Snozz_is_god
New Member
That's 'Holdings' but what about 'Ltd' ?
Just checked the Company House website - the final notice to dissolve CCFC H has been posted. The company is marked as dissolved
The Truth, they should have been more open from the beginning. Stop employing spin doctors and just say it as it is.
you were at one of the meetings with myself what did you get out of it except for the loss of 3 hours of your life?
That's 'Holdings' but what about 'Ltd' ?
Insolvency History
Name & Registered Office:
COVENTRY CITY FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED
Company No. 03056875
Number of Cases: 2
Case Number: 2 (of 2 cases)
Case Type: Voluntary Creditors Liquidation
Wind Up Date: 27/09/2013
Appoint Practitioner: 27/09/2013
Case Number: 1 (of 2 cases)
Case Type: IN ADMINISTRATION
Admin. Start Date: 21/03/2013
Admin. End Date: 27/09/2013
One party in this dispute openly engaged a PR firm. Why?
You continue to mention Weber Shandwick, however it is right to point out that there is nothing remotely illegal or wrong in doing that, and shouldn't be something they need to apologise for. Plus of course it would be interesting to note when they last issued a PR release on behalf of ACL. Probably a better criticism of ACL if that is what you want to do,is that for months they have hardly made any public comments, certainly not that they are constantly spinning anti SISU stories. As for SISU I don't think the problem is that they are no good at PR, more that the 'story' they have got to sell is so horrific that no PR could ever disguise what an utter disaster they have made of things. Or to put it more succinctly, how on earth do you polish a turd.Stop employing spin doctors? What exactly are weber Shandwick doing for ACL then?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
One party in this dispute openly engaged a PR firm. Why?
One party in this dispute openly engaged a PR firm. Why?
One party in this dispute openly engaged a PR firm. Why?
Not sure if it was on this thread or not but just to confirm the lease was not broken by the administration order in March 2013 nor by the rejection of the CVA 02/08/13 nor by the appointment of a liquidator 21/10/13. A lease can only be broken by the landlord cancelling it or by the liquidator disclaiming it. The liquidator disclaimed it 17/01/14 which is when the lease was broken.
I suspect that CCFC Ltd will not be liquidated until such time as the claims for rates are settled and any claim, that TF alluded to in the SCG minutes against ACL, for over charges on costs are settled. That could be sometime. My understanding is that if CCFC Ltd liquidated then the overcharge claims would die with the liquidation.
Question .... were we not told that all the expenses were actually paid by CCFC H? If so why is it CCFC Ltd remains and assuming the above correct has a claim for expenses & rates? Shouldn't it be CCFC H with the claim?
Question ....CCFC H held 100% of the shares in CCFC Ltd. CCFC H no longer exists so who holds the shares in CCFC Ltd? Does CCFC Ltd still exist if it has no shareholders?
Going on from all that CCFC Ltd is in liquidation (the process) as such it will not be liquidated until the liquidator files his final report and the relevant document is filed at Company House. It has not yet been liquidated and the process could be stopped although I see no reason why it would be.
Am, and not for the first time, confused by what ML was saying on CWR this morning. The deal for Otium to buy CCFC assets from CCFC Ltd was done 27/06/13 and monies paid over because expenses have been paid against it. The CVA was rejected 02/08/13. The golden share with its conditions was issued 02/08/13. The final report from the administrator 27/09/13 makes no mention of the £590k due to be paid by Otium, doesn't refer to any deal being dependent on any terms to be met. Yet the payment by Otium to ACL is dependent on the liquidation?
He is quite right the liquidator will calculate how much of the £1.5m (after deducting expenses) is to be paid to all creditors. At 27/09/13 there was £883k sitting in the administration bank account (after paying expenses of £656k to that date with another 313k still to pay at that date). In addition there are costs since 27/09/13 to be paid also. So the total pot available to all creditors is somewhere far less than £570k. So the amount from the liquidation due to ACL would seem to be
(ACl debt 636K/ Total debts owed 69.72m) x the pot available a max of £570k = £5200 or if the GR/MM £300k is deducted from the ACL debt it would be £2750
He also said that ACL insisted on the £590k payment being included in the FL/Otium deal for the golden share. There is no legal relationship between ACL and FL or even Otium so how and why did either Otium or FL accept such a demand?
but as usual nothing is straight forward
Didn't Otium get all of Holdings assets? Wouldn't they be the owners of Ltd?
on the offal
Club Statement - Coventry City will honour it's obligation to the Football League
Mon 02 Jun 2014
Author: CCFC
The club has moved to reassure fans in a statement issued to the press over the weekend....
Coventry City Football Club issued a statement to the press regarding payment to ACL over the weekend.
Here it is in full...
We would like once again to reassure fans that the Club will honour its obligation to the Football League. It is totally wrong to suggest otherwise. We have undertaken to the League to pay ACL the amount that is legally owed to them.
ACL rejected this payment, which they could have received last summer, in order to start a liquidation process and cause a points deduction. So the only person who can determine the correct amount to be paid is the liquidator.
As instructed by the League, the Club has already paid a large sum of money into an escrow account, ready for payment to ACL as soon as the correct number has been calculated.
There is some uncertainty as to the correct amount because it appears that ACL may already have been paid monies under personal guarantees, which amounted to £500,000. If this is the case, there is a risk that they might be paid twice over. As soon as this uncertainty is resolved, the correct sum can be determined and released to ACL from the escrow account.
Read more at http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/...eague-020614-1592169.aspx#O1CiJvtykFpY2E7A.99
Here is another thought
Say the pot available for creditors is £570k ACL is due £5200 say ............ the balance goes to £565K ............ ARVO/SBS&L and Otium (because they acquired the assets of CCFC H )
So after the rates rebate and the final distribution from the liquidation did Otium actually pay £1.5m for CCFC?
To be clear I am not saying there has been any wrong doing in any of this. It is actually clever use of the system and figures.
Which is the same as was in the CET. But we all know that 500k wasn't paid. It was 300k. But the FL said it was 590k that needed paying and this wasn't for non payment of rent.
And ACL threatened admin and not liquidation. It was SISU that were threatening liquidation that caused ACL to threaten admin. And the 10 points were lost when SISU filed for admin. So much for expecting a bit of truth from SISU.
[h=3]There is some uncertainty as to the correct amount because it appears that ACL may already have been paid monies under personal guarantees, which amounted to £500,000. If this is the case, there is a risk that they might be paid twice over. As soon as this uncertainty is resolved, the correct sum can be determined and released to ACL from the escrow account.
Read more at http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/...eague-020614-1592169.aspx#O1CiJvtykFpY2E7A.99
We would like once again to reassure fans that the Club will honour its obligation to the Football League. It is totally wrong to suggest otherwise. We have undertaken to the League to pay ACL the amount that is legally owed to them.
ACL rejected this payment, which they could have received last summer, in order to start a liquidation process and cause a points deduction. So the only person who can determine the correct amount to be paid is the liquidator.
It was, certain of CCFC H assets went to Otium but no details yet, yes good point ...... just wondered if the shares became property of liquidator or had they died with CCFCH. Nothing filed at company house to say one way or other.
The SBS&L 2013 accounts signed off 28/02/14 say CCFCH still owned the shares but CCFCH had applied to be struck off 21/01/14.
It's not a legal matter is it? If the company being liquidated legally had to pay ACL an amount why would the FL get involved? Non payment would be illegal and ACL would have a course of action to pursue should that amount not be paid.
The payment is a condition for the issuing of the golden share made by the FL. The amount may have been based on figures in the CVA, you would expect the administrator to be able to get that kind of figure right, but it is not a CVA payment, payment as part of liquidation or rent payment as the FL have absolutely no authority in those areas.
I would be a lot more comfortable with a statement from the FL stating what was going on from their perspective. Maybe the Trust or the CET can approach them for some clarification.
As per the last story, the FL won't comment publicly until after its annual conference.
ACL rejected the CVA - causing a 10pt deduction this season. I believe that is what they are referring to.
As per the last story, the FL won't comment publicly until after its annual conference.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As per the last story, the FL won't comment publicly until after its annual conference.
I know what they are referring to. But they said 'ACL rejected this payment, which they could have received last summer, in order to start a liquidation process and cause a points deduction.'
So they are accusing ACL of starting a liquidation process. Are you saying this is true, they are lying or are you saying that they misunderstand what is going on?
What are you on about? The rejection of the CVA prevented the club from exiting administration voluntarily so caused the company to be liquidated.
What are you on about? The rejection of the CVA prevented the club from exiting administration voluntarily so caused the company to be liquidated.
What are you on about? The rejection of the CVA prevented the club from exiting administration voluntarily so caused the company to be liquidated.
Either you don't understand what has been going on or you are trying to make everyone think differently to the truth.
The original CVA included an offer to pay the 590 k to ACL, I believe this was the full amount owed, is that correct?
If so what other CVA could have been offered?
What are you on about? The rejection of the CVA prevented the club from exiting administration voluntarily so caused the company to be liquidated.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?