SISU Plan (2 Viewers)

dongonzalos · Apr 25, 2013

Must say it is intriguing trying to second guess what SISU's plan is.

Without getting side tracked about who is right etc....

Anyone think they know what their end game is?

If the administrator reveals as expected that the golden share is in administration. Will they attempt to pay off the ACL debt and try to convince the administrator not to sell the club.
(The rest of the debt I don't see as impactive)

Will they bid for the club if it is up for sale effectively buying off their own debt.

If they achieve this they keep the club but the council and Higgs do not want to do business with them.

Are they then hoping at the same time as doing this the high court finds the loan was illegal.

They then hope ACL go on their knees as they have to now find that sort of money elsewhere at less competitive rates.

Whilst this is happening they move Coventry to Northampton Rugby Club.

They bluff about building a new stadium to justify the move to the FA.

The hope is that with ACL crumbling the council will have to ask them to come back. They then hope to come back on their own terms?

I see many pitfalls to the above but I am just trying to second guess what their plan is, any other ideas?

SkyBlueScottie · Apr 25, 2013

Yep I can see some of that coming true, especially the bit about buying it back through the administrator. However I believe that will incur a further points deuction and then a keen eye will need to be kept on the accounts for admin charge equalling 10 million per season.....

Or they are simply hanging on for as long as possible to scupper any plans ACL / council have in a tit for tat arguement...

The Penguin · Apr 25, 2013

There are a few things you've posited that I'm not too sure about, though am happy to be corrected by those more knowledgeable.

Firstly, if CCFC Limited (as SISU claim) is just a subsidiary with no assets, can it pay the debt to ACL? The club seem hellbent on convincing everyone that Holdings and Limited have little to do with one another, so are Holdings able to just pay the debt or do they need to agree a deal to 'buy' Limited and exit administration?

Secondly, if they do 'buy' the club, are they subject to the fit and proper persons test, a test which they may have some difficulty in passing? (Given my understanding of the criteria of the test, they may not fail it, believe it or not, but their history as owners, and the fact that we don't really know where the money comes from, may hinder their satisfaction of the test.)

Finally, if their plan is to move outside of Coventry while a new stadium is built, will the Football League really accept, "Yeah, we're totally building a new stadium, no, we don't know where, or how much it will cost, or how long it will take, but we TOTALLY ARE BUILDING ONE WE PROMISE," as a 'clear plan' to return to Coventry?

I can't help but feel that, if this is the plan, there are so many holes that they've painted themselves into a corner and, to coin a phrase, are royally fucked.

But maybe that's just blind optimism

TrueSkyBlueLiam · Apr 25, 2013

They have nothing to gain by keeping the club in their ownership. They're losing money everyday, the fans hate them, managers have been p**sed off and have left because of them, they cant even file the accounts correctly, they have no idea how to run a football cub, they refuse to put any money into the squad and refuse to make wise investments that could bring in more money. They are just tarnishing their own reputation and ours. They have promised us so many things and have lied through their teeth time and time and time again, After this, no-one in their right mind would touch SISU or CCFC with a 100ft barge pole

rupert_bear · Apr 25, 2013

Whoever buys ccfc ltd has to pass the fit and proper test. I would think the administrator knows this and will advise would be buyers of their chances. I think sisu have a real problem there. I think Portsmouth's former owner or one of them failed that test and after a while their Trust got the nod, not too sure of the exact history but ground ownership was a big issue there. As for playing elsewhere listening to Bob Ainsworth i think sisu will have big problems getting permission off the FL and that would go against their fit and proper test.

I don't see where they can go now. They no longer own the football club. They own the other bits Holdings, Sky Blue lesiure and something else but so what they can have them

dongonzalos · Apr 25, 2013

The Penguin said:
There are a few things you've posited that I'm not too sure about, though am happy to be corrected by those more knowledgeable.

Firstly, if CCFC Limited (as SISU claim) is just a subsidiary with no assets, can it pay the debt to ACL? The club seem hellbent on convincing everyone that Holdings and Limited have little to do with one another, so are Holdings able to just pay the debt or do they need to agree a deal to 'buy' Limited and exit administration?

Secondly, if they do 'buy' the club, are they subject to the fit and proper persons test, a test which they may have some difficulty in passing? (Given my understanding of the criteria of the test, they may not fail it, believe it or not, but their history as owners, and the fact that we don't really know where the money comes from, may hinder their satisfaction of the test.)

Finally, if their plan is to move outside of Coventry while a new stadium is built, will the Football League really accept, "Yeah, we're totally building a new stadium, no, we don't know where, or how much it will cost, or how long it will take, but we TOTALLY ARE BUILDING ONE WE PROMISE," as a 'clear plan' to return to Coventry?

I can't help but feel that, if this is the plan, there are so many holes that they've painted themselves into a corner and, to coin a phrase, are royally fecked.

But maybe that's just blind optimism

As I say I also see many pitfalls but it is the only plan I can see them having unless anyone else has any ideas?

dongonzalos · Apr 25, 2013

TrueSkyBlueLiam said:
They have nothing to gain by keeping the club in their ownership. They're losing money everyday, the fans hate them, managers have been p**sed off and have left because of them, they cant even file the accounts correctly, they have no idea how to run a football cub, they refuse to put any money into the squad and refuse to make wise investments that could bring in more money. They are just tarnishing their own reputation and ours. They have promised us so many things and have lied through their teeth time and time and time again, After this, no-one in their right mind would touch SISU or CCFC with a 100ft barge pole

Mate I am trying to avoid the rights and wrongs just trying to gauge what people actually think SUSU's plan is

dongonzalos · Apr 25, 2013

rupert_bear said:
Whoever buys ccfc ltd has to pass the fit and proper test. I would think the administrator knows this and will advise would be buyers of their chances. I think sisu have a real problem there. I think Portsmouth's former owner or one of them failed that test and after a while their Trust got the nod, not too sure of the exact history but ground ownership was a big issue there. As for playing elsewhere listening to Bob Ainsworth i think sisu will have big problems getting permission off the FL and that would go against their fit and proper test.

I don't see where they can go now. They no longer own the football club. They own the other bits Holdings, Sky Blue lesiure and something else but so what they can have them

The only advantage they have on the fit and proper persons is that this season they invested in players and the academy.

They just refused to pay the rent.

ajsccfc · Apr 25, 2013

All I can really envisage is them having ballsed it all up and now desperately scraping for whatever leeway they can get.

Flying Fokker · Apr 25, 2013

SkyBlueScottie said:
Yep I can see some of that coming true, especially the bit about buying it back through the administrator. However I believe that will incur a further points deuction and then a keen eye will need to be kept on the accounts for admin charge equalling 10 million per season.....

Or they are simply hanging on for as long as possible to scupper any plans ACL / council have in a tit for tat arguement...

And crowds of 6000 in a 32000 seater stadium if SISU is in charge. Stay away season ticket holders.
No player would want to look at CCFC as an employer.
We could become Falkirk's feeder club

rupert_bear · Apr 25, 2013

dongonzalos said:
The only advantage they have on the fit and proper persons is that this season they invested in players and the academy.

They just refused to pay the rent.

I would question their so called player investment. They sold Keogh and Biggirana for 1.5 million and signed about 9 for less than a tenth of those 2 fees, hardly investment. As for the Academy their actions re. money not being paid to the Alan Higgs centre speaks for itself by getting booted out. How any administrator could forward them to the FL for a fit and proper test is beyond me.

dongonzalos · Apr 25, 2013

rupert_bear said:
I would question their so called player investment. They sold Keogh and Biggirana for 1.5 million and signed about 9 for less than a tenth of those 2 fees, hardly investmentAs for the Academy thier actions re money not being paid to the Alan Higgs centre speaks for itself by getting booted out. Howl any administrator could forward them to the FL for a fit and proper test is beyond me.

I hope you are right but as I say I am not really trying to get into right or wrongs.

Just more what are they trying to achieve and how will they try and get there.

RedSalmon · Apr 25, 2013

The more I see of the situation that they have created the less I can see that there is a clear way out for them. The only constant element to all there manoeuvres over the time they have been here is that they just keep doggedly fighting on, irrespective of logic, peoples feelings and common decency.
In this way, and with this approach, they hope to brow beat and intimidate anyone who opposes them into accepting what ever they want to do. It's a business approach that has probably served them well up to now, and as a consequence, they see no reason to change it.

rupert_bear · Apr 25, 2013

It must be costing sisu a fortune now, they are having to meet salaries and wages tax liabilities and no income as such, can they sell players ? don't think so as that may come under third party ownership rules. The debt placed in ccfc ltd may only be paid at 10/20 p in the pound and only on the amount the administrator agrees is the debt which could be a lot less than the £60million they claim the debt is. They have to be f~~ked can't see any other answer.

Sky Blues · Apr 25, 2013

rupert_bear said:
It must be costing sisu a fortune now, they are having to meet salaries and wages tax liabilities and no income as such, can they sell players ? don't think so as that may come under third party ownership rules. The debt placed in ccfc ltd may only be paid at 10/20 p in the pound and only on the amount the administrator agrees is the debt which could be a lot less than the £60million they claim the debt is. They have to be f~~ked can't see any other answer.

Interesting point. If holdings has the player contracts and Ltd the registrations (if indeed it has the golden share) then if any players can be sold and are sold for money this summer, where does that money go? Ltd or holdings? Sisu or the administrator? (Although if money was channelled to the administrator he would probably have to use it towards reducing the debt, so most of it would eventually go back via ARVO to Sisu anyway).

Covcraig@bury · Apr 25, 2013

Just a twisted thought, Whats to stop Sisu bringing in a outside investment company and take over via administator the bit thats in admin.
Sisu dont have to sell the part they own, but say PH4 is part of the conspiracy and buys up the stake off ccc/acl for the ground developement !What we all need to know is what CCFC LTD and CCFC HOLDINGS LTD own, we need a break down and will one whitout the other effect the running of the club.

oldskyblue58 · Apr 25, 2013

Think you have to look at the Group structure as far as the £60m debt goes. The debt has nearly all been channeled through CCFCH to CCFCLtd so even if it were all written off in CCFC Ltd CCFCH will still owe other group members or investors the money. SISU's priority now the share is to be confirmed as CCFC's is to regain control of CCFCLtd. To SISU the debt owed to them is irrelevant except for it giving control of the process, they will still retain the debt effectively but in ccfch. What is important is breaking the lease or settling the rent debt, that will depend on how much the administrator proves that Lease debt to be worth.

dongonzalos · Apr 25, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
Think you have to look at the Group structure as far as the £60m debt goes. The debt has nearly all been channeled through CCFCH to CCFCLtd so even if it were all written off in CCFC Ltd CCFCH will still owe other group members or investors the money. SISU's priority now the share is to be confirmed as CCFC's is to regain control of CCFCLtd. To SISU the debt owed to them is irrelevant except for it giving control of the process, they will still retain the debt effectively but in ccfch. What is important is breaking the lease or settling the rent debt, that will depend on how much the administrator proves that Lease debt to be worth.

Which direction do they go then, that's what's ticking away in my mind.

The above scenario in the OP if correct seems to me a very hazardous path to take that will not ultimately succeed.

A fourth possibility is create as many complex legal wrangles as possible, whether they are realistic one or not. Enough to create a year long delay. Then approach Mr Haskell with a figure to walk away so the delay is avoided.

Or they come on board with him as a silent partner......

GaryPendrysEyes · Apr 25, 2013

Could Sisu be close to going belly up over this?

Are their actions those of desperate people to trying to survive????

Bluegloucester · Apr 25, 2013

GaryPendrysEyes said:
Could Sisu be close to going belly up over this?

Are their actions those of desperate people to trying to survive????

Let's hope so!

covcity4life · Apr 25, 2013

when sisu go dongon will never post again

ccfcdale · Apr 25, 2013

We should just go and murder whoever is involved with SISU that's on extreme way of looking at it

dongonzalos · Apr 25, 2013

covcity4life said:
when sisu go dongon will never post again

To be honest but cautious about replying to you. With the way you get into people's heads and rule the world and all that.......

Samo · Apr 25, 2013

I cant see SISU being able to buy the club unless something is very 'wrong'. how can 'catastrophic insolvency' and 'fit and proper' be a match?
For me, SISU's strategy has to be exit with as much money as possible. I don't buy all this nonsense about pride, they are a business, end of. I'm sure they know they are going, it's just a matter of when and with how much. I hope it's fuck all!

Big_Ben · Apr 25, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
Think you have to look at the Group structure as far as the £60m debt goes. The debt has nearly all been channeled through CCFCH to CCFCLtd so even if it were all written off in CCFC Ltd CCFCH will still owe other group members or investors the money. SISU's priority now the share is to be confirmed as CCFC's is to regain control of CCFCLtd. To SISU the debt owed to them is irrelevant except for it giving control of the process, they will still retain the debt effectively but in ccfch. What is important is breaking the lease or settling the rent debt, that will depend on how much the administrator proves that Lease debt to be worth.

If CCFC Ltd originally put themselves into voluntary administration because was insolvent, i.e. it didn't have sufficient assets to pay its debts, what is to prevent its parent company injecting sufficient funds to allow it to pay off any debts to creditors and administrators, i.e. everyone other than the parent/group company, so that it becomes solvent again. And then, being in a solvent situation, applying to come out of voluntary administration.
This isn't anything about where we are going to play in future, or the loss of 10 or even 20 points, or about any relationships with CCC/ACU, just a question about the mechanics of the administration process, especially bearing in mind that CCFC Ltd put themselves in, and were not put into administration by a creditor (even though it was a close thing).

skybluegnome · Apr 25, 2013

rupert_bear said:
Whoever buys ccfc ltd has to pass the fit and proper test. I would think the administrator knows this and will advise would be buyers of their chances. I think sisu have a real problem there. I think Portsmouth's former owner or one of them failed that test and after a while their Trust got the nod, not too sure of the exact history but ground ownership was a big issue there. As for playing elsewhere listening to Bob Ainsworth i think sisu will have big problems getting permission off the FL and that would go against their fit and proper test.

I don't see where they can go now. They no longer own the football club. They own the other bits Holdings, Sky Blue lesiure and something else but so what they can have them

But no one wants to buy CCFC they only want to buy the Arena, that is where the money is...and the problem is the Council won't sell...and that for me is a big worry....

bigfatronssba · Apr 25, 2013

<p>

skybluegnome said:
But no one wants to buy CCFC they only want to buy the Arena, that is where the money is...and the problem is the Council won't sell...and that for me is a big worry....

We only know the council wont sell to sisu, which I personally think is justified.

dongonzalos · Apr 26, 2013

Doesn't seem like anyone really sees them as having a realistic feasible plan?

trueskyblue11 · Apr 26, 2013

To be honest I dont really trust this Appleton fella, especially when SISU chose him. Doesnt seem to be helping us as much as I would like to see

Bennets Afro · Apr 26, 2013

I wonder if he has ever worked for sisu before

dongonzalos · Apr 26, 2013

I would like it if Appleton gave the fans and the interested stakeholders a progress report.

That does not seem unreasonable to me.

May the whatever does seem a longtime to wait for an update?

cloughie · Apr 26, 2013

It would appear to me that appleton is not unbiased.

We only have to look at the way he is siding with holdings over the Acadamy and the Higgs centre row. The Acadamy is run under the league license which the FA and league say belongs to Ltd.

Ltd is in administration so Appleton should be in control of the Acadamy yet he lets holdings run it,

Obviously biased towards those who appointed him.

Tank Top · Apr 26, 2013

GaryPendrysEyes said:
Could Sisu be close to going belly up over this?

Are their actions those of desperate people to trying to survive????

It seems that Sisu are throwing several issues into the melting pot of legal litigation in order to delay the take over by the "Tall Texan" there is a clear vendetta with the council and the Higgs trust, which has gone past the point of sticking a band aid on it, or kissing it better, the dispute is terminally beyond further negotiation, and God willing, no persons associated with sisu, will darken the doors of "The Arena" again.
Unsurprisingly Sisu are not going to lose total face without a gruesome Bloody Battle, which could see them use every action at their disposal, to hurt ACL and the Dissenting Sky blue Fans, "kicking and screaming" sounds about right.

dongonzalos · Apr 26, 2013

If the academy are in the admin pot then yes it has to be the administrator dealing with Higgs regarding the academy.

Also should the administrator not have done the deal with ACL regarding the last three games.

Again the FA have said the golden share is in administration. They have said only the administrator can make decisions for the club

Did he make the deal for the last three games?

trueskyblue11 · Apr 26, 2013

To be honest the only fairest way to choose the administrator in my opinion is let the league chose him so atleast then he isnt biased as being appointed by one of the parties involved. You wouldnt let the home team choose the referee for a game now would you

SISU Plan (2 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

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

Active Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New 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

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency