Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Do tell if you know who the owners are, I haven't a clue.
Is There Anything SISU Could Do? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Malaka
- Start date
Do tell if you know who the owners are, I haven't a clue.
Adge
Well-Known Member
Of course you know-Its Sisu,Arvo,Otium,Sky Blue Sports and Leisure......oh:emoji_thinking:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
So the "club" agrees with the trust, Ccfc is one and the same as otium.
Ccfc exists within otium it is not something other or a separate entity somehow owned by otium. That has been the case ever since the administration when otium bought various but not all separate assets for 1.5m and began to trade as Ccfc for the first time.
Nearly all teams have the club name or letters in the company name registered as EFL members according to the last confirmation statement at companies house. All are limited companies all are clearly the club that plays in the efl even if the club name doesn't include the word limited. In fact only Doncaster used a different name like our club. They have now changed that.
Yes the ccfc website gives information. However it says otium owns Ccfc which I think isn't really the case. Otium is Ccfc the facts and practicalities prove it. Ccfc lies within otium not outside of the limited company. Otium is an entity Ccfc in this context simply a name. Edit having done some checking it is a generic statement to comply with the EFL rules e.g. Preston N E is very similar and makes clear that the the club is the limited company. Nearly all clubs have the same sort of wording as far as I can tell. As the club says on every web page of the ccfc website the club is a member of the EFL, of course that membership share is registered to otium entertainment group limited.
Focus has been directed by the club to active employee involvement and who pays the cost.
Are any employees involved in preparation of the case. No but there are not any for the other claimants either. You buy specialist expertise in nothing unusual in that. Sisu head office are involved acting on behalf of all claimants and controlling the process. However no employees being involved doesn't mean otium and therefore Ccfc is not involved. We accept without question that ARVO and sbs&l are involved so why is Otium not? The involvement might be passive not active but otium is named on legal documents, that means the club is involved. The case that directors are not involved is harder to accept. Fisher and Laura Deering are the only people named as directors of otium or sbs&l. Hard to think they have no input.
As for the costs. Well we have discussed that enough above. Otium would generally be held joint and severable liable by a court. We are assured that the "club" is not liable however we are not told why that is the case, we are just supposed to accept it. In saying that the club is not liable are they again trying to put forward this unreal segregation of ccfc and otium? So who is liable? Why isn't otium? What guarantee is there that otium and therefore the club will not be liable? Bland unsubstantiated assurances do not cut it
the focus on cost and club employees deflects the real concern. The defendants are not stupid they know Ccfc is Otium and vice versa. That fact gives them an excuse not to deal with "the club" on anything other than basic day to day operations. Anything long term or strategic can be batted away and left. It increases pressure on ccfc. Even if they did deal on something's it is hard to believe, with Ccfc in such a weak position, that the other parties would give a better or the best deal possible to otium/Ccfc or possibly even the same deal. That is the real concern, and ties in with the trust highlighting where are we playing next season. It is a greater concern than costs or active employee involvement. But everyone knows that don't they?
Then of course there is BPA. If Ccfc is Otium how can Ccfc have involvement or as seems to be the case use BPA as a lever against other targets. Otium is part of the court cases, therefore ccfc is. Otium is controlled by Sisu therefore so is Ccfc. Can given what Sharp has said, crfc deal with Ccfc on anything other than a basic level? You would think not.
I doubt the trust will push this further. The point is made. It will not be ignored or forgotten though nor should it be. Ccfc is Otium and part of JR2
Ccfc exists within otium it is not something other or a separate entity somehow owned by otium. That has been the case ever since the administration when otium bought various but not all separate assets for 1.5m and began to trade as Ccfc for the first time.
Nearly all teams have the club name or letters in the company name registered as EFL members according to the last confirmation statement at companies house. All are limited companies all are clearly the club that plays in the efl even if the club name doesn't include the word limited. In fact only Doncaster used a different name like our club. They have now changed that.
