why would league choose sisu? (1 Viewer)

[psgm1]

The FL has categorically stated that as far as it is concerned ccfc is in administration. That doesn't mean the club no longer exists. Tf claim is based on previous ownership and current beneficial ownership. Tf has. Tf has stated all contracts are with holdings.

But what is dropping the fl re-issuing the share to ltd? The club could relatively easily sign new players.

Also right now holdings are refusing to deal with ACL, but there is already agreements in place for any new owner of ltd to play at the Ricoh!

So on one hand you have TF with no place to play struggling to get a groundshare, completely alienating fans, and no viable long term solution; while on the other hand you have ltd that only needs new players and it could use the Ricoh right now!

When you consider pre-season clubs buy and sell players anyway, there really is no justifiable case to prevent the share going to whoever owns ltd!

And by the knowledge that sisu have now decided to bid for a company that TF previously stated had nothing of value, chances are secretly even they realise this!

Which is why it has always been so vital that no one deals with them again; and why sitting on the fence may have caused harm to the club

 

---

[Steve.B50]

Very good post. Valid points and cannot disagree.

 

[Otis]

The FL has categorically stated that as far as it is concerned ccfc is in administration. That doesn't mean the club no longer exists. Tf claim is based on previous ownership and current beneficial ownership. Tf has. Tf has stated all contracts are with holdings.

But what is dropping the fl re-issuing the share to ltd? The club could relatively easily sign new players.

Also right now holdings are refusing to deal with ACL, but there is already agreements in place for any new owner of ltd to play at the Ricoh!

So on one hand you have TF with no place to play struggling to get a groundshare, completely alienating fans, and no viable long term solution; while on the other hand you have ltd that only needs new players and it could use the Ricoh right now!

When you consider pre-season clubs buy and sell players anyway, there really is no justifiable case to prevent the share going to whoever owns ltd!

And by the knowledge that sisu have now decided to bid for a company that TF previously stated had nothing of value, chances are secretly even they realise this!

Which is why it has always been so vital that no one deals with them again; and why sitting on the fence may have caused harm to the club

This all comes down to two things I guess. 1. will the league give the golden share to whoever buys ltd and 2. Will the new owners be able to dispprove this so called beneficial ownership claim in the courts?

Sent from my KIS using Tapatalk 2

 

[stupot07]

The FL has categorically stated that as far as it is concerned ccfc is in administration. That doesn't mean the club no longer exists. Tf claim is based on previous ownership and current beneficial ownership. Tf has. Tf has stated all contracts are with holdings.

But what is dropping the fl re-issuing the share to ltd? The club could relatively easily sign new players.

Also right now holdings are refusing to deal with ACL, but there is already agreements in place for any new owner of ltd to play at the Ricoh!

So on one hand you have TF with no place to play struggling to get a groundshare, completely alienating fans, and no viable long term solution; while on the other hand you have ltd that only needs new players and it could use the Ricoh right now!

When you consider pre-season clubs buy and sell players anyway, there really is no justifiable case to prevent the share going to whoever owns ltd!

And by the knowledge that sisu have now decided to bid for a company that TF previously stated had nothing of value, chances are secretly even they realise this!

Which is why it has always been so vital that no one deals with them again; and why sitting on the fence may have caused harm to the club

The problem is the football league have legitimised Holdings by a) allowing the player contracts and registrations to be placed there, b) paying football league and fa grants to Holdings and c) allowing club to club transactions (i.e player transfers, fa gate reciepts, etc) to go through holdings.

Holdings also holds the naming rights and academy.

It's not an easy decision for the football league, they give the share to ltd meaning holdings can't play and with inevitably be liquidated. That means players and coaching staff will be unemployed and any payments owed for players or sell on clauses would be obsolete. Some clubs won't be happy about that (ie PNE, Rangers, sunderland, Norwich, etc). So the football league could potentially have opposition from fellow clubs, the PFA and LMA if they decide to give the share to ltd.