Tonight's statement from the administrator..... (1 Viewer)

skybluearmy88

New Member
So the administrator has tonight released the following statement.......

The administrator for Coventry city has set a deadline of next week for bids for the company - and has made a crucial announcement on the elusive golden share.

The Telegraph has also learned that eight parties have expressed an interest in buying the club and several of those have already lodged bids.

A statement from administrator Paul Appleton concludes that the golden share rests with Coventry City FC Limited - the company in administration.

It is the announcement that club takeover hopefuls have long awaited.

But Mr Appleton has warned fans not to leap to conclusions that it spells the end for hedge fund owners Sisu and Coventry City FC (Holdings) Ltd - the company not in administration that has been running the club and has the players' contracts.

Holdings and Sisu are one of the parties interested in buying the assets in CCFC Ltd, the company it placed in administration in March.

The full statement from Mr Appleton:

Since my appointment as Joint Administrator of Coventry City FC Limited, there has been a huge amount of interest surrounding the ownership of the Football League’s ‘Golden Share’.

Following information I have received from various stakeholders, I now believe the registration of the Golden Share lies with Limited.

While that may have appeared self-evident, the bulk of my investigation has been involved with discovering WHY that is the case.

Indeed, there is still information outstanding which, despite repeated pleas and requests, has not been presented. This has hardly helped clarify a confusing state of affairs dating back some 20 years.

Also, Holdings believe they have a beneficial ownership of the Share given the level of investment they have made and the fact the players contracts are in their name, together with many other important elements.

This has seemingly been endorsed by the Football League who have completed all current player registrations in the name of Holdings.

In my opinion, the importance of the ownership of the Share has been exaggerated in the media and on social networks. Of course, it is a significant element but ownership does not necessarily mean control of the club.

Just as important is the location of the players contracts, the right to use the name Coventry City and the right to sell season tickets - all of which Holdings assert is theirs.

Should Holdings maintain their claim to a beneficial ownership of the Share, ultimately only the Court can overturn that.

I am anxious to avoid such a lengthy process given the amount of uncertainty surrounding the Club and am doing everything in my power to alleviate that uncertainty.

A sale process has begun, I have spoken and met with a number of parties who have expressed an interest in the assets Limited possesses and its interest in the Share.

To that end, I have set a deadline of May 31 for indicative offers from those interested parties.

If a suitable purchaser is identified, it will still be subject to the consent of the Football League and will also likely involve discussions between Holdings and that purchaser.

The Football League holds its next Board Meeting on June 5 and I hope something can be resolved before then.

It will need a major amount of goodwill to be shown by a number of parties and whether we succeed or not remains to be seen. But it will not be for the want of trying on my part.


What does everyone make of what he has said and can anyone see anything that hints at anything?
 

The hopeful bit is that any buyer may have to negotiate with Holdings / SISU, that could mean that their bid is as pathetic as normal :)
 

rupert_bear

Well-Known Member
Well that is atleast something to ponder and hopefully come June 5th we will have a better idea where we are going, Still going to take some time i think but i feel a solution is on the way. Still think the ground is the key without that Holdings or anybody else has no chance of getting football league approval IMO
 

Steve.B50

Well-Known Member
Now he knows where it is, he should talk to ACL and get next season sorted out, just like he did for last three games of last season. Maybe now TF can keep out of things.
 
Maybe the buyer should ask SISU to surrender their shares in holdings free of charge.

What was good for them is surely ok for a new buyer "in the interest of the club"
 

SkyBlueUkeman

New Member
With the players registrations with Sisu, couldn't the players just leave Holdings and re-register with the CCFC Ltd administrated company?

Or, failing that, we go batshitmental in the Transfer market over the summer?
 

psgm1

Banned
I thought you clique apologists said this information was NOTHING new!

Then they claim credit for it!

Are there no depths you guys will not stoop to!

CLEARLY NOT
 

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
I wonder if this might mean SISU are definitely here to stay unless someone is prepared to come to favourable terms to buy them (Holdings) out too...CCFC Ltd on its own is pretty worthless as a footballing entity. All it is is a the Golden share football-wise, but without players to put on the pitch..? AND the Coventry City FC name! That having been said it must be worth something if 8 interested parties have spoken with him.?
 

cloughie

Well-Known Member
Maybe the buyer should ask SISU to surrender their shares in holdings free of charge.

What was good for them is surely ok for a new buyer "in the interest of the club"

Yep as according to timmy boy the club is the most important thing :thinking about:
 
So if it comes down to CCFC Ltd being granted permission to play in League 1 and players contracts with Holdings are deemed ib breech so they can all walk foc, which ones would you sign?

For me; Murphy, Christie, Adams, Baker, Fleck, Thomas, Jennings and Clarke. Then get stuck into the out of contract market. Oh yes and find a Manager as Pressley would be out of contract too.
 

psgm1

Banned
I presume this description of beneficial ownership is accurate (OSB / squirrel or a.n.other financial wiz could confirm / deny):

Investopedia explains 'Beneficial Owner'

1. For example, when shares of a mutual fund are held by a custodian bank or when securities are held by a broker in street name, the true owner is the beneficial owner, even though, for safety and convenience, the bank or broker holds title.

2. Beneficial ownership may be shared among a group of individuals. If a beneficial owner controls a position of more than 5% it must file Schedule 13D under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Assuming this is correct (and is the UK definition) have sisu fulfilled this requirement?

As I said, like Al Capone, he was jailed on tax evasion, and I decided to use a supposedly innocuous fact about the website!

I was roundly attacked for doing something pointless, then when I announced the info about the golden share the same people said this was irrelevant. Now the administrator has released this, the trust has taken credit, and it has been announced on the news!

Seems the critics saying it was a non-story were ABSOLUTELY WRONG!!! AS PER!!!
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
Now he knows where it is, he should talk to ACL and get next season sorted out, just like he did for last three games of last season. Maybe now TF can keep out of things.


He did say last week that was a possibility and TF's rantings were basically an assertion.
 
I wonder if this might mean SISU are definitely here to stay unless someone is prepared to come to favourable terms to buy them (Holdings) out too...CCFC Ltd on its own is pretty worthless as a footballing entity. All it is is a the Golden share football-wise, but without players to put on the pitch..? AND the Coventry City FC name! That having been said it must be worth something if 8 interested parties have spoken with him.?

The only thing the Administrator thinks a new buyer would have to negotiate for is the players contracts and this frivolous claim of beneficial ownership. So if the new owner laughs at the beneficial claim and says tell you what SISU keep your players we will get a new squad that leaves SISU with sweet FA and pretty much in the position they tried to force ACL into.
 

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
I thought you clique apologists said this information was NOTHING new!

Then they claim credit for it!

Are there no depths you guys will not stoop to!

CLEARLY NOT

Get a grip & pull yourself together man!!! Who are "they" that are claiming credit...& for what? (Actually, no - please do not answer that)
Stop your seemingly obsessed ranting - it makes you appear a bit ridiculous.
 

rupert_bear

Well-Known Member
I think Fisher's comments are calculated and coincide with statements he obviously knows are iminent, why i don't know but i suspect his strings are being pulled from afar
 

Paxman II

Well-Known Member
There is nothing new in this statement.

As said unless parties are willing to talk then we will be in a court battle that I think SISU would win.

I said before whoever wants it bad enough and not for free go talk to SISU and cut them a cheque. They will relinquish if a decent enough return is offered. Then get the council to play ball with a stadium deal.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
interesting !!!!!!

certainly doesnt read like a "SISU puppet" statement

No to be fair to him it doesn't. He is stuck in a rock and a hard place. The statement is transparent and fair. It is clear if there is genuine interest in securing the club that there is a window of opportunity to get this sorted.
 

Steve.B50

Well-Known Member
I thought you clique apologists said this information was NOTHING new!

Then they claim credit for it!

Are there no depths you guys will not stoop to!

CLEARLY NOT

Where have we tried to claim any credit? It's all down to you and we all thank you.
 

letsallsingtogether

Well-Known Member
:claping hands::claping hands::claping hands: Hail PSGM1 our savior or hero :mad: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo brrrrrrr ikkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
chhhhhhhhhhh
Some give me my pills
Where have we tried to claim any credit? It's all down to you and we all thank you.
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
The only thing the Administrator thinks a new buyer would have to negotiate for is the players contracts and this frivolous claim of beneficial ownership. So if the new owner laughs at the beneficial claim and says tell you what SISU keep your players we will get a new squad that leaves SISU with sweet FA and pretty much in the position they tried to force ACL into.

What about the academy and rights for Instalments from Keogh and bigi sales? Oh and Ryton? And all of the coaching and office staff, etc?
 

Ripbuster

New Member
What if...
The "fundamental restructuring" in June 2012
Was done so
TF and CO
could use a loophole where if they could slip tiny bits of information past certain bodies,that if ever if came to this they could prove "without doubt" holdings had held the rights to the football club............then where we find ourselves today is right on schedule for what they had planned...they may use the rules of the football league,against the league itself........TF said it would become clearer by June....I believe it will :(
 
What about the academy and rights for Instalments from Keogh and bigi sales? Oh and Ryton? And all of the coaching and office staff, etc?

If the football club is CCFC Ltd and SISU try to claim monies from transfer of players that would be third party trading which is against FL rules, so not even sure they could claim income from transfers and do you really think they would carry on paying the office staff and coaches once they have lost the club. Ryton is a good point though.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
What if...
The "fundamental restructuring" in June 2012
Was done so
TF and CO
could use a loophole where if they could slip tiny bits of information past certain bodies,that if ever if came to this they could prove "without doubt" holdings had held the rights to the football club............then where we find ourselves today is right on schedule for what they had planned...they may use the rules of the football league,against the league itself........TF said it would become clearer by June....I believe it will :(


Am convinced late books etc have been exactly for this purpose .
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
If the football club is CCFC Ltd and SISU try to claim monies from transfer of players that would be third party trading which is against FL rules, so not even sure they could claim income from transfers and do you really think they would carry on paying the office staff and coaches once they have lost the club. Ryton is a good point though.

But holdings have the player registrations and contracts, the football league have allowed this despite ltd having the golden share. I presume the FA even paid the £500k academy grant to holdings.

This is the problem and why I really can't see any alternative than sisu being the prefered bidder for ltd, regardless f what us the fans think.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
What about the academy and rights for Instalments from Keogh and bigi sales? Oh and Ryton? And all of the coaching and office staff, etc?

Should come cheaply as it would'nt exactly benefit them once control of club is lost.
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
Should come cheaply as it would'nt exactly benefit them once control of club is lost.

Also, Holdings believe they have a beneficial ownership of the Share given the level of investment they have made and the fact the players contracts are in their name, together with many other important elements.

This has seemingly been endorsed by the Football League who have completed all current player registrations in the name of Holdings.

In my opinion, the importance of the ownership of the Share has been exaggerated in the media and on social networks. Of course, it is a significant element but ownership does not necessarily mean control of the club.

Just as important is the location of the players contracts, the right to use the name Coventry City and the right to sell season tickets - all of which Holdings assert is theirs.

Should Holdings maintain their claim to a beneficial ownership of the Share, ultimately only the Court can overturn that.
 

georgehudson

Well-Known Member
having read TF's stuff in the CT today, i can only conclude that this is a person who is solely presenting a case in his / their case,
here's to a situation where true justice prevails,
for far too long the CCFC fans have been treated like cannon fodder,
in summation i hope that the relevant persons receive the appropriate !
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
Also, Holdings believe they have a beneficial ownership of the Share given the level of investment they have made and the fact the players contracts are in their name, together with many other important elements.

This has seemingly been endorsed by the Football League who have completed all current player registrations in the name of Holdings.

In my opinion, the importance of the ownership of the Share has been exaggerated in the media and on social networks. Of course, it is a significant element but ownership does not necessarily mean control of the club.

Just as important is the location of the players contracts, the right to use the name Coventry City and the right to sell season tickets - all of which Holdings assert is theirs.

Should Holdings maintain their claim to a beneficial ownership of the Share, ultimately only the Court can overturn that.

The words Benficial which are capable of being challenged in court and the word assert imply vagueries Stu,the main surprise for me is player registrations ,which its possible were only shifted last summer,all still open to question.
 

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
Also, Holdings believe they have a beneficial ownership of the Share given the level of investment they have made and the fact the players contracts are in their name, together with many other important elements.

This has seemingly been endorsed by the Football League who have completed all current player registrations in the name of Holdings.

In my opinion, the importance of the ownership of the Share has been exaggerated in the media and on social networks. Of course, it is a significant element but ownership does not necessarily mean control of the club.

Just as important is the location of the players contracts, the right to use the name Coventry City and the right to sell season tickets - all of which Holdings assert is theirs.

Should Holdings maintain their claim to a beneficial ownership of the Share, ultimately only the Court can overturn that.

Now that's what I call a bold post!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top