aren't you?

I think he's probably right. I'm not going back til they leave. Time to get tough with SISU and drive them out.

 

[dadgad]

It is sad to see that Sisu have been allowed to dismantle this club for so long.....in no small part due to people clinging to the "there's no one else" fallacy....
I wonder who started that?