The Future of CCFC (1 Viewer)

wafw1971

New Member
I am really concerned that Sisu will still be the owners of CCFC come August.

I have been reading the statement again from last night and something that has me concerned is this

'Also, Holdings believe they have a beneficial ownership of the Share given the level of investment they have made and the fact the players contracts are in their name, together with many other important elements.

This has seemingly been endorsed by the Football League who have completed all current player registrations in the name of Holdings'

This is what the definition of 'beneficial ownership' from HMRC website

IHTM04441 – Legal background: the concept of beneficial ownership (England, Wales & Northern Ireland)

The concept of beneficial ownership, as distinguished from strict legal ownership is fundamental in English law and its origins lie in medieval times, when an injured party could only obtain redress if their complaint came within the scope of an existing writ. Such writs were often very limited and inflexible and did not always provide a remedy. In such cases petitions could be addressed to the Chancellor, complaining that the particular circumstances fell outside of the ordinary mechanism, and another way was sought. The Chancellor would then attempt to give (or withhold) relief to the petitioner according to his own sense of right or wrong. These decisions eventually developed into a body of law known as equity, distinct from the existing common law.

From this arose the distinction between equitable and legal ownership, where equity would allow the use and benefit of property, usually land, to be held separately from the legal ownership. In those times for instance, it might be that land was given to A on his undertaking to hold it for the use and benefit of B, whilst B was, say, away on a crusade. The common law did not recognise any relationship between A & B and thus gave B no protection. In these circumstances the Chancellor would interfere to compel A to hold the land for the exclusive use of B. Whilst he could not say that B was the owner, A was, all the benefit of the land was given to B, with A simply remaining the owner of the legal title.

The inheritance tax charge is concerned with the property to which a person is beneficially entitled. In English law, this includes property which a person owns either legally or beneficially. In Scots law, it is only property that a person owns legally.

Can someone explain what that means in plain English please

And can someone explain to me if "CCFC Holdings" own the intellectual properties of Coventry City FC, CCFC, The Sky Blues etc and own Ryton, all the Players, all the Staff, Kits, Balls etc how is the new owner of CCFC Ltd supposed to operate.
 

CJ_covblaze

Well-Known Member
The training ground and trademarks are on the debenture owned by Arvo along with all the office equipment ect.
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
It's all very muddy, but am I right in thinking that the club have to have the golden share in order to play in the football league?

If some buyer therefore bought Ltd only, who would then own the golden share, doesn't that mean that the Sisu led Holdings Sky Blues can't play in the league without it? And at the same time that a new owner wouldn't have any players or contracts, as they would be with Holdings?

Could we possibly find ourselves at a complete impasse here?

If someone buys Ltd. and a share in the Ricoh then surely an agreement has to be made doesn't it, otherwise we may not be able to play this season.
 

wafw1971

New Member
That's my concern to Otis, Limited could have a Football Club without a football team and Holdings could have football team without a club, which could lead to a similar scenario as Rangers where players could leave and go elsewhere or renegotiate there contracts etc. Or worse still Holdings transfers all players to Ltd for a fee for say around 40 million.

:facepalm:
 

coop

Well-Known Member
Couldn't the one with the share just buy a whole new team as he has the right play in the league
 

Sky Blues

Active Member
Otis, as I understand it the administrator has suggested Holdings might be awarded the share because, we are told, they have been paying for the players and other important elements, so a law court could yet award it to Holdings (this theory does ignore the fact that you also need a ground under league rules and all parties accept that Ltd had responsibility for that.- albeit without paying the rent). How this could play out under the law of the land is what WAFW is asking about.

Now, if Holdings don't win legal custody of the share they have no competition to play in and I imagine the League would call on Holdings to transfer the players contracts into Ltd (where the registrations would have remained if Ltd has the share). I couldn't even begin to speculate whether transfer fees would be involved. Alternative, Ltd could terminate the registrations of some/all players and return them to the League so the players could find new clubs. Again we get the law of the land (in this case employment law etc) rubbing up against league regulations and the potential for more legal fights. And Ltd would still need players to start the season so they may want to keep a good number. Or the players might make a bid for freedom a la Rangers Newco.

In summary, like most people, I don't have the foggiest, but it seems to be an omnishambles that could test the laws of England and the the Football League
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
That's my concern to Otis, Limited could have a Football Club without a football team and Holdings could have football team without a club, which could lead to a similar scenario as Rangers where players could leave and go elsewhere or renegotiate there contracts etc. Or worse still Holdings transfers all players to Ltd for a fee for say around 40 million.

:facepalm:

Well that's what I'm thinking. They allow someone to buy Ltd. and with it the golden share, but then ask for a huge fee to transfer the rest of the club to the new owner.
 

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
That's my concern to Otis, Limited could have a Football Club without a football team and Holdings could have football team without a club, which could lead to a similar scenario as Rangers where players could leave and go elsewhere or renegotiate there contracts etc. Or worse still Holdings transfers all players to Ltd for a fee for say around 40 million.

:facepalm:

Wonder what power the FL could exert there though? There is a transfer embargo on . Maybe they could prevent the players being sold to anyone other than the newly owned CCFC Ltd?
 

diggerdaley

New Member
Do we really need any of last seasons players,let Holdings keep them & we sign some real Championship quality players , get a new manager & start again:thinking about:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top