torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Have you? Me neither. I'm all mouth and no trousers so I'm glad we have people like the Trust to ask questions on our behalf.
Trust meet administrator - statement coming (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter AFCCOVENTRY
- Start date
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
I think it's good he's meeting with them & making it clear that he considers to be such an important stakeholder. Although a stakeholder without being a debtor in financial terms - he seems to have left himself open to criticism should he ride rough-shod over fan's interests.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
So let me get this right the trust has visited the person currently running what ?
these guys have the best intrest of the club at heart. but in truth that expidition told us nothing more than we already knew.. and was never going to
We have the football league, ACL & a number of multi millionaire backed potential investors all trying to get the ansers out of the administrator.. if they cant get the info, i honestly dont see the point in us asking the same questions ( i say us, because im a member of the trust )
and the administartor maybe charged £150+ an hour for the pleasure... he will give the answers when he is good n ready .. maybe even when SISU allow him. sorry but thats how it works
We have the football league, ACL & a number of multi millionaire backed potential investors all trying to get the ansers out of the administrator.. if they cant get the info, i honestly dont see the point in us asking the same questions ( i say us, because im a member of the trust )
and the administartor maybe charged £150+ an hour for the pleasure... he will give the answers when he is good n ready .. maybe even when SISU allow him. sorry but thats how it works
duffer
Well-Known Member
They've met the Administrator. That's the person currently running CCFC Ltd.
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Of course it's good Baz, Unfortunately right now until Mr Appleton finds the Golden Share we are stuck with SISU, that nobody wants, we need to find that Golden Share, if it came down to a bright new future and having to wait until June to start buying my season ticket then fine so be it, that's what is best for the club.
In time if all the facts are brought to light the club can move and look to the future, if not this well then..
:blue::blue::blue:
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
You'd have more luck trying to contact the spirit of Bryan Richardson's conscience..
Personally, I'm not bothered about anything else but the golden share at the moment. The stadium, academy etc will get sorted or looked at once the share has been found
The only thing that is pissing me off is why it is taking him so long to find the share. That's the question the trust should have asked.
The only thing that is pissing me off is why it is taking him so long to find the share. That's the question the trust should have asked.
Personally, I am not to bothered about anything else other than the golden share at the moment. Once the share is found we can then look at the stadium, academy etc.
The thing that pisses me off and seems to piss a lot of people off is why is it taking him so long!! The trust should have asked him this
The thing that pisses me off and seems to piss a lot of people off is why is it taking him so long!! The trust should have asked him this
duffer
Well-Known Member
Well in mid-2012, when Fisher signed off the books, pretty much everything relating to the club was in CCFC Ltd. We're yet to see what's in there now, which is why the Administrator is really the key player at the moment.
And yes, if it came to it and it saved the club money or gave it a better chance as a going concern, he'd have the power to get rid of anyone employed by CCFC Ltd - including the manager.
I guess what you're trying to say that the trust are wasting their time by meeting the man at the absolute centre of all of the current issues, and with the power to sell or liquidate the club. Interesting opinion.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Would probably help of the administrator worked from Coventry, not London
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
I think there are solicitors letters from CCFC (H) Ltd disputing the location of the Golden Share.. SISU won't back off without a fight.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
SISU are based in London. :thinking about:
@richh87
Member
It's all bollocks though isn't it. This is all a SISU time wasting exercise. They know where the share is because to track it is EXTREMELY SIMPLE; "Tim, it was in CCFC Ltd in June 2012 - did your people decide to transfer it?" It really is THAT simple.
Either SISU aren't providing the information to the administrator to slow him down, or he knows where it is and isn't telling us.
I'm not having it that it's hard to determine - the administrator must think we're all idiots.
So the question is, what are we going to do in order to get the administrator's arse into gear? Join the Trust seems to be the peaceful option...
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
Bags of flaming turd on his doorstep being the non-peaceful option? Or "SISU Out" Balloons tied to his hotel door as a subtle but terrifying hint?
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
How many times do people have to answer this question fuck me don't people read treads before they ask questions getting bored of this as an argument,
At the end of the day they may not do anything, but at least they try to get answers that you lot put forward,Fickle people believe that they can get the answers themselves please prove me wrong.......
Go get a meeting with the administrator or SiSU or ACL ask these questions for us????
Then post them on here for us all to read even if we don't like the answers or questions asked.......
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
The administrator is running CCFC Ltd. There is debt to SISU and some others. As far as we know that is not the football club and therefore nothing to do with players, their contracts or of any other employee of the football club. Those are all Holdings. Quite why you would ask him about anything not related to what his is running is crazy. Quite why the administrator thinks he can tell holdings what to do about the academy seems stretched too. When has the academy been a part of CCFC Ltd?
It's not a matter of where the golden share is but establishing which entity has the right to it. But as I said before the football club (Holdings) nothing to do with the administrator is fielding a team, paying wages and completing fixtures.
Now again quite why the administrator is receiving the match day revenue (if that is true) is also rather strange?
Perhaps these simple questions would have clarified a lot for all of us. In other words what is he administering?
He also sounds like he's bloody Columbo rather than an administrator. Just ask what part if any of the football club currently fielding a team do you run? I think the answer is none. that is being run by SISU's company CCFC (Holdings) Ltd. and are not in admin!
It's not a matter of where the golden share is but establishing which entity has the right to it. But as I said before the football club (Holdings) nothing to do with the administrator is fielding a team, paying wages and completing fixtures.
Now again quite why the administrator is receiving the match day revenue (if that is true) is also rather strange?
Perhaps these simple questions would have clarified a lot for all of us. In other words what is he administering?
He also sounds like he's bloody Columbo rather than an administrator. Just ask what part if any of the football club currently fielding a team do you run? I think the answer is none. that is being run by SISU's company CCFC (Holdings) Ltd. and are not in admin!
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Exactly what i'm getting at Pax.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Maybe we are not getting told anything by SISU or the administrator
So the SBT have tried to find stuff out for us.
Whether successful or not they have tried.
I would prefer if they keep trying we need answers.
I applaud anyone asking the questions.
So the SBT have tried to find stuff out for us.
Whether successful or not they have tried.
I would prefer if they keep trying we need answers.
I applaud anyone asking the questions.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Wrong questions to the wrong people make you look stupid.
I will expand a telephone conversation would suffice in this instance rather than announce a big meeting and then an announcement of a statement before even doing the the statement , then tell us nothing new.
Just wasting everyone's time and isn't very clever.
I will expand a telephone conversation would suffice in this instance rather than announce a big meeting and then an announcement of a statement before even doing the the statement , then tell us nothing new.
Just wasting everyone's time and isn't very clever.
SkyBlueSwiss
New Member
I am mostly in agreement with your posts sbj, but imo you are being a bit of a boor on the subject of the trust. They are trying to do something, and at some clubs they have had a significant impact when things turned bad. They do no harm, and they might just do some good. I suggest you join as well and add your voice to the only group that is for the club and not for some institution or other with a private agenda.
I look forward to your post saying you have joined the trust!
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
First thing I have liked from you in a long time torch
mark82
Super Moderator
Isn't all this what the administrator is trying to ascertain at the moment? Not just if they have all been moved to holdings but if it has been done legally. This will take time. The administrator will not "leak" any unknown information to the trust. Anything new will come out as an official statement.
I commend the Trust for trying to get answers from the administrator if for no other reason than to remind him that there are supporters here who are impacted. Realistically we will need to wait until the next court case in May for any real answers.
Also, to clear up one thing (not to you necessarily Paxman), the administrator does not work for SISU, he is neutral. He is duty bound by law to remain so, and to find the best deal for the creditors (largest of which is SISU via ARVO).
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
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
- 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
Last edited:
SonofErnie
Well-Known Member
Are you inferring that CCFC holdings is also in admin ? It just hasn't been admitted by SISU
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
The way I read it Appleton was appointed as the administrator for both CCFCH and ACL, which would make him able to advise both parties.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Not inferring it no soe............ administration is a matter of legal fact. CCFCH is no in admin
If you look at CCFC it is owned by CCFCH ......... so effectively one business........ or if you accept that everything bar the lease is in CCFCH it is one business. Clearly that business doesnt seem able to pay its bill which ever way you choose to package it. All that has happened is that the same figures have been allocated in the same group in a different way .......... they are still the same figures in total though. So why is it a solvent going concern? Why did ARVO go after CCFC Ltd (no assets) but not CCFC H (assets Ryton, equipment, trademarks, players contracts etc ) it has a charge on both companies? Which would you choose if you wanted your money back?
Perhaps it should all be in admin.............perhaps it will be in time ......... we will have to wait see
If you look at CCFC it is owned by CCFCH ......... so effectively one business........ or if you accept that everything bar the lease is in CCFCH it is one business. Clearly that business doesnt seem able to pay its bill which ever way you choose to package it. All that has happened is that the same figures have been allocated in the same group in a different way .......... they are still the same figures in total though. So why is it a solvent going concern? Why did ARVO go after CCFC Ltd (no assets) but not CCFC H (assets Ryton, equipment, trademarks, players contracts etc ) it has a charge on both companies? Which would you choose if you wanted your money back?
Perhaps it should all be in admin.............perhaps it will be in time ......... we will have to wait see
skyblueman
New Member
My thoughts also - just doesn't make sense - Admin of CCFC Ltd should be really straight forward - no income - assets (golden share) and liabilities Inter company debt and the ACL lease - that's about it isn't it? Liquidation has to be the only viable route here - just doesn't add up
SonofErnie
Well-Known Member
Until the next court date I don't think any of us will any the wiser on the actual position and even then I expect a further deferral. I fully expect this to drag on well into next season and SISU to hold on to the reins of power.
S
skyblue2k
Guest
Perhaps its the football league that the trust should be trying to get an answer from, as ccfc limited is in administration; has the golden share been returned back to them?
Surely the football league & Association should also be asking questions and finding out what is going on, as ACL's statement said that the FA and FL confirmed the shares were with CCFC Limited.
This is a massive murky mess and its starting to look that come next season Sisu will still be pulling the strings!
Surely the football league & Association should also be asking questions and finding out what is going on, as ACL's statement said that the FA and FL confirmed the shares were with CCFC Limited.
This is a massive murky mess and its starting to look that come next season Sisu will still be pulling the strings!
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Other main question for me OSB is that doesn't someone taking over Ltd also need to take over CCFCH and SBS+L, otherwise they're essentially owning nothing?