The Golden Share...lets try some clarification of the issues at stake: (1 Viewer)

[Paxman II]

The so called 'golden Share' currently sits with the football club. It has not been handed back to the football league or relinquished in any way what so ever. It's not a trophy you hand back. If the FL had it then we would not behaving any doubt or problem would we? They would simply hand it back out again.They can’t. The Football Club have claim to it and still hold it.

The only factor at the moment which needs to be determined is exactly which'part' of the football club actually has the golden share or the beneficialrights to it, as yet to be proven.

Is it CCFC Ltd (in admin) or is it with CCFC(Holdings) Ltd.

The administrator, the FL and others are finding the task rather difficultfor some reason or other, which suggest lots of ambiguity and it may bedetermined by a preponderance of evidence presented by all sides in court, inthe coming week or so....


If the FL league knew then we wouldn't all be waiting around with baited breath would we? Joe Elliott and co hope it's proven to be with CCFC Ltd sothey then have a clear run at buying that entities interest and in the process,acquire the golden share which is tantamount to having the football club andthe entity that would be authorised to field a team in the league.

Of course SISU may also bid for the same entity and simply regain the theentity and the golden share.

If it is proven to be with CCFC (Holdings) Ltd or at least substantiated that it has the beneficial right to it, then SISU need do nothing and simplycarry on anyway.

This all only goes to prove the FL have not been very careful about recording and keeping track of the golden share of any football club which inturn gets them into this terrible mess. There will be some rule changes afoot I don't doubt after all this.

The 10 point deduction was because a part of the football club went into admin and be it Ltd or Holdings they are seen (and rightly so) as one ofthe same, in so much as being responsible for the football club affairs and inextricably linked.

You could argue under that ruling that the same could be said about the golden share as being inextricably linked? But lets not go there as that has not been challenged that I know of, least we don't know if that is one of SISU's complaints? If it was, then onthat basis surely they still are the beneficial owners of the golden share asthe football club continues to operate as CCFC (Holdings) Ltd?

CCFC Ltd was merely the vehicle that held the lease at the Ricoh. They inturn let CCFC (Holdings) Ltd use it.

One question might be is the golden share transferable? Can it be transferred legally in an 'intercompany' manner? Such as Ltd to Holdings? It may be OK to do so especially if the FL have ruled the 10 point deduction is because they recognise the two entities (Holdings and Ltd) are as one? To suggest otherwise now makes the FL look a little silly.

The clock is ticking for a conclusion. Bidders are awaiting the outcome. The fixtures need to be finalised. ACL want to know if they have an empty stadium without a tenant or not? SISU are pressing ahead with ground share schemes withother clubs that must be time sensitive too.

A decision must be reached whether through the courts or not and the legal rumblings will continue for a long time afterwards I'm sure.

 

---

[wingy]

This involves a hell of a lot of assumptions and a certain leap Paxman .I would'nt say I've heard or read anything that determines these views to be any more accurate than the opposite view of it indeed residing with the league.

You're absolutelly right though that it will be resolved in front of a Judge.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

When is the next court date?

 

[SkyblueBazza]

This involves a hell of a lot of assumptions and a certain leap Paxman .I would'nt say I've heard or read anything that determines these views to be any more accurate than the opposite view of it indeed residing with the league.

You're absolutelly right though that it will be resolved in front of a Judge.

Last sentence is also an assumption - someone might come along & offer an irresistible amount for the stadium & the club, leaving nobody wanting to lay claim to the GS.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Beneficial rights? Seems to me like a concept SISU are trying to establish in law. When I google it all I get is stuff about the rights of divorcing married couples to a property they jointly occupied no matter which of their names it was held in.

Are there any lawyers or solicitors out there who can say that this is an established principle in case law that can be applied to the assets owned by a limited company.

 

[Paxman II]

I don't see any of that as 'assumptions'. They are the arguments that are weighing the issues at the moment.
The problem many have is that they want to continue actually making assumptions and refuse to hear the facts as we know them.

 

[wingy]

Last sentence is also an assumption - someone might come along & offer an irresistible amount for the stadium & the club, leaving nobody wanting to lay claim to the GS.

This is also true ,however unless i win the Euromillions tomorrow night .:thinking about:

 

[Johnnythespider]

I don't see any of that as 'assumptions'. They are the arguments that are weighing the issues at the moment.
The problem many have is that they want to continue actually making assumptions and refuse to hear the facts as we know them.[/QUOTE

Haven't both the league and f.a said it's in ltd, and isn't that why there is confusion, also your point about fixtures needing to be finalised, hasn't Fisher already said that we won't be playing at the ricoh next season and they will push ahead with there plans to groundshare and build a new ground, surely they have finalised where this will be, they have been on about it since the last 3 games of the season and therefore should be asle to inform the league where we will be playing, and indeed us fans.

 

[Skybluesquirrel]

I don't understand why the FL have not made a clear and final statement.

Maybe they don't want to end up fighting (and funding) a very expensive court battle. If Sisu can produce a 1000 page introduction when challenging the council over ACL's mortgage, its fair to assume that the odd letter has been sent from Sisu's legal department by now.

Can the FL afford to fight it?

 

[Paxman II]

I don't see any of that as 'assumptions'. They are the arguments that are weighing the issues at the moment.
The problem many have is that they want to continue actually making assumptions and refuse to hear the facts as we know them.[/QUOTE

Haven't both the league and f.a said it's in ltd, and isn't that why there is confusion, also your point about fixtures needing to be finalised, hasn't Fisher already said that we won't be playing at the ricoh next season and they will push ahead with there plans to groundshare and build a new ground, surely they have finalised where this will be, they have been on about it since the last 3 games of the season and therefore should be asle to inform the league where we will be playing, and indeed us fans.

If the FL have said the golden share is in CCFC Ltd (in admin) then why are we all still waiting around looking for the next move?

The FL have said no such thing. The Golden Share has NOT been proven yet as to where it actually lies/did lie or who has the claim to it even as 'beneficial' owners of it.
THAT my friends IS why we have the current indecision.

 

[chiefdave]

golden shares are actual physical thing, i only know as the Pompey Supporters Trust tweeted about received theirs back from the FL. That means even the physical thing is lost, someone is refusing to hand it over or the FL hold it. I would say the FL hold it as in any other scenario surely they could just void the old one and give out a new one. Think the argument is more to do with claiming a right to it and my suspicion is SISU are threatening to take the FL to court if they give it to anyone else but thats not based on any actual evidence just my best guess.

I don't understand why the FL have not made a clear and final statement.

Maybe they don't want to end up fighting (and funding) a very expensive court battle. If Sisu can produce a 1000 page introduction when challenging the council over ACL's mortgage, its fair to assume that the odd letter has been sent from Sisu's legal department by now.

Can the FL afford to fight it?

I think this is exactly the issue, the FL have defended how poor the fit & proper test is in the past by saying they couldn't afford it if they denied someone who then took them to court. If that's the case then do they really want to take on someone with the reputation of SISU. I would be very surprised if SISu don't end up the owners when we come out of admin with the way things stand at the moment, it's the easiest outcome for the FL and they're never really shown themselves to be up for a fight.

 

[blueflint]

if holdings an ltd are inextricably linked then both are deemed to be in administration god help us fans

 

[Paxman II]

It's a good point chief dave.
The problem is SISU I don't think are making empty threats any more regarding another stadium either.
They were manoeuvred into this position somewhat by ACL's actions and they have come out fighting. ACL will lose tis battle I fear and if the golden share is hung onto by SISU then I don't think they will contemplate negotiating with ACL for a return to the Ricoh.

Our best hope for a brighter future lies with a definitive statement supporting the view that the share is indeed with CCFC Ltd (in admin) so our uncle Joe can fire up the troops with Haskell's money and somehow grab the winning ticket.
That though is hoping on hope. Elliott has repeatedly done this and had the hopes of fans up only to fail. SISU may buy back Ltd just as much as Haskell.

