Bob Ainsworth releases CCFC documents (OCTOBER 21, 2013) (2 Viewers)

GaryPendrysEyes · Oct 21, 2013

http://bobainsworthmp.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/bob-ainsworth-releases-ccfc-documents/

Bob Ainsworth is today placing in the public domain documents that he has sent to the Football League and to the FA concerning Coventry City Football Club. These documents have also been given to the Administrator/Liquidator, Mr Paul Appleton.
The documents concerned show clearly what has always been said by some, that the company now in liquidation, Coventry City Football Club Ltd (03056875), acquired the Assets, and all engagements, contracts and obligations relating to the Assets; the business including the executive right to operate the business; the goodwill; the Employees, being the Management Executives, the Players, including the right to the player registrations and player contracts of the Players registered with the Premier League and the FA; the right to become a member of the Football Association and the Premier League; the right to receive the Gate Money, the Club Sponsorship Money, the Broadcasting Money, all transfer fees in respect of players and all the other television and radio fees receivable on 31st May 1995 from its parent company Coventry City Football Club Holdings (00094305).

..documents then linked...

(Apologies if already posted.)

shy_tall_knight · Oct 21, 2013

but what does he hope to achieve, if it forces sisu to sell up great if it means another potential 10 point deduction then me not happy

shmmeee · Oct 21, 2013

shy_tall_knight said:
but what does he hope to achieve, if it forces sisu to sell up great if it means another potential 10 point deduction then me not happy

Why would it mean another deduction?

GaryPendrysEyes · Oct 21, 2013

We want the truth, all of it, from all sides. Drains up, shit out in the open.

Mr. Appleton must respond to this....

fernandopartridge · Oct 21, 2013

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.

What is the aim of releasing these documents? Will it ultimately help CCFC? Will it help ACL?

fernandopartridge · Oct 21, 2013

Is this new info?

GaryPendrysEyes · Oct 21, 2013

No one can object to outing the truth in the shambles that is CCFC surely.... over to Paul Appleton to respond.

ohitsaidwalker king power · Oct 21, 2013

fernandopartridge said:
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.

What is the aim of releasing these documents? Will it ultimately help CCFC? Will it help ACL?

It might?

fernandopartridge · Oct 21, 2013

Fair enough. We shall see.

Monners · Oct 21, 2013

We all deserve to know the truth surely, regardless of how entranched some views have become.

shy_tall_knight · Oct 21, 2013

Now I don't want to pi$$ on anyone's bonfire here and I wouls love to see the back of SISU but Paul appleton is an officer of the court, although appointed to act on behalf of SISU as they were the majority creditor, he surely is committing professional suicide if something as vital as this has been overlooked, that's what I can't understand as it would ruin his reputation regardless of how much he earns in the short-term from sisu - I expect Paul has an appropriate response, hope that I am wrong.

skybluetony176 · Oct 21, 2013

if nothing else it proves that anyone who said that "it proves what we said all along that the golden share and contracts were in holdings and not ltd" is either

A) a natural born liar

B) completely incompetent

neither option makes any such person worthy of being connected to our proud, historic 130year old football team

cloughie · Oct 21, 2013

fernandopartridge said:
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.

What is the aim of releasing these documents? Will it ultimately help CCFC? Will it help ACL?

so how does that help CCFC or do you just wish to attack people tracking the truth about CCFC

Jack Griffin · Oct 21, 2013

fernandopartridge said:
Is this new info?

I think so, it shows in 1995 that CCFC Ltd were give all the assets of the club to run as set out in a series of directors meetings setting out the transfer of assets to CCFC Ltd from CCFC(holdings) Ltd.
The last part is a letter from Sppechly Bircham LLB on behalf of SBS&L (the ultimate onshore holding company of the club) saying they can't find the paperwork where the assets were transferred.

So the story put about by SISU accepted by Appleton is rather questionable. Someone is in error or lying through their teeth!

PS I've got to read them a little more to see if I've got this right, but that is the gist of it as far as I can see.

skybluetony176 · Oct 21, 2013

fernandopartridge said:
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.

What is the aim of releasing these documents? Will it ultimately help CCFC? Will it help ACL?

it wont help shitsu and that may prove to be helping CCFC

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 21, 2013

Monners said:
We all deserve to know the truth surely, regardless of how entranched some views have become.

Indeed.

Not entirely sure this is overly enlightening mind you?

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 21, 2013

skybluetony176 said:
if nothing else it proves that anyone who said that "it proves what we said all along that the golden share and contracts were in holdings and not ltd" is either

A) a natural born liar

B) completely incompetent

neither option makes any such person worthy of being connected to our proud, historic 130year old football team

The above statement and these documents don't have to contradict each other.

Brighton Sky Blue · Oct 21, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
The above statement and these documents don't have to contradict each other.

All Fisher has done is be his boss's articulate fall guy and mouthpiece-he has no actual authority and his statements will change with the views of his superior.

stupot07 · Oct 21, 2013

How long has aimsworth had these documents and why has he only just passed them on to Appleton?

Jack Griffin · Oct 21, 2013

stupot07 said:
How long has aimsworth had these documents and why has he only just passed them on to Appleton?

Timing. Anyway, why can't CCFC(H) Ltd & SBS&L find them? They seem to include some pretty important documents!

PS This snippet from Ainsworth's website states that documents had already been sent to FL, FA & Appleton, exactly when it doesn't say.

Bob Ainsworth is today placing in the public domain documents that he has sent to the Football League and to the FA concerning Coventry City Football Club. These documents have also been given to the Administrator/Liquidator, Mr Paul Appleton.

shmmeee · Oct 21, 2013

fernandopartridge said:
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.

What is the aim of releasing these documents? Will it ultimately help CCFC? Will it help ACL?

What the hell has WMD got to do with anything? Stay on topic!

Well its pretty conclusive proof that Ltd was the club in 1995 and that there was no confusion "going back to 1905" like Fisher claimed at the forums.

I'd guess that if anyone wants to complain about the admin process (you won't get anywhere with the FL) it has to be one of ACL, Higgs or HMRC. And none of them seem interested, that's an interesting question: with all this evidence that the admin process was based on a false premise, why has no one lodged an official complaint?

ohitsaidwalker king power · Oct 21, 2013

When is the reconvened Judicial Review?

skybluetony176 · Oct 21, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
The above statement and these documents don't have to contradict each other.

well, shitsu need to provide some evidence that proves otherwise before i would even think to start to believe that one. they could provide the plans, land registry of the site etc etc at the same time.

your far too quick to give them the benefit of doubt.

shmmeee · Oct 21, 2013

stupot07 said:
How long has aimsworth had these documents and why has he only just passed them on to Appleton?

Where does it say he's just passed them on?

shmmeee · Oct 21, 2013

ohitsaidwalker king power said:
When is the reconvened Judicial Review?

I've got 25th November in my head but could be wrong.

shmmeee · Oct 21, 2013

skybluetony176 said:
well, shitsu need to provide some evidence that proves otherwise before i would even think to start to believe that one. they could provide the plans, land registry of the site etc etc at the same time.

your far too quick to give them the benefit of doubt.

Indeed, surely the burden of proof is on the one making the claim?

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 21, 2013

shmmeee said:
I'd guess that if anyone wants to complain about the admin process (you won't get anywhere with the FL) it has to be one of ACL, Higgs or HMRC. And none of them seem interested, that's an interesting question: with all this evidence that the admin process was based on a false premise, why has no one lodged an official complaint?

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.

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 21, 2013

skybluetony176 said:
well, SISU need to provide some evidence that proves otherwise before i would even think to start to believe that one. they could provide the plans, land registry of the site etc etc at the same time.

your far too quick to give them the benefit of doubt.

Frankly my dear, that's bullshit. The two statements don't have to contradict each other. You want to build a case, you have to make it watertight and x + y = 97 doesn't.

torchomatic · Oct 21, 2013

Yes, it's either that or the 28th.

shmmeee said:
I've got 25th November in my head but could be wrong.

shmmeee · Oct 21, 2013

I think we're at crossed purposes here. It does nothing for the claim of assets being moved, but does for the case for there not being any confusion about which organisation the FA dealt with. Which was key to Otium not being given the share and people not bidding.

Appleton was very quick to sell the GS, despite the club being able to start the season in admin. almost like he didn't want bidders to know what they're bidding for.

That said, you're right that perhaps only ne side is being shown, but again the burden of proof that there was confusion lies with Sisu who have made the claim. The question could just as easily be levelled at them as to why they don't release documents and put the whole thing to bed?

I may have missed it but I'd haven't seen Appleton say he's seen proof either way, just "it's confused". Well nothing shown gives that impression.

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 21, 2013

shmmeee said:
Appleton was very quick to sell the GS, despite the club being able to start the season in admin. almost like he didn't want bidders to know what they're bidding for.

Of course, but making a process fit a preferred outcome isn't the same as underhand dealings.

Oh and as for releasing documents, it's just not what they do is it? Maybe they should... but it's their way of dealing with things that they retreat into their shells when threatened. Perhaps they feel releasing documents would give others a stick to beat them with, even if not warranted?

ohitsaidwalker king power · Oct 21, 2013

shmmeee said:
I've got 25th November in my head but could be wrong.

torchomatic said:
Yes, it's either that or the 28th.

OK thanks- so no direct correlation with the first thought in my mind about the timing of this release then.

skybluetony176 · Oct 21, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
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?

here's the problem as i see it for shitsu. if the assets were in ltd and then ending up back in holding's when did this happen? they need to prove this because if it was 2 weeks before they put ltd in administration this sounds an awful like asset stripping before the administration process, which is a crime.

cofastreecity · Oct 21, 2013

These documents are dynamite. What these say is that Appleton rushed the sales process and he should have been managing the football club, which would have allowed him to marry the club with the stadium before it was sold, with a warranty. This also seriously questions the Administration process and his relationship with the Club who would have held these documents

shmmeee · Oct 21, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
Of course, but making a process fit a preferred outcome isn't the same as underhand dealings.

I don't know enough about company law to comment. And I'd go back to asking if there was impropriety why have no bidders/creditors complained?

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

Bob Ainsworth releases CCFC documents (OCTOBER 21, 2013) (2 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency