Article by Henry Winter (1 Viewer)

[chiefdave]

Seems to work well enough in Germany

How would you implement that from the position English football is in at the moment. Remember when they implemented it in Germany it was to allow private companies to take a stake in German clubs which had previously been not for profits. That makes it easy to implement, you're merely selling off a portion of each club to private investors.

Doing the onsite would be near impossible. Supporters of every club in the county would have to buy back the clubs. Look at our debts, who would pay them off?

 

---

[chiefdave]

Taken the club into administration as a tactic to retain control.
The owner threatening to liquidate the club if she doesn’t get her own way.
Taking the club 45 miles away from it’s home to try and distress their landlord.
Total lack of communication with fans.
Lying about lots of things, building a new stadium being one.
Alienating people in the city and the county who would normally be supportive of the club.
Losing the right to buy half of the stadium.
Stripping the infrastructure of the club to the bare bones.
Duping fans into joining in with the new stadium committee (for a stadium that was never going to happen)

In the first instance you would have to change EFL rules to create a specific rule against each of those situations. Each of those rule changes would have to be approved by the current club owners.

If you can get past that stage you then have the issue of what to do about those that break the rules. The EFL have confirmed today they won't take over clubs themselves so lets say at the point SISU said we were going into administration the EFL stepped in to prevent it. Who takes over? Who pays the tens of millions owed to SISU? What happens if there's no new owners forthcoming?

 

[Irish Sky Blue]

How would you implement that from the position English football is in at the moment. Remember when they implemented it in Germany it was to allow private companies to take a stake in German clubs which had previously been not for profits. That makes it easy to implement, you're merely selling off a portion of each club to private investors.

Doing the onsite would be near impossible. Supporters of every club in the county would have to buy back the clubs. Look at our debts, who would pay them off?

Perhaps what would need to happen is a change in their rules which means that at the point of a club’s next change of ownership something like the 50+1 rule would have to come into operation. Any prospective new owners would therefore know what they are getting into.

 

[Irish Sky Blue]

In the first instance you would have to change EFL rules to create a specific rule against each of those situations. Each of those rule changes would have to be approved by the current club owners.

If you can get past that stage you then have the issue of what to do about those that break the rules. The EFL have confirmed today they won't take over clubs themselves so lets say at the point SISU said we were going into administration the EFL stepped in to prevent it. Who takes over? Who pays the tens of millions owed to SISU? What happens if there's no new owners forthcoming?

I think that if it could be demonstrated that owners have acted against the best interests of the club that they own they should forfeit the right to own the golden share. In our case a judge has stated that the club was removed from the Ricoh simply to distress ACL. That act, with all the ramifications that are still going on have crippled the club well into the foreseeable future. It isn’t just fans with an emotional attachment saying that Sisu are not fit for purpose but respected journalists too.

 

[chiefdave]

I think that if it could be demonstrated that owners have acted against the best interests of the club that they own they should forfeit the right to own the golden share. In our case a judge has stated that the club was removed from the Ricoh simply to distress ACL. That act, with all the ramifications that are still going on have crippled the club well into the foreseeable future. It isn’t just fans with an emotional attachment saying that Sisu are not fit for purpose but respected journalists too.

That would be fantastic but taking us as an example when ACL filed to put the club into admin, the point at which we would be looking to the EFL to step in, there was a £61m debt to SISU on the books.

That is, even if it's thanks to creative accounting, a legitimate debt the EFL can't just wipe out. So if there's going to be an enforced change of ownership someone has to pay that debt.

For me the most practical thing that can be done at the moment is for the authorities to get serious about clubs being self sufficient. Rigorously enforce that and hopefully over time debt will drop. Will also give more options when clubs are looking for new owners. Won't be a case of looking for a billionaire you can go back to local businessmen who are actually fans being able to afford to own clubs. Of course that won't stop all the problems but it would be a start.

