Voice_of_Reason
Well-Known Member
My understanding is that when a club enters administration the golden share is taken back by the Football League (as it's theirs anyway) and the the Football League decides who to allocate it to ?
Surely the Golden Share is now with the Football League ? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Voice_of_Reason
- Start date
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
I guess that SISU would argue that the share is in Holdings, which is not in administration.....
Voice_of_Reason
Well-Known Member
Then why did the Football League deduct 10 points if they don't know where the Golden Share is ?
My point exactly, maybe if they got it wrong they will give us 10 points back for start of next season.
Sub
Well-Known Member
more chance of SISU walking away and losing all the money they have invested than getting the FL to admit they have made a mistake !
Because they believe they do know. This is challenged by SISU and that is why we are where we are.
The FL do need to make their position clear though. If they believe it is/was with Ltd then they need to make that clear - in order that SISU can then make their legal challenge. That is going to happen, we need to understand that and so we just need to get on with it.
To me it looks like the confusion is designed for purpose.
No third party in their right mind would now buy limited as they risk it won't include the GS. And even if it turns out they actually do get FA/FL to accept they are now the owner of the GS, then they face years of court battles with sisu that could well cost them many millions in lawyer fees.
That is why Limited is put up for sale now. Expect a quick sale ... to sisu.
No third party in their right mind would now buy limited as they risk it won't include the GS. And even if it turns out they actually do get FA/FL to accept they are now the owner of the GS, then they face years of court battles with sisu that could well cost them many millions in lawyer fees.
That is why Limited is put up for sale now. Expect a quick sale ... to sisu.
MichaelCCFC
New Member
The Football League is often referred to as a 'members' club' ie it's first instinct is to side with current owners. The FL isn't a court of law or some kind of impartial judge/arbitrator - it has its own agenda and its own way of doing things
SkyBlueSwiss
New Member
For once we are on the same wavelength.
It appears as though the FL are waiting for administrators, lawyers and courts to decide where the share is before they feel they dare to make any statement that otherwise might get them into trouble or controversy.
They really need to dramatically change their rules and stop all these fantasy structures. There should be one legal entity per football club. That would stop most of these confusing tactics that groups like SISU create to confuse the issue.
RegTheDonk
Well-Known Member
I was grateful of this guy on the radio Sub - he seemed to lay it out quite plainly as to where everything should by rights stand. Seems hes had quite a lot of experience in this regard and said ultimately the FL have the share and should give it to whoever fits their criteria and rules the best. With all the double dealing thats gone on, you would therefore think the the Hoff/Elliot/PH4 group would stand a reasonable chance of satisfying that criteria.
Liked his dig at Appleton saying this is the first footy club hes administered. Dunno if its sour grapes or a genuine observation that the guy isn't doing his job correctly.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
I have two theories.
1. The golden share is being used as a bookmark. I hear Tim is reading 50 Shades of Grey.
2. If the Ricoh has a loft then it'll be in there, amongst the old programmes, Roy of the Rovers annuals, etc.
You read it here first.
1. The golden share is being used as a bookmark. I hear Tim is reading 50 Shades of Grey.
2. If the Ricoh has a loft then it'll be in there, amongst the old programmes, Roy of the Rovers annuals, etc.
You read it here first.
SkyBlueBlood
Member
Maybe the Football League stance is that they issued the Golden Share to Coventry City Football Club, where the owners decide to store that share is irrelevant to them which is why they deducted 10 points from CCFC not the labyrinth of companies set up by SISU.
Currently this is where I stand.
If the FLeague have any credibility they should not return the GShare to an outfit who propose to move club out of city.
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
Very good question, and if they were wrong, why did SISU so quickly withdraw their appeal?
MusicDating
Euro 2016 Prediction League Champion!!
Cos we lost a couple of matches?
To add to the confusion?
To make us thing they have us fans interests at heart?
Trouble is at the moment, every question could have a number of answers (plus more if you count conspiracies...)
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
My answer is "because the FL were correct to deduct 10 points and SISU don't have a leg to stand on". However if this is the case, why can't the Administrator find out where the GS is? Other than because he is SISU's lickspittle, of course.
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
That's today's Word of the Day, Licksplittle.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The share in that case rests with the football league.
inside track
New Member
You are quite right, apart from the fact that Sisu did not create the structure of Holdings plus the CCFC Ltd subsidiary. That goes back to 1995, long before Sisu came on the scene. It was something they inherited.
But, as you say, and as I have tried to point out on other threads, it appears (and it is becoming clearer each day that this is the case) that the Football League made an error when issuing the Golden Share. When the club was relegated from the Premier League, it had to hand back the Premier League golden share and was issued with another from the Football League. It seems that this was registered by the League as being issued to 'Coventry City Football Club'. No "Holdings", no "Ltd". Over time, the "Ltd" was added in error.
The League now, technically, hold the share until 'Ltd' exits administration, at which point it will revert back to Holdings, assuming Sisu buy 'Ltd' back from the administrator. As there is no other serious purchaser for 'Ltd', Sisu will take it back.
Preston Haskell won't put the money up for Joe Elliott to buy it, because there is nothing in Ltd worth buying.
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
It didn't previous to admin and it's not going to stay there for long, is it?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
If they have the share its hard to believe they will hand it back to an organisation that has piled debts abc has nowhere to play.
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
SISU seem to think they will and it looks like the vast majority on here are resigned to it...
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
We keep coming back to the golden share.
Lets just keep in mind that which entity legally has a right to say they have it is in dispute.
CCFC LTD went into admin but whether that company or the Holdings company have the golden share is the issue.
It has been said SISU the ultimate owners of the football club have a right to it and have not relinquished it.
