Football League Contradictions - Bob Ainsworth (8 Viewers)

[RPHunt]

Bob Ainsworth published the following earlier today:

October 1, 2013 · 3:51 pm
Football League contradicting its own statements again

In March, prior to my adjournment debate on Coventry City Football Club, the Football League emailed me a statement to clarify their position as I had asked them to do. The statement read:

“Any application to move to a stadium outside of the City would need to be considered by the Board of The Football League. In doing so, the Board would require the club to demonstrate that it had a clear plan for returning to Coventry within a prescribed timeframe.”

The statement was clear and unequivocal so I quoted it in the debate believing this to be one bright spot in an otherwise disastrous tale.

Alas, the commitment was not what it seemed.

The Board of the Football League ultimately approved the club’s move to a stadium outside of the city, and when asked if he had seen a clear plan for the club to return to Coventry, the Football League’s Chairman Greg Clark told the Coventry Telegraph:

“I don’t know, because I don’t [know] how anyone could know how a hypothetical stadium could be funded. You would have to get specific proposals in place for the Football League to evaluate them.

“We’ve seen targets… areas and opportunities they are considering to develop a stadium.

“Until they finalise which one and come up with a fully drafted business plan, it is impossible for us to go through it.”

Now they have done it again. In a letter to me on the 5 August 2013, the Football League’s Chief Operating Officer, Andy Williamson explained the entry conditions imposed by the Football League and accepted by Otium Entertainment Group Limited (OEG) as part of the process to transfer the ‘golden share’ to OEG. He said:

“The Football League Board agreed to offer Otium Entertainment Group the club’s share in the Football League providing it accepted various entry conditions including a commitment that it meet the financial offer made to creditors under the proposed CVA.”

However, when Arena Coventry Limited’s (ACL) representative wrote seeking clarification as to the condition the Football League had imposed on OEG, and when ACL might receive payment, the Football League wrote back to say:

“We are not in a position to disclose the terms of the agreement between The Football League Limited and Otium Entertainment Group Limited and any queries about payment to creditors should be addressed to David Ruben & Partners as Administrators of Coventry City Football Club Limited. They are in possession of the funds arising out of the sale of assets to Otium Entertainment Group Limited.”

I have sought clarification from the Football League in relation to this latest contradiction, as yet to no avail. Those of you who have Coventry’s interests and good governance of football at heart, please help if you can.

 

---

[blueflint]

we know the F L are toothless and should never be allowed to run any form of business they will not help in any way

 

[Spionkop]

How do they get away with it?

 

[italiahorse]

When its laid out like that in black and white it makes you think what the hell are they doing,
They have played into SISU hands instead of trying to assist in brokering a deal between two fighting parties.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Not sure how the FL can over ride insolvency law. The administrator has received £1.5m plus potentially a rates refund and maybe other odds and ends. Out of that my understanding is that he will pay his fees approx £900k (I think) plus the costs of liquidation and anything that is left is payable to the remaining creditors in proportion to what their claims are. That though ignores the secured claim from ARVO which could mean nothing to be paid to other creditors. So where is this £590k the FL are insisting as being paid coming from?

Havent seen the final statement from Applton as to the funds available and where allocated though so it isnt easy to tell what is going on

I thought that Appleton was going to start the liquidation last week ? its now 2 months since the CVA was rejected what is the hold up?

 

[Cheshire Sky Blue]

Not sure how the FL can over ride insolvency law. The administrator has received £1.5m plus potentially a rates refund and maybe other odds and ends. Out of that my understanding is that he will pay his fees approx £900k (I think) plus the costs of liquidation and anything that is left is payable to the remaining creditors in proportion to what their claims are. That though ignores the secured claim from ARVO which could mean nothing to be paid to other creditors. So where is this £590k the FL are insisting as being paid coming from?

Havent seen the final statement from Applton as to the funds available and where allocated though so it isnt easy to tell what is going on

I thought that Appleton was going to start the liquidation last week ? its now 2 months since the CVA was rejected what is the hold up?

Not sure if the payment stipulated by the FL as a condition to gaining the golden share has anything to do with insolvency law. Insolvency process all but concluded at the rejection of the CVA. (Recognise the process of dissolution has yet to occur) However Appleton will not release any cash until the very end, he and SISU will keep any funds. I bet that ACL will have to wait years for any cash, why would SISU put cash into a business they are try to bankrupt?

 

[ricohman]

Well done ainsworth, keep picking away and we might just get something outta this mess

 

[thaiskyblue]

Well done ainsworth, keep picking away and we might just get something outta this mess

cannot tell richoman if this tounge in cheek or praise ?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Not sure if the payment stipulated by the FL as a condition to gaining the golden share has anything to do with insolvency law. Insolvency process all but concluded at the rejection of the CVA. (Recognise the process of dissolution has yet to occur) However Appleton will not release any cash until the very end, he and SISU will keep any funds. I bet that ACL will have to wait years for any cash, why would SISU put cash into a business they are try to bankrupt?

thats the point though ........... why does the FL refer Ainsworth to Rubin & Co when it is not up to Appleton to make the payment. The debt to ACL is part of the cost for OTIUM to acquire the share it is not a debt of CCFC ltd and the administrator.

In the same way that according to Appleton it was illegal for ACL to try add rent terms in to the CVA settlement surely it is illegal for the FL to add in its terms for the share. Otium got the share and other than paying £1.5m for rights to assets are not part of the administration setllement (liquidation) of CCFC Ltd

 

[skybluetony176]

How do they get away with it?

they work by the pirates code. they are more guidlenes than rules.

 

[jaytskyblue]

Well done Ainsworth for keeping key questions in public view. The more transparency the better.
And someone said Appleton may be getting 900k for his services, seriously how many man days have been put into this? It's not like there are dozens of creditors...

 

[torchomatic]

Didn't he make errors in his EDM though?

 

[skybluetony176]

Didn't he make errors in his EDM though?

And?

 

[italiahorse]

No one in authority seems to be challenging SISU's march to the bottom.
Us fans are powerless.

 

[shmmeee]

Didn't he make errors in his EDM though?

Care to elaborate on how that's got anything to do with anything?

 

[RPHunt]

Didn't he make errors in his EDM though?

Perhaps you mean he left a few things out from the original EDM. He has now corrected that and tabled an amendment that includes the following:

"the League should have investigated the situation as well as the background of an organisation that put itself into administration having run up many millions of debt while ensuring that it was structured in such a way that it would itself be the main creditor, and that this was a deliberate strategy developed over time to defraud its creditors"

 

[chiefdave]

Not sure how the FL can over ride insolvency law. The administrator has received £1.5m plus potentially a rates refund and maybe other odds and ends. Out of that my understanding is that he will pay his fees approx £900k (I think) plus the costs of liquidation and anything that is left is payable to the remaining creditors in proportion to what their claims are. That though ignores the secured claim from ARVO which could mean nothing to be paid to other creditors. So where is this £590k the FL are insisting as being paid coming from?

Havent seen the final statement from Applton as to the funds available and where allocated though so it isnt easy to tell what is going on

I thought that Appleton was going to start the liquidation last week ? its now 2 months since the CVA was rejected what is the hold up?

They did a similar thing with Pompey, they are not technically getting involved in the administration of Ltd, they are imposing (or not as it now seems) a condition on the issuing of the golden share to the new owners, in this case that they must pay a certain amount to ACL. In Pompeys case it was former players and former owner. In essence they're saying if you want the share you have to do this, who actually pays it doesn't come into it.

 

[dadgad]

Good man Bob!
There is at least one man out there who is prepared to get to the bottom of what has been going on to the detriment of us fans and the wider footballing community.

It is an utter disgrace that the Football League and FA are incapable of demonstrating the same duty of care.

 

[torchomatic]

Thanks, RP.

Perhaps you mean he left a few things out from the original EDM. He has now corrected that and tabled an amendment that includes the following:

"the League should have investigated the situation as well as the background of an organisation that put itself into administration having run up many millions of debt while ensuring that it was structured in such a way that it would itself be the main creditor, and that this was a deliberate strategy developed over time to defraud its creditors"

 

[torchomatic]

Apologies.

NOPM! KCIC! SISU OUT! Death to the infidels!

That better?

Care to elaborate on how that's got anything to do with anything?

 

[SkyBlueScottie]

Didn't he make errors in his EDM though?

And?

Care to elaborate on how that's got anything to do with anything?

Jesus, look at the suspicion towards Torchie's comments.....

You need to calm down the obsession lads....

 

[torchomatic]

They jump up and down and analyse every work spoken by Fisher, JS, Reid, etc. I point out that some of his EDMs weren't accurate and they fly off on one. Then, they have a go at people who don't respect their opinions.

Jesus, look at the suspicion towards Torchie's comments.....

You need to calm down the obsession lads....

 

[torchomatic]

t may well be argued his work has raised questions in the public interest. There are plenty of unanswered questions. Mr Appleton says his investigation into the accounts continues with CCFC Ltd about to enter liquidation - and the entire liquidation process could take a year.
Yet fans have too often been misled with misinformation to suit people's entrenched positions.
Take one of Mr Ainsworth's Early Day Motions tabled in Parliament on August 29. It's first line states..
"That this House notes that the Football League's insolvency policy, as written, requires an owner wishing to move a club away from its traditional area to demonstrate a clear plan with timescales for its return;"
Given his own parenthesis deliberately emphasises the words "as written", you would have thought he would have checked what the League's insolvency policy, a private document, actually states.
In fact it says nothing of the sort. Nowhere does it require clear timescales for a club's return.
Instead, the Football League's regulations, which are published on its website, clearly state the League board has wide-ranging "discretion" on such matters.
The received wisdom in Coventry is that the Football League broke its rules in allowing the groundshare. Whatever else the League can be accused of, any fair reading of the rules shows it has not.

Care to elaborate on how that's got anything to do with anything?

I would imagine if Reid had made the same errors then you'd be having your usual swearing fit.

 

[skybluetony176]

Jesus, look at the suspicion towards Torchie's comments.....

You need to calm down the obsession lads....

it was a flipant remark with no explination. all i was asking for was an explination, which was supplied by another poster in the end. no jumping up and down was involved it would just help if people finished their sentances rather than post a sound bite fishing for a response and then jump up and down when they get one.

 

[torchomatic]

No, it wasn't. It had been pointed out that his EDMs weren't accurate.

it was a flipant remark with no explination. all i was asking for was an explination, which was supplied by another poster in the end. no jumping up and down was involved it would just help if people finished their sentances rather than post a sound bite fishing for a response and then jump up and down when they get one.

 

[skybluetony176]

No, it wasn't. It had been pointed out that his EDMs weren't accurate.

stop jumping up and down. i finished my sentance it wasn't just a sound bite

 

[rightumpty]

One word answer..................SISU. They have more clout than the FL and probably people on the payroll that help them to achieve such dealings.

I keep asking myself 'Why are they here if they say they've lost £70M and are continuing to lose money and yet still want to fork out £20M on a new stadium which will continue to lose money' Answer to that is, they have no interest at all in football but want CCFC as a means of shuffling debt onto us.

Can't pretend to fully understand how they do it but I do know that SISU is a cancer which will probably outlast me and they show no ambition to see us back where we belong - in the Championship let alone the Premiership.

 

[thaiskyblue]

One word answer..................SISU. They have more clout than the FL and probably people on the payroll that help them to achieve such dealings.

I keep asking myself 'Why are they here if they say they've lost £70M and are continuing to lose money and yet still want to fork out £20M on a new stadium which will continue to lose money' Answer to that is, they have no interest at all in football but want CCFC as a means of shuffling debt onto us.

Can't pretend to fully understand how they do it but I do know that SISU is a cancer which will probably outlast me and they show no ambition to see us back where we belong - in the Championship let alone the Premiership.

right on tumpty but they still seem to have believers.

 

[italiahorse]

right on tumpty but they still seem to have believers.

Only SISU really know what their plan is. Anybody going along with it is following them blindly.

 

[AJB1983]

Making it up as they go along...something you do when you haven't got a clue.
It only benefits sisu/Otium...wonder why that is?

 

[dadgad]

I keep asking myself 'Why are they here if they say they've lost £70M and are continuing to lose money and yet still want to fork out £20M on a new stadium which will continue to lose money' Answer to that is, they have no interest at all in football but want CCFC as a means of shuffling debt onto us.

I have seen this accusation levelled at Sisu many, many times.
Can someone with decent knowledge of how this is done explain it?
And is there any evidence to back up this suspicion?

Yes, Sisu are the worst owners of a football club imaginable but in pure business terms how is the current model of Ccfc sustainable?

 

[blend]

t may well be argued his work has raised questions in the public interest. There are plenty of unanswered questions. Mr Appleton says his investigation into the accounts continues with CCFC Ltd about to enter liquidation - and the entire liquidation process could take a year.
Yet fans have too often been misled with misinformation to suit people's entrenched positions.
Take one of Mr Ainsworth's Early Day Motions tabled in Parliament on August 29. It's first line states..
"That this House notes that the Football League's insolvency policy, as written, requires an owner wishing to move a club away from its traditional area to demonstrate a clear plan with timescales for its return;"
Given his own parenthesis deliberately emphasises the words "as written", you would have thought he would have checked what the League's insolvency policy, a private document, actually states.
In fact it says nothing of the sort. Nowhere does it require clear timescales for a club's return.
Instead, the Football League's regulations, which are published on its website, clearly state the League board has wide-ranging "discretion" on such matters.
The received wisdom in Coventry is that the Football League broke its rules in allowing the groundshare. Whatever else the League can be accused of, any fair reading of the rules shows it has not.



I would imagine if Reid had made the same errors then you'd be having your usual swearing fit.

I'm not sure what is in the Football League's Insolvency Policy as it is a private document. I and others asked the FL for it, but they refuse to publish it or even put it in the public domain.

What I am pretty sure of is that the FL changed their rules during July either just before or just after we announced the move to Sixfields. Someone else might be able to find what the rules originally said at the time when it was announced we were looking for a ground share, but I cannot find them. They did say something along the lines of demonstrating a clear plan to return.

Now the rule simply says

13.8 The Club must disclose, as soon as practicable, plans and details of any proposed future move to a new stadium.

Looking from their website the current regulations were posted on 04.07.13, so this may have been the time of the change?

 

[Calista]

blend - now THAT is interesting!