 

[covcity4life]

I put this on another thread. This is not an exhaustive list, just quickly off the top of my head. The fact Sisu took the club to Northampton simply to distress ACL (a fact that comes from the judge in JR 1. This is enough to prove they are unfit to own a club in my opinion as it shows a complete disregard to the well being of CCFC). Put all of the this list together and it shows just how unfit they are to own a football club. Not sure what it would take for the usual suspects on here to see them as unfit.

Taken the club into administration as a tactic to retain control.
The owner threatening to liquidate the club if she doesn’t get her own way.
Taking the club 45 miles away from it’s home to try and distress their landlord.
Total lack of communication with fans.
Lying about lots of things, building a new stadium being one.
Alienating people in the city and the county who would normally be supportive of the club.
Losing the right to buy half of the stadium.
Stripping the infrastructure of the club to the bare bones.
Duping fans into joining in with the new stadium committee (for a stadium that was never going to happen)

Acl needed tp be distressed though? 1.4m rent ridiculous

 

[SkyBlueZack]

Distressing ACL is a bone of contention? We were propping them up with extortionate rent. They were distressed anyway weren’t they? Sisu seen this and put the squeeze on?

 

[Nick]

Distressing ACL is a bone of contention? We were propping them up with extortionate rent. They were distressed anyway weren’t they? Sisu seen this and put the squeeze on?

It also conveniently ignores them trying to put us into admin for Haskell to step in.

 

[SBAndy]

It also conveniently ignores them trying to put us into admin for Haskell to step in.

At the time I thought there was a huge misunderstanding on the admin process. By SISU creating these shell companies who held an interest in Coventry City (was it SBS&L at the time?) they would be able to approach the administrator and offer a higher margin of the debt than others purely due to the fact it was effectively debt to themselves. Forcing admin was only ever going to transfer ownership from one SISU company to another. The same is true if it were to happen again. The administrator’s responsibility is to ensure creditors of the business get as much of their debt back as possible. That is all.

On the subject of Henry Winter’s column, it’s all good bleating about poor owners but as people have rightly said these owners have not broken the law (in a criminal sense) and their actions can mostly be passed off as business decisions. Director disqualification etc would lead to failure of the Fit & Proper test but not “failing to throw good money after bad at their club”.

As someone mentioned earlier (I think?) the real question to ask is why so many seemingly questionable characters want to get involved in football in the first place. The answer is the big Premier League pot of gold. Done correctly, you get a Glazers at Man Utd situation, using PL power and commercial revenues to pay down personal debt. With that draw and that kind of money at stake, people will seek to take advantage for their own means.

 

[Nick]

At the time I thought there was a huge misunderstanding on the admin process. By SISU creating these shell companies who held an interest in Coventry City (was it SBS&L at the time?) they would be able to approach the administrator and offer a higher margin of the debt than others purely due to the fact it was effectively debt to themselves. Forcing admin was only ever going to transfer ownership from one SISU company to another. The same is true if it were to happen again. The administrator’s responsibility is to ensure creditors of the business get as much of their debt back as possible. That is all.

On the subject of Henry Winter’s column, it’s all good bleating about poor owners but as people have rightly said these owners have not broken the law (in a criminal sense) and their actions can mostly be passed off as business decisions. Director disqualification etc would lead to failure of the Fit & Proper test but not “failing to throw good money after bad at their club”.

As someone mentioned earlier (I think?) the real question to ask is why so many seemingly questionable characters want to get involved in football in the first place. The answer is the big Premier League pot of gold. Done correctly, you get a Glazers at Man Utd situation, using PL power and commercial revenues to pay down personal debt. With that draw and that kind of money at stake, people will seek to take advantage for their own means.

Exactly, while there is so much money in the game it is what it is always going to be about that.

 

[CCFCSteve]

At the time I thought there was a huge misunderstanding on the admin process. By SISU creating these shell companies who held an interest in Coventry City (was it SBS&L at the time?) they would be able to approach the administrator and offer a higher margin of the debt than others purely due to the fact it was effectively debt to themselves. Forcing admin was only ever going to transfer ownership from one SISU company to another. The same is true if it were to happen again. The administrator’s responsibility is to ensure creditors of the business get as much of their debt back as possible. That is all.

Spot on Andy. The only way the outcome could have been any different is by arguing about the validity of their security and/or level of debt. It didn't help when the golden share went missing and Rubins couldn't confirm where it resided !

Nick - To be fair, from memory, the council started the admin process after the threat of liquidation by SISU (might be wrong).

 

[Nick]

Spot on Andy. The only way the outcome could have been any different is by arguing about the validity of their security and/or level of debt. It didn't help when the golden share went missing and Rubins couldn't confirm where it resided !

Nick - To be fair, from memory, the council started the admin process after the threat of liquidation by SISU (might be wrong).

The council (well, ACL) started the process to try and get Haskell in as owner.

 

[CCFCSteve]

The council (well, ACL) started the process to try and get Haskell in as owner.

Not quite the whole sequence of events though. From memory - Non-payment of (exorbitant) rent, negotiations, agreed reduction in rent and settlement proposal, reneged agreements to pay, legal action for payment, threat to put club into liquidation (SISU), ACL filed for administration, SISU appointed Rubins (as charge holder)

Agree that ACL/the council probably thought/hoped end game would be change of ownership but that's not the reason we ended up in administration

 

[oldskyblue58]

The process was started by SISU well before that, when they created the ARVO charge and things miraculously moved companies. ACL might well have got Haskell involved but the administration was pre planned by SISU with the aim of breaking the lease. It was kicked started by the owners of CCFC not paying the rent. They knew that by not challenging the statutory demands, high court judgements etc the only logical course was an application for administration. At which point SISU in the shape of ARVO stepped in to visbly take control of a situation they had controlled and planned all along, whilst pointing their finger at everyone else.

From the point of view of breaking the lease it was a success except it broke a lot of other things too. ACL was supposed to be in such a bad way it would collapse, except it didnt.

Waste of time pointing the finger at ACL & Haskell which could not happen, it ignores what really happened.

 

[Rodders1]

At the time I thought there was a huge misunderstanding on the admin process. By SISU creating these shell companies who held an interest in Coventry City (was it SBS&L at the time?) they would be able to approach the administrator and offer a higher margin of the debt than others purely due to the fact it was effectively debt to themselves. Forcing admin was only ever going to transfer ownership from one SISU company to another. The same is true if it were to happen again. The administrator’s responsibility is to ensure creditors of the business get as much of their debt back as possible. That is all..

This is why I’ve mentioned before - SISUs debt needs to be converted to equity. The EFL need to enforce this once a club goes into admin and picked up by another company in the same group. Ie you get the golden share back only when this happens.

Thus SISU wouldn’t have circa 60 mill debt to claim as the biggest creditor.

 

[Nick]

The process was started by SISU well before that, when they created the ARVO charge and things miraculously moved companies. ACL might well have got Haskell involved but the administration was pre planned by SISU with the aim of breaking the lease. It was kicked started by the owners of CCFC not paying the rent. They knew that by not challenging the statutory demands, high court judgements etc the only logical course was an application for administration. At which point SISU in the shape of ARVO stepped in to visbly take control of a situation they had controlled and planned all along, whilst pointing their finger at everyone else.

From the point of view of breaking the lease it was a success except it broke a lot of other things too. ACL was supposed to be in such a bad way it would collapse, except it didnt.

Yep, the trap was set for ACL to walk into....

ACL didn't know that at the time though when they were thinking it was a forced takeover?

 

[oldskyblue58]

it doesnt matter if ACL knew it...... the main point is SISU knew it, were in no danger from it and were at no time not in control of it. To keep brining up ACL & Haskell ignores the role of SISU in manufacturing a complete break from the stadium in the first place. It was supposed to benefit SISU, in the end it led to never ending court cases as they seek to recover their losses. SISU didnt think there were any other options available to ACL.

That break was recoverable but it also permitted other things to be thought of. That is not in any way excusing the CCC role in this.

 

[Nick]

it doesnt matter if ACL knew it...... the main point is SISU knew it, were in no danger from it and were at no time not in control of it. To keep brining up ACL & Haskell ignores the role of SISU in manufacturing a complete break from the stadium. It was supposed to benefit SISU in the end it led to never ending court cases as they seek to recover their losses

Of course it matters if they knew it because that was their intention and what they were trying to do. SISU had the trap laid out ready, ACL walked into it all happy they were changing the owners.

It's what I keep saying is probably happening right now as well.

 

[oldskyblue58]

it wasnt laid out as a trap it was a calculated plan to break the lease knowing ACL could not do anything. At no point did they get to being able to change owners. The purpose was not to entrap ACL and say look how silly you feel now. It was much more basic than that - simple commercial hard expediency. It didnt matter what ACL did so long as the process held firm. It was a clever plan up until that point

 

[Nick]

it wasnt laid out as a trap it was a calculated plan to break the lease knowing ACL could not do anything. At no point did they get to being able to change owners. The purpose was not to entrap ACL and say look how silly you feel now. It was much more basic than that - simple commercial hard expediency

No, ACL didn't because of the snidey stuff SISU had already done.

According to them and what they were expecting was that Haskell would be the new owner.

In hindsight it's easy to say "they never could have been owners". It's not what was thought at the time when nobody had known the shite SISU had got up to.

 

[CCFCSteve]

The process was started by SISU well before that, when they created the ARVO charge and things miraculously moved companies. ACL might well have got Haskell involved but the administration was pre planned by SISU with the aim of breaking the lease. It was kicked started by the owners of CCFC not paying the rent. They knew that by not challenging the statutory demands, high court judgements etc the only logical course was an application for administration. At which point SISU in the shape of ARVO stepped in to visbly take control of a situation they had controlled and planned all along, whilst pointing their finger at everyone else.

From the point of view of breaking the lease it was a success except it broke a lot of other things too. ACL was supposed to be in such a bad way it would collapse, except it didnt.

Waste of time pointing the finger at ACL & Haskell which could not happen, it ignores what really happened.

Agreed. That was very much the end result of the preceding months/years !

It was interesting reading Simon Gilberts book recently. I know it had some negative feedback and as with anything you have to take some of it with a pinch of salt, however, it was a good reminder of the sequence of events. People forget how the Council and Higgs stopped us going out of business when they stepped in twice to save our shambles (financially) of a club pre SISU. They also probably aren't aware that certain Council members then treated the ground like it was theirs (I supposes it kind of was !) and appeared to have little appetite to relinquish their ownership. I still believe if SISU had gone about things in the correct way, buying the 50% share in ACL off Higgs at the agreed price (rather than playing hardball, reneging on deals etc), then we wouldn't be in this mess now.

 

[Captain Dart]

The council (well, ACL) started the process to try and get Haskell in as owner.

ACL started the actual admin process to recover the debt, it is irrelevant that other parties were interested in acquiring the Ricoh & Sky Blues.

Anyway the initiative to take over seems to have come from Hoffman/Elliott and commenced June 2012 when Elliott first met Haskell, a couple of months after the rent strike started. Fisher was made a director of Otium Entertainment on 4 January 2012 a few months before the rent strike started. So its most likely that SISU had made their plans then after which Elliott/Hoffman reacted.
EXCLUSIVE: Elliott says Haskell has 'great blueprint' for Sky Blues
OTIUM ENTERTAINMENT GROUP LIMITED - Officers (free information from Companies House)

I'm sure Hoffman/Elliott are still interested, why shouldn't they be?

 

[Nick]

ACL started the actual admin process to recover the debt, it is irrelevant that other parties were interested in acquiring the Ricoh & Sky Blues.

Anyway the initiative to take over seems to have come from Hoffman/Elliott and commenced June 2012, a couple of months after the rent strike started. Fisher was made a director of Otium Entertainment on 4 January 2012 a few months before the rent strike started. So its obvious that SISU had made their plans then.
EXCLUSIVE: Elliott says Haskell has 'great blueprint' for Sky Blues
OTIUM ENTERTAINMENT GROUP LIMITED - Officers (free information from Companies House)

I'm sure Hoffman/Elliott are still interested, why shouldn't they be?

I am not denying SISU made their plans, of course they did.

My point is that ACL didn't have a clue about their plans and thought things were going to go differently.....

It is all obvious in hindsight now, everybody was planning for Haskell back then. It was ACL showing him round.

 

[Captain Dart]

I am not denying SISU made their plans, of course they did.

My point is that ACL didn't have a clue about their plans and thought things were going to go differently.....

It is all obvious in hindsight now, everybody was planning for Haskell back then. It was ACL showing him round.

You are speculating and I and other posters think you are wrong.

 

[Nick]

You are speculating and I and other posters think you are wrong.

Speculating about what exactly?

 

[Captain Dart]

Speculating about what exactly?

A conspiracy, I'm going to call you conspiracy Nick from now on.

 

[Nick]

A conspiracy, I'm going to call you conspiracy Nick from now on.

You do realise it has already happened?

I don't really know what to call you, Jack, Dart, Cov Utd 4 life.

Maybe you can ring up some backup to keep saying conspiracy, sometimes it makes it even more obvious. You do realise that?

 

[chiefdave]

You are speculating and I and other posters think you are wrong.

Its not speculation to say that ACL were the ones who applied for the administration - that is fact and you've posted it yourself. We're now retrospectively being told this was all part of some plan on the part of SISU so either Nicks point, that the council were duped, holds true or the council were willing participants in a scheme to break the lease and send the club to Northampton.

If the council were well aware, again as is being retrospectively claimed, that it was not possible to force ownership change via the administration process why were they meeting with Haskell and leading on the like of Hoffman, Elliot and the trust. The impression being given at the time by the many people, including the local media, was that new ownership was possible via the administration process. Potential new owners were being named, the administrator quizzed over how much interest there had been and how many offers made. Yet we're now told everyone knew all along this was never possible.

 

[Captain Dart]

You do realise it has already happened?

I don't really know what to call you, Jack, Dart, Cov Utd 4 life.

Maybe you can ring up some backup to keep saying conspiracy, sometimes it makes it even more obvious. You do realise that?

This thing about Coventry Utd being created to replace Coventry City is another conspiracy you have.

And anyway what exactly do you have against local football, Sphinx and Coventry Utd are in the same league and Coventry Utd are having an awful season.
Total Motion Midland Football League

 

[Nick]

This thing about Coventry Utd being created to replace Coventry City is another conspiracy you have.

And anyway what exactly do you have against local football, Sphinx and Coventry Utd are in the same league and Coventry Utd are having an awful season.
Total Motion Midland Football League

Where have I ever said that? Please link me to it.

Don't care about either of those teams, I don't pretend to either.

 

[Captain Dart]

Where have I ever said that? Please link me to it.

Don't care about either of those teams, I don't pretend to either.

Well why are you obsessing on Cov Utd?

 

[chiefdave]

This thing about Coventry Utd being created to replace Coventry City is another conspiracy you have.

They've said themselves the club was set up in response to the clubs move to Northampton, hardly a conspiracy theory.

 

[Nick]

Well why are you obsessing on Cov Utd?

I'm pretty sure I asked you to post a link to me commenting on that.

Unless as I thought you didn't really have anything so just made something up?

 

[Captain Dart]

They've said themselves the club was set up in response to the clubs move to Northampton, hardly a conspiracy theory.

Yep and that move caused a lot of people to change their attitude to the Sky Blues while they are controlled by SISU.
What of it, I'm free to have my own opinion and I won't be bullied by you and Nick ganging up on me.

 

[Nick]

Yep and that move caused a lot of people to change their attitude to the Sky Blues while they are controlled by SISU.
What of it, I'm free to have my own opinion and I won't be bullied by you and Nick ganging up on me.

Are you on drugs?

Firstly you say I made up a conspiracy about something I havent commented on, Dave posted to say it was true, you then reply agreeing. So if I had said it, it wouldn't have been a conspiracy?

Chin up.