Bob Ainsworth releases CCFC documents (OCTOBER 21, 2013) (25 Viewers)

[RegTheDonk]

Re. The timing of Bob releasing these, is it because there is a late night parliamentary debate soon.....or has that already been done?

 

---

[chiefdave]

I think it matters.
Who is feeding Bob and leaking documents? What's his interest?

Would there be anyone still at the club and would have access to this kind of thing who is not in someway tied to SISU? If there's not and it's someone no longer there it makes me wonder why they felt the need to retain copies, the only reason I can think of is that they suspected something wasn't quite right long before we went into administration.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Correct, SISU obviously not disclosed documents otherwise why would their lawyers write the letter of 22 March to the Football League? They have blatantly lied to the FL and Administrators

And uses the line, mutual understanding, I don't think there was any such thing, it was either a complete misunderstanding or a fabricated situation to hide the truth. Either way, it needs investigating.

 

[skybluetony176]

Re. The timing of Bob releasing these, is it because there is a late night parliamentary debate soon.....or has that already been done?

tomorrow i believe 4-4.30pm. makes you wonder if he has anything else to add using parliamentary privileges? exciting isn't it.

 

[bigfatronssba]

Would there be anyone still at the club and would have access to this kind of thing who is not in someway tied to SISU? If there's not and it's someone no longer there it makes me wonder why they felt the need to retain copies, the only reason I can think of is that they suspected something wasn't quite right long before we went into administration.

The typist?

 

[skybluetony176]

Would there be anyone still at the club and would have access to this kind of thing who is not in someway tied to SISU? If there's not and it's someone no longer there it makes me wonder why they felt the need to retain copies, the only reason I can think of is that they suspected something wasn't quite right long before we went into administration.

someone within the shitsu empire with a conscience? i find that hard to believe

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Would there be anyone still at the club and would have access to this kind of thing who is not in someway tied to SISU? If there's not and it's someone no longer there it makes me wonder why they felt the need to retain copies, the only reason I can think of is that they suspected something wasn't quite right long before we went into administration.

I dunno.

More prosaically, I have employment contracts and minutes of meetings I've been in lying around from a decade past... mainly because I horde and am lazy, so tend not to throw things out!

 

[Jack Griffin]

I dunno.

More prosaically, I have employment contracts and minutes of meetings I've been in lying around from a decade past... mainly because I horde and am lazy, so tend not to throw things out!

I've got some records dating back to the late 70's.. yet I do chuck unimportant stuff out from time to time.

 

[oakey]

I've got some records dating back to the late 70's.. yet I do chuck unimportant stuff out from time to time.

Disco or punk?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Still, interesting to know what we paid for Julian Darby and the fact that the Premier League Golden Share looks like it was made on 123certificates.com

Found it, it's not what we paid, more what we valued him at then.

Jamie Barnwell-Edinboro was valued at £300k too, it appears!

Some of the valuations are, especially with the benefit of hindsight(!) optimistic in the extreme!

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

tomorrow i believe 4-4.30pm. makes you wonder if he has anything else to add using parliamentary privileges? exciting isn't it.

Wish I could avail myself of Parliamentary Privilege

 

[shmmeee]

Found it, it's not what we paid, more what we valued him at then.

Jamie Barnwell-Edinboro was valued at £300k too, it appears!

Some of the valuations are, especially with the benefit of hindsight(!) optimistic in the extreme!

I was looking at the Higgs loan thing, admittedly I didn't understand all of it, but it seemed we were loaned £5.7m to buy players. Could be wrong.

 

[cofastreecity]

I wonder what S Pressley thinks given his name is on the Transfer Sale Agreement on page 18? So he transferred from Holdings to Limited in 1995, will be interesting to see if he remembers

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I was looking at the Higgs loan thing, admittedly I didn't understand all of it, but it seemed we were loaned £5.7m to buy players. Could be wrong.

Willie Boland's in there too though. Those are the players (and valuations) nominated as security against a loan I believe.

i.e. if we default, then they could be forcibly sold.

Lucky, lucky Higgs, having the Ally Pickering as security!

 

[skybluetony176]

Wish I could avail myself of Parliamentary Privilege

BBC Parliament (618 on Virgin) will be covering the house of commons tomorrow at the scheduled time so you might be able to watch it live, unless like me you will be stuck at work.

 

[shmmeee]

Yes, the trust may finally have been provided with the smoking gun, lets see how smart they are in terms of how these can be deployed

Not sure what the Trust can do with this, I assume it'd be the same as you or I can do, which is pretty much nothing. AFAIK only those directly involved in the admin process can complain about it, could be wrong though and if you've got any idea who to start complaining to I'm happy to write a few letters.

 

[shmmeee]

Willie Boland's in there too though. Those are the players (and valuations) nominated as security against a loan I believe.

i.e. if we default, then they could be forcibly sold.

Lucky, lucky Higgs, having the Ally Pickering as security!

Ah that would make sense. Would love to have seen the look on their face if they ever tried to realise £5.7m from that lot.

Is that normal practice to secure loans with specific players or is this more of Richardson's dodgy transfer dealing?

 

[Jack Griffin]

BBC Parliament (618 on Virgin) will be covering the house of commons tomorrow at the scheduled time so you might be able to watch it live, unless like me you will be stuck at work.

Don't think it is in the chamber, but there will be a video replay available, I'll certainly post the link if no one else does.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Not sure what the Trust can do with this, I assume it'd be the same as you or I can do, which is pretty much nothing. AFAIK only those directly involved in the admin process can complain about it, could be wrong though and if you've got any idea who to start complaining to I'm happy to write a few letters.

I honestly can't see anything though. I can see a "There is no documentation our client can find that records transfer of assets in 1995"... while then showing assets transferred in 1995.

Not sure in itself it proves anything mind you. This is also 7 months ago, so maybe they found the documentation just as Ainsworth did! It does say investigations are ongoing, after all.

Incidentally, "In 1996 the club was promoted to the Premier League"?!? That doesn't bode well fo their grasp of history!

 

[blend]

The logical conclusion would be only certain evidence is being presented publicly, to form a particular point of view.

None of the evidence publicly presented as of yet shows anything has been moved after all. And the confusion can still exist in terms of what these say, and what actually happened within the club.

I dunno, maybe I'm being overly harsh on the old regime(!) but would you put it past them to be, errm, 'confused' and sloppy with paperwork?

Edit: Another conclusion would be no point making an objection unless you find all evidence going.

I reach a different conclusion. The 1995 documents clearly show that all the assets transferred to CCFC LTD. Am I missing something?

Speechly Bircham's letter of 2013 says that CCFC LTD never owned the assets they were always in Holding, but how can this be true?

Wouldn't it seem far more likely that at some point between 2007 and 2013 that SISU transferred them back to Holdings themselves for a specific reason. The legal letter states it only investigated from 2008. So what happened between 2007-8 just after SISU took over and where are those documents. Conveniently disappeared, or just never actually existed?

Are we to believe that the well documented transfer of assets in 1995 never happened? SISU's due diligence would have included these documents as a starting point. The documents are minutes of directors meetings, not hidden documents. Why would anyone jump to the conclusion that they were hidden?

Was it Callaghan who said 'A lie can be half way around the world before the truth has even got its boots on.'

 

[Florence1898]

It would seem the Higgs Charity have supported the club financially many times but keep it to themselves. Their payback is to be attacked again and again by SISU, and yet they keep their dignity.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Pretty sure it was open knowledge Higgs lent the club money, just as Robinson's trust did also?

 

[SonOfSnoz]

does it matter?

surely the important question is why the documents weren't available in the administration process, who was holding on to them?

Ranson, payback time?

 

[dadgad]

I sincerely hope this leads to the lid finally being lifted and those that have lied and cheated in the running of Ccfc are finally exposed and brought to justice.....somehow I doubt it.

 

[Astute]

Has been a boring but interesting read at the same time.

How can an MP get hold of details than Appleton couldn't seem to find whilst being paid a lot of money to look for it? The FL don't seem to have done as bad as I thought. They could only act on information given. They may have missed out on one letter more or less whilst everything was being moved.....CCFCH to CCFCL.

The rest of it was already thought to have happened by many. The timings have now been shown. Will it get us anywhere? Depends. ACL seem to have gone as far as they were going to. They seem to have been right to have gone against the admin procedure, ignoring the points deduction which happened from trying to find out the truth. But it never brought the truth out in time it seems.

So what happens next? ACL just seem to want our club back at the Ricoh now and don't seem to want to take things further. I don't think this will change things. Will this go against the SISU plans to get the Ricoh? I think myself that this could be the biggest thing to come from all of this. Will it make Joy decide to talk about a decent but low rent? I would say only when ownership of the Ricoh chances are at zero.

So now there is more material that can be taken for the JR review. Will she still go ahead with it? It was already looking like a foregone conclusion. Is there enough evidence to show fraud? Don't think so, but would anyone want to risk anything?

From what I can see the FL will be in the clear. They can only go by what information they are given. Any wrongdoing can be put down to incompetence at the worse. Appleton? Would he be able to say he could only go by the information he was shown? I would think he would have covered his arse if he had done anything wrong. Is not looking deep enough into evidence a crime against the courts? Could he be found guilty of anything if legally not doing anything wrong?

So to SISU. Who does the final signatures? Who sorts out the contracts? Is it the same person? Wouldn't have thought so. So if not done by one person there isn't much chance of pinning it all on one person. So it would be down to who is in charge. If anything ended up in court the odds are it would end up like the last time when Joy's memory was questioned on the facts she remembered. Can't see much coming from it.

SISU have said they would like Ainsworth to make his comments away from Parliament. All this paperwork is making a comment without saying anything. A good move to me as I can't see yet another court case being started by SISU to slow down bringing us home.

So to me no smoking gun as such. The worse that it seems that can be pinned on anyone is incompetence although there could be more sinister facts. SISU are the only ones that seem to enjoy going to court. The others just seem to want anything but. Nearly all the evidence seems to be against SISU. So no court case.

The best I can see coming out of it all is either a rental agreement and Joy to start to quietly look for a buyer. Good chance we will just carry on as we are though.

And before anyone questions me these are all my views. I could be wrong on them all

 

[kmj5000]

I reach a different conclusion. The 1995 documents clearly show that all the assets transferred to CCFC LTD. Am I missing something?

Speechly Bircham's letter of 2013 says that CCFC LTD never owned the assets they were always in Holding, but how can this be true?

Wouldn't it seem far more likely that at some point between 2007 and 2013 that SISU transferred them back to Holdings themselves for a specific reason.'

SISU cannot now claim that they subsequently transferred the assets back to H as they have maintained that the assets have ALWAYS been in H and, according to their solicitors , despite a diligent search by Fisher & Co., there is no evidence that the assets were ever transferred to CCFC in 1995. To now claim that the assets were subsequently transferred back to H would require them to admit that they have been lying all along. They would have to come up with documentary proof and, of course, they would have had to notify the FL at the time.

If these documents are genuine, it seems probable that Fisher & Co have been lying all along and have acted fraudulently.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Originally Posted by fernandopartridge View Post "Great work. Why doesn't Bob see if he can track down another dossier. Perhaps the one about WMD in Iraq that he voted for war on the back of."....................................................................................Typical response from someone that has no answer to an original point!

 

[Astute]

I look forward to the reply for this paperwork that has been revealed on the offal as they seem to reply to everything on there.....like the threat to Ainsworth to talk away from Parliament

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

The Trust really need to comment on things like this. Obviously there are legal considerations, but they could explain the possible implications without making any accusations.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

@ Godiva.......After reading the document, then reading your post, the term "SISU apologist" really DOES suit you well.

 

[lewys33]

Why cant things be simple? We need a document which is dated the day before admin, stating what was where! Not that even something like that would change things now anyway .........

 

[bigfatronssba]

Why cant things be simple? We need a document which is dated the day before admin, stating what was where! Not that even something like that would change things now anyway .........

Well something like that would certainly change things!

The directors would be certainly looking at charges of fraud in that scenario.

 

[lewys33]

Well something like that would certainly change things!

The directors would be certainly looking at charges of fraud in that scenario.

I don't honestly know ...... if documents like that were leaked tomorrow, that states 2 weeks before admin players were in ltd. then day before admin they were in holdings, who has the power to change things now?

 

[skybluetony176]

Ranson, payback time?

i dont know, i wouldn't be suprised if he has to many skelingtons in the cupboard to stick his head above the parafit. loans to peter risdaile and all that.

 

[luwalla]

Why cant things be simple? We need a document which is dated the day before admin, stating what was where! Not that even something like that would change things now anyway .........

im not sure you do.. if documents can be provided that clearly state these assets were held by the company being put into liquidation, then its irreverent how far back they date ( to a point ) as its up to the club to counter those by producing documents that clearly show when & where those assets were transferred to / purchased by a.n other company.. they must also provide evidence that the sale was made at market rate

the whole thing stinks to high heaven.. we all know it, the club know it, appleton must surely know it & anyone with half a brain in any positio of authority would surely ask the question.. the fact that the club made a clear statement that this was a non trading property subsidy - which later turned out to be utter rubbish - should be enough to raise further inquiry into things... but as per normal , i doubt jack shit will happen!