SBSL now controlled by Sconset Since Dec2011 (registered in Cayman Islands,NYC) Has to be a reason
Last edited:
If you take that to the logical conclusion, I think you would have to look at the accounts of the parent company SBSL Ltd for the real numbers...
I would think he meant that most of the balance contains 'intercompany' debts. Which is of no real value.
The 'real' numbers are ACL debts, player registration, prepayments ... and the ARVO debenture.
Here's my old ramblings on it, if anyone wants a read...
http://aprisonofmeasuredtime.wordpr...ent-is-the-administrator-and-football-league/
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).
Yeah those accounts.
PWKH seemed to think there is a gaping hole between those presented June 12 and what ADMIN found March13.
Seems somethings missing from the Sisu end .
Could Otium facing being struck off then not being struck off cloud anything here??
So why did Ltd exsist?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.
Seppala's not listed as a Director of CCFC Ltd.
So why did Ltd exsist?
Seppala's not listed as a Director of CCFC Ltd.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
imp:
And you know this how?
Nowhere has it been reported that 6 were put off or any inference of this kind
Not in appletons statement
Here's my old ramblings on it, if anyone wants a read...
http://aprisonofmeasuredtime.wordpr...ent-is-the-administrator-and-football-league/
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?
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:
It is highly likely isnt it
of course like offering those ludicrous con.....tracts it proves irrefutably that they act in the Interests of the Club At all times and in no way as a form of self preservation.
Which is why I mentioned Tim Fisher's comments a few months ago about Joy Seppala becoming personally involved...
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:
If only Linnell wasn't the one interviewing him.
Get Paxman on the case.
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?