Coventry City FC's Players are registered with Limited, not Holdings (9 Viewers)
- Thread starter FootyLawBlog
- Start date
CJ_covblaze
Well-Known Member
Isn't it stange how I pointed that out to Fisher and Brookfield at one of the forums and they denied it.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Yes because they can't help but lie what future do we have with monkeys like that running our club if he said we play in Sky Blue I wouldn't believe that ether.
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
In fairness CJ you were supposed to have one question and you took up 15 mins of the forum..
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Outrageous!! How can we get out club??
Some people were saying are we sure we can trust Sisu 6.5 years ago and significant coventry stalwarts were drowning out their voices!!
Some people were saying are we sure we can trust Sisu 6.5 years ago and significant coventry stalwarts were drowning out their voices!!
But looks like they were telling tall ones .
Last edited:
D
Ddccfc
Guest
Look at the value of the player registrations in that document.
It is far more likely that the bulk of registrations is with Holdings and perhaps one or two are with Limited.
It is far more likely that the bulk of registrations is with Holdings and perhaps one or two are with Limited.
D
Ddccfc
Guest
Not if that one player registration happens to be Malaga or Chris Dunn...
thats pretty much what tim fisher said at the forum i went too.. he said something along the lines of , he said the paperwork is all over the place.. some staff are under ccfc holdings.. some under limited.. and some under totally diffrent company names. he went on to say that while most players are registered under holdings , there were even a couple that had been actually been registered by limited.
and at 400k, that just sems to confirm what he said.. 400k is not very much in registered fees for players..
cloughie
Well-Known Member
It said 'book value' and estimated to realise as uncertain. It does not mean that £466,000 is the value of the players
the thing is that would suggest something of a policy rather than a bookkeeping mess !! WTF has been going on here ,thenn the mention of other players being held through other vehicles ,third party ownership looks a possibility.
Did hear that rumour regarding youth players and the PFA. Wonder If they were registered in LTD as that is where Academy funding went to.:thinking about:
the thing is that would suggest something of a policy rather than a bookkeeping mess !! WTF has been going on here ,thenn the mention of other players being held through other vehicles ,third party ownership looks a possibility.
Exactly - as I have said a few times ... the mess is from different account policies. The players still in limited are most likely Bell and McSheffrey who had long term extensions given by Dulieu.
The title of the thread is false - it is just a couple of players who are registered with limited. It does make me wonder how credible the blog writer is - though he clearly state somewhere on his blog 'I am not a lawyer' ...
You can link this information to the 'news' that Bell and McSheffrey are not included in the team going forward. Add to that the possibility of limited being liquidated and you may come to the conclusion that those players soon may find themself without a monthly paycheck unless they find another club.
Last edited:
D
Ddccfc
Guest
I have it on good authority that the author of the blog has links with Mr Guilfoyle / ACL.
Do not underestimate the level of cloak and dagger, childish tactics being deployed by ALL sides in this sorry fiasco.
Do not underestimate the level of cloak and dagger, childish tactics being deployed by ALL sides in this sorry fiasco.
Well, I wouldn't be surprised but I will need some hard evidence before I trust that to be true.
The 2011 accounts of Ltd signed off in June 2012 show Player Registrations as Intangible Assets with a Net Book Value of £1.8m - accounts signed off by Fisher and the auditors as giving "a true and fair view of the state of the company's affairs". The 2011 accounts of Holdings , signed off on the same day, show NO player registrations under Intangible Assets. Can't be any clearer than that can it?
As a matter of interest, Holdings accounts do show CCFC Ltd as a subsidiary with its activities stated to be "Playing Activities of a professional Football Club" !
As a matter of interest, Holdings accounts do show CCFC Ltd as a subsidiary with its activities stated to be "Playing Activities of a professional Football Club" !
It did cross my mind .
On your other points Godiva ,litigation all over It .PFA ETC third party ownership everywhere you look.
It was all explained by Brookfield at the forums ... you can find audio of the forums on youtube.
And limited was actually established in 95 with the purpose of third party ownership. But I don't think anyone can prove third party ownership today due to Holdings and Limited having same owners and same bank account.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Did the bidders know what they were bidding for at the time ?
Seems pretty essential to me.
Were the others told the players were in Holdings when SISU knew they were in LTD !!!
Seems pretty essential to me.
Were the others told the players were in Holdings when SISU knew they were in LTD !!!
Skybluesquirrel
New Member
I covered this a while ago.
http://aprisonofmeasuredtime.wordpr...l-club-is-not-a-football-club-without-players
CCFC Ltd used to show the players registrations as assets, buy and sell them and pay the wages. This has apparently been switched to Holdings Ltd at some point. My suggestion was it must have occurred after June 21 2012 - the date Fisher signed off the accounts and before the closure of the transfer window.
The FL have never commented on the transfer...
http://aprisonofmeasuredtime.wordpr...l-club-is-not-a-football-club-without-players
CCFC Ltd used to show the players registrations as assets, buy and sell them and pay the wages. This has apparently been switched to Holdings Ltd at some point. My suggestion was it must have occurred after June 21 2012 - the date Fisher signed off the accounts and before the closure of the transfer window.
The FL have never commented on the transfer...
Still sounds open to challenge to me ,however often its trailed doesn't necessarily make It the case. Seems arguments based around beneficial ownership in one Sphere ,contradicts a position in another .IE;- Legals over FL ??:thinking about:
You're right, and all we can do is trust the administrator and the FL as they have reviewed all the evidence.
That said - if we - the fans - are ever to to be fully satisfied that the CURRENT management has done nothing illegal or dodgy, at some point the club will have to sit down with representatives and explain in detail to their satisfaction. I had a hoped our representatives would be the Trust, but it can't happen until they re-adopt their constitution and start working with the club.
FootyLawBlog
New Member
Would you care to publish your authority?
I have absolutely no links with either and challenge you to publish and be damned.
SkyBlueScottie
Well-Known Member
Its pretty clear to me that ACL tried to distress the football club by trying to put it into Admin, believing that the players came under the ltd Company.
You mean after not locking the Ricoh arena doors by December?/
D
Ddccfc
Guest
Surely you are better positioned to "damn" me by simply stepping forth from the murky camouflage of anonymity?
If you have no such connections, identifying yourself should not be a problem.
The scrutinisers should also be open to scrutiny.
By virtue of your own words you should name your source and be able to name FLB .:thinking about:
D
Ddccfc
Guest
By virtue of your own words you should name your source and be able to name FLB .:thinking about:
I'll show you mine, if you show me yours.
Someone who claims to present an objective legal analysis of a subject loses all credibility if they are not willing to be open and honest themselves.
Bias and subjectivity are implied by the anonymity.
I was there and his response was wholly inadequate. (As was most of his answers,) He didn't answer the question at all
Is this source the same "lawyer friend" that told you people could end up behind bars as a result of the judicial review? You keep some odd company.
Your good authority is the same as mine then . My trigger was also pulled by this recent phenomena , but I'm happy enough to take all information on offer,It does seem educational ,exposing nuances likely going on in the background . I mean yesterdays pronouncement seems to be more than the sum of its words. :thinking about: