Just who is running the ccfc asylum ??? (1 Viewer)

johnniericoh · May 7, 2013

OK the current situation is much publicised but it's getting ludicrous now.

We have a manager axing current playing staff 5 gone, more to follow but cannot replace due to the transfer embargo.

Pre-sason friendlies are being organised but we may not have any players.

At best we will be playing in yam yam land as Walsall will be our new (temporary) abode prior to playing in our new £30M arena in three years time - Nurse........

Complete misreading of damage to income streams if we do indeed have to vacate the Ricoh Arena (even though ACL say carry on boys the Ricoh is open and waiting for you)

The farsical search for the "Golden Share" continues like in a bizarre treasure hunt.

No one is prepared to give an inch (give a toss in reality) as to the well being and successful future of our beloved club.

I sincerely hope the administrator gives his verdict quickly so that the men in white coats can retrieve the current lunatics running the show and put them back where they originated from before any more serious damage can be done.

Nonleagueherewecome · May 7, 2013

Gotta be time for a Fun Boy Three link! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POzSXzwbwIc

johnniericoh · May 7, 2013

Nonleagueherewecome said:
Gotta be time for a Fun Boy Three link! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POzSXzwbwIc

Love it NLHWC

ajsccfc · May 7, 2013

There's not really any indication that we're going to lose all our players, at least nothing yet. Our administration seems to differ from others in that it's more a case of won't pay than can't pay. Luckily Ainsley Harriott's nowhere to be seen.

@richh87 · May 7, 2013

ajsccfc said:
There's not really any indication that we're going to lose all our players, at least nothing yet. Our administration seems to differ from others in that it's more a case of won't pay than can't pay. Luckily Ainsley Harriott's nowhere to be seen.

Players in contract leaving such as McSheffrey and Wood, and a promising young centre half in Nathan Cameron having his contract run down is a strong signal that we're losing the majority of our players I'd say; and there's no chance of them being replaced.

As for the question 'who is running the club'; well the answer should be the Administrator, but it's clear that is in fact SISU. They even have the cheek to continue making statements as if nothing has happened.

psgm1 · May 7, 2013

johnniericoh said:
OK the current situation is much publicised but it's getting ludicrous now.

We have a manager axing current playing staff 5 gone, more to follow but cannot replace due to the transfer embargo.

Pre-sason friendlies are being organised but we may not have any players.

At best we will be playing in yam yam land as Walsall will be our new (temporary) abode prior to playing in our new £30M arena in three years time - Nurse........

Complete misreading of damage to income streams if we do indeed have to vacate the Ricoh Arena (even though ACL say carry on boys the Ricoh is open and waiting for you)

The farsical search for the "Golden Share" continues like in a bizarre treasure hunt.

No one is prepared to give an inch (give a toss in reality) as to the well being and successful future of our beloved club.

I sincerely hope the administrator gives his verdict quickly so that the men in white coats can retrieve the current lunatics running the show and put them back where they originated from before any more serious damage can be done.

It isn't true that no one is prepared to give an inch.

ACL made several concessions to sisu, one indeed TF verbally agreed to then later recanted!

So sisu aren't prepared to give an inch is far more accurate!

Godiva · May 7, 2013

@richh87 said:
As for the question 'who is running the club'; well the answer should be the Administrator, but it's clear that is in fact SISU. They even have the cheek to continue making statements as if nothing has happened.

Sisu says the club is ccfc holdings, in which case TF is running the club.
ACL says the club is ccfc limited, in which case the administrator should be running the club.
But in reality the decision is with the FL, and they are still 'investigating'.

I think it looks likely that FL will decide that the club is Holdings. In that case the club is not in administration.

Delboycov · May 7, 2013

Godiva said:
Sisu says the club is ccfc holdings, in which case TF is running the club.
ACL says the club is ccfc limited, in which case the administrator should be running the club.
But in reality the decision is with the FL, and they are still 'investigating'.

I think it looks likely that FL will decide that the club is Holdings. In that case the club is not in administration.

