CCFC, Otium & JR2 (1 Viewer)

[oldskyblue58]

I know it's another thread on the legals but what follows needs to be kept seperate. So stick with it. I will keep it factual as much as I can The only caveat is that I am not a barrister specialising in company law.

So the facts

A limited company in law is a separate legal entity. That is irrespective of another person or entity having significant or ultimate control. It is this legal separation that allowed our owners to move assets and liabilities around the group to safeguard assets or create liabilities. All perfectly legal.

Essentially a company and its directors are responsible for that company's actions or day to day operation. Day to day actions are not just the playing side for example . The whole concept of limited company is to place very limited liability rights or privileges on the shareholders

Limited companies are governed by the Companies Act 2006 and the contents of the company rules called the memorandum & articles. Not as Boddy so confidently asserted the shareholder act,( interesting that a shareholder act is an American thing)

The assets, liabilities rights privileges etc of CCFC are owned in their entirety by Otium entertainment group limited. That includes all registrations the golden share is registered to otium. All staff and players are employed by otium. CCFC is legally a trademark owned by otium. The total ownership is confirmed by the purchase agreement otium made with the administrator. Legally otium is the club, the legal entity. Ccfc is not a legal entity.

Any legal agreement, leases or tenancies etc are signed by legal entities. In the case of limited companies by the directors of those entities.

The shareholders of otium are not Sisu. Otium is owned by ARVO 9.9% and sbs&l 90.1%. The immediate control of otium comes from sbs&l. The entity with significant control is sisu. Sisu and otium are not the same thing but Sisu controls otium because otium are accustomed to acting on their instructions made on behalf of the mysterious investors. That does not make otium or its directors not liable for their own actions

The director of otium is fisher and for sbs&l are fisher & Deering. Limited companies require its directors to sign documents to make them binding and legal on its behalf. Those directors are required to act in the best interests of that particular company at the time of taking any decision for that company. Directors also need to act in the interests of the shareholders.

For example for solicitors to act for otium should require a letter of engagement to be signed by the director etc

Otium has a tenancy agreement at the ricoh arena. Not ARVO not sbs&l not Sisu.

The parties bringing the JR2 2 action are ARVO, sbs&l and otium against CCC with wasps and AEHC as interested parties.

It was stated in court that there is no financial benefit to any of the claimants from the JR2 . It is procedural and wants the sale agreement rewritten, a potential legal penalty against CCC and a huge payment from wasps to CCC.

Apparently the otium shareholder owners have taken this action and CCFC and its director have no control or influence over this. The shareholders in Otium are ARVO and sbs&l. Both are the remaining claimants in JR2. That does not absolve the directors of otium from their duties and responsibilities. Ultimately a directors solution for actions being taken or not taken they do not agree with is to resign.

Questions
If the only shareholders of otium are ARVO and sbs&l and it is shareholder owners that are bringing the action does otium entertainment group need to be involved at all? Does JR2 require otium and therefore Ccfc to be involved - it's not a claim for compensation

If there is no financial benefit or other benefit to otium and therefore Ccfc why is Otium involved

Sbs&l are the holding company of otium and therefore can act to protect its investment. That does not require otium entertainment group limited to bring any action does it ?.

Documents would have to be signed by directors to for example appoint solicitors to act on behalf of the companies involved (separate legal entities etc). So how could a director not know what was going on ?

Otium entertainment group is last in the ownership line of the group, gains no financial benefit from the JR2 actions, we told is not liable for any costs (not sure that stands up without formal court agreement). It appears that otium and therefore ""Ccfc" do not need to be involved in this particular action?

We are told the JR2 is brought by shareholder owners. Otium is neither ?

If otium was not involved or was removed from the action leaving ARVO and sbs&l to carry on then does it make it harder for wasps to say no talks with otium/ccfc? Afterall the deal to be at the ricoh would be between otium and wasps.

Is the reaction of wasps actually expected and relied on.

Remove otium from the action and doesn't that give all parties room to talk? There is no real reason for otium to be involved, legal action over JR2 can continue without otium it seems to me. I can only think that once more Ccfc is being used to distress another company's finances. Back fired last time I can't help thinking it will again.

 

---

[Nick]

Completely agree. Just take ccfc out of it and go at it themselves.

Surely they must think that either there really will be some sort of financial benefit by having them named as part of it OR they are just using ccfc to try and give the sympathy vote to the judges.

I'm not sure it works with fans so not sure how it would benefit them, I don't think it makes any hope that sisu start winning in court. In fact it would be the opposite.

Utter twats either way.

 

[hopesprings]

I know it's another thread on the legals but I what follows needs to be kept seperate. So stick with it. I will keep it factual as much as I can The only caveat is that I am not a barrister specialising in company law.

So the facts

A limited company in law is a separate legal entity. That is irrespective of another person or entity having significant or ultimate control. It is this legal separation that allowed our owners to move assets and liabilities around the group to safeguard assets or create liabilities. All perfectly legal.

Essentially a company and its directors are responsible for that company's actions or day to day operation. Day to day actions are not just the playing side for example . The whole concept of limited company is to place very limited liability rights or privileges on the shareholders

Limited companies are governed by the Companies Act 2006 and the contents of the company rules called the memorandum & articles. Not as Boddy so confidently asserted the shareholder act,( interesting that a shareholder act is an American thing)

The assets, liabilities rights privileges etc of CCFC are owned in their entirety by Otium entertainment group limited. That includes all registrations the golden share is registered to otium. All staff and players are employed by otium. CCFC is legally a trademark owned by otium. The total ownership is confirmed by the purchase agreement otium made with the administrator. Legally otium is the club, the legal entity. Ccfc is not a legal entity.

Any legal agreement, leases or tenancies etc are signed by legal entities. In the case of limited companies by the directors of those entities.

The shareholders of otium are not Sisu. Otium is owned by ARVO 9.9% and sbs&l 90.1%. The immediate control of otium comes from sbs&l. The entity with significant control is sisu. Sisu and otium are not the same thing but Sisu controls otium because otium are accustomed to acting on their instructions made on behalf of the mysterious investors. That does not make otium or its directors not liable for their own actions

The director of otium is fisher and for sbs&l are fisher & Deering. Limited companies require its directors to sign documents to make them binding and legal on its behalf. Those directors are required to act in the best interests of that particular company at the time of taking any decision for that company. Directors also need to act in the interests of the shareholders. For example for solicitors to act for otium should require a letter of engagement to be signed by the director etc

Otium has a tenancy agreement at the ricoh arena. Not ARVO not sbs&l not Sisu.

The parties bringing the JR2 2 action are ARVO, sbs&l and otium against CCC with wasps and AEHC as interested parties.

It was stated in court that there is no financial benefit to any of the claimants from the JR2 . It is procedural and wants the sale agreement rewritten, a potential legal penalty against CCC and a huge payment from wasps to CCC.

Apparently the otium shareholder owners have taken this action and CCFC and its director have no control or influence over this. The shareholders in Otium are ARVO and sbs&l. Both are the remaining claimants in JR2.

Questions
If the only shareholders of otium are ARVO and sbs&l and it is shareholder owners that are bringing the action does otium entertainment group need to be involved at all? Does JR2 require otium and therefore Ccfc to be involved - it's not a claim for compensation

If there is no financial benefit or other benefit to otium and therefore Ccfc why is Otium involved

Sbs&l are the holding company of otium and therefore can act to protect its investment. That does not require otium entertainment group limited to bring any action does it ?.

Documents would have to be signed by directors to for example appoint solicitors to act on behalf of the companies involved (separate legal entities etc). So how could a director not know what was going on ?

Otium entertainment group is last in the ownership line of the group, gains no financial benefit from the JR2 actions, we told are not liable for any costs (not sure that stands up without formal court agreement). It appears that otium and therefore ""Ccfc" do not need to be involved in this particular action?

If otium was not involved or was removed from the action leaving ARVO and sbs&l to carry on then does it make it harder for wasps to say no talks with otium/ccfc? Afterall the deal to be at the ricoh would be between otium and wasps.

Is the reaction of wasps actually expected and relied on.

Remove otium from the action and doesn't that give all parties room to talk? There is no real reason for otium to be involved, legal action over JR2 can continue without otium it seems to me. I can only think that once more Ccfc is being used to distress another company's finances. Back fired last time I can't help thinking it will again.

Thanks for a great summary and quite a few good questions...Hopefully somebody at WASPS will read this and just say ...hey we now realise that CCFC is just a pawn in this exercise. we want to make it clear that we have no wish to further worry CCFC or its fans so here is an offer....2 years at the the same rent....but pay us a bonus if CCFC get promoted

Wont happen but I can dream

Thanks again OSB

 

[Nick]

Thanks for a great summary and quite a few good questions...Hopefully somebody at WASPS will read this and just say ...hey we now realise that CCFC is just a pawn in this exercise. we want to make it clear that we have no wish to further worry CCFC or its fans so here is an offer....2 years at the the same rent....but pay us a bonus if CCFC get promoted

Wont happen but I can dream

Thanks again OSB

They are one of the people who will use it as a pawn sadly.

Thinking about it, it's been used as a pawn from as far back as I remember

 

[Covstu]

I know it's another thread on the legals but I what follows needs to be kept seperate. So stick with it. I will keep it factual as much as I can The only caveat is that I am not a barrister specialising in company law.

So the facts

A limited company in law is a separate legal entity. That is irrespective of another person or entity having significant or ultimate control. It is this legal separation that allowed our owners to move assets and liabilities around the group to safeguard assets or create liabilities. All perfectly legal.

Essentially a company and its directors are responsible for that company's actions or day to day operation. Day to day actions are not just the playing side for example . The whole concept of limited company is to place very limited liability rights or privileges on the shareholders

Limited companies are governed by the Companies Act 2006 and the contents of the company rules called the memorandum & articles. Not as Boddy so confidently asserted the shareholder act,( interesting that a shareholder act is an American thing)

The assets, liabilities rights privileges etc of CCFC are owned in their entirety by Otium entertainment group limited. That includes all registrations the golden share is registered to otium. All staff and players are employed by otium. CCFC is legally a trademark owned by otium. The total ownership is confirmed by the purchase agreement otium made with the administrator. Legally otium is the club, the legal entity. Ccfc is not a legal entity.

Any legal agreement, leases or tenancies etc are signed by legal entities. In the case of limited companies by the directors of those entities.

The shareholders of otium are not Sisu. Otium is owned by ARVO 9.9% and sbs&l 90.1%. The immediate control of otium comes from sbs&l. The entity with significant control is sisu. Sisu and otium are not the same thing but Sisu controls otium because otium are accustomed to acting on their instructions made on behalf of the mysterious investors. That does not make otium or its directors not liable for their own actions

The director of otium is fisher and for sbs&l are fisher & Deering. Limited companies require its directors to sign documents to make them binding and legal on its behalf. Those directors are required to act in the best interests of that particular company at the time of taking any decision for that company. Directors also need to act in the interests of the shareholders.

For example for solicitors to act for otium should require a letter of engagement to be signed by the director etc

Otium has a tenancy agreement at the ricoh arena. Not ARVO not sbs&l not Sisu.

The parties bringing the JR2 2 action are ARVO, sbs&l and otium against CCC with wasps and AEHC as interested parties.

It was stated in court that there is no financial benefit to any of the claimants from the JR2 . It is procedural and wants the sale agreement rewritten, a potential legal penalty against CCC and a huge payment from wasps to CCC.

Apparently the otium shareholder owners have taken this action and CCFC and its director have no control or influence over this. The shareholders in Otium are ARVO and sbs&l. Both are the remaining claimants in JR2. That does not absolve the directors of otium from their duties and responsibilities. Ultimately a directors solution for actions being taken or not taken they do not agree with is to resign.

Questions
If the only shareholders of otium are ARVO and sbs&l and it is shareholder owners that are bringing the action does otium entertainment group need to be involved at all? Does JR2 require otium and therefore Ccfc to be involved - it's not a claim for compensation

If there is no financial benefit or other benefit to otium and therefore Ccfc why is Otium involved

Sbs&l are the holding company of otium and therefore can act to protect its investment. That does not require otium entertainment group limited to bring any action does it ?.

Documents would have to be signed by directors to for example appoint solicitors to act on behalf of the companies involved (separate legal entities etc). So how could a director not know what was going on ?

Otium entertainment group is last in the ownership line of the group, gains no financial benefit from the JR2 actions, we told are not liable for any costs (not sure that stands up without formal court agreement). It appears that otium and therefore ""Ccfc" do not need to be involved in this particular action?

We are told the JR2 is brought by shareholder owners. Otium is neither ?

If otium was not involved or was removed from the action leaving ARVO and sbs&l to carry on then does it make it harder for wasps to say no talks with otium/ccfc? Afterall the deal to be at the ricoh would be between otium and wasps.

Is the reaction of wasps actually expected and relied on.

Remove otium from the action and doesn't that give all parties room to talk? There is no real reason for otium to be involved, legal action over JR2 can continue without otium it seems to me. I can only think that once more Ccfc is being used to distress another company's finances. Back fired last time I can't help thinking it will again.

Agree but I don’t think it is viewed this way by the defending parties, they see SISU are putting the action in which in turns covers Otium, ARVO, SBL, CCFC etc etc. It’s an attack against CCC, Wasps etc and I don’t think any linked companies can be unpicked from this. Let’s face it the reason why we are here is about CCFC playing at the Ricoh so CCFC Holdings and Otium are directly linked whether we like it or not although I agree on a legal perspective. If on the basis that they were successful any award would then Go straight to ARVO and SBS&L rather than the club directly. If you were Wasps would you help SISU in any form whilst this action is taking place even if the company is not legally directly linked, it’s all about leverage

 

[Rusty Trombone]

If Otium, sbs&l and ARVO lose the claim and costs are awarded against them, what happens if they refuse to pay? Could the SISU controllers be thinking that the Council, Wasps and Higgs wouldn't go after Otium for the money as it would risk impacting on ccfc?
I'm not trying to stir this up, just wondering what the process is for paying costs.

 

[Nick]

If Otium, sbs&l and ARVO lose the claim and costs are awarded against them, what happens if they refuse to pay? Could the SISU controllers be thinking that the Council, Wasps and Higgs wouldn't go after Otium for the money as it would risk impacting on ccfc?
I'm not trying to stir this up, just wondering what the process is for paying costs.

I think they would be barking completely up the wrong tree but don't think it would be an impossible idea.*

Idea that they would try it, not impossible as in would work.

 

[skyblueinBaku]

As the only director of Otium, why can't Tim Fisher remove Otium from the court action?

 

[Captain Dart]

If Otium, sbs&l and ARVO lose the claim and costs are awarded against them, what happens if they refuse to pay? Could the SISU controllers be thinking that the Council, Wasps and Higgs wouldn't go after Otium for the money as it would risk impacting on ccfc?
I'm not trying to stir this up, just wondering what the process is for paying costs.

In the case of the first JR the court awarded costs but so far they have not been paid.
Huge bill for taxpayers - the Ricoh Arena row in numbers

PS As Wasps spent £400,000 this year defending the action then they are not getting any benefit at all from the presence of CCFC are they.

As the only director of Otium, why can't Tim Fisher remove Otium from the court action?

He does as he is told?

 

[skyblueinBaku]

In the case of the first JR the court awarded costs but so far they have not been paid.
Huge bill for taxpayers - the Ricoh Arena row in numbers

PS As Wasps spent £400,000 this year defending the action then they are not getting any benefit at all from the presence of CCFC are they.


He does as he is told?

I'm aware of that, and if he did try to remove Otium from the court case he would almost certainly be fired. However, I don't think that he needs the job (especially if, as he says, he doesn't get paid) and it would certainly demonstrate to everyone that Otium (CCFC) are not willing participants in the farcial legals. This would put more pressure on Wasps to stop threatening to punish CCFC because of the actions of Sisu.

 

[Nick]

I'm not sure wasps need it demonstrating, they will know full well as will the council.

If anything, their rugby club has been a bit of a pawn too.

 

[Captain Dart]

I'm aware of that, and if he did try to remove Otium from the court case he would almost certainly be fired. However, I don't think that he needs the job (especially if, as he says, he doesn't get paid) and it would certainly demonstrate to everyone that Otium (CCFC) are not willing participants in the farcial legals. This would put more pressure on Wasps to stop threatening to punish CCFC because of the actions of Sisu.

Him saying he is not paid is his weasel words. There is something in it for him or he would be off, the means and timing of the remuneration has simply been obfuscated.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Agree but I don’t think it is viewed this way by the defending parties, they see SISU are putting the action in which in turns covers Otium, ARVO, SBL, CCFC etc etc. It’s an attack against CCC, Wasps etc and I don’t think any linked companies can be unpicked from this. Let’s face it the reason why we are here is about CCFC playing at the Ricoh so CCFC Holdings and Otium are directly linked whether we like it or not although I agree on a legal perspective. If on the basis that they were successful any award would then Go straight to ARVO and SBS&L rather than the club directly. If you were Wasps would you help SISU in any form whilst this action is taking place even if the company is not legally directly linked, it’s all about leverage

Understand that and for now it suits council and wasps to play hard ball. They have the right to do that if they choose. But at some point they may need a way out of their position. Excluding otium from any actions might provide a way to do that.

To my mind what this does expose once again pretty clearly is that the needs of otium / ccfc are not important to sisu. It is all about their investors and trying to distress the stadium owners. Otium does not need to be involved in JR2. The fact it is gets the expected reaction from wasps. Potentially a loss of income to squeeze wasps finances. Loss of cash flow from ccfc but also from the court costs at a time wasps finances are vulnerable. Including otium / ccfc adds to the pressure and I think that is the only reason otium is named on the court documents.

I don't think sisu believe wasps council efl or fa would allow ccfc to go bust. Usual arrogant aggressive high risk gamble by our owners to maximise investor return

I am sure wasps and CCC realise and know the connections and who pulls the strings. But at some point all parties need a way out of this probably without backing down....

 

[oldskyblue58]

Him saying he is not paid is his weasel words. There is something in it for him or he would be off, the means and timing of the remuneration has simply been obfuscated.

Well in the last accounts a third party acting for a director was paid 75k by otium. Of course otium only has one director...... Fisher

 

[Covstu]

Understand that and for now it suits council and wasps to play hard ball. They have the right to do that if they choose. But at some point they may need a way out of their position. Excluding otium from any actions might provide a way to do that.

To my mind what this does expose once again pretty clearly is that the needs of otium / ccfc are not important to sisu. It is all about their investors and trying to distress the stadium owners. Otium does not need to be involved in JR2. The fact it is gets the expected reaction from wasps. Potentially a loss of income to squeeze wasps finances. Loss of cash flow from ccfc but also from the court costs at a time wasps finances are vulnerable. Including otium / ccfc adds to the pressure and I think that is the only reason otium is named on the court documents.

I don't think sisu believe wasps council efl or fa would allow ccfc to go bust. Usual arrogant aggressive high risk gamble by our owners to maximise investor return

I am sure wasps and CCC realise and know the connections and who pulls the strings. But at some point all parties need a way out of this probably without backing down....

Did Otium exist prior to the CCFC purchase?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Did Otium exist prior to the CCFC purchase?

Yes around 18 mths before from memory. They filed a set of accounts for the year before acquiring ccfc. 2m loan in 2m loan out basic transactions that first year

edit* 21st April 2011. I think it is safe to say it formed part of a plan

 

[skybluetony176]

What I keep wondering is when this does come to an end with the inevitable SISU loss who is going to be liable in law for Wasps and CCC’s legal bill. Presumably it will be the parties that brought and lost the case and as one of them is a company registered in an offshore tax haven presumably with no assets does that mean the club legally will be the only company that Wasps and CCC will be able to claim costs from? I fear another administration could be around the corner.

 

[Adge]

Trying to get my head around this still-so where does Arvo come into this and who/what is that company for etc?:emoji_thinking:

 

[Captain Dart]

Trying to get my head around this still-so where does Arvo come into this and who/what is that company for etc?:emoji_thinking:

They provided extra capital at the time the strategy changed, something like £10-12M, they are another SISU fund, in March 2012 they took a charge over all CCFC assets so they get paid first before other SISU concerns, if Ryton was to be sold they would reap the benefit. I think their involvement can be seen as a refinancing of the club but this time under more direct control of Joy Seppala, before that Ranson and that idiot Onye Igwe had the reins and fucked up mightily.

Hence Joy gets to recover her reputation and show her investors how to manage the asset correctly, she probably put a personal stake in, in fact I think it is plausible all the ARVO funding is at her personal risk.

PS Fisher came in around the same time as Ranson was pulling out.

 

[Adge]

Oh right-thanks. :emoji_thumbsup:

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

I know it's another thread on the legals but what follows needs to be kept seperate. So stick with it. I will keep it factual as much as I can The only caveat is that I am not a barrister specialising in company law.

So the facts

A limited company in law is a separate legal entity. That is irrespective of another person or entity having significant or ultimate control. It is this legal separation that allowed our owners to move assets and liabilities around the group to safeguard assets or create liabilities. All perfectly legal.

Essentially a company and its directors are responsible for that company's actions or day to day operation. Day to day actions are not just the playing side for example . The whole concept of limited company is to place very limited liability rights or privileges on the shareholders

Limited companies are governed by the Companies Act 2006 and the contents of the company rules called the memorandum & articles. Not as Boddy so confidently asserted the shareholder act,( interesting that a shareholder act is an American thing)

The assets, liabilities rights privileges etc of CCFC are owned in their entirety by Otium entertainment group limited. That includes all registrations the golden share is registered to otium. All staff and players are employed by otium. CCFC is legally a trademark owned by otium. The total ownership is confirmed by the purchase agreement otium made with the administrator. Legally otium is the club, the legal entity. Ccfc is not a legal entity.

Any legal agreement, leases or tenancies etc are signed by legal entities. In the case of limited companies by the directors of those entities.

The shareholders of otium are not Sisu. Otium is owned by ARVO 9.9% and sbs&l 90.1%. The immediate control of otium comes from sbs&l. The entity with significant control is sisu. Sisu and otium are not the same thing but Sisu controls otium because otium are accustomed to acting on their instructions made on behalf of the mysterious investors. That does not make otium or its directors not liable for their own actions

The director of otium is fisher and for sbs&l are fisher & Deering. Limited companies require its directors to sign documents to make them binding and legal on its behalf. Those directors are required to act in the best interests of that particular company at the time of taking any decision for that company. Directors also need to act in the interests of the shareholders.

For example for solicitors to act for otium should require a letter of engagement to be signed by the director etc

Otium has a tenancy agreement at the ricoh arena. Not ARVO not sbs&l not Sisu.

The parties bringing the JR2 2 action are ARVO, sbs&l and otium against CCC with wasps and AEHC as interested parties.

It was stated in court that there is no financial benefit to any of the claimants from the JR2 . It is procedural and wants the sale agreement rewritten, a potential legal penalty against CCC and a huge payment from wasps to CCC.

Apparently the otium shareholder owners have taken this action and CCFC and its director have no control or influence over this. The shareholders in Otium are ARVO and sbs&l. Both are the remaining claimants in JR2. That does not absolve the directors of otium from their duties and responsibilities. Ultimately a directors solution for actions being taken or not taken they do not agree with is to resign.

Questions
If the only shareholders of otium are ARVO and sbs&l and it is shareholder owners that are bringing the action does otium entertainment group need to be involved at all? Does JR2 require otium and therefore Ccfc to be involved - it's not a claim for compensation

If there is no financial benefit or other benefit to otium and therefore Ccfc why is Otium involved

Sbs&l are the holding company of otium and therefore can act to protect its investment. That does not require otium entertainment group limited to bring any action does it ?.

Documents would have to be signed by directors to for example appoint solicitors to act on behalf of the companies involved (separate legal entities etc). So how could a director not know what was going on ?

Otium entertainment group is last in the ownership line of the group, gains no financial benefit from the JR2 actions, we told is not liable for any costs (not sure that stands up without formal court agreement). It appears that otium and therefore ""Ccfc" do not need to be involved in this particular action?

We are told the JR2 is brought by shareholder owners. Otium is neither ?

If otium was not involved or was removed from the action leaving ARVO and sbs&l to carry on then does it make it harder for wasps to say no talks with otium/ccfc? Afterall the deal to be at the ricoh would be between otium and wasps.

Is the reaction of wasps actually expected and relied on.

Remove otium from the action and doesn't that give all parties room to talk? There is no real reason for otium to be involved, legal action over JR2 can continue without otium it seems to me. I can only think that once more Ccfc is being used to distress another company's finances. Back fired last time I can't help thinking it will again.

Precise and exact. How can Fisher NOT know what's going on ? Who is trying to hoodwink who ? Thanks for this OSB.

 

[Captain Dart]

Precise and exact. How can Fisher NOT know what's going on ? Who is trying to hoodwink who ? Thanks for this OSB.

It goes deeper than that, he MUST in law have signed a document enabling Otium and SBS&L to be included in the legal action. He is complicit.

 

[chiefdave]

Ultimately our primary concern is having somewhere to play next season. Unless anyone is going to reveal the proverbial smoking gun that will make SISU drop the legals does it really matter who signed what bit of paper?

At best someone might be able to build a legal case against Fisher for not working in the best interests of Otium. Not sure even that would be straightforward as you have to remember that the best interests of Otium as a business might not match with the best interests of Coventry City as a football club.

As far as I can see either Wasps or SISU have to back down and recent history suggests its not going to be SISU even if their actions mean the end of the football club.

 

[Specs WT-R75]

Thanks for a great summary and quite a few good questions...Hopefully somebody at WASPS will read this and just say ...hey we now realise that CCFC is just a pawn in this exercise. we want to make it clear that we have no wish to further worry CCFC or its fans so here is an offer....2 years at the the same rent....but pay us a bonus if CCFC get promoted

Wont happen but I can dream

Thanks again OSB

If I were Wasps I would offer a 2-part rent. The second part on the "assumption" that the JR goes against them and they will have a much higher level of interest repayment on their loans. This second part would of course be refunded at such time that the legal situation is finally clarified one way or another...

Gives Wasps a way of saving face whilst also leaving some form of "drop the legals" in there...

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

If I were Wasps I would offer a 2-part rent. The second part on the "assumption" that the JR goes against them and they will have a much higher level of interest repayment on their loans. This second part would of course be refunded at such time that the legal situation is finally clarified one way or another...

Gives Wasps a way of saving face whilst also leaving some form of "drop the legas" in there...

I think that’s absolutely right that there are excellent creative ways to break the impasse

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

My message to Wasps never mind who signed or didn't sign what, who is or isn't in control do a deal now.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

My message to CCC get your heads out of your arses and to Lucas hope your proud of yourself. Same goes to Seppalla

 

[Covstu]

I think that’s absolutely right that there are excellent creative ways to break the impasse

but the current emphasis is on our club to break the deadlock not theirs at this stage. That might change nearer the time but ball is in our court at present sadly

 

[Nick]

but the current emphasis is on our club to break the deadlock not theirs at this stage. That might change nearer the time but ball is in our court at present sadly

It's even rougher for us as it's in SISUs.

 

[Covstu]

It's even rougher for us as it's in SISUs.

exactly, which is depressing!

 

[Captain Dart]

I think that’s absolutely right that there are excellent creative ways to break the impasse

But that isn't one of them.

 

[Badger]

My worry is that if/when the legals are lost, then all costs will be awarded to Wasps/CCC. It appears to be set up so that if this happens SISU will be in a position to put all the Otium, etc into administration to avoid paying.

I think they would prefer to see CCFC get into the Championship to make them sellable for a better price but would they still be able to take control of the assets eg player contracts/Ryton to sell if another administration or liquidation did follow?

 

[oldskyblue58]

My worry is that if/when the legals are lost, then all costs will be awarded to Wasps/CCC. It appears to be set up so that if this happens SISU will be in a position to put all the Otium, etc into administration to avoid paying.

I think they would prefer to see CCFC get into the Championship to make them sellable for a better price but would they still be able to take control of the assets eg player contracts/Ryton to sell if another administration or liquidation did follow?

The option for administration or worse is of course there. I second insolvency event would see the directors barred from running a football club. It is a risk to SISU but they take risks that is their business. The mechanics of it would be pretty much like last time. ARVO have a charge over all assets so there are no assets for a creditor to take. ARVO & SISU investors are the largest creditors so would control any administration just like last time. To avoid paying liabilities SISU could take that route but to do it simply out of say "spite" i dont see that for one thing it costs a lot when they already own and control the company.

Think there is a long way to go before that happens. It doesnt suit the other parties to see CCFC cease to exist either

 

[wince]

The option for administration or worse is of course there. I second insolvency event would see the directors barred from running a football club. It is a risk to SISU but they take risks that is their business. The mechanics of it would be pretty much like last time. ARVO have a charge over all assets so there are no assets for a creditor to take. ARVO & SISU investors are the largest creditors so would control any administration just like last time. To avoid paying liabilities SISU could take that route but to do it simply out of say "spite" i dont see that for one thing it costs a lot when they already own and control the company.

Think there is a long way to go before that happens. It doesnt suit the other parties to see CCFC cease to exist either

Am I right in thinking that the football league take back the golden share at the administration stage, and don't have to automatically give it to who ever the administrator deicides can take over the club .

 

[shmmeee]

Seems like an obvious move from Sisu, don’t get what benefit there is from keeping Otium involved.

Also thought today that Wasps kicking is out is surely more likely to make legals continue than stop. Sisu would just be pissed off with no PR worries.

I can’t see anyone who wins from putting up the barriers both sides have.

Just once I’d like to be able to see a strategy from the players involved in this. If just to reassure me that my city and my club aren’t run by complete muppets.