So where is the CCFC football trade? (2 Viewers)

oldskyblue58 · May 22, 2013

This might help answer from this link http://www.purnells.co.uk/limited-c.../what-are-the-purposes-of-administration.html

The three Administration statutory purposes (or required outcomes) are:

- Rescuing the company as a going concern. (Note: this purpose is to rescue the company as opposed to rescuing the business undertaken by the company.)

- Or, achieving a better result for the company's creditors as a whole than would be likely if the company were wound up (without first being in administration).

- Or, realising property to make a distribution to one or or more secured or preferential creditors.

Has powers to

dismiss directors, managers and employees

close down outlets

negotiate the sale of the business of the company

put forward re-structuring proposals to creditors

Skybluesquirrel · May 22, 2013

Excellent post OSB.

We now have excellent evidence on both companies reasons for existing, from the point of incorporation all the way up to at least May 2011. There is compelling evidence that CCFC Ltd is the football club. As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence that anyone has uncovered that CCFC Holdings Ltd has ever been the football club.

Paxman II · May 22, 2013

Who's paying the wages and employing all the staff from footballers and managers to the tea lady at Ryton?

Who has the sponsorship contracts?

Since SISU arrived what evidence supports them as having the overall ownership of the football club?

skybluericoh · May 22, 2013

DaleM said:
Am i right in thinking the league set a precedent for this dodgy dealing with Leeds . 30 point deduction if we are still playing next season if this is correct about amendment date being after admin.

If I remember correctly, they got hit because they came out of admin with the same owners as they went in and had written off debts in some dodgy way. Might have been they owner moving debt into the club, becoming the major creditor and then voting to accept the deal being offered? I know there was something going on that the FL were not impressed with.

pb2875 · May 22, 2013

I'm sure who pays the bills is immaterial and a relationship between the two entities and not just cause for claiming title but it is all about who holds the contracts / legal documents.

Take the scenario of renting a house. If you can't pay the rent, but someone else offers to pay the rent on your behalf but that doesn't entitle them to move into your house and claim it as theirs. There would be an agreement of some sort between you and whoever paid the rent on your behalf to repay the amount.

There have been several court / legal instances where this has been claimed but thrown out by the legal system.

Danceswithhorses · May 22, 2013

skybluericoh said:
If I remember correctly, they got hit because they came out of admin with the same owners as they went in and had written off debts in some dodgy way. Might have been they owner moving debt into the club, becoming the major creditor and then voting to accept the deal being offered? I know there was something going on that the FL were not impressed with.

Leeds were docked extra points because they had to force a CVA through, as HMRC wouldn't agree to it.

DaleM · May 22, 2013

skybluericoh said:
If I remember correctly, they got hit because they came out of admin with the same owners as they went in and had written off debts in some dodgy way. Might have been they owner moving debt into the club, becoming the major creditor and then voting to accept the deal being offered? I know there was something going on that the FL were not impressed with.

My bad it was 15 points but if it pans out like this then league 2 beckons. Substitute HMRC for ACL and the scenarios is perfect it SHITSU buy it back.

Taken from this article
http://m.guardian.co.uk/football/2007/aug/09/newsstory.leedsunited

Bates placed Leeds in administration with debts of £35m before the end of last season so as not to incur a 10-point deduction for the forthcoming campaign. Administrators KPMG then agreed to sell the club straight back to the former Chelsea chairman, despite other bids. But Bates's offer to pay off creditors at a controversial Company Voluntary Agreement meeting was legally challenged by the Inland Revenue, who were owed £7.7m in unpaid taxes.

With the start of the new season fast approaching, administrators KPMG then decided to scrap the CVA and put the club back on the market. This prompted several other parties to make fresh offers, but Bates resubmitted his original offer and emerged victorious. The Football League objected to the fact that Bates had retained control for a third time without a CVA meeting where creditors could vote on whether to accept an offer to repay monies owed.

