More from APOM (2 Viewers)

longjohnskyblue · Sep 4, 2013

What the pro sisu gang seem to be missing is this. At no time have ccfc gone through the required notification to the FL that the club will be using Holdings instead of Limited (which is laid out in the rules of the league). To have done so, they must have announced this publicly and this was never done (and sisu have no documentation to prove they had ever done so!).

So had they placed the players in holdings (as they claim they did) then they had by the rules of the league illegally registered the players! No this is where the pro-sisu camp's argument finally falls down. Either sisu registered the players illegally, or they were registered with Ltd all along. Either way they have broken the rules of the football league, and have laid the club open to further points deductions.

Having said that, because the league has tied itself up in knots to bypass their own rules, they themselves have opened up a can of worms by condoning sisu's actions. They have bent over backwards to avoid legal action by sisu, but by doing so have laid themselves wide open for legal challenges from ACL and any other group that wants to buy the club!

Of course this could all so easily be avoided if sisu do the decent thing, turn tail and run -and take your trolls with you!

GaryPendrysEyes · Sep 4, 2013

So as reported in The Telegraph http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/football/football-news/coventry-city-wont-10-points-5833592
'Mr Appleton is expected to file the findings of his investigation into CCFC directors and shadow directors conduct to the government’s business department (BIS) by September 19.
That would complete the administration, and liquidation could then be speedily concluded “seven to ten days” after that.'

1. Are the FL 'liquidation audit team' involved or not? not that I expect much
2. What do BIS do? do they investigate fully or just rubber stamp... surely Joys [alleged] role as a shadow director must be examined?

DaleM · Sep 4, 2013

covboy1987 said:
I think that the quiet man in the background Steve Waggott deserves major credit in the way he has got on with his job under circumstances that many would break under the strain, and he has also shown tremendous loyalty by sticking with us when obviously there would be a queue of clubs if he was looking for pastures new it is clear he is very talented in spotting good player's, particularly young players. He comes across as a bloke that just gets on with it and stays focused no matter the upheaval lesser people would have walked by now, but I think he is shrewd and long term, he knows that things will change for the better which should give all confidence
It seems his view irrelevant who he works for and if he likes them or not the club long-term is more impotent, and I would not be surprised if he was prominent in keeping all of our players whom we thought we might lose in the transfer window. I think the club panicked a little bit when he was unsettled a few months ago as he papers over a lot of cracks

Are you slipping him a length ?:thinking about:

GaryPendrysEyes · Sep 4, 2013

I'm sure Les Reid is all over this story--- Not.

No future with SISU · Sep 4, 2013

Godiva said:
Really? So you have the proof that everybody is looking for!
Excellent ... please upload what you have.

If you look at the 2011 accounts ltd have a turnover of £10m to £11m and a wage bill of £10m, HOLDINGS had a turnover of £5m and a wage bill of £1m. Where do you think the players were.

No future with SISU · Sep 4, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
Surely the correct procedure as far as CCFC and FL goes was for CCFC to point out to the FL that they had incorrectly registered players in a company that did not have the golden share (contrary to League Regulations) or the trade and to request that they rectify their mistake by re-registering the players to the company that had ownership of the golden share since 1995. As it was the FL mistake they could not penalise the club for their mistake.

What happened appears to be something different, that was built on by CCFC/SISU and relied on in the administration process, and as pointed out left the lease isolated in CCFC Ltd.

The League did not know where the players were as they had not registered the company numbers of holdings or ltd,all they knew was they are in coventry.

shmmeee · Sep 4, 2013

No future with SISU said:
The League did not know where the players were as they had not registered the company numbers of holdings or ltd,all they knew was they are in coventry.

Source? I thought the league statement said players were spread across both.

Surely if this is all "sorting out the mess" as some in here have claimed, they should've been moving players out of Holdings into Ltd not the other way around?

Also, even the name "Holdings" kind of suggests a holding company not the main company. I can't believe anyone would see this as anything other than an attempt to defraud creditors.

The reason the lease was with Ltd is because its the club. Sisu moving it is purely an attempt to defraud creditors, I'm really not sure why there's any argument here.

skybluetony176 · Sep 4, 2013

i hate to say it but it possibly doesn't change a thing.

i know it makes it clear that the business dealing's are clearly done with ltd and presumably that's where payments were made and received but the issue has been about which company registered the players not who paid for them. to my mind they don't prove that the contracts were registered in ltd and then transferred to holdings. could be wrong, i'm not an expert in the laws of the fl but i don't think this is a smoking gun.

and before any anti acl lot start when i refer to the smoking gun i don't want it held to the clubs head i want it held to the fl's head

skybluetony176 · Sep 4, 2013

No future with SISU said:
If you look at the 2011 accounts ltd have a turnover of £10m to £11m and a wage bill of £10m, HOLDINGS had a turnover of £5m and a wage bill of £1m. Where do you think the players were.

i cant say I've seen the accounts for 2011 but if what you say is right someone needs to explain that

shmmeee · Sep 4, 2013

skybluetony176 said:
i cant say I've seen the accounts for 2011 but if what you say is right someone needs to explain that

What do you mean? Fisher has explained it: "it's a mess"

oldskyblue58 · Sep 4, 2013

No future with SISU said:
The League did not know where the players were as they had not registered the company numbers of holdings or ltd,all they knew was they are in coventry.

strangely the annual return sent to Company House by the Football League quite clearly indicates the company number of the company with the golden share and hence the place where players and trade should have been. Coventry City Football club Limited no 03056875. They knew where they should have been they just didnt check the submitted paperwork properly.

TheRoyalScam · Sep 4, 2013

Can't understand why the words 'asset' and 'stripping' keep popping up in my head......:thinking about:

Astute · Sep 4, 2013

TheRoyalScam said:
Can't understand why the words 'asset' and 'stripping' keep popping up in my head......:thinking about:

But ACL are just as much to blame

Godiva · Sep 4, 2013

shmmeee said:
Source? I thought the league statement said players were spread across both.

Surely if this is all "sorting out the mess" as some in here have claimed, they should've been moving players out of Holdings into Ltd not the other way around?

Also, even the name "Holdings" kind of suggests a holding company not the main company. I can't believe anyone would see this as anything other than an attempt to defraud creditors.

The reason the lease was with Ltd is because its the club. Sisu moving it is purely an attempt to defraud creditors, I'm really not sure why there's any argument here.

FL said they had the players registered in Holdings. So the natural way to sort the mess was to register new player contracts in Holdings.
But still, doing so helped the club to isolate the lease in Limited, paving the way to escape the high rent and create the only real sustainable future for the club: Owning either ACL or build a new stadium.

Was it to default the creditors? Well, you really need hard core evidence to make that claim in the court of law. So far no evidence has surfaced, so I can't help assume everything has been done within legal limits. That may not look pretty, but again ... the only sustainable future for this club is by owning the stadium and all revenue streams in it. So first step is surely to escape the 40+ year remaining lease.

longjohnskyblue · Sep 4, 2013

skybluetony176 said:
i hate to say it but it possibly doesn't change a thing.

i know it makes it clear that the business dealing's are clearly done with ltd and presumably that's where payments were made and received but the issue has been about which company registered the players not who paid for them. to my mind they don't prove that the contracts were registered in ltd and then transferred to holdings. could be wrong, i'm not an expert in the laws of the fl but i don't think this is a smoking gun.

and before any anti acl lot start when i refer to the smoking gun i don't want it held to the clubs head i want it held to the fl's head

This could not be more clear! the paperwork IS proof the contracts were with Ltd! If it were assigned to holdings it would say! It is absolutely clear under league rules contracts cannot repeat cannot be owned by anyone other than the club (ref Tevez). The paperwork doesn't state who paid - all it states is that x amount was paid and the agreement was made with ltd! This cannot be any simpler!

More anti acl clkutching at straws methinks

Astute · Sep 4, 2013

Godiva said:
FL said they had the players registered in Holdings. So the natural way to sort the mess was to register new player contracts in Holdings. Was it to default the creditors? Well, you really need hard core evidence to make that claim in the court of law. So far no evidence has surfaced, so I can't help assume everything has been done within legal limits.

I am not so sure myself......same as most others. So why did they do so?

shmmeee · Sep 4, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
strangely the annual return sent to Company House by the Football League quite clearly indicates the company number of the company with the golden share and hence the place where players and trade should have been. Coventry City Football club Limited no 03056875. They knew where they should have been they just didnt check the submitted paperwork properly.

OSB: what are the options with respect to appealing the admin process? Can ACL just keep "requesting" or is there a mechanism for getting an independent decision (ie outside Appleton)?

shmmeee · Sep 4, 2013

Godiva said:
FL said they had the players registered in Holdings. So the natural way to sort the mess was to register new player contracts in Holdings.
But still, doing so helped the club to isolate the lease in Limited, paving the way to escape the high rent and create the only real sustainable future for the club: Owning either ACL or build a new stadium.

Was it to default the creditors? Well, you really need hard core evidence to make that claim in the court of law. So far no evidence has surfaced, so I can't help assume everything has been done within legal limits. That may not look pretty, but again ... the only sustainable future for this club is by owning the stadium and all revenue streams in it. So first step is surely to escape the 40+ year remaining lease.

