torchomatic
Well-Known Member
So basically, everything stays the same. It's Sixfields.
ACL on CWR after 9am this morning (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter cov_george
- Start date
duffer
Well-Known Member
PWKH came across well I thought. A few things that came out:
If the CVA is voted through, then there's no further investigation into the goings on at CCFC Ltd. He was careful to couch his words, but in essence this was a reference to the assets that seem to have gone missing from CCFC Ltd since the accounts were last signed off. Despite this, still no decision on whether they will or won't vote it down - "too many moving parts" to make that call at the moment.
Clear possiblity that ACL will deal with the new owners, if or when they become the new owners. Definite doubts as to whether the structure that the Administrator proposed will come to pass.
PWKH suggests ACL can survive financially without CCFC, but they don't want to.
FL threatened by SISU's lawyers. FL have no real interest in regulating the game, all they really care about is making sure that fixtures are fulfilled. Possiblity that FL may also find themselves subject to action from ACL's lawyers.
Next couple of weeks critical.
That's what I took out of the interview anyway, and I'm paraphrasing rather than quoting directly, obviously.
If the CVA is voted through, then there's no further investigation into the goings on at CCFC Ltd. He was careful to couch his words, but in essence this was a reference to the assets that seem to have gone missing from CCFC Ltd since the accounts were last signed off. Despite this, still no decision on whether they will or won't vote it down - "too many moving parts" to make that call at the moment.
Clear possiblity that ACL will deal with the new owners, if or when they become the new owners. Definite doubts as to whether the structure that the Administrator proposed will come to pass.
PWKH suggests ACL can survive financially without CCFC, but they don't want to.
FL threatened by SISU's lawyers. FL have no real interest in regulating the game, all they really care about is making sure that fixtures are fulfilled. Possiblity that FL may also find themselves subject to action from ACL's lawyers.
Next couple of weeks critical.
That's what I took out of the interview anyway, and I'm paraphrasing rather than quoting directly, obviously.
duffer
Well-Known Member
Not quite the way I heard it torchy. If there's anything to take away from this, I think it's that it's not all over yet.
But it doesn't sound like we should bank on much help from the FL, unless the path of least resistance that they seem determined to follow suddenly gets a bit harder...
I don't think it would be worth the minus 15 points and not be able to use this trandsfer window.
They may find 'something' but surely not enough to send someone to prison or change the terms of the administration.
With all the of accountants and lawyers in sisu's armory, I don't think they would leave anything major to be found.
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
It's over to you Tim, ACL have said they will negotiate with Otium so the ball is in your court remain in Coventry at the Ricoh.. :thinking about:
skybluebeduff
Well-Known Member
Seems that way, too much business mumbo jumbo going for my liking.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Thanks Duff, didn't hear it myself.
Hopefully, it's not over yet but we're now just over three weeks away until the first game at home, so if it is to be the Ricoh then something needs sorting ASAbloodyP.
Hopefully, it's not over yet but we're now just over three weeks away until the first game at home, so if it is to be the Ricoh then something needs sorting ASAbloodyP.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Reckon anybody's going to get round to selling tickets, so people have a choice whether to go or not anyway?!?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I know he didn't say it directly but I got the feeling he was suggesting liquidating CCFC ltd is only liquidating a lease and was not significant.
Could he had meant not significant as in wont lead to minus 15?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Over to Joy by the sounds if it
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Def say no to the CVA then as there needs to be an investigation
Sounds like ACL have tabled the offer directly the the FL to show CCFC can play at the Ricoh, question now will be what happens when Joy says no.
Is this the first time ACL have confirmed they will speak to Otium? Fisher can't hide behind his 'they won't talk to us' now.
This makes sense, seems a waste of time talking to Fisher if he can't agree anything.
What a shocking revelation, who would have thought SISU would threaten someone with legal action?!
that answers the question of why the council have been so silent. could it be SISU know it has no legs but just wanted to silence the council?
Roughly what time was PWKH on? Might give it a listen on iplayer.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Completely agree
It amazing what you learn with these things
I have a complete lack of respect now for the FL.
They have no morals
Good question! But surely refusing a CVA will leave to a severe points penalty?
I think he meant that the club would live on - it wouldn't die altogether as has previously been a myth on this board.
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Ah yes the invisible one..
duffer
Well-Known Member
Actually, I'd differ. I think it's a risk well worth taking. As I recall there is the power to unwind transfers of assets that have taken place within three years, for companies that have gone into administration.
Plus there's the possiblity that our directors conduct would make them unfit to hold further posts, or even be guilty of illegal practices. Imagine how that would change things.
I don't think it's time to give up this fight yet - I'd like nothing more than to get to the truth in this whole rotten mess.
Last edited:
jesus-wept
New Member
I have said consistently on here that Northampton Town and David Cardoza are the weak links in this and all pressure should be put there to get them to pull away from this ground share.
I am still not certain any agreement has finally been signed or not, but money talks and should be pushed their way to get them to pull out if all else fails.
I am still not certain any agreement has finally been signed or not, but money talks and should be pushed their way to get them to pull out if all else fails.
Danceswithhorses
Well-Known Member
If the GS has been promised to holdings or otium upon the end of administration, then maybe liquidating ccfc will not lead to -15 ?
I sure as hell have no idea, but maybe that was the inference.
duffer
Well-Known Member
Think you're about spot on with most of this, imho.
Interview was between 9:00 and 9:30. Pretty much that whole half-hour.
jesus-wept
New Member
At this moment in time hate to say it but minus 15 point is the last of our concerns. Relegation seems likely anyway we are unable to recruit because of this embargo, deliberately done imo to put a gun to heads
Two things we need to remember:
1) Holdings and Limited shared the same bank account. That mean it will be extremely difficult to argue for/against any transfer involving cash - e.g. player transfers.
2) Limited was established in 1995 - and since then there have been multiple boards, multiple accountants, multiple accounting policies and the company has changed purpose of trading at least twice.
I am NOT an accountant, but I would be hugely surprised if anyone can build a case against the club for other than filing signed accounts without changing the 'purpose of the company' to reflect change in trading. And that won't put anyone in jail or lead to any reverse asset transfer.
wes_cov
New Member
it's pretty shabby in Coventry too mate more interference than maradona...
Last term we lost at least 10 points in the start of the season and was further deducted 10 points towards the end. We still was some way above the relegation zone. And we still have the backbone of the squad: Murphy, Baker, Moussa, Clarke. We won't get relegated!
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
In the long term taking 15 points to sort this out will be worth it.
Just because SISU have lawyers does not make them above the law.
jesus-wept
New Member
So minus 15 should be okay then
Danceswithhorses
Well-Known Member
A bold prediction there my friend...wish i had an ounce of your confidence
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
As soon as my posts started mate
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Yeah that's how I heard it, although would like to hear back to confirm
Kind of feel PWKH is the wrong person to be interviewed here. I mean this with no disrespect and in fact, praise as my lay reading is they've found themselves trapped in the middle of a dispute that isn't theirs. What would be far more interesting is that chat with the council!
The Council are pulling the strings in the background, yet bizarrely are rarely mentioned.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Yes unfortunately I was not sure which it was he was inferring towards
duffer
Well-Known Member
Holdings & Limited are different legal entities.
The law regarding asset stripping is specifically designed to stop the transfer of assets out of a company, leaving it with only liabilities.
I'm not an accountant either, but I've run my own business, worked in banking, and I've some experience of financial laws and regulations. I can also read accounts (though not to the forensic level of others on here). Saying that the accounts are a bit of a 'mess' doesn't usually cut much ice with the courts.
I'm not on my own in thinking that something extremely dodgy has gone on. Smarter people than me have their doubts too. Frankly, I'd be hugely surprised if there hasn't been something going on, but the only way we'll really know is if there's a proper investigation. I hope we'll get one.
pre season results are not far off meaningless especially when the opposition is as low level as the germans from yesterday, nuneaton struggled in the conference last year yet are still 4 or 5 leagues higher quality than the Germans and there is certainly reasons to worry about weather some of our best players cristie/clark/baker etc will still be with us.
I'm not sure I'd go as far as to say relegation is likely but it is likely that we will be battling to avoid it.
skybluelee
Well-Known Member
Have you not yet worked out that Brian is just a wum? lol.
Then we are about the same level, though I've never worked in banking.
So I assume you - as I have - in many occasions have had to listen to the experts in regards to your own company. The experts being accountants, auditors and lawyers.
Just like TF.
If you and I listened and never took deliberate illegal actions, even knowing there would never be an investigation, then why would TF do something illegal full knowing an investigation would be more than likely?
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Moving assets to the detriment of other creditors? Surelt that's to defraud them?
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
TRANSACTIONS DEFRAUDING CREDITORS
PART 7
February 2010
TRANSACTIONS DEFRAUDING CREDITORS
31.4B.138 Transactions defrauding creditors - general
Essentially, the purpose of the provisions in the Act relating to transactions defrauding creditors are to enable the setting aside of transactions at an undervalue where the intention of the transaction was to put assets out of the reach of creditors.
PART 7
February 2010
TRANSACTIONS DEFRAUDING CREDITORS
31.4B.138 Transactions defrauding creditors - general
Essentially, the purpose of the provisions in the Act relating to transactions defrauding creditors are to enable the setting aside of transactions at an undervalue where the intention of the transaction was to put assets out of the reach of creditors.