League rules stipulate that a club can only re-enter the competition if a sale goes ahead with a CVA meeting, unless there are "exceptional circumstances". But after protracted legal wrangling the League agreed to hand Leeds back their share (League membership), but imposed the 15-point penalty for breaching rules on insolvency.

Samo · May 22, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
It seems to me we can be pretty certain that the share is in CCFC Ltd. If it wasnt that company would have been wound up not in administration. The FL have taken the share for safe keeping and wont make a public statement until the administrator makes some decisions.

So where is the trade? Mr Appleton who was apponted 21st March 2013 has said this is not all together clear and that CCFC H operates the football club, indicating at least originally that this had always been the case. CCFC Ltd was merely a non trading property subsidiary apparently. His investigations continue and he may change that understanding

Investigations are being conducted all the way back to 1907 to what purpose I am not sure because up until 1995 there was only one company "The Coventry City Football Club". The share and trade could only be in one place.

So 1995. In 1995 "The Coventry City Football Club" was hived down in to two companies CCFC Ltd and CCFC H Ltd.

All articles rank as the same weight in law but it is common practice to rely on the first article to define the purpose of the company.

CCFC Ltd was formed with this first Article
"To acquire from its parent company "the Coventry City Football Club Ltd " as a going concern the business of the playing activities of that company and to carry on such business uner the name of "Coventry City Football Club"

CCFC H ltd (formerly The Coventry City Football Club Ltd) changed its to
"To carry on the business of a holding, management and investment company"

Both companies later go on to include articles that cover either the operating of stadia or managing a football club. But like i said when looking at a company's permitted activity to disclose it is usually the first article that takes precedence

So what do the accounts say

CCFC Ltd accounts to 31/05/96 state the following in the directors report.
" On the 1st June 1995 the company purchased all of the playing activities from its holding company including assets, management executives, players, and certain other employees"

The accounts then include entries and notes relating to player transfers, player wages, valuation of playing staff, signing on fees, match receipts, sponsorship, prize money etc

The accounts of CCFC H Lts for 1996 include the following

"the company operates as a holding company managing the football club"

"in order to provide a more orderly structure to the business on the 1st June 1995 the company transferred all of its playing activities of its football club including assets, management executives, players, and certain other employees to its wholly owned subsidiary Coventry City Football Club Limited

The facilities remain to be owned by Coventry City Football Cliub Limited but are operated by Coventry City Football Club Limited in accordance with the terms of the management services agreement. All of the other activities are carried on by Coventry City Football Club Holdings Limited"

The accounts for the company alone (ie not the group ) do not include details for players, transfers etc

All seems pretty clear to me.

Since then in 2008 Onye filed resolutions changing the articles so that CCFC Ltd first article reads as operating stadia. The last of these amendments although adopted by 16/12/11 was not actually dated by Company House until 23/03/13 after the club went in to administration and was signed by Onye before he left (resignation filed co house 21/09/12).

In the mean time all accounts for CCFC Ltd since 01/06/95 have been prepared by the directors, signed off by the auditors and approved by shareholders on the basis that the football club was operated by CCFC Ltd. No mention of beneficial ownership etc. There is no mention of any reversal of the trade back to CCFC H in any of the accounts. Even management accounts included in the administrator report 15/05/13 indicate that the original basis continues

Am finding it hard to be confused by any of the above or to see why there should be confusion. Am willing to be shown why it is different though and why i am wrong

Damning, thank you OSB

BurbageSkyBlues · May 22, 2013

If CCFC ltd is not the football club, then how can Sisu claim to have invested c.£60M into the football club, given that the debt is all in CCFC ltd?

Surely, this is sisu arguing against their own claim?!?!

psgm1 · May 22, 2013

Surely when it was revealed the golden share was within ltd's framework that sisu then decided that ltd and holding where one and the same thing. Prior to this little fly in the ointment they were desperate to separate the two entities. I just find it fantastical for sisu to claim they are both different and the same at the same time!

Also maybe TF is right that holdings will be moving away, but that doesn't necessarily mean that coventry city are!

I wonder what would happen if the courts decided the contracts were with holdings, but the share was with Ltd! Can you imagine - it would mean that ltd could cherry pick the players from the existing squad it wanted to keep, and could start afresh with new contracts at appropriate salary levels for League 1. That would put the catamongst the pigeons!

letsallsingtogether · May 22, 2013

Fuck me stayed on the subject with a decent reply.

psgm1 said:
Surely when it was revealed the golden share was within ltd's framework that sisu then decided that ltd and holding where one and the same thing. Prior to this little fly in the ointment they were desperate to separate the two entities. I just find it fantastical for sisu to claim they are both different and the same at the same time!

Also maybe TF is right that holdings will be moving away, but that doesn't necessarily mean that coventry city are!

I wonder what would happen if the courts decided the contracts were with holdings, but the share was with Ltd! Can you imagine - it would mean that ltd could cherry pick the players from the existing squad it wanted to keep, and could start afresh with new contracts at appropriate salary levels for League 1. That would put the catamongst the pigeons!

oldskyblue58 · May 23, 2013

Can I make something clear about who is paying the bills

Financial statements are prepared under the regulations on the basis of who has the legal liability to pay costs or the legal right to receive income. Who actually pays the bill is a red herring because if it is not the company with the liability then that payment by the third party becomes a "loan" or debt from that third party. The same is true of income but in reverse, if income is received by a third party that is legally the company's then the third party owes the company.

Failing that all the accounts since 1995 are wrong and that brings a whole new set of problems

Paying the bills does not bring you ownership, beneficial or otherwise. What brings you ownership of the company is the name on the shares in CCFC Ltd. CCFC ltd would seem to, by the same principle of having your name on the golden share, to have the rights under that share

Ripbuster · May 23, 2013

OSB

What does this mean?

Les Reid On High Court Document Revelations
According to the Coventry Telegraph's Les Reid, documents from Coventry City Football Club (Holdings), Arvo Trust and Sky Blue Sports & Leisure which were presented to the High Court reveal that Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) was treated as the club for all regulatory compliance & trading & investment purposes.
Mr Reid has tweeted; "Reading Holdings/Arvo/SBS&L's docs to High Court. They concede: "In 2001, it appears golden share was transferred to #CCFC Ltd"
However, an entry was made in FL register of members on page relating to CC Holdings. FL & CCH conducted business on understanding Holdings was the Club for all regulatory compliance & trading & investment purposes." Adds player contracts were in Holdings name.
"Holdings High Court docs also makes claims about talks last year with council officers/ACL directors to buy ACL's Yorkshire Bank debt."

oldskyblue58 · May 23, 2013

I think until we have both sides of the argument you have to take it as SISU's opinion and nothing more. Clearly there is a whole lot of evidence that is in the public domain plus other (i suspect) that is not that will rebutt their assertions. This is just SISU setting out their case, it wont include anything that doesnt support it.

Entries I have seen on the Football League register filed at Company House say differently. For instance in June 2008 (just after SISU took over) the Annual return to Company House by the FL clearly lists CCFC Ltd including the correct company number as the member of the FL and therefore all regulatory and compliance should have been conducted through that company what ever SISU etc say

Just because SISU say it is in a statement doesnt mean it is so (equally with ACL) but if there is evidence to support it that can not be countered then that gives weight to a statement

RegTheDonk · May 23, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
.....
Am finding it hard to be confused by any of the above or to see why there should be confusion. Am willing to be shown why it is different though and why i am wrong

Agreed, when its laid out above like you have. Thanks for that.

At the risk of getting sued, how can this be confusing for Appleton who surely should know what the bottom line is? Will SISU ever employ him as an admin again if he says the Hoff/Elliot/PH4 bid would be the preferred one?

Ripbuster · May 23, 2013

Surely the debenture submitted on or around the 22nd March 2012 was their security for when this moment came...I beleive this was/is a planned route for going forward from then....Surely they wouldn't bluff? there are some clever people working for this lot.

Debenture March 2012

Stopped paying rent April 2012?

oldskyblue58 · May 23, 2013

The debenture is for exactly that purpose in my opinion ripbuster............ said so at the time the debenture was made public. So I agree with you

There are of course clever people behind this but that doesnt mean they wont bluff and double bluff. It comes down in the end to who has the deeper pockets

Ripbuster · May 23, 2013

Thanks for the reply OSB.........I'm just a fan wanting desperately to catch these people out.....I will keep digging (in all the wrong places) for as long as I can.

oldskyblue58 · May 23, 2013

Ripbuster said:
Thanks for the reply OSB.........I'm just a fan wanting desperately to catch these people out.....I will keep digging (in all the wrong places) for as long as I can.

i think that is all any of us can do ripbuster, keep it up

Ripbuster · May 23, 2013

I'm beginning to focus aound 15th December 2011 (Sconset arrival) and march 22nd 2012 (debenture)

20th December 2011
TF statement (if I read it right) acknowledges "Limited" to be the club..

"Two board moves have also been announced by Coventry City FC.

"John Clarke has decided to focus his energies in future as an independent director on one board, CCFC (Holdings) Ltd. He remains as deputy chairman and his role is unchanged.

"Tim Fisher has replaced John Clarke on the board of Coventry City Football Club Limited representing the major shareholder."

Mr Fisher added: "This move of directors is simply for administrative efficiency.

"The board of the football club should include a representative of the owner and the deputy chairman as an independent director should be on the holdings board."

oldskyblue58 · May 23, 2013

good spot ripbuster that certainly seems to imply the football club is in ccfc ltd

Ripbuster · May 23, 2013

Or still was on that date......Something "FISHY" going on after then......can smell it :thinking about:

SkyblueBazza · May 23, 2013

It's all good fun isn't it? Every which way you turn there's another surprise waiting.
Keep up the good work Rockford...I mean Ripbuster

SkyblueBazza · May 23, 2013

Ripbuster said:
Or still was on that date......Something "FISHY" going on after then......can smell it :thinking about:

You mean "Fishery"?

James Smith · May 23, 2013

Ripbuster said:
I'm beginning to focus aound 15th December 2011 (Sconset arrival) and march 22nd 2012 (debenture)

20th December 2011
TF statement (if I read it right) acknowledges "Limited" to be the club..

"Two board moves have also been announced by Coventry City FC.

"John Clarke has decided to focus his energies in future as an independent director on one board, CCFC (Holdings) Ltd. He remains as deputy chairman and his role is unchanged.

"Tim Fisher has replaced John Clarke on the board of Coventry City Football Club Limited representing the major shareholder."

Mr Fisher added: "This move of directors is simply for administrative efficiency.

"The board of the football club should include a representative of the owner and the deputy chairman as an independent director should be on the holdings board."

The plot thickens! I think it was Colonel Fisher in the boardroom with candlestick....sorry Golden Share.

Ripbuster · May 23, 2013

I'm gonna be doing Columbo where he sums it up at the end......

DaleM · May 23, 2013

Ripbuster said:
Surely the debenture submitted on or around the 22nd March 2012 was their security for when this moment came...I beleive this was/is a planned route for going forward from then....Surely they wouldn't bluff? there are some clever people working for this lot.

Debenture March 2012

Stopped paying rent April 2012?

This is exactly the underhand tactics that will get us deducted points next season. The league will probably take a very dim view of this and other tactics SISU are employing. That is if they are still the owners. Which I bloody hope not

Ripbuster · May 24, 2013

Snippet from a search on Modernaccountant.co.uk

Aug 18, 2012 – The club had been split in two. The first entity is Coventry City Holdings Ltd (CCH) - which houses the managers, players and staff. Coventry City Football Club .........:thinking about:

So where is the CCFC football trade? (2 Viewers)

CCFC Finance Director

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

New Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

New Member

CCFC Finance Director

New Member

CCFC Finance Director

New Member

CCFC Finance Director

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency