I know you want there to be an illegal action - but quoting the law doesn't make your dream any more real.
But maybe you have proof?
ACL on CWR after 9am this morning (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter cov_george
- Start date
I know you want there to be an illegal action - but quoting the law doesn't make your dream any more real.
But maybe you have proof?
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
If there has been anything illegal, then proof would only be likely to come if the CVA is rejected.
Given all that has happened, I think you'd have to be wilfully blind not to find it all just a little bit suspicious though.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I know, call me naive, but can't we have a double or quits and investigate everything from the point Richardson bought into the club (expressly against Derrick Robins's wishes)?
Just to prove everybody has been nothing but whiter than white, of course.
The problem is of course much like SISU's application for a judicial review is unhelpful if it's without foundation due to the time it takes to process, so is something like this.
Honestly not sure what's left other than to rip it all up and let it be a free-for-all where everyone who wants to, sues each other!
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
If you got that review, you could probably do a great deal for the film rights.
On the wider point, I don't want to put words into your mouth, but it sounds like you're saying that if there have been odd things going on in the past, it therefore follows that the present should have a blind eye turned to it.
Personally, I'm in favour of greater transparency all round, but I'm most interested in the events that directly relate to the key issue - moving us to Northampton.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
The last set of signed acounts show an asset we are told by the administraors isn't any longer there.
It's not my dream, it's a reported fact, isn't it?
What exactly do you want to achieve?
I want the club and team to stabilize and find some footing again. It's been long enough.
I want the team to succeed on the pitch, players to play without the distraction of fans fighting themself and the owners.
I want the club to start making money and become independant of the owners - if not at the Ricoh then at its own stadium in Coventry.
I want it to happen as soon as possible, so sisu can make a profit and sell it all.
What do you want?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Not at all, quite the opposite...
I don't think it would be helpful to us to focus on just one part however. It all needs flushing out if we're to move forward.
Is a truth though that the delays while things process (even if they exonerate people) aren't helpful to the immediate issue.
Again boils down to a price worth paying or not.
If so can he prove it was moved with the intent of defrauding the creditors? Apparantly not - he has a duty to report anything like that to the court.
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
I find it very difficult to envisage a positive future for the club under its current ownership.
This is particularly so because I simply cannot understand the rationale for the move to Northampton. I can see why SISU may wish to build a new stadium, but in the interim period, I cannot understand why they would not do everything possible to stay at the Ricoh.
Instead they have appeared (from what I am aware of) to make absolutely no effort to make that happen - because in TF's statements, ACL told them they wouldn't negotiate further in February.
Given the amount of revenue that will be sacrificed (deliberate choice of word) by the move to Northampton, I'd have thought that they'd move heaven and earth to persuade ACL to give them a three (or five
) year deal - but no.So when I cannot understand their stated motivations and while I rule out insanity, I have to be suspicious that there is a different agenda that I am not aware of.
So in short, I want financial pressure, political pressure and media pressure on SISU to persuade them that the sensible option is to cut their loses and sell.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Isn't he only obliged to report that back to court if the event transpired within 6 months of the date of the application for administration? Again, this from memory!?!
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Why can't SISU file accounts on time? I know we're blocked because of the Admin but how many have we had before because of the accounts! (the question is rhetorical by the way)
Last edited:
James Smith
Well-Known Member
To misquote Queen - Invisible Man
I'm the invisible (wo)man,
I'm the invisible (wo)man,
Incredible how you can,
See right through me.
I find it very difficult to envisage a positive future for the club under its current ownership.
This is particularly so because I simply cannot understand the rationale for the move to Northampton. I can see why SISU may wish to build a new stadium, but in the interim period, I cannot understand why they would not do everything possible to stay at the Ricoh.
Instead they have appeared (from what I am aware of) to make absolutely no effort to make that happen - because in TF's statements, ACL told them they wouldn't negotiate further in February.
Given the amount of revenue that will be sacrificed (deliberate choice of word) by the move to Northampton, I'd have thought that they'd move heaven and earth to persuade ACL to give them a three (or five
So when I cannot understand their stated motivations and while I rule out insanity, I have to be suspicious that there is a different agenda that I am not aware of.
So in short, I want financial pressure, political pressure and media pressure on SISU to persuade them that the sensible option is to cut their loses and sell.
But what if it really is as simple as - till this morning - ACL would have nothing to do with sisu?
ACL have been very open about their agenda: They want sisu out. In that atsmophere I can see why a groundshare in (e.g.) Northampton would be the only option. If say sisu had kept coming back to ACL and begging for a three year deal - as they asked for long ago and was refused - and not seeked for a groundshare option, then they would have been totally at the mercy of ACL.
Try make a decision tree and see what you come up with.
This morning is the very first time ACL have openly said they are willing to talk to sisu/TF. It may be too late, but maybe ACL will agree to a symbolic rent as the club will need to pay Northampton a break fee.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Rubbish, man. They simply wanted a tenant that paid their contracted rent FFS!
duffer
Well-Known Member
That is an excellent question.
My thought is that he might have done it either because he's been told to do it, or was naive enough to do it, or thought that if he could sling enough mud about he might never be caught doing it, or simply had to do it to preserve SISU's hold on the company and has taken an almighty gamble.
Any of those things are possible. My gut feeling is that it's the last one that is the most likely; my opinion is that I don't think TF thought it would go this far. Indeed, he may well be right!
In truth though I'm speculating as much as you, but I wouldn't be dissuaded from taking someone on in court over something so important, on the basis that they might have already thought it all through. I'd look at the merits of the case and take it from there.
This case looks simple from that point of view. There were assets in CCFC Ltd that are no longer there, yet the liabilities remain. Other than saying the accounts are a mess, TF seems to have no reasonable explanation. That merits investigation, imho.
He is an officer of the court and has a duty to report any illegal action he encounter. Sisu are NOT his clients, so there are no obligations to them.
The Prefect
Active Member
You're spot on with this comment. However SISU want to dress things up there seems to be a case to answer as to how CCFC Ltd lost it's trading status and assets without there being word from the Company.
BDO are silent because this is potentially huge for them as their ability to properly audit is supposed to protect creditors etc. from any wrongdoing. It's a very public case and however big they are there is a danger that this could seriously affect their business.
If the auditors were going to sign the outstanding accounts they would have done so. I suspect the reason accounts are not being filed is because auditor's have refused to sign them off. How the Football League can approve the transfer to owners that can't file their accounts is beyond belief.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
I never stated they were his clients. Not at all. I simply stated he was obliged - from memory - to report back any such activities that occurred within 6 months of the date of application.
On one hand, you claim you're not an accountant, nor lawyer. Then you seem to know the associated law very well - or assert with a confidence that sits at odds with your claims of ignorance.
Which is it?
So in short: He is either stupid or a criminel? And a stooge on top of that.
I am sorry, but it's when you are that disrespectful your judgement gets clouded.
Ask yourself this: What would you feel if there was an investigation and nothing major was found and in the proces the club had missed out on a few good players in the transfer window and even started at -15 pts. All for nothing?
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
At this point I want to quote Peter Andre and Mysterious Girl...
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Oh, I've been around a few failing companies - victims of the financial crisis.
One of the companies I owned 20%, so I have some personal experience, even if only as a shareholder and board member.
That is NOT the same as I claim to be an expert to insolvency laws or the administration proces. And the ccfc administration is so much more complicated as both the FA and FL are involved with their own rules and regulations.
investigating it all might have a price but I don't see that investing what just happened has to big of one, surely it's very easy to see weather anything illegal has happened, have assets moved out of a company without a reasonable amount being paid for them and then the company been put into admin to get rid of its debts or not. Surely it's a day with the books max? in fact surely Appleton already knows the answer which suggests it's all legal and above board or he should have done something. However I have no faith in that I'm afraid because Appleton has gone against what seems obvious multiple times.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Just Fred on his own, but it reminds me of Tim
The Great Pretender (by the Platters) covered by F. Mercury
Oh yes I'm the great pretender (ooh ooh),
Adrift in a world of my own (ooh ooh),
I play the game but to my real shame,
You've left me to dream all alone*,
*in Northampton
Last edited:
Jim
Well-Known Member
Let's look at the evidence in front of us......
There are 18 years worth (minus current outstanding) of accounts that have been signed off by various Officers of the Club and two diffrent firms of Auditors that state that the playing activities of the Football Club are within Limited, along with associated incomes and assets.
All of the statements within these sets of accounts back this up, as there is information on income which includes gate receipts, sponsorship etc, staff numbers which includes the playing squad, the statements by the Directors and the statements by the Auditors.
Then suddenly at the same time as the club (SISU effectively) start to refuse to pay ACL the legally contracted rent owed to them, the accounts are suddenly 'in a mess' and actually all the assets are in Holdings (also with 18 years worth of signed accounts stating otherwise).
This is a monsterously big smoking gun, and I refuse to beleive that 18 years worth of signed accounts are in fact incorrect. And when I say incorrect I mean totally incorrect. Not just a slight mistatment of the trading purpose but all of the income and expenditure, staff numbers, directors statements, assets and liabilities are all totally wrong.
I would think it was quite obviously an attempt to defraud creditors and is shockingly brazen. I expect there are two firms of Auditors who are either very worried or extremely annoyed that their services to date are being questioned, as they are direct liable for signing off of mis-stated accounts. Tim Fisher is making a very bold (or very stupid) statement by stating that the accounts are incorrect.
The sooner these people are out of our club the better as I am ashamed to have them associated with it's name and history.
Not One Penny More!
duffer
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry but I could turn that argument right on it's head. You hold Fisher and SISU in so much respect (in this regard, I'm not accusing you of being a SISU-apologist here) that you're completely ignoring the merits of the case. You've convinced yourself that they've done no wrong on the simple basis that they wouldn't have taken that chance/been so stupid.
I am not so convinced.
How would I feel if the CVA is voted down, and we took a 15-point hit, and there was an in-depth investigation that showed SISU have acted properly all along?
Firstly, I'd be astonished.
And after that I'd still consider that we'd done the right thing. Because from where I'm sitting SISU are taking this club away from its home and into the abyss. If FFP was going to hurt us at the Ricoh, it's going to kill us at Sixfields. There's no plausible plan to come back. Five years in the wilderness, at least.
Anything that gives us a chance of avoiding that fate is worth pursuing to my mind.
Last edited:
2? 3? Something like that!
wes_cov
New Member
@ _brian_
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rhetorical+
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rhetorical+
Cobblers36
New Member
I can see why you'd think that but you couldn't be further from the truth. No amount of e-mails, texts, letters, protests will make DC or NTFC change their mind I'm afraid. Hit the FA is probably your best bet at the moment. Good luck.
Last set of accounts dates before the present board.
Brookefield said Holdings and Limited have the same bank account - how do you without any reasonable doubt proove ticket money went dirctly to Limited? You can't. Ticket money apparently went to a bank account jointly owned by Limited and Holdings, so in fact they could have gone to Holdings and not Limited.
It's down to the statement in the accounts of 'purpose of trading'. That can also have changed, though it would require a note to Companies House.
It's all so tangled and muddy, that I very much doubt anyone can build a rock solid case and bring down the club and the owners as a result. If anything found it would most likely point towards Ranson/Hoffman/Elliot and the boards before them.
Again, Fisher can play the 'before my time card'. He will say he has hired a cohort of accountants to bring the mess in order.
It's not a smoking gun - it's merely a suggestion that something is wrong. Nothing about exactly what, where, when and who's to blame. And yes, accountants and auditors do make mistakes! The most common mistake is 'repeating a mistake'. How did we do it last year? Oh, so we do it like that again.
It's so very easy for anyone sitting outside without knowing all facts to dream up scenarios that fit their own agenda. It only get difficult when you are asked to present evidence.
I think you will have to spend you saturdays in the garden or at the shopping mall for many, many years!
But let me ask you this also: If an investigation didn't find anything major to incriminate either Fisher or sisu ... what will you do then?
Skybluesquirrel
New Member
I think Fisher has only ever said they are in a mess, not incorrect. Its always a vague claim, with no detail. Never said under oath. I imagine there is a massive difference in the words 'mess' and incorrect in legal terms...
The VAT registration numbers could be key in deciding which company was doing what and for whom. Which company collected the VAT and paid the VAT over to HMRC? In the forums, the Brookfield claimed that it was a group VAT return. This is not backed up by information at HMRC that shows both CCFC Ltd and CCFC Holdings Ltd as having valid but separate VAT Numbers. A group VAT return would be under one group number. Its covered here in more detail:
http://aprisonofmeasuredtime.wordpr...e-the-chances-of-passing-a-late-fitness-test/
skybluesam66
Well-Known Member
the accounting records will contain inter-company accounts (which will have been audited) - these are as good as a bank account, and will contain proof of who owns what
So what are you REALLY saying?
You want to avoid the fate of the club being killed off by restricted FFP budget.
You believe that will happen if we move to sixfields (btw you cannot know it will be 'at least' five years).
So to avoid all of this you want an investigation to see if any proof of fraud can be found.
You therefor ask ACL to not sign the CVA and ensure we start the new season on -15 points.
First - won't that push us in the direction you want to avoid?
Second - if assets really have been moved around and fraud committed, then I think the club will be sent directly into the abyss. How will the FA/FL respond?
Third - You can't know for sure if our FFP budget will be hurt severely by moving to sixfields for a number of years. The club will need funding in the interim, but with the threat of hostile takeover gone there's no need to keep building on the debt wall. Funding can come as equity injection - and that counts as turnover in the FFP calculation. If more is needed they can convert some of the debts to equity.
Sisu haven't said they will use that instrument, but that is not the same as they won't do it.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
OK, let me ask you something.. do you think the movement of assets needs investigating given the concerns that have been raised and if not why do you think the situation is satisfactory?