Company law in the UK has been formed to enable such activity in order to protect and promote entrepreneurship, by reducing risk and improving the chances of continued trading and business development. The law allows the directors of a failed company to be reinstated in the same, or similar posts in the phoenix company.
Often the directors of the original company may alter the company's trading name only very slightly with the name of their new company in order to convince past customers they are exactly the same entity, or even under certain circumstances, may be able to keep their original trading name. The latter is not as commonplace, however, as the re-use of the trading name of the original company is protected to some extent in law, this is in order to help ensure the interests of investors and other creditors are not damaged by a lack of transparency relating to the director's involvement with a failed company, and continued involvement with its phoenix. This protection takes the form of rule 4.228 of the insolvency rules 1986 (United Kingdom), and requires a "notice to creditors of an insolvent company of the re-use of a prohibited name" to be published in the local Gazette in order to alert investors to potential risk. This declaration permits the re-use of a prohibited company name in the new company, as well as the return of the former directors to work in the new company.
would guess that what will happen is that Otium buy CCFC Ltd. They already own CCFC H.
The Football League is persuaded to return the share but to CCFC H (SISU have all the football facilities etc there so FL will see it as the safest way to protect the "integrity of the competition").
CCFC Ltd non related creditors are paid in full (ie ACL, Higgs Charity and and any others), by doing that the creditors would find it hard to say in court they have been hard done by because of the deal.
CCFC Ltd is then liquidated because the only thing it has left is the lease. Liquidation breaks the lease.
TF will "finally listen to the fans" approach ACL to stay at the Ricoh, on a low rent on a long lease (99 years+) and access to all football related income (as a minimum). ACL wont like it but they will have to deal with CCFC.
Do CCFC have to own part of ACL to do this? - actually no.
would guess that what will happen is that Otium buy CCFC Ltd. They already own CCFC H.
The Football League is persuaded to return the share but to CCFC H (SISU have all the football facilities etc there so FL will see it as the safest way to protect the "integrity of the competition").
CCFC Ltd non related creditors are paid in full (ie ACL, Higgs Charity and and any others), by doing that the creditors would find it hard to say in court they have been hard done by because of the deal.
CCFC Ltd is then liquidated because the only thing it has left is the lease. Liquidation breaks the lease.
TF will "finally listen to the fans" approach ACL to stay at the Ricoh, on a low rent on a long lease (99 years+) and access to all football related income (as a minimum). ACL wont like it but they will have to deal with CCFC.
Do CCFC have to own part of ACL to do this? - actually no.
It has been staged from last March when the ARVO charge was taken out Grendel ...... only thing that threw a spanner in the works was ACL changing the loan. The rest has been distraction along the planned road
I can't wait for fisher standing Nero style at a Press conference saying "we have listened to the fans and they want to play in Coventry - only ACL am an prevent the supportes wishes from happening"
He'll keep a straight face as well.
As a little side question-how does the liquidation of Ltd affect the right of Holdings to claim its history ie honours?
As a little side question-how does the liquidation of Ltd affect the right of Holdings to claim its history ie honours?
Another thought is will TF get this through and then resign with Waggott becoming CEO?
I suspect the league already have conceded that holdings are entitled to the share.
Waggott has no experience of running a business of this size or nature so would think it unlikely. To be honest if this wangling lands us with super cheap rent and revenue access then it's hard to argue against.
I can tolerate Fisher's smug arrogance if it means the club can prosper.
Waggott was CEO at Charlton BSB
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/charlton_athletic/7372274.stm
Had no idea! Why would Fisher leave after his latest triumph?
because he will get a pay off and has lost credibility as a front man for a lot of the fans. The public image is important still
Waggott has in the mean time been kept in the background, is a football guy, doing stuff in the community with experience of running a club...............
would guess that what will happen is that Otium buy CCFC Ltd. They already own CCFC H.
The Football League is persuaded to return the share but to CCFC H (SISU have all the football facilities etc there so FL will see it as the safest way to protect the "integrity of the competition").
CCFC Ltd non related creditors are paid in full (ie ACL, Higgs Charity and and any others), by doing that the creditors would find it hard to say in court they have been hard done by because of the deal.
CCFC Ltd is then liquidated because the only thing it has left is the lease. Liquidation breaks the lease.
TF will "finally listen to the fans" approach ACL to stay at the Ricoh, on a low rent on a long lease (99 years+) and access to all football related income (as a minimum). ACL wont like it but they will have to deal with CCFC.
Do CCFC have to own part of ACL to do this? - actually no.
Waggott has in the mean time been kept in the background, is a football guy, doing stuff in the community with experience of running a club...............
Share yes but that isn't what I'm on about.
Holdings has been in existence since 1907 - jimmy hill era, promotions to the top flight, rebranding to the sky blues, fa cup win
Ltd has been in existence since 1995 - relegation from premier league, relegation from championship
I know which bit of history I would like to keep!
Would that be a bad outcome purely looking at it from our club?
The concerns I have is that I do not think I can trust the owners in what they say but more importantly what they do with the team. They have repeatedly proven poor at the football decisions. I simply have no faith in them getting it right on the pitch.
Have always argued the club needs to be set up properly and viable above all. My head says in terms of the club(purely) they are doing the right things financially, cutting costs, putting in control etc
My Heart says I want them gone, I do not trust them or their motives. Not saying anyone else would be better. My heart says I can not trust them because of what has gone on since they took over.
Its Heart or Head argument really NW
Have always argued the club needs to be set up properly and viable above all. My head says in terms of the club(purely) they are doing the right things financially, cutting costs, putting in control etc
My Heart says I want them gone, I do not trust them or their motives. Not saying anyone else would be better. My heart says I can not trust them because of what has gone on since they took over.
It isnt logical I know but it is how I feel.
Bottom line is it is a football club .... I should be interested first and foremost in the team on the pitch..... I should be able trust the club custodians so I can enjoy unfettered the product on the pitch...... sadly this is not the case for far far too long
Its Heart or Head argument really NW
Have always argued the club needs to be set up properly and viable above all. My head says in terms of the club(purely) they are doing the right things financially, cutting costs, putting in control etc
My Heart says I want them gone, I do not trust them or their motives. Not saying anyone else would be better. My heart says I can not trust them because of what has gone on since they took over.
It isnt logical I know but it is how I feel.
Bottom line is it is a football club .... I should be interested first and foremost in the team on the pitch..... I should be able trust the club custodians so I can enjoy unfettered the product on the pitch...... sadly this is not the case for far far too long
Some people seem able to ignore the immorality of our owners, some quite actively, but some of us cannot accept owners that behave and deal in such a manner. Everyone to their own, but I cannot accept such owners.
This is how they operate though, there are no surprises.
I suspect you were always against them, which is fine. What confuses me is the ones who are now upset at doing what they celebrated SISU as being capable of doing when they first came. Arguably they should have done this far earlier than now, as this is what they do.
The problem with 'morality' in such things is there are lines everywhere to be drawn, none of them 'right'. But I struggle to think of a moral alternative in those we heard of as interested. Alas, modern football is finance driven, so we probably have a choice of accepting that's the way it is full stop, or stepping away from football as a whole.
In English football money is king. In German football common sense and fan satisfaction is king. I know what I'd rather have.
Well, yes and no, and obviously there are grey areas.
I'd agree with the general point though.
The question is, are we going to see this as a wake-up call to the ills of English football as a whole, or just demand the next 'investor' to come in, say the right things, pump some money in early on to get the fans onside, but demand a return?
I really hope MK Dons for one aren't inluded on the away only list of games, for example. Others will differ, but I think it sends out toally the wrong message to condone their existence while protesting ours.
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?