Yes the ccfc website gives information. However it says otium owns Ccfc which I think isn't really the case. Otium is Ccfc the facts and practicalities prove it. Ccfc lies within otium not outside of the limited company. Otium is an entity Ccfc in this context simply a name. Edit having done some checking it is a generic statement to comply with the EFL rules e.g. Preston N E is very similar and makes clear that the the club is the limited company. Nearly all clubs have the same sort of wording as far as I can tell. As the club says on every web page of the ccfc website the club is a member of the EFL, of course that membership share is registered to otium entertainment group limited.
Focus has been directed by the club to active employee involvement and who pays the cost.
Are any employees involved in preparation of the case. No but there are not any for the other claimants either. You buy specialist expertise in nothing unusual in that. Sisu head office are involved acting on behalf of all claimants and controlling the process. However no employees being involved doesn't mean otium and therefore Ccfc is not involved. We accept without question that ARVO and sbs&l are involved so why is Otium not? The involvement might be passive not active but otium is named on legal documents, that means the club is involved. The case that directors are not involved is harder to accept. Fisher and Laura Deering are the only people named as directors of otium or sbs&l. Hard to think they have no input.
As for the costs. Well we have discussed that enough above. Otium would generally be held joint and severable liable by a court. We are assured that the "club" is not liable however we are not told why that is the case, we are just supposed to accept it. In saying that the club is not liable are they again trying to put forward this unreal segregation of ccfc and otium? So who is liable? Why isn't otium? What guarantee is there that otium and therefore the club will not be liable? Bland unsubstantiated assurances do not cut it
the focus on cost and club employees deflects the real concern. The defendants are not stupid they know Ccfc is Otium and vice versa. That fact gives them an excuse not to deal with "the club" on anything other than basic day to day operations. Anything long term or strategic can be batted away and left. It increases pressure on ccfc. Even if they did deal on something's it is hard to believe, with Ccfc in such a weak position, that the other parties would give a better or the best deal possible to otium/Ccfc or possibly even the same deal. That is the real concern, and ties in with the trust highlighting where are we playing next season. It is a greater concern than costs or active employee involvement. But everyone knows that don't they?
Then of course there is BPA. If Ccfc is Otium how can Ccfc have involvement or as seems to be the case use BPA as a lever against other targets. Otium is part of the court cases, therefore ccfc is. Otium is controlled by Sisu therefore so is Ccfc. Can given what Sharp has said, crfc deal with Ccfc on anything other than a basic level? You would think not.
I doubt the trust will push this further. The point is made. It will not be ignored or forgotten though nor should it be. Ccfc is Otium and part of JR2
Last edited:
bawtryneal
Well-Known Member
Good piece again Oldskyblue58
It makes you wonder how Wasps will ever agree to an extended lease at the Ricoh
with the court cases ongoing.
In their shoes, I wouldn't.
They have us by the balls really. The only factor in our favour is Wasps need the money.
As you say you cannot diferentiate between Otium and CCFC.
It makes you wonder how Wasps will ever agree to an extended lease at the Ricoh
with the court cases ongoing.
In their shoes, I wouldn't.
They have us by the balls really. The only factor in our favour is Wasps need the money.
As you say you cannot diferentiate between Otium and CCFC.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
I know, it makes me wonder too, but what the devil do SISU do if they can't use the Ricoh or the Butts?
It seems a completely crazy strategy, no clear end point, alienating potential partners and many of the supporters they need for cash flow.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
I believe we will still be at the Ricoh next season.
I don't think Wasps can afford to piss off to many locals by not agreeing to let us play there the thing is our owners have to agree.
Maybe if Sisu win the court case wasps will up the rent to pay them off any compensation.
I don't think Wasps can afford to piss off to many locals by not agreeing to let us play there the thing is our owners have to agree.
Maybe if Sisu win the court case wasps will up the rent to pay them off any compensation.
COVKIDSNEVERQUIT
Well-Known Member
Keep it up O.S.B.58, the penny will drop with some on SBT before long .
Adge
Well-Known Member
Mmmm wouldn't hold my breath if I was you!
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
If the court case went against Wasps, I'd be assuming a sharp exit on their part...
Once the appeals against the appeal had run out, anyway.
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Well we could be waiting till October next year for the latest appeal to be heard then a few months for the verdict then another appeal. I retire in three and a half years so I don't think it will before that