The football league deducted 10 points on the basis that the football club went into administration based on a preponderance of evidence proving that any company or subsidiary or otherwise associated and running that football club, be it Holdings, CCFC Ltd or otherwise are consider linked and as one entity for the purpose of. No argument there as that precedence had been set before. So SISU decided unwinnable and withdrew appeal also knowing the 10 point hit would not affect us anyway, so over and done with.
Now SISU it has been said maybe transferred the share into Holdings. Even if they did not evidence does support them trading the football club as Holdings. (playing games, players registrations etc) It could be argued that is enough to show that Holdings does have the legal right to keep the golden share.
The FL have been given a royal headache with this one. The administrator can sell CCFC Ltd but it's worthless if SISU's contention is they have the Share. Haskell has made a formal offer based on the provision CCFC Ltd own the share right and Holdings do not.
It looks like a court will be forced to prove it and the FL will be desperately searching through their rule book with a view to giving a definitive answer that will stand up in court when challenged by SISU.
Of course SISU can equally purchase CCFC Ltd as anyone else and if the share is proven and stated and agreed it's there they would do this wouldn't they?
The administrator will have to place a figure on CCFC Ltd (assuming eventually it has the share) and draw a line under it. Then perhaps Haskell has a chance.
Something has to give. If ultimately after the court hearings and arguing is over that the entity CCFC Ltd has the golden share rights then the FL must decide which bidder is fit and proper. Would that be SISU? I think that could be where SISU is finally undone.
Lets just keep in mind that which entity legally has a right to say they have it is in dispute.
CCFC LTD went into admin but whether that company or the Holdings company have the golden share is the issue.
It has been said SISU the ultimate owners of the football club have a right to it and have not relinquished it.
The football league deducted 10 points on the basis that the football club went into administration based on a preponderance of evidence proving that any company or subsidiary or otherwise associated and running that football club, be it Holdings, CCFC Ltd or otherwise are consider linked and as one entity for the purpose of. No argument there as that precedence had been set before. So SISU decided unwinnable and withdrew appeal also knowing the 10 point hit would not affect us anyway, so over and done with.
Now SISU it has been said maybe transferred the share into Holdings. Even if they did not evidence does support them trading the football club as Holdings. (playing games, players registrations etc) It could be argued that is enough to show that Holdings does have the legal right to keep the golden share.
The FL have been given a royal headache with this one. The administrator can sell CCFC Ltd but it's worthless if SISU's contention is they have the Share. Haskell has made a formal offer based on the provision CCFC Ltd own the share right and Holdings do not.
It looks like a court will be forced to prove it and the FL will be desperately searching through their rule book with a view to giving a definitive answer that will stand up in court when challenged by SISU.
Of course SISU can equally purchase CCFC Ltd as anyone else and if the share is proven and stated and agreed it's there they would do this wouldn't they?
The administrator will have to place a figure on CCFC Ltd (assuming eventually it has the share) and draw a line under it. Then perhaps Haskell has a chance.
Something has to give. If ultimately after the court hearings and arguing is over that the entity CCFC Ltd has the golden share rights then the FL must decide which bidder is fit and proper. Would that be SISU? I think that could be where SISU is finally undone.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Do you think that maybe Hoffman and Elliott fucked up on where the Golden Share is?
Cut a deal with ACL on a buyer for the club and the Arena, "Look, if you put Limited into Admin, the GS is there and we have somebody lined up to get the club cheaply and invest in the Arena".
Similar conversation with Haskell as well, "Look, ACL are going to put Limited into admin, you can pick up the club cheap, and ACL want somebody to invest in the stadium, so willing to let you have it cheap".
All predicated on where the Golden Share is of course.
Might as well try a conspiracy theory from the other side!
Cut a deal with ACL on a buyer for the club and the Arena, "Look, if you put Limited into Admin, the GS is there and we have somebody lined up to get the club cheaply and invest in the Arena".
Similar conversation with Haskell as well, "Look, ACL are going to put Limited into admin, you can pick up the club cheap, and ACL want somebody to invest in the stadium, so willing to let you have it cheap".
All predicated on where the Golden Share is of course.
Might as well try a conspiracy theory from the other side!
James Smith
Well-Known Member
And the clock is ticking to allow time for the fixtures to be decided and published ahead of the new season.
inside track
New Member
If either of those theories hold water, those involved could face a massive legal headache & the consequence lawyers fees.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Gut feeling says no, but that's not based on anything factual. I thought ACL just wanted the rent payments they were owed, Higgs would sell to SISU and PH4 but Council would veto any sale to SISU. The Charity can't just give their share away as I under it and are unlikely to be willing to sell it cheaply given what they paid the club for it.
Last edited:
I thought Appelton had set a 2 week bidding window. Will the court proceedings be over and a decision taken in respect to the GS at that time? How long will sisu's preferred administrator wait before he execute the sale?
Fit and proper test ... don't expect too much there. It is more likely FA/FL will demand a security bond.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
The thing is they knew that if put into admin they would only ever get a fraction back of what was owed.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
As my old man says 100% of something is normally better than 100% of nothing, which is after all nothing. You could say that they figured that SISU would never hand over the owed rent and it was better to get some of it back, via admin rather than none of it.
But will they get anything at all?
Arvo is owed £10m+ ... ACL is owed 650k (I think Appelton concluded).
Appelton and his lawyer will be owed $500k+ when this is over, and they get the first pennies paid.
So if sisuget to buy back limited for say £1m, there will only be a few pounds left for ACL.
That wouldn't even pay their lawyer bills.
RegTheDonk
Well-Known Member
Confused and sick of it all.
Hoff, Dear old Joe, PH4000, SISU, ACL, Higgs, Council - they are all lickspittles
Hoff, Dear old Joe, PH4000, SISU, ACL, Higgs, Council - they are all lickspittles
