SBSL now controlled by Sconset Since Dec2011 (registered in Cayman Islands,NYC) Has to be a reason
Last edited:
In full: Appleton's report to the High Court (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Brighton Sky Blue
- Start date
SBSL now controlled by Sconset Since Dec2011 (registered in Cayman Islands,NYC) Has to be a reason
Skybluesquirrel
New Member
Here's my old ramblings on it, if anyone wants a read...
http://aprisonofmeasuredtime.wordpr...ent-is-the-administrator-and-football-league/
http://aprisonofmeasuredtime.wordpr...ent-is-the-administrator-and-football-league/
Sky Blues
Active Member
I also notice from point 11 that the administrator has to investigate the conduct of the directors and shadow directors over the last three years.
Fairly standard stuff for these kind of documents I imagine, but would that mean Joy Seppala's role will be investigated too seeing as how she was now "hands on" (or whatever the exact words were that Tim Fisher used)?
(For clarity, I'm not suggesting anyone has broken the law, I'm just pleased to see that the administrator's remit Is broad in scope).
Fairly standard stuff for these kind of documents I imagine, but would that mean Joy Seppala's role will be investigated too seeing as how she was now "hands on" (or whatever the exact words were that Tim Fisher used)?
(For clarity, I'm not suggesting anyone has broken the law, I'm just pleased to see that the administrator's remit Is broad in scope).
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
Hmmm - this is where I get annoyed with people posting stuff as fact & taking stuff out of context
. My earlier post on this being influenced by other's emotional take on things, rather than my own usually objective take.Having listened to it several times - what was ACTUALLY said was: -
TF "We have a raft of evidence that it (the GS) is not in Ltd it is in Holdings, we maintain it is in holdings, & we have traded as if it is always been in Holdings. Hence all the assets..." (Linnell interrupts) "...look at the last public accounts for CCFC Ltd...& it seems to be that the GS is in there according to those accounts".
TF responds "That's not strictly true Stuart unfortunately. The company that has been the trading company, & continues to be the trading company, is Holdings. So hence the FL has paid all the football award money to holdings" went on to say transfers etc also paid to Holdings.
So in actual fact he has no explaining to do on that issue on the basis of his actual words.
Sky Blues
Active Member
Excellent piece Squirrel. You raise some questions that were floating half-formed in my mind that I do not have the expertise to word with your rapier incision. Well done.
Skybluesquirrel
New Member
Seppala's not listed as a Director of CCFC Ltd.
cloughie
Well-Known Member
Maybe I might be way off beam but 8 bidders who knows how many are sisu companies
otium retained to muddy the waters with a bid ?
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
So why did Ltd exsist?Hmmm - this is where I get annoyed with people posting stuff as fact & taking stuff out of context
Having listened to it several times - what was ACTUALLY said was: -
TF "We have a raft of evidence that it (the GS) is not in Ltd it is in Holdings, we maintain it is in holdings, & we have traded as if it is always been in Holdings. Hence all the assets..." (Linnell interrupts) "...look at the last public accounts for CCFC Ltd...& it seems to be that the GS is in there according to those accounts".
TF responds "That's not strictly true Stuart unfortunately. The company that has been the trading company, & continues to be the trading company, is Holdings. So hence the FL has paid all the football award money to holdings" went on to say transfers etc also paid to Holdings.
So in actual fact he has no explaining to do on that issue on the basis of his actual words.
Sky Blues
Active Member
It's the words "shadow director" that I was thinking about...
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
My guess would be to separate assets from debts.
duffer
Well-Known Member
She's not -but she might well find her conduct examined as a 'shadow director' (in essence someone who has clearly directed the actions of a company, even if not formally listed as a director).
http://www.future-law.co.uk/a-shadow-director/
It's not a position JS would want to find herself in, I'd venture, given all of the dubious things flying around. Shadow directors can find themselves in bother too. Is it too much to hope for...
Skybluesquirrel
New Member
Hmmm - this is where I get annoyed with people posting stuff as fact & taking stuff out of context
Having listened to it several times - what was ACTUALLY said was: -
TF "We have a raft of evidence that it (the GS) is not in Ltd it is in Holdings, we maintain it is in holdings, & we have traded as if it is always been in Holdings. Hence all the assets..." (Linnell interrupts) "...look at the last public accounts for CCFC Ltd...& it seems to be that the GS is in there according to those accounts".
TF responds "That's not strictly true Stuart unfortunately. The company that has been the trading company, & continues to be the trading company, is Holdings. So hence the FL has paid all the football award money to holdings" went on to say transfers etc also paid to Holdings.
So in actual fact he has no explaining to do on that issue on the basis of his actual words.
Its all a question of dates. Up to May 2011 accounts submitted in June 2012, the evidence suggests CCFC Ltd.
It may well have happened since June 2012. After that, it appears that no-one has been informed of any changes that should have been informed - any company giving credit to CCFC Ltd for example. Nor the press.
Skybluesquirrel
New Member
She's not -but she might well find her conduct examined as a 'shadow director' (in essence someone who has clearly directed the actions of a company, even if not formally listed as a director).
http://www.future-law.co.uk/a-shadow-director/
It's not a position JS would want to find herself in, I'd venture, given all of the dubious things flying around. Shadow directors can find themselves in bother too. Is it too much to hope for...
If I were her defence lawyer, I'd say She's an employee/Director of SISU, based in the Cayman Islands. The direction came from SISU, not her personally.
duffer
Well-Known Member
I like this bit especially, with regard to director and shadow director conduct:
A liquidator can seek to bring an action against a shadow director of a company for fraud in anticipation of winding up, misconduct in course of winding up, material omissions from statements relating to company’s affairs and false representation to creditors. In addition, any director (including a shadow director) found liable of fraudulent or wrongful trading can be ordered to make such contribution to the company’s assets as the court thinks proper.
I suspect the Administrator is largely SISU's poodle, having been appointed by them and having read the report and squirrel's analysis of it, but the courts aren't there for the taking. I'd love to see Fisher and Seppala in front of a judge, explaining what happened to the assets CCFC Ltd seemed to once hold.
A liquidator can seek to bring an action against a shadow director of a company for fraud in anticipation of winding up, misconduct in course of winding up, material omissions from statements relating to company’s affairs and false representation to creditors. In addition, any director (including a shadow director) found liable of fraudulent or wrongful trading can be ordered to make such contribution to the company’s assets as the court thinks proper.
I suspect the Administrator is largely SISU's poodle, having been appointed by them and having read the report and squirrel's analysis of it, but the courts aren't there for the taking. I'd love to see Fisher and Seppala in front of a judge, explaining what happened to the assets CCFC Ltd seemed to once hold.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
That may well be or not be the case...just that based on other's comments I was prompted to post..."I meant to ask last night...is TF making a public admission that they have falsified accounts? Or just that they have deliberately provided an Officer of Court with false documentation/accounts? Or what? TF please explain!", whereas having listened he didn't say the accounts were not the true accounts as someone else had suggested.
duffer
Well-Known Member
I think that's covered by this:
A parent company will not be considered to be a shadow director of any of its subsidiaries if it imposes a common policy that applies to all group companies without being in breach of its duties to the subsidiary. However, for the purposes of the CDDA 1986, there is no similar exception where the directors of a holding company who give directions to the directors of one or other of its subsidiaries can render themselves personally liable as shadow directors of the subsidiary.
JS is a director of SISU, who seemingly gave directions to Fisher (a director of CCFC Ltd). That might be seen as to render her personally liable as (a) shadow director of the subsidiary (CCFC Ltd, in this case.).
I'm not saying it will ever happen, but looking at that there might be a case to answer at the least.
Sky Blues
Active Member
Which is why I mentioned Tim Fisher's comments a few months ago about Joy Seppala becoming personally involved...
grego_gee
New Member
There are not 8 bidders, there were 8 interested paties.
6 have been put off by the ongoing dispute.
2 interested parties remain.
I dont beleive any bids have yet been made.
imp:Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
And you know this how?There are not 8 bidders, there were 8 interested paties.
6 have been put off by the ongoing dispute.
2 interested parties remain.
I dont beleive any bids have yet been made.
grego_gee
New Member
I read it recently, there has been so much I don;t know where!
either in the official report ot Appletons recent press statement
imp:
grego_gee
New Member
grego_gee
New Member
Squirrel,
you ask why the administrator is concerned about the 10% of current debt represented by the Arena rent.
I suggest there is no conspiracy as you suppose but it is very logical and justified, because it represents an ongoing revenue drain whereas the other 90% is historic and not repeating!
It continues to be a responsibility to pay £1,2m a year for the remainder of the lease (45 years? =£54m!) - and a significant part of annual losses of circa £3m a year.
Also you raise the player registrations valued at 460k, it is interesting to note these are not all the registrations for the whole team, since the notes refer to all current registrations being completed in the name of Holdings.
It raises the question Who are the players whose names are registered with "Ltd", Seemingly Older ones since current ones are with Holdings?
Since the term current is used does that exclude the whole of the current playing staff? Why would we remain with registrations for any players that were not current?
Can anybody think of a reason and who those players might be?
imp:
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Only thing I can think of is do we retain Kilbane's registration as he retired? but then he was only signed at the start of last season. have they kept long contracts that they want shot of in ltd?
Skybluesquirrel
New Member
Squirrel,
you ask why the administrator is concerned about the 10% of current debt represented by the Arena rent.
I suggest there is no conspiracy as you suppose but it is very logical and justified, because it represents an ongoing revenue drain whereas the other 90% is historic and not repeating!
It continues to be a responsibility to pay £1,2m a year for the remainder of the lease (45 years? =£54m!) - and a significant part of annual losses of circa £3m a year.
Also you raise the player registrations valued at 460k, it is interesting to note these are not all the registrations for the whole team, since the notes refer to all current registrations being completed in the name of Holdings.
It raises the question Who are the players whose names are registered with "Ltd", Seemingly Older ones since current ones are with Holdings?
Since the term current is used does that exclude the whole of the current playing staff? Why would we remain with registrations for any players that were not current?
Can anybody think of a reason and who those players might be?
I haven't said there is a conspiracy. I have highlighted two opinions that in my view are similar.
His report starts by giving background to the administration. I would suggest that how 90% of the debt was incurred is quite important. He needs to clarify how and when these changes took place, so that we can see that these issues are indeed historic and no longer a problem. That way we can agree on the ongoing problem.
Why are any registrations left in CCFC Ltd at all, if its not trading as the football club, and for the length of time suggested.
Those still in CCFC - McSheffrey? Bell?
Skybluesquirrel
New Member
Very likely... Its all about dates and who signed what and where things were submitted/accepted.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Either he screwed by making that statement or he was covering his own posterior in advance.
BrisbaneBronco
Well-Known Member
There are not 8 bidders, there were 8 interested paties.
6 have been put off by the ongoing dispute.
2 interested parties remain.
I dont beleive any bids have yet been made.
Well PKBH said on CWR that ACL/Higgs had spoken to 5 interested parties. The Administrator says 8 were interested.
How many are still interested is all guess work.
BrisbaneBronco
Well-Known Member
Get Paxman on the case.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
To be honest the administrators report says not a lot. It was issued 15th May before PA got further information and is a holding position.
It doesn't answer many questions (for example the questions asked by the Trust and others). It does set out there is a SISU argument on beneficial ownership by ccfch. It doesn't include the full ACL debt. It doesnt include other debts known at the time eg AEH centre. It indicates that there are parties interested and that some have dropped out (others have declared an interest since), it includes evidence that the trade per TF was still in CCFC LTd up to 31/05/12, there are factual inaccuracies (eg the original purpose of CCFC Ltd in 1995).
Things have moved on from this. BUT essentially the core argument remains. The Share was in CCFC LTd but CCFCH claim beneficial ownership (and PA believes they are in the best position to retain ownership)
other than the last bit above i wouldn't read too much in to it .......
It doesn't answer many questions (for example the questions asked by the Trust and others). It does set out there is a SISU argument on beneficial ownership by ccfch. It doesn't include the full ACL debt. It doesnt include other debts known at the time eg AEH centre. It indicates that there are parties interested and that some have dropped out (others have declared an interest since), it includes evidence that the trade per TF was still in CCFC LTd up to 31/05/12, there are factual inaccuracies (eg the original purpose of CCFC Ltd in 1995).
Things have moved on from this. BUT essentially the core argument remains. The Share was in CCFC LTd but CCFCH claim beneficial ownership (and PA believes they are in the best position to retain ownership)
other than the last bit above i wouldn't read too much in to it .......
Last edited:
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
That would be beautiful.
