ADministrators final progress report (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter oldskyblue58
- Start date
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I hope that ACL disclose how much they've spent engaging lawyers and a PR firm for the last few months. It'd be also interesting to read what the associated costs are to the council loan. Banks don't lend money without fees.
What does the way that ACL have or have not been spending their money recently got to do with running CCFC?
How is it that some people try to excuse the way the club is being mismanaged and brought to the edge of ruin by constantly bringing up ACL?
Sky Blues
Active Member
What is with this strange fascination with the club's ex-landlords?
Rightly or wrongly, the club's owners were unhappy with the lease terms and set in chain a course of events that, ultimately, has effectively severed the link between the club and the stadium.* Therefore ex-landlords are of little relevance to the club now - unless the club's owners change their mind and decide they want to use the stadium again. If so, they will have to try to negotiate that. Have they done so? Not that I'm aware of; I seem to remember them saying they have moved on and will be building a new stadium. Unless the club's owners change their mind, why worry about an organisation that is no longer connected with the club?
*Assuming nothing new dramatically alters the legal course being navigated by the liquidator.
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
I hear former Highfield Rd landlords Lang Builders have just spent thousands on this years Christmas doo.
Anyone want to go and protest?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
By that logic, we should forget the past entirely, and cheer them on to their new ground...
Sky Blues
Active Member
I know what your saying but I hope you didn't read my post as suggesting there is only one possible end. Sisu have suggested that is their course of action, but it doesn't mean we can't look at the situation and challenge that and, of course, history will help us form our opinions on that. Nevertheless, to agonise over what the ex-landlord is up to on what seems to be a daily basis does seem a bit futile.
I'm going to use the following (rubbish) analogy to try to explain what I'm trying to say:
Let's say Fernando's business, Football Inc, has no car. He used to rent a BMW from you NW for Football Inc, but didn't like the terms and broke the contract. Fernando decides instead to rent my Mini for Football Inc, while he looks into buying a new car, maybe a Focus. In the meantime, Fernando might keep an eye on Autoseller magazine in case you decide to sell your BMW cheap. He may even, at some point, decide he wants to try and negotiate a new lease on your BMW. He might approach you one day and make you an offer for your BMW, even though he hasn't seen it in Autoseller. There are various options that might come to pass and when one of them does, the history between you, Fernando and Football Inc might be relevant. In the meantime, Fernando does nothing but continues to use my Mini for Football Inc business. He might see your BMW from time to time and wonder how you are servicing it and look to see if it has any scratches, but until such time as he approaches you about doing a deal to use your BMW again, it would seem to be a bit pointless engaging you in conversation every week about how the car is doing. And it would be very daft to trail after the BMW all day to see whether you take it to the garage car wash or the charity one at the fire station.
Sky Blues
Active Member
:laugh::laugh: Well, it's my analogy so I'll give myself whatever car I want - though I must admit I did imagine I was driving a Mark VI Mini with an 'M' number plate (i.e. one of the old-style ones)... and you're right, Fernando couldn't use it on Saturdays.The only problem with your analogy is that you don't have a Mini, it's a Lada and Fernando only gets to drive around in it when you don't need it
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Without getting into it, we WERE paying nothing.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
So basically I think this means is they've not transferred any contracts, but any new contracts or contract renewals were done in the name of holdings and SISU spent a year or so shedding any contracts CCFC Ltd held.. and the FL screwed up royally by allowing all this to happen underneath their very noses.
Wonder if there is any chance of ACL suing the FL?
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Think it depends when they signed/re-signed, so Jennings being brought in only last season definitely not, Sheff & Bell probably - their contracts were done under Delieu & both were long duration and expensive.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The point is that legal costs are unavoidable. What if ACL had put the club directly into administration as intended? Would that have been OK?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
What was the last £3 spent on, btw?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Sorry I missed that bit off
it was spent on
£1 the benefit of all and any actual potential or contingent rights, claims and causes of actions
£1 the benefit of any licences (excluding property licences)
£1 all other property rights and assets owned
Basically anything they could think of .....................
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
How are you allowed to just pick up the bits you want and leave the liabilities?
I hate company law.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Does that mean the team was picked from Holdings only and anyone in Ltd was heading for the door?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
This is what I don't understand, how can you take everything but the lease to play at the Ricoh? What's the tipping point for it being asset stripping rather than legitimate business?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Because the assets were sold (not transferred) on the basis of an open and defined bidding process it would be hard to show that any asset stripping took place. All the administrator has done is to convert to cash any assets he may have in CCFC Ltd at a value set by an open bidding process that Otium won.
To settle creditors he has to realise the assets (convert to cash) usually by selling them so that leaves all creditors behind not just the lease. Although we can reasonably assume that the main one to leave behind was the lease (a lot of the other creditors remain elsewhere in the group)
The other thing is who would be most greatly affected by any alleged asset stripping..... the biggest creditors ............. who are the ones that some accuse of alleged wrong doing (asset stripping).
We might not like the process but so far there is nothing to show any part of the process (plan?) is outside the law as far as i can see. It might be clever or sharp use of the law but is there any evidence available to us of any wrong doing?
had something been illegal surely that evidence would have been reported by now wouldnt it?
Last edited:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
He said he wasnt sure what was there certainly, but the bidding process invited interested parties to bid for whatever assets or rights to assets might be there( in entirety). He didnt restrict who could bid or how much, other than it had to be cash bids for assets that at the time he said he was unable to list for certain. He made it clear the limitations he had in providing a list of assets and made it all very public. Clever use of terminolgy/PR & situation is what I see...... might not like what has gone on (and I dont) but would be hard to prove wrong doing on his part. It has been played out the way it was intended to be in my opinion
Last edited:
SIR ERNIE
Well-Known Member
This is the bit I don't understand OSB. I thought this process was about a company heading towards liquidation; being closed. Not being sold. If that is correct then I still don't understand on what basis the FL allowed Otium to take ownership of the GS.
Can you enlighten me?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Company has never been sold Ernie only its assets. Thats perfectly legal. It leaves a shell of a company with cash (mainly to pay administration costs) and huge debts including the lease. The bidding process only ever referred to the assets in CCFC Ltd it was never about buying the company
The FL main criteria was to make sure the fixtures were fulfilled. CCFC Ltd had been stripped of everything capable of putting on matches except a lease and the league share. The share is suspended on an insolvency and returned to the League. In the mean time CCFC H was running the team, ensuring fixtures fulfilled and players paid. Otium already owned CCFC H. So given the FL over riding criteria is to get games played then there was only ever two choices as to where the share would go Otium or CCFCH. Sisu would have spun the line that everything needed to be in one company (to stop this ever happening again ?) that to do that they would shift everything into Otium a company that had financial backing, whereas CCFC H relied on Otium for its funding. FL would have been happy that things were being "simplified" The League will try to work with an administrators preferred bidder nearly all the time. Otium I would guess also quickly provided an alternative venue. "Integrity of the competition" for the FL was preserved. The choice was quite simple really and things played out in this respect as SISU wanted them to. Otium became owners of club and share
The FL main criteria was to make sure the fixtures were fulfilled. CCFC Ltd had been stripped of everything capable of putting on matches except a lease and the league share. The share is suspended on an insolvency and returned to the League. In the mean time CCFC H was running the team, ensuring fixtures fulfilled and players paid. Otium already owned CCFC H. So given the FL over riding criteria is to get games played then there was only ever two choices as to where the share would go Otium or CCFCH. Sisu would have spun the line that everything needed to be in one company (to stop this ever happening again ?) that to do that they would shift everything into Otium a company that had financial backing, whereas CCFC H relied on Otium for its funding. FL would have been happy that things were being "simplified" The League will try to work with an administrators preferred bidder nearly all the time. Otium I would guess also quickly provided an alternative venue. "Integrity of the competition" for the FL was preserved. The choice was quite simple really and things played out in this respect as SISU wanted them to. Otium became owners of club and share
Last edited:
rightumpty
New Member
Basically it means we've been shagged and there is no hope left for city fans.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
No, because any interested party (inc PH4) could still and did bid for those assets
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
wes_cov
New Member
No, because any interested party (inc PH4) could still and did bid for those assets
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
However only Optium actually had any idea what they were bidding for.... Fair? - No Open? - Questionable Legal - Of course....
James Smith
Well-Known Member
What bank are we talking about here and why, I thought the council loan was from the Public Works Loan Board not a bank.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
You just reminded me of our fearless leader Tim who mentioned with great importance how much money the council had spent on legal fees defending the Judicial Review Application. Actually laughed out loud when I heard him say that, if SISU hadn't started the Judicial Review process then they wouldn't have spent a penny on legal fees defending it.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I thought it sounded more like a preferential loan rate from a financial institution. I'd be surprised if bailing out a private company met the criteria for a loan from the PWLB.
I can't find a loan to Coventry City Council from 2013 or the last 2 months of 2012
http://www.dmo.gov.uk/index.aspx?page=PWLB/PWLB_Monthly_Loans_Report
James Smith
Well-Known Member
I was going on what OSB58 said in this post (and possibly some others but this was the one that I remembered first)
SkyBlueCharlie
Well-Known Member
I'm a little confused with all of this....according to Les Reid then:
" After the deal was struck in January, council officers told the Telegraph the £14m had initially come from the council’s “cash balances” – money set aside for unspecified council spending.The plan was to replenish those funds with council borrowing at an unspecified later date, under a government-approved scheme called Prudential Borrowing." (http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/by-date/23-04-2013 )
and
“The Prudential Borrowing regime that came into effect on 1 April 2004 introduced greater freedom for individual local authorities to borrow for capital investment. Local authorities are now free to borrow for capital purposes subject to that borrowing being assessed against local prudential indicators that determine affordable and sustainable levels of debt.” (Hansard Answer)
Does this clarify or muddy the water further?
" After the deal was struck in January, council officers told the Telegraph the £14m had initially come from the council’s “cash balances” – money set aside for unspecified council spending.The plan was to replenish those funds with council borrowing at an unspecified later date, under a government-approved scheme called Prudential Borrowing." (http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/by-date/23-04-2013 )
and
“The Prudential Borrowing regime that came into effect on 1 April 2004 introduced greater freedom for individual local authorities to borrow for capital investment. Local authorities are now free to borrow for capital purposes subject to that borrowing being assessed against local prudential indicators that determine affordable and sustainable levels of debt.” (Hansard Answer)
Does this clarify or muddy the water further?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Odd that it doesn't appear on that list then isn't it
James Smith
Well-Known Member
It's possible that it was changed to be the Prudential Borrowing mentioned in the Telegraph article posted by SkyBlueCharlie and that's the answer, otherwise as you say 'Odd'.