Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Yes but do you actually exsist Kid
Yes but do you actually exsist KidSo we're actually being recognised as protesters now then OSB58
Oh dear and you and Grendel were getting on so well I think this will be the endJust for the record what follows is not bashing the club, more it is pointing the finger at those that have chosen to involve CCFC in JR2 and to clarify the situation as to who is actually involved in JR2. The Trust published an article that upset one or two who took it as anti CCFC. The Trust twitter title to be fair could be seen as misleading - however the actual article does not make that error "Otium Entertainment Group Limited trading as Coventry City Football Club and the 2nd Judicial Review"
We have been assured that it is the owners that are taking the action and that CCFC are not affected, not liable, not part of it. So the facts - then make your own minds up (a summary taken from the Trust article follows)
Consider
Then consider is Otium in reality CCFC?
- Otium is named as complainant along with ARVO and SBS&L
- Legally Complainants are joint and severally liable for costs. Fans have been given non legally binding assurances that CCFC will not be liable
- Otium has income. SBS&L has no income, ARVO is based in Cayman Islands income unknown
- It is identified that the owners of CCFC are taking legal action. Otium owns the only right to be called CCFC, is the immediate owner of CCFC and is named in the action
A professional football club is the operation of football & football financial activities including the sales of matchday tickets, sales of players and the payment of football related & other expenses. All completed in this case by Otium
- Otium is a legal entity, CCFC is the trading name of Otium
- Otium are registered at Companies House, CCFC is not
- Otium owns the EFL “golden share”, CCFC does not
- Otium owns the club trademarks CCFC does not
- Otium files accounts (including all football financial information) at Companies House, CCFC does not
- Otium files financial statements and information with the EFL, CCFC does not.
- All football assets are legally owned by Otium, “CCFC” has none it is simply a name
- All football and trading liabilities are legally owed by Otium, “CCFC” is simply a name
- Otium has a bank account, CCFC does not because it is not a legal entity
- Otium has directors CCFC does not
- All trading activity (including all football related activity) is undertaken by Otium using the name CCFC
- Otium is recognised as the entity by HMRC for purposes of VAT, PAYE Corporation Tax, but CCFC is not
- All Players, managers, coaches, staff, directors, stewards etc are employed by Otium
- All commercial contracts are with Otium not CCFC
- The training ground is owned by Otium not CCFC
- The contract at the Ricoh is between ACL and Otium
- The charge securing the ARVO debt on all assets is given by Otium not CCFC
Individual staff or players might be focused on playing football but the club in all material senses is Otium Entertainment Group Ltd (the legal entity) trading as CCFC (a name). That company is taking part in the JR2, hard to see how CCFC is not.
Reality is Otium and CCFC are one and the same thing. Currently CCFC cannot operate except through Otium. The chosen trading name of Otium is CCFC. You cannot ignore the facts and create an entirely manufactured distinction when it suits the needs of your PR
This is not the same as saying CCFC are SISU, the two are not the same at all, that’s a matter of control of one over the other, and not being the same entity. Quite different
It is important to see the facts and correct relationships to even start to formulate any solution - not that there appears to be one yet. Otium and CCFC being the same thing means any risk to or dispute with Otium is a risk or dispute for CCFC - and that is a concern, it should be a concern for everyone
I don't suppose all CCC employees will be focussed on the court case either Nick but it is CCC in court.
Is the only director only focussed on the football ? he hasn't been in the past
Think you will find I was very careful to point out CCFC and SISU are not the same thing.
Whoever puts the statements out disputes them being the same thing clearly. You seem to agree that CCFC is Otium and therefore taking CCC to court
the importance is in the final sentence Nick but you have to think and join the dots up on what those potential implications might be
CCFC put out a statement saying that all of their staff will be focusing on the football, committed to working with ACL / Wasps, is that hard to believe?
Frankly... yes.
As for distractions... like it or not, such things are. They take focus away from the primary objective. It was to Pressley's credit at Northampton that he got the team focussed despite the off-field madness, and it's to Robins's credit that he appears able to do similar.
But... I've worked places where elements beyond my job have been going along in the background, and some can't help but be affected - some more than others, as some can block external elements out... others can't.
Others get involved because of expertise relevant, and it takes them away from focussing on their main job and they spread themselves too thinly, morale can go down if you don't know what's going to happen in the future because the long term focus is lost for the immediate concentrating focus on a large elephant in the next door room.
Not everybody reacts the same way.
Now we can spend an eternity (and have!!!) arguing who's to blame for these distractions, and ultimately not everything will come out in the wash in this JR (wait for the next case?) but it's surely inarguable that it's a distraction.
Now CCFC have to say everybody's focussed on the next game, of course they do... what else can they say?!? And I'm sure they try as best they can.
But it'd be naive to think a court case that affects the future of the club isn't a distraction... of whatever level!
For the reasons I said!Why is it so hard to believe?
For the reasons I said!
Not everybody reacts the same. If your company is engaged in something high profile, it's a distraction. For all I know Dion doesn't care, but Biamou wonders how it affects his goal bonus and can't score as a result.
tbf you're probably right in the main.I think footballers have a different outlook to those in normal employment to be honest.
For the reasons I said!
Not everybody reacts the same. If your company is engaged in something high profile, it's a distraction. For all I know Dion doesn't care, but Biamou wonders how it affects his goal bonus and can't score as a result.
tbf you're probably right in the main.
Pretty naive to think it won't affect the club somewhere down the line however, no? The clubs that do best are the ones that have a strong vision of who they are, and where they want to get to.
Does that mean said legal action shouldn't be taken? Not necessarily, that's an entirely different question.
Well, Robins left last time because of the distractions. OK, he blamed the council, but he left because heThat doesn't mean that the club staff aren't fully focused on the football though
spoke to the owner, I sought assurances and didn’t get any assurances from the owner of Coventry.
Well, Robins left last time because of the distractions. OK, he blamed the council, but he left because he
Off-field issues obviously had an affect then...
Yes but do you actually exsist Kid
Well, Robins left last time because of the distractions. OK, he blamed the council, but he left because he
Off-field issues obviously had an affect then...
The other question is why is there so much emphasis on the whole "SISU is CCFC" type thing now? Otium were on the documents months / years ago, surely point it out then?
Because it whips up anger at ccfc and the next thing we see are twats running on the pitch thinking sisu will be run out of town by it.Question should be why do you care so much?
Because it whips up anger at ccfc and the next thing we see are twats running on the pitch thinking sisu will be run out of town by it.
By all means streak through the sisu office
Where's that then?The only person I see trying to "whip up anger" is you.
Where's that then?
You've got two very sensible posters in NW and OSB who can see the logic in what the SBT have said but you're intent on proving them wrong , you seem intent on proving that the SBT have said things they haven't, you're trying to whip up a storm on what they haven't said but you think they should and the only person talking about pitch invasions is you, try not to be too disappointed if they don't happen.
The football is a distraction to the underlying problem of owners that have dragged us to the cusp of non league football. There is a distinction between the club and the owners, but its like some school bully whom everyone hates, and the lad that hangs around with him :he might be okay on his own but you can't trust him. Guilty by association. Mr Fisher.That doesn't mean that the club staff aren't fully focused on the football though.
The football isn't a side show, it will be here before and after sisu and court cases. It's the one single thing all ccfc fans have in common.
Edit: that's also not saying ignore court cases and hide things about them. There's no reason people can't push getting behind ccfc on the pitch in the mean time.
What have I said the sbt have said that they haven't?
I'll be happy if people differentiate protests and anger away from football, not disappointed.
The football is a distraction to the underlying problem of owners that have dragged us to the cusp of non league football. There is a distinction between the club and the owners, but its like some school bully whom everyone hates, and the lad that hangs around with him :he might be okay on his own but you can't trust him. Guilty by association. Mr Fisher.
The success on the pitch is a welcome distraction from the depressing talk concerning our owners. They haven't gone away, and nothing has changed from them. What has changed is what is being achieved by Mark Robins.How can it be a distraction when it is the whole reason are bothered about CCFC in the first place?
The success on the pitch is a welcome distraction from the depressing talk concerning our owners. They haven't gone away, and nothing has changed from them. What has changed is what is being achieved by Mark Robins.
Surely all this is obvious .
You have also missed out the quote from CCFC that says everybody at CCFC will be focusing on the next game and football side which is correct isn't it? Unless of course all of the CCFC staff will be preparing for court cases?
The trust are pushing it as CCFC being SISU on social media also which is predictable as other outlets / people the trust work with have been trying to push the same thing which was made clear and pointed out about a month ago that it will be the approach to get people worked up and angry at CCFC, that way they don't feel so bad about being angry at CCFC. You know and I know exactly how it is meant to be taken and what it is meant to do.
Does anybody actually dispute Otium / CCFC? It's going to an extreme measure to drive it home.
People will see it as anti CCFC as the only thing that's been heard from the Trust is things like this, promoting events to shake hands with other fans and nothing but radio silence when it comes to the actual football when we do quite well. They also waited until the first loss to put out some more negative stuff about CCFC and then vanished again.
The PR stuff is ironic also, it is all the Trust seem to be doing. There is no "yes there are politics but get to every game and back the manager and the team" type statements or approach. The actual football seems to be completely forgotten about.
So in real terms for Otium to pay the costs of failed judgement the football club would have to sell an assett to pay for it?Just for the record what follows is not bashing the club, more it is pointing the finger at those that have chosen to involve CCFC in JR2 and to clarify the situation as to who is actually involved in JR2. Above all its is statements of fact. The Trust published an article that upset one or two who took it as anti CCFC. The Trust twitter title to be fair could be seen as misleading - however the actual article does not make that error "Otium Entertainment Group Limited trading as Coventry City Football Club and the 2nd Judicial Review"
We have been assured that it is the owners that are taking the action and that CCFC are not affected, not liable, not part of it. So make your own minds up (a summary taken from the Trust article follows)
Consider
Then consider is Otium in reality CCFC?
- Otium is named as complainant along with ARVO and SBS&L
- Legally Complainants are joint and severally liable for costs. Fans have been given non legally binding assurances that CCFC will not be liable
- Otium has income. SBS&L has no income, ARVO is based in Cayman Islands income unknown
- It is identified that the owners of CCFC are taking legal action. Otium owns the only right to be called CCFC, is the immediate owner of CCFC and is named in the action
A professional football club is the operation of football & football financial activities including the sales of matchday tickets, sales of players and the payment of football related & other expenses. All completed in this case by Otium
- Otium is a legal entity, CCFC is the trading name of Otium
- Otium are registered at Companies House, CCFC is not
- Otium owns the EFL “golden share”, CCFC does not
- Otium owns the club trademarks CCFC does not
- Otium files accounts (including all football financial information) at Companies House, CCFC does not
- Otium files financial statements and information with the EFL, CCFC does not.
- All football assets are legally owned by Otium, “CCFC” has none it is simply a name
- All football and trading liabilities are legally owed by Otium, “CCFC” is simply a name
- Otium has a bank account, CCFC does not because it is not a legal entity
- Otium has directors CCFC does not
- All trading activity (including all football related activity) is undertaken by Otium using the name CCFC
- Otium is recognised as the entity by HMRC for purposes of VAT, PAYE Corporation Tax, but CCFC is not
- All Players, managers, coaches, staff, directors, stewards etc are employed by Otium
- All commercial contracts are with Otium not CCFC
- The training ground is owned by Otium not CCFC
- The contract at the Ricoh is between ACL and Otium
- The charge securing the ARVO debt on all assets is given by Otium not CCFC
Individual staff or players might be focused on playing football but the club in all material senses is Otium Entertainment Group Ltd (the legal entity) trading as CCFC (a name). That company is taking part in the JR2, hard to see how CCFC is not.
Reality is Otium and CCFC are one and the same thing. Currently CCFC cannot operate except through Otium. The chosen trading name of Otium is CCFC. You cannot ignore the facts and create an entirely manufactured distinction when it suits the needs of your PR
This is not the same as saying CCFC are SISU, the two are not the same at all, that’s a matter of control of one over the other, and not about being the same entity. Quite different
It is important to see the facts and correct relationships to even start to formulate any solution - not that there appears to be one yet. Otium and CCFC being the same thing means any risk to or dispute with Otium is a risk or dispute for CCFC - and that is a concern, it should be a concern for everyone
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?