But the League rules state players must be registered in the company with the GS. So why would you register them to Holdings?

RPHunt · Sep 4, 2013

Godiva said:
but again ... the only sustainable future for this club is by owning the stadium and all revenue streams in it.

The only way for a sustainable future for this club is to get rid of SISU - everything else can be fixed later.

duffer · Sep 4, 2013

Godiva said:
FL said they had the players registered in Holdings. So the natural way to sort the mess was to register new player contracts in Holdings.
But still, doing so helped the club to isolate the lease in Limited, paving the way to escape the high rent and create the only real sustainable future for the club: Owning either ACL or build a new stadium.

Was it to default the creditors? Well, you really need hard core evidence to make that claim in the court of law. So far no evidence has surfaced, so I can't help assume everything has been done within legal limits. That may not look pretty, but again ... the only sustainable future for this club is by owning the stadium and all revenue streams in it. So first step is surely to escape the 40+ year remaining lease.

I'm not sure it has been done within legal limits - if the players were within Ltd and transferred to Holdings, what value did Ltd receive for them?

There's some detail below in regard to undervalue transfers of assets, I don't think it's as hard for creditors to prove this as you might think.

http://insolvencyviews.wordpress.co...a-twist-on-transactions-defrauding-creditors/

I suspect this is the key to ACL's strategy, and I think it will probably need to end up in court to be resolved.

mattylad · Sep 4, 2013

sadly none of this changes that the assests of ltd have already been sold to Otium and Appleton could not reverse that even if he wanted

Godiva · Sep 4, 2013

duffer said:
I'm not sure it has been done within legal limits - if the players were within Ltd and transferred to Holdings, what value did Ltd receive for them?

There's some detail below in regard to undervalue transfers of assets, I don't think it's as hard for creditors to prove this as you might think.

http://insolvencyviews.wordpress.co...a-twist-on-transactions-defrauding-creditors/

I suspect this is the key to ACL's strategy, and I think it will probably need to end up in court to be resolved.

I never suggested players were transferred - on the contrary. I suggest NEW players were in 2011-> registered in Holdings, and the residual value of player contracts left in Limited was for the players who have been on clubs books before 2011. Like Bell and McSheffrey.
But I may be totally wrong and assets were indeed transferred - and that would most likely be illegal. But then I think that with all the legal power at their service I guess they would go by the book.

oldskyblue58 · Sep 4, 2013

shmmeee said:
OSB: what are the options with respect to appealing the admin process? Can ACL just keep "requesting" or is there a mechanism for getting an independent decision (ie outside Appleton)?

I would assume the first decision is PA's as to whether to reopen, then if no resolution the Court. Got to be honest I dont see the court going against PA so long as he remained right side of the law. For the administration to be re run then ACL would foot the bill i think if they appealed and run the risk of being worse off because of the legal cost.

I think ACL are trying to get PA to revisit things or perhaps get other authorities involved. But who has in theory suffered the biggest loss if you look at CCFC ltd in administration only ...... thats the owners (even though the reality is the loans still exist elsewhere) so will anyone see a public benefit to reopening or investigating. Corner stone of company law is that a company is a seperate legal entity. so have to look at CCFC Ltd in isolation for administration purposes legally

ACL can not accept the basis of the administration because they strongly believe it to be wrong ...... but not sure what they can do about it right now, they need an enquiry from someone who feels the cost is in the public interest

coop · Sep 4, 2013

fisher just fuck off sisu just fuck off they are both full of shit

shmmeee · Sep 4, 2013

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undervalue_transaction

Normally, for a transaction to be set aside as an undervalue transaction, the liquidator or equivalent must demonstrate that:

the consideration received by the company in the transaction, in money or money's worth is significantly less than the value, in money or money's worth, provided by the company;
the transaction was entered into during the "vulnerability period"; and
at the time of the transaction, the company was unable to pay its debts as they fell due, or became unable to pay its debts as they fell due as a result of the transaction.[3]
The vulnerability period is the period of time immediately prior to the company going into bankruptcy. The length of the vulnerability period varies between countries, and some countries apply different vulnerability periods in different circumstances. For example, in the United Kingdom, the vulnerability period is either:

two years, if the person with whom the company entered into the transaction with is a "connected person",[4] or
6 months, in all other cases.
The period is calculated by reference to the period of time immediately preceding the company going into liquidation or administration.

So Holdings as a "connected person" can not have moved any assets without proper valuation for 2 years before the admin date.

The 2012 accounts state Ltd had the players, as do the 2011 accounts.

So am I right in saying that the undisclosed accounts must show that Holdings paid fair value for any player moved there in the last 2 (?) years?

duffer · Sep 4, 2013

Godiva said:
I never suggested players were transferred - on the contrary. I suggest NEW players were in 2011-> registered in Holdings, and the residual value of player contracts left in Limited was for the players who have been on clubs books before 2011. Like Bell and McSheffrey.
But I may be totally wrong and assets were indeed transferred - and that would most likely be illegal. But then I think that with all the legal power at their service I guess they would go by the book.

That's an interesting take on it - but the books that TF signed off for Ltd in June 2012 still seemed to suggest that the players and most of the business of the club was transacted through Ltd.

I believe that he was legally obliged at that point to make it clear that there had been a major change to the business of Ltd, such as it becoming a property-holding non-trading operation. I'm not sure I'd agree that they've gone by the book here, access to legal power or not.

shmmeee · Sep 4, 2013

Could explain the rise in "mutual termination" of contracts rather than frees or even a fee. How many players have had their contract terminated then signed for someone the next day? Or has this become standard practice in football? I don't really pay attention to other clubs.

What date are we talking about for player movement? I'll go find the squad list.

Godiva · Sep 4, 2013

duffer said:
That's an interesting take on it - but the books that TF signed off for Ltd in June 2012 still seemed to suggest that the players and most of the business of the club was transacted through Ltd.

I believe that he was legally obliged at that point to make it clear that there had been a major change to the business of Ltd, such as it becoming a property-holding non-trading operation. I'm not sure I'd agree that they've gone by the book here, access to legal power or not.

We will need to see minutes of the board meeting where the decision was taken to make limited a non-trading company so have evidence if anything legal may or may not have taken place.

Godiva · Sep 4, 2013

shmmeee said:
Could explain the rise in "mutual termination" of contracts rather than frees or even a fee. How many players have had their contract terminated then signed for someone the next day? Or has this become standard practice in football? I don't really pay attention to other clubs.

What date are we talking about for player movement? I'll go find the squad list.

To be legal and inline with Fishers claims it must be post june 2012. New players employed from July 2012 may be registered in Holdings if my assumption is correct.

shmmeee · Sep 4, 2013

Godiva said:
To be legal and inline with Fishers claims it must be post june 2012. New players employed from July 2012 may be registered in Holdings if my assumption is correct.

So June 30th?

Off for a Google...

OK found this (as of April 2012), will look into who left/renewed and when.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%9312_Coventry_City_F.C._season

SuperCov · Sep 4, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
ACL can not accept the basis of the administration because they strongly believe it to be wrong ...... but not sure what they can do about it right now, they need an enquiry from someone who feels the cost is in the public interest

Could a petition around the city help do this? (Online and in the CET etc) I'm sure there are a few thousand people who would sign it, or does it need to be on a wider scale?

Keep Coventry In Coventry
Play Up Sky Blues

RPHunt · Sep 4, 2013

It will be interesting to hear Vince Cable's eventual reply to the question that was put to him by Jim Cunningham a couple of months ago. His department are, presumably, aware of all these leaked documents and they are, presumably, considering the possibility that assets were moved in an attempt to defraud creditors. Do not rule out the intervention of the Serious Fraud Office in this "mess".

DazzleTommyDazzle · Sep 4, 2013

Godiva said:
To be legal and inline with Fishers claims it must be post june 2012. New players employed from July 2012 may be registered in Holdings if my assumption is correct.

My understanding is that there must have been no plan to change the status of Ltd at the time the accounts were signed - or it should have been noted in the Directors' Report.

So, in your version above, we'd have to believe that in June there were no plans to make any changes, but by July a plan had been formulated, agreed and implemented.

Possible, but perhaps unlikely?

Godiva · Sep 4, 2013

DazzleTommyDazzle said:
My understanding is that there must have been no plan to change the status of Ltd at the time the accounts were signed - or it should have been noted in the Directors' Report.

So, in your version above, we'd have to believe that in June there were no plans to make any changes, but by July a plan had been formulated, agreed and implemented.

Possible, but perhaps unlikely?

More importantly ... hard to prove.

duffer · Sep 4, 2013

Godiva said:
We will need to see minutes of the board meeting where the decision was taken to make limited a non-trading company so have evidence if anything legal may or may not have taken place.

In fairness, they're may never have been a board meeting, but it doesn't absolve TF of his legal duties. In case it helps, they're outlined here in the CCFC Ltd accounts, just above his signature.

It would seem remarkable that between Jun 2012 and Jan 2013 they'd shifted all of those assets in the best interests of CCFC Ltd.

More from APOM (2 Viewers)

longjohnskyblue

Guest

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

longjohnskyblue

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency