Golden Share Could Be In Holdings After All (3 Viewers)

Forums New posts
I

inside track

New Member
It looks as though the infamous 'Golden Share' could be in Coventry City Holdings after all.

A journalist friend is trying to get on the record confirmation that the Football League havd messed up.

It seems that when City were relegated they had to hand back their Premier League Golden Share and were issued with a new one from the Football League, but the League registered as issued to 'Coventry City Football Club Ltd' without realising there were two entities - Holdings and the subsidiary CCFC Ltd. It was thereafter continually listed, incorrectly, as being with CCFC Ltd.

What this does not explain is why it appeared to show up in the CCFC Ltd accounts, but my friend says he's expecting the League to confirm their error soon.
 
YamYam

YamYam

New Member
How is that a league error?

The League listed it as vested in Coventry City Football Club Ltd.

And at the same time, Coventry City Football Club Ltd said that they had it.
 
cloughie

cloughie

Well-Known Member
And of course the GS could be in Ltd as signed off by auditors and Directors of the club in the last accounts filed in the middle of last year.

So did the auditors and directors make a mistake as well only 8/ 9 months ago

hey but I'm not on the so called inside track
 
S

SkyBlueScottie

Well-Known Member
Well something isnt right..... and it's pretty clear the club for the last 10 years have gone along with the assumption that everything is actually under Holdings... hence the note applied when we we were reissued the Share after relegation....

This does have wider implications, certainly for the league as they could have applied a 10 point deduction in error....
 
Delboycov

Delboycov

Active Member
cloughie said:
And of course the GS could be in Ltd as signed off by auditors and Directors of the club in the last accounts filed in the middle of last year.

So did the auditors and directors make a mistake as well only 8/ 9 months ago

hey but I'm not on the so called inside track
Click to expand...

Careful Cloughie...you'll be accused of being paranoid for implying that this board may have had an influx of new members belonging to either of the sides trying to sway public opinion. What the hell would they want to do that for?! ;)
 
P

psgm1

Banned
So there is NO confusion, here is the actual information from companies house. It is quite clear there is a CCFC Ltd AND COVENTRY CITY FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED(THE). BOTH were in existence whilst the club was in the prem. So BOTH sides could argue they are right! Is there anyway in the public record that states precisely which flavour of ltd was used (ccfc or coventry city). All this has come about because sisu put ltd into admin rather than everything! And they knew full well this would muddy the waters. Quite frankly it is pretty academic, because even if sisu manage to win, it will be a phyrric victory, because they will be playing outside of coventry and will therefore have no fans!

But for the record, the exact info is below!

ENJOY!!!

Name & Registered Office:
COVENTRY CITY FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED
26 28 BEDFORD ROW
LONDON
WC1R HE
Company No. 03056875

Status: In Administration
Date of Incorporation: 16/05/1995

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Previous Names: Date of change Previous Name 16/02/1996 C C F C LIMITED 30/05/1995 CLUBON LIMITED
Name & Registered Office:
COVENTRY CITY FOOTBALL CLUB (HOLDINGS) LIMITED
RICOH ARENA
PHOENIX WAY FOLESHILL
COVENTRY
CV6 6GE
Company No. 00094305

Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 24/07/1907

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Previous Names: Date of change Previous Name 16/02/1996 COVENTRY CITY FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED(THE)
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
Got a feeling that the where the league messed up was registering contracts in CCFC H name instead of checking it carefully for the CCFC Ltd name.

On the basis that CCFC Ltd was specifically formed to acquire the trade and run a professional football club known as Coventry City Football Club, plus the accounts signed off by TF and all other directors listing in CCFC H a 100% subsidiary known as CCFC Ltd whose business was the "playing activities of a professional football club" (note 9 CCFC H accounts 31/05/11) how can it be the FL made a mistake when the directors of CCFC Ltd and CCFC H clearly indicate the share to be in CCFC Ltd themselves.

you cannot have a trade of a football league club without the share to do it.
 
mattylad

mattylad

Member
oldskyblue58 said:
Got a feeling that the where the league messed up was registering contracts in CCFC H name instead of checking it carefully for the CCFC Ltd name.

On the basis that CCFC Ltd was specifically formed to acquire the trade and run a professional football club known as Coventry City Football Club, plus the accounts signed off by TF and all other directors listing in CCFC H a 100% subsidiary known as CCFC Ltd whose business was the "playing activities of a professional football club" (note 9 CCFC H accounts 31/05/11) how can it be the FL made a mistake when the directors of CCFC Ltd and CCFC H clearly indicate the share to be in CCFC Ltd themselves.

you cannot have a trade of a football league club without the share to do it.
Click to expand...

I think the question is not who had the share but who do they give it back to.... yes the share resided with Ltd but from what is coming out the FL have on a consistent basis done all of its business with Holdings and so a very strong legal case could be made by Holdings that as the FL were aware who was running the day to day activities of the club it has the right to the share when handed back by the league.

There is also the consideration that if the league decided that in fact only Ltd had right to the share which would open up the possibility of a take over then they could be facing a fairly heavy legal law suit from SISU for its owed debt.

Much still to play out on this I believe....
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Delboycov said:
Careful Cloughie...you'll be accused of being paranoid for implying that this board may have had an influx of new members belonging to either of the sides trying to sway public opinion. What the hell would they want to do that for?! ;)
Click to expand...

No need for that, all the employees of both sides registered ages ago.
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
What would happen if we were 6 points off the playoffs and they took 10 points and then afterwards they realise they shouldn't have taken them?

If they shouldn't have taken the points then why no appeal?
 
mattylad

mattylad

Member
Nick said:
What would happen if we were 6 points off the playoffs and they took 10 points and then afterwards they realise they shouldn't have taken them?

If they shouldn't have taken the points then why no appeal?
Click to expand...
I think again Nick because you are talking about who had the share prior to it being suspended rather than who should they give it back to.
 
S

Steve.B50

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
What would happen if we were 6 points off the playoffs and they took 10 points and then afterwards they realise they shouldn't have taken them?

If they shouldn't have taken the points then why no appeal?
Click to expand...

Very good point Nick!
Maybe they would give us them back for next season?

What I do not understand is why are they making any plans at all if the club is in Admin, I thought everything had to be done by the Administrator?
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
I do wonder if CCFC Ltd actually had a bank account. It is not unusual for group situations that a central global bank account is used. It doesnt change which company has a legal liability for a debt or right to an income but it does mean the transactions are processed by one company. Transactions are then allocated by use of an inter company account and management charges made for administration costs.

In which case if CCFC H operated it there would be no other place for example to bank prize money from the FL than CCFC H but it doesnt mean it was that company's income. The reverse of say paying a league fee would be the same pronciple paid through CCFC H but actually legally a CCFC Ltd debt. So the assertion that everything paid through CCFC H might not be as revealing as it may seem.

It is quite possible that regulatory items from the FL may have simply said CCFC not Ltd or Holdings

Another question would be did all contracts issued to players or agreed with suppliers always bear the name CCFC H or CCFC ltd?. If there were a change when did that change happen?.

Going forward I think it is safe to assume that who ever the FL decide there will be further legal action
 
Last edited:
I

inside track

New Member
I have just checked again with my reporter friend who repeats that the League appears to have made a mistake when registering the name of the recipient company.

However, he agrees that this does not explain that the GS apparently shows up in the CCFC Ltd Annual Report, unless the club's accountants were guilty of copying information received from the League and failing to check it themselves.

I asked him about Bob Ainsworth's meeting with the League and he says BA apparently met a League PR man who told him what he thought was the case (& to be fair, BA said "the League think the GS is in the subsidiary ", not that it definitely was). However, BA did not meet with any senior officers of the League who might have been clearer with him, or as clear as they can be given all this.
 
YamYam

YamYam

New Member
Reporters tend to file info and publish it; not leak it anonymously to friends.

If the FL have said this, could you let me know where it is said?
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
inside track said:
However, he agrees that this does not explain that the GS apparently shows up in the CCFC Ltd Annual Report, unless the club's accountants were guilty of copying information received from the League and failing to check it themselves.

.
Click to expand...

no apparently about it

Suggest the directors had better read their own Directors Report which states amongst other things that it is the directors responsibility to

- prepare financial statements in accordance with the law and regulations
-under company law the directors must not approve financial statements unless they are satisfied they give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the company and the profit for the year
- the directors are responsible for keeping adequate accounting records that are sufficient to show and explain the company's transactions with reasonable accuracy at any time the financial position of the company
- they are also responsible for safeguarding the companys assets and taking reasonable steps for the prevention and detection of fraud or other irregularities.

So yes i guess it must be the company accountants fault that one of the assets entrusted to the company is not in the right place. :facepalm:

btw it is the auditors that are external not accountants

Auditors form an opinion on the accounts they are not legally responsible for preparing them. Obtaining confirmation from a third party is considered better evidence than asking say the directors as to where something is held. Also it would not be the only evidence considered...... for example previous years and the transactions with in the year together with projections forward would also indicate where the trade and therefore the GS was. As would names on contracts.
 
Flying Fokker

Flying Fokker

Well-Known Member
inside track said:
It looks as though the infamous 'Golden Share' could be in Coventry City Holdings after all.

A journalist friend is trying to get on the record confirmation that the Football League havd messed up.

It seems that when City were relegated they had to hand back their Premier League Golden Share and were issued with a new one from the Football League, but the League registered as issued to 'Coventry City Football Club Ltd' without realising there were two entities - Holdings and the subsidiary CCFC Ltd. It was thereafter continually listed, incorrectly, as being with CCFC Ltd.

What this does not explain is why it appeared to show up in the CCFC Ltd accounts, but my friend says he's expecting the League to confirm their error soon.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but these kind of things are usually followed by a statement which exonerates them from any errors or ommisions they make.

All a bit academic anyway because SISU will not be fit and proper to run the business anyway and therefore have any golden share withdrawn.....Which I'm sure the FL have covered all bases.
 
davebart

davebart

Active Member
I am just sick to the back teeth with all of this now.

Come back Mr Richardson all is forgiven. We just had a team with Hadji Chippo Hedman Hartson et al then. The good old days when I didn't have to think about f*cking company law.
 
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
inside track said:
It looks as though the infamous 'Golden Share' could be in Coventry City Holdings after all.

A journalist friend is trying to get on the record confirmation that the Football League havd messed up.

It seems that when City were relegated they had to hand back their Premier League Golden Share and were issued with a new one from the Football League, but the League registered as issued to 'Coventry City Football Club Ltd' without realising there were two entities - Holdings and the subsidiary CCFC Ltd. It was thereafter continually listed, incorrectly, as being with CCFC Ltd.

What this does not explain is why it appeared to show up in the CCFC Ltd accounts, but my friend says he's expecting the League to confirm their error soon.
Click to expand...

Who's your favourite ever player for the City?
 
bigfatronssba

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
In reality the Golden share would be allocated to a company registration number, business names change all the time and the league would prepare for this.
 
Delboycov

Delboycov

Active Member
Brighton Sky Blue said:
Someone with the username 'inside track' posting only about off field issues with a pro SISU leaning. Seems a little suspect.
Click to expand...

With a 'journalist' friend feeding him exclusive inside information to leak on a message board where there is major anti SISU feeling...
 
T

theferret

Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue said:
If you have more than an informal link to either side it'd be best to make it clear early doors...
Click to expand...

Why? It's an anonymous internet forum, he doesn't have to declare anything.

All he said was that "he has a mate who...", just your usual message board fodder.

He may well be wrong, who knows, but anyone who declares that they know for sure where the GS is or was is not fooling anybody (and there are a few on here who seem to have convinced themselves that they know more than they do).

By all means chuck mud if you have to, but this constant questioning of the motives of new posters is a bit tiresome.

Welcome to the forum inside track.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
theferret said:
By all means chuck mud if you have to, but this constant questioning of the motives of new posters is a bit tiresome.
Click to expand...

Indeed! Well said!

Is a surefire way to drive people away and keep a message board as an unholy clique.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top