The real hope would be what I suggested a few days back. Haskell approaches SISU and cuts a cheque for their departure. Just how much would they go for? £30m is more realistic of SISU's outlays so far so why won't they do that? Because Haskell and Joe are trying to get it cheap for next to nothing from the administrator that's why. Unless Haskell is willing to commit serious money and have a plan for sustainability which must include the stadium ownership in some form at least then we could be better off with the devil we know believe it or not.

A lot of lawyers must be pouring over this Golden Share issue from all parties concerned with the FL really in a tight corner. If only they would make a statement and a determination we would have a quick resolution.

 

[dongonzalos]

if holdings an ltd are inextricably linked then both are deemed to be in administration god help us fans

If that is correct god will have helped us

 

[Paxman II]

No - inextricably linked for the purpose of defining the operation of the many parts of a football club is one thing for the FL to say each company had a hand in the clubs operations and so gets a 10 point deduction and another to suggest an entirely different company, not in debt should therefore automatically also be placed in admin. That's fantasy.

 

[cloughie]

The so called 'golden Share' currently sits with the football club. It has not been handed back to the football league or relinquished in any way what so ever. It's not a trophy you hand back. If the FL had it then we would not behaving any doubt or problem would we? They would simply hand it back out again.They can’t. The Football Club have claim to it and still hold it.

The only factor at the moment which needs to be determined is exactly which'part' of the football club actually has the golden share or the beneficialrights to it, as yet to be proven.

Is it CCFC Ltd (in admin) or is it with CCFC(Holdings) Ltd.

The administrator, the FL and others are finding the task rather difficultfor some reason or other, which suggest lots of ambiguity and it may bedetermined by a preponderance of evidence presented by all sides in court, inthe coming week or so....


If the FL league knew then we wouldn't all be waiting around with baited breath would we? Joe Elliott and co hope it's proven to be with CCFC Ltd sothey then have a clear run at buying that entities interest and in the process,acquire the golden share which is tantamount to having the football club andthe entity that would be authorised to field a team in the league.

Of course SISU may also bid for the same entity and simply regain the theentity and the golden share.

If it is proven to be with CCFC (Holdings) Ltd or at least substantiated that it has the beneficial right to it, then SISU need do nothing and simplycarry on anyway.

This all only goes to prove the FL have not been very careful about recording and keeping track of the golden share of any football club which inturn gets them into this terrible mess. There will be some rule changes afoot I don't doubt after all this.

The 10 point deduction was because a part of the football club went into admin and be it Ltd or Holdings they are seen (and rightly so) as one ofthe same, in so much as being responsible for the football club affairs and inextricably linked.

You could argue under that ruling that the same could be said about the golden share as being inextricably linked? But lets not go there as that has not been challenged that I know of, least we don't know if that is one of SISU's complaints? If it was, then onthat basis surely they still are the beneficial owners of the golden share asthe football club continues to operate as CCFC (Holdings) Ltd?

CCFC Ltd was merely the vehicle that held the lease at the Ricoh. They inturn let CCFC (Holdings) Ltd use it.

One question might be is the golden share transferable? Can it be transferred legally in an 'intercompany' manner? Such as Ltd to Holdings? It may be OK to do so especially if the FL have ruled the 10 point deduction is because they recognise the two entities (Holdings and Ltd) are as one? To suggest otherwise now makes the FL look a little silly.

The clock is ticking for a conclusion. Bidders are awaiting the outcome. The fixtures need to be finalised. ACL want to know if they have an empty stadium without a tenant or not? SISU are pressing ahead with ground share schemes withother clubs that must be time sensitive too.

A decision must be reached whether through the courts or not and the legal rumblings will continue for a long time afterwards I'm sure.

The first line finishes anything else you say

The GS reverts back to the FL on any club entering admin

It has no monetary value as established by a court FL v HMRC

It is at the discretion of the FL who they allocate the GS to on the club coming out of admin

 

[Tad]

Where's Charlie Bucket when you need him.

 

[Noggin]

The real hope would be what I suggested a few days back. Haskell approaches SISU and cuts a cheque for their departure. Just how much would they go for? £30m is more realistic of SISU's outlays so far so why won't they do that? Because Haskell and Joe are trying to get it cheap for next to nothing from the administrator that's why. Unless Haskell is willing to commit serious money and have a plan for sustainability which must include the stadium ownership in some form at least then we could be better off with the devil we know believe it or not.

I'm sure sisu would happily leave for 30m but the club isn't worth anything like that, sisus outlays are completely irrelevant to the value of the football club. Thats more than SISU paid for the club when it was a championship club, with somewhere to play, with a team and other assets like prozone.

Did portsmouth trust just pay 3 million for portsmouth + a stadium?

We are not better off with SISU, they do not have a plan for sustainability, nothing they are doing will lead to a financial stable club. They are about to decimate the income, then spend a fortune on a new ground, all the while running up more interest payments and management costs to themselves.

 

[chiefdave]

It's a good point chief dave.
The problem is SISU I don't think are making empty threats any more regarding another stadium either.
They were manoeuvred into this position somewhat by ACL's actions and they have come out fighting. ACL will lose tis battle I fear and if the golden share is hung onto by SISU then I don't think they will contemplate negotiating with ACL for a return to the Ricoh.

I'm starting to believe the same thing. On the one hand it does seem like a giant game of chicken between ACL and SISU that gets more out of hand by the day. I've always thought that SISU would eventually give up as I can't see any reason for them wanting to stay but increasingly I'm starting to feel they are determined to hang on. Can't work out why they want to hang on but I'm starting to think they will follow through with their threat to move us elsewhere. We may find out very soon as surely at some point the FL has to rule on who is running the club and will want details from them of where we will be playing next season.

 

[Bluegloucester]

It's a good point chief dave.
The problem is SISU I don't think are making empty threats any more regarding another stadium either.
They were manoeuvred into this position somewhat by ACL's actions and they have come out fighting. ACL will lose tis battle I fear and if the golden share is hung onto by SISU then I don't think they will contemplate negotiating with ACL for a return to the Ricoh.

Our best hope for a brighter future lies with a definitive statement supporting the view that the share is indeed with CCFC Ltd (in admin) so our uncle Joe can fire up the troops with Haskell's money and somehow grab the winning ticket.
That though is hoping on hope. Elliott has repeatedly done this and had the hopes of fans up only to fail. SISU may buy back Ltd just as much as Haskell.

The real hope would be what I suggested a few days back. Haskell approaches SISU and cuts a cheque for their departure. Just how much would they go for? £30m is more realistic of SISU's outlays so far so why won't they do that? Because Haskell and Joe are trying to get it cheap for next to nothing from the administrator that's why. Unless Haskell is willing to commit serious money and have a plan for sustainability which must include the stadium ownership in some form at least then we could be better off with the devil we know believe it or not.

A lot of lawyers must be pouring over this Golden Share issue from all parties concerned with the FL really in a tight corner. If only they would make a statement and a determination we would have a quick resolution.

Why would a purchaser give Sisu £30m? The club is not worth anything near that.

 

[wingy]

Why would a purchaser give Sisu £30m? The club is not worth anything near that.

Port Vale same Division ..............Own Ground £1.25M.:thinking about:

Bought by an alleged Cov Fan......Managed by one of our former Heroes............Wonder who has the strongest chance of progress next season.

 

[Paxman II]

Port Vale same Division ..............Own Ground £1.25M.:thinking about:

Bought by an alleged Cov Fan......Managed by one of our former Heroes............Wonder who has the strongest chance of progress next season.

Yes I understand what you say but Port Vale are not Coventry City are they and never will be? The franchise is worth something when you attach the possibility of getting the stadium or part of for relatively nothing and the prospect of the development land that Haskell is surely eying as the golden nugget? So in that context yes £30m would seem a bargain.
It can be said that SISU will move and build a stadium and have all the income streams because it makes sense for the future sustainability of the football club ling term and a huge sale price for such a 'star' franchise with it's own stadium? The Ricoh was £110m but a simplified 30k seater stadium on the expanding model that MK Dons have done is easily doable with the right backers and all for a mere £35m? Hmm I think ACl and the council are in serious trouble if you ask me.
I still think the best chance of Haskell is to approach SISU and offer them a way out at a price that's sensible if it proves they have the golden share.