I thought the FL were adamant that the share was in Ltd and it was the administrator that was still investigating? Apart from Les Reid's tweets about entries being made on the register I haven't seen anything official from the FL saying anything other than the share is in Ltd....I may have missed something as I have to admit I'm finding it difficult to keep up!

Godiva · May 7, 2013

Delboycov said:
I thought the FL were adamant that the share was in Ltd and it was the administrator that was still investigating? Apart from Les Reid's tweets about entries being made on the register I haven't seen anything official from the FL saying anything other than the share is in Ltd....I may have missed something as I have to admit I'm finding it difficult to keep up!

Yes, me too.
But from what little has been said and printed it looks like all payments from FL to the club has been paid to holdings registered bank account. In addition all player contracts seems to be registered with holdings company registration number. Then there's the claim that the club have put in 'a note' with the FL register.

If that is the case, then FL may decide there's 'reasonable doubt' and that the club is actually ccfc holdings.
Then again, they could also decide the club is a combination of holdings and limited, but that could lead anywhere and the 'case' could run for quite some time.

Ashdown1 · May 7, 2013

Godiva said:
Sisu says the club is ccfc holdings, in which case TF is running the club.
ACL says the club is ccfc limited, in which case the administrator should be running the club.
But in reality the decision is with the FL, and they are still 'investigating'.

I think it looks likely that FL will decide that the club is Holdings. In that case the club is not in administration.

They can pay their rent bill then can't they !!

Godiva · May 7, 2013

Ashdown1 said:
They can pay their rent bill then can't they !!

You mean ccfc holdings?
As they have not been put in administration I think they have paid all their bills.

shmmeee · May 7, 2013

Ashdown1 said:
They can pay their rent bill then can't they !!

They dont have a rent bill. That's the problem.

If, as seems likely, the FL determine that the club is Holdings it will be interesting if ACL keep up this "we won't talk to holdings" stance. Does kinda put the ball back in their court.

I wouldn't want to deal with a tenant who pulled this kind of crap, but it would then be firmly ACLs fault for refusal to negotiate.

Warwickhunt · May 7, 2013

Godiva said:
Sisu says the club is ccfc holdings, in which case TF is running the club.
ACL says the club is ccfc limited, in which case the administrator should be running the club.
But in reality the decision is with the FL, and they are still 'investigating'.

I think it looks likely that FL will decide that the club is Holdings. In that case the club is not in administration.

Me thinks the FL have made a big boo boo! and have not come out with a statement because they don,t know how to deal with it.

dongonzalos · May 7, 2013

Warwickhunt said:
Me thinks the FL have made a big boo boo! and have not come out with a statement because they don,t know how to deal with it.

If that is the case why did we get a 10 point deduction?

Ashdown1 · May 7, 2013

shmmeee said:
They dont have a rent bill. That's the problem.

If, as seems likely, the FL determine that the club is Holdings it will be interesting if ACL keep up this "we won't talk to holdings" stance. Does kinda put the ball back in their court.

I wouldn't want to deal with a tenant who pulled this kind of crap, but it would then be firmly ACLs fault for refusal to negotiate.

I had my own business for 14 years and found it very difficult to engage with any skunks who pulled this stunt and then tried to buy from me under a new guise, if I did then I'd usually build into the price what the crooks went bust on me for !!.............................oh and payment up front !!

Godiva · May 7, 2013

shmmeee said:
They dont have a rent bill. That's the problem.

If, as seems likely, the FL determine that the club is Holdings it will be interesting if ACL keep up this "we won't talk to holdings" stance. Does kinda put the ball back in their court.

I wouldn't want to deal with a tenant who pulled this kind of crap, but it would then be firmly ACLs fault for refusal to negotiate.

Add to that the case sisu put to the court for review.
If sisu get the court to rule the CCC bailout of ACL was unlawful, then ACL could be in a lot of trouble and in urgent need of refinancing.

James Smith · May 7, 2013

Godiva said:
Add to that the case sisu put to the court for review.
If sisu get the court to rule the CCC bailout of ACL was unlawful, then ACL could be in a lot of trouble and in urgent need of refinancing.

But the mortgage is only £5m according to SISU and that sort of money can't be too hard to get surely especially as banks are being encouraged to lend to businesses. Maybe the Co-op would lend ACL the cash, they were happy to fund our Club with an overdraft for years. So long as they don't go to WONGA.com for the money ACL should be okay.

theferret · May 7, 2013

dongonzalos said:
If that is the case why did we get a 10 point deduction?

He just speculated that the FL have made a 'boo boo'; the premature deduction of 10 points being part of that 'boo boo'.

I'm not saying this is what has happened, but I'm not sure why you would ask that question given what he said.

Godiva · May 7, 2013

James Smith said:
But the mortgage is only £5m according to SISU and that sort of money can't be too hard to get surely especially as banks are being encouraged to lend to businesses. Maybe the Co-op would lend ACL the cash, they were happy to fund our Club with an overdraft for years. So long as they don't go to WONGA.com for the money ACL should be okay.

The bailout was £14m - that will be the amount ACL need to loan from somewhere else if the CCC loan is found illegal. ACL hold free assets of about £6m plus the profit since last public accounts minus the rent arrears of £1.3m to ccfc limited. It is probably not too far off the mark that ACL will struggle to get any loan above £5m. So where do they get the remaining £9m they need to pay back to CCC?
A sell to sisu/ccfc looks likely then.
But only if the court agree the bailout was illegal.

dongonzalos · May 7, 2013

theferret said:
He just speculated that the FL have made a 'boo boo'; the premature deduction of 10 points being part of that 'boo boo'.

I'm not saying this is what has happened, but I'm not sure why you would ask that question given what he said.

I actually meant to reply to Godiva.
He says he thinks the golden share is in holdings.
I wonder why the club dropped its battle against a 10 point deduction if the club were not in administration.

ajsccfc · May 7, 2013

@richh87 said:
Players in contract leaving such as McSheffrey and Wood, and a promising young centre half in Nathan Cameron having his contract run down is a strong signal that we're losing the majority of our players I'd say; and there's no chance of them being replaced.

Wood's contract is up, and Cameron was sent away to Northampton anyway after his nightmare spell. McSheffrey's the only contracted so far with indication of leaving via a Twitter post, and he's been woeful this season anyway.

We've yet to have someone both useful and unexpected head towards the exit door.

dongonzalos · May 7, 2013

Godiva said:
The bailout was £14m - that will be the amount ACL need to loan from somewhere else if the CCC loan is found illegal. ACL hold free assets of about £6m plus the profit since last public accounts minus the rent arrears of £1.3m to ccfc limited. It is probably not too far off the mark that ACL will struggle to get any loan above £5m. So where do they get the remaining £9m they need to pay back to CCC?
A sell to sisu/ccfc looks likely then.
But only if the court agree the bailout was illegal.

At this stage if The Higgs charity do not think they will get an acceptable price from SISU.
Although they would prefer one buyer to buy both the club and their share of ACL. I would guess that they would consider selling to someone else.
I think the council would not block them either. Otherwise they would be held to ransom by SISU.
The new person may have different priorities than the football club.

Brighton Sky Blue · May 7, 2013

Godiva said:
The bailout was £14m - that will be the amount ACL need to loan from somewhere else if the CCC loan is found illegal. ACL hold free assets of about £6m plus the profit since last public accounts minus the rent arrears of £1.3m to ccfc limited. It is probably not too far off the mark that ACL will struggle to get any loan above £5m. So where do they get the remaining £9m they need to pay back to CCC?
A sell to sisu/ccfc looks likely then.
But only if the court agree the bailout was illegal.

The bailout was a direct consequence of the boycott, but also allowed ACL to offer improved terms to the club. For the club to take a local council to court as a result is odd to say the least.

Godiva · May 7, 2013

dongonzalos said:
I actually meant to reply to Godiva.
He says he thinks the golden share is in holdings.
I wonder why the club dropped its battle against a 10 point deduction if the club were not in administration.

I was searching for my previous post (about a month back) where I said the FL could have made a 'clerical error' - Someone ridiculed the idea then, but I still think it is possible. Administrative errors happens all the time as the paperwork is mostly handled by human beings.

Anyway, the FL had limited registered as the club and reacted on that belief. Hence the 10 points penalty.

Then ccfc Holdings appealed claiming that it had the right to the golden share.

What happened between holdings and the FL in the time from the appeal to when holdings withdrew the appeal nobody knows. But when the appeal was withdrawn it would have taken a miracle to reach the playoffs anyway, so if holdings and FL decided to fix the dispute in a quiet manner I wouldn't be surprised. I am NOT saying the club and FL have cooked up a conspiracy, just that it could be that both sides have made errors and they have agreed to sort the issues quietly.

dongonzalos · May 7, 2013

Godiva said:
I was searching for my previous post (about a month back) where I said the FL could have made a 'clerical error' - Someone ridiculed the idea then, but I still think it is possible. Administrative errors happens all the time as the paperwork is mostly handled by human beings.

Anyway, the FL had limited registered as the club and reacted on that belief. Hence the 10 points penalty.

Then ccfc Holdings appealed claiming that it had the right to the golden share.

What happened between holdings and the FL in the time from the appeal to when holdings withdrew the appeal nobody knows. But when the appeal was withdrawn it would have taken a miracle to reach the playoffs anyway, so if holdings and FL decided to fix the dispute in a quiet manner I wouldn't be surprised. I am NOT saying the club and FL have cooked up a conspiracy, just that it could be that both sides have made errors and they have agreed to sort the issues quietly.

I was considering if it was a case that, they feel for the legal processes of administration they can argue holdings is not in administration.

However when it comes to FA rules. Common sense prevails. The two companies are so intrinsically linked. The ten point deduction would stand wherever the golden share is.

Godiva · May 7, 2013

dongonzalos said:
At this stage if The Higgs charity do not think they will get an acceptable price from SISU.
Although they would prefer one buyer to buy both the club and their share of ACL. I would guess that they would consider selling to someone else.
I think the council would not block them either. Otherwise they would be held to ransom by SISU.
The new person may have different priorities than the football club.

If (as sisu claims) the joint plan to distress the original mortgage had been successful, then Higgs could have sold their shares to the club at their desired price. Yorkshire bank would have paid for the party.
As that plan failed it looks very unlikely Higgs will ever receive anything near their desired price for their shares. Not even a new owner would consider paying £6m-8m for something worth maybe £2-£3m.

dongonzalos · May 7, 2013

Godiva said:
If (as sisu claims) the joint plan to distress the original mortgage had been successful, then Higgs could have sold their shares to the club at their desired price. Yorkshire bank would have paid for the party.
As that plan failed it looks very unlikely Higgs will ever receive anything near their desired price for their shares. Not even a new owner would consider paying £6m-8m for something worth maybe £2-£3m.

SISU I feel would attempt to get it for nothing, saying they are preventing further debts.

If a new owner has a plan in which they are not reliant on SISU. If they get agreements for development rights for the surrounding land who knows what they maybe prepared to offer.

Grendel · May 7, 2013

dongonzalos said:
SISU I feel would attempt to get it for nothing, saying they are preventing further debts.

If a new owner has a plan in which they are not reliant on SISU. If they get agreements for development rights for the surrounding land who knows what they maybe prepared to offer.

Anyone else would offer as little as they can get away with -- that's business

James Smith · May 7, 2013

Godiva said:
The bailout was £14m - that will be the amount ACL need to loan from somewhere else if the CCC loan is found illegal. ACL hold free assets of about £6m plus the profit since last public accounts minus the rent arrears of £1.3m to ccfc limited. It is probably not too far off the mark that ACL will struggle to get any loan above £5m. So where do they get the remaining £9m they need to pay back to CCC?
A sell to sisu/ccfc looks likely then.
But only if the court agree the bailout was illegal.

But surely if as SISU say the mortgage was only £5m ACL can't have needed/used all that 'extra' money (even the legal bills can't have reached £9m) so they just hand back the remaining balance of that council money and borrow £5.5-6M. Now if the mortgage is actually £14m and matched the amount the council loaned ACL then yes they've got to find £14M. But that would undermine the argument from SISU that they bailed ACL out with a further £9m on top of the £5m mortgage wouldn't it?

Godiva · May 7, 2013

dongonzalos said:
I was considering if it was a case that, they feel for the legal processes of administration they can argue holdings is not in administration.

However when it comes to FA rules. Common sense prevails. The two companies are so intrinsically linked. The ten point deduction would stand wherever the golden share is.

It is true that FL will most likely take a common sense approach, but it doesn't mean they will rule that limited and holdings are intrinsically linked.
The 10 point penalty is without any real consequence, and if that is the price the club has to pay for informing FL in 'the correct' way, then it's a price I suspect the club will be happy to pay to get the golden shared issued to holdings.

It's all speculation till FL make their decision public.

dongonzalos · May 7, 2013

Grendel said:
Anyone else would offer as little as they can get away with -- that's business

I agree, but they would have to offer a significant amount more to justify the council not using the veto. If they were to agree to a sale not involving the football club.

dongonzalos · May 7, 2013

Godiva said:
It is true that FL will most likely take a common sense approach, but it doesn't mean they will rule that limited and holdings are intrinsically linked.
The 10 point penalty is without any real consequence, and if that is the price the club has to pay for informing FL in 'the correct' way, then it's a price I suspect the club will be happy to pay to get the golden shared issued to holdings.

It's all speculation till FL make their decision public.

I think on all previous occasions where clubs have attired to isolate debt away from the golden share. The FA just rule that both companies are owned by the same owner. The debts are in relation to the club. If one company are in administration the deduction stays.

Ashdown1 · May 7, 2013

Godiva said:
The bailout was £14m - that will be the amount ACL need to loan from somewhere else if the CCC loan is found illegal. ACL hold free assets of about £6m plus the profit since last public accounts minus the rent arrears of £1.3m to ccfc limited. It is probably not too far off the mark that ACL will struggle to get any loan above £5m. So where do they get the remaining £9m they need to pay back to CCC?
A sell to sisu/ccfc looks likely then.
But only if the court agree the bailout was illegal.

You sound so pleased with this, do you know anyone in particular who is benefitting from the extortionate administration charges levied against said club?

James Smith · May 7, 2013

dongonzalos said:
I agree, but they would have to offer a significant amount more to justify the council not using the veto. If they were to agree to a sale not involving the football club.

And don't forget TF and one of his little innaccuracies when he said that the council had blocked the sale of the Higgs share to SISU.

PWKH said:
Kingharvest wrote that it had been said by Fisher that the Council had vetoed the sale of the shares in ACL owned by the Charity to Sisu. If he has reported this accurately it is a completely untrue statement by Fisher.

As Clerk to the Trustees I handle all the documents between the Charity and any other party on every matter. There was indeed an agreed heads of terms between Sisu and the Charity signed in June of last year. Since writing and signing it Sisu has made absolutely no contact with the Charity. The City Council has not used the veto to stop any deal at any time. Any statement to the contrary is misleading and mischievous.

Fisher has made a large number of statements over recent days which can be taken up by others. When something false is said about the Charity it will be dealt with through this and other means, the Charity reserves all its rights.

Source: http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threa...Fisher-tonight?p=372844&viewfull=1#post372844

Godiva · May 7, 2013

James Smith said:
But surely if as SISU say the mortgage was only £5m ACL can't have needed/used all that money (even the legal bills can't have reached £9m) so they just hand back the remaining balance of that money and borrow £5.5-6M. Now if the mortgage is actually £14m and matched the amount the council loaned ACL then yes they've got to find £14M. But that would undermine the argument from SISU that they bailed ACL out with a further £9m on top of the £5m mortgage wouldn't it?

Look, the original mortgage ACL had at Yorkshire bank had some £15m left to be paid. The CCC bought that debt at some £14m. So now ACL owe CCC £14m-£15m.
Sisu have - to my knowledge - never said the mortgage was only at £5m - they have said the real value of the mortgage should be around £2m to £5m.
In other words - sisu claim ACL are mortgaged to the hilt and then some more.

Just who is running the ccfc asylum ??? (1 Viewer)

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency