They think its all over - it is now! (1 Viewer)

[grego_gee]

Appleton says,
"Should Holdings maintain their claim to a beneficial ownership of the Share, ultimately only the Court can overturn that."

So far, the only confirmed bidder for the club is American tycoon Preston Haskell IV but his consortium's deal depends on acquiring this Golden Share.


Translating,
If Holdings maintain their claim to a beneficial ownership of the Share, only the Court can overturn that. (but why would they?)
If American tycoon Preston Haskell IV or anyone else wants this Golden Share they will have to pay Holdings enough for them to want to release it!

imp:

 

---

[AFCCOVENTRY]

But holdings never had the share so why would they need paying off to release the share?

The football league will decide who gets the share

 

[TheRoyalScam]

Where does Appleton say this: "So far, the only confirmed bidder for the club is American tycoon Preston Haskell IV but his consortium's deal depends on acquiring this Golden Share."???

 

[wingy]

Appleton says,
"Should Holdings maintain their claim to a beneficial ownership of the Share, ultimately only the Court can overturn that."

"So far, the only confirmed bidder for the club is American tycoon Preston Haskell IV but his consortium's deal depends on acquiring this Golden Share."


Translating,
If Holdings maintain their claim to a beneficial ownership of the Share, only the Court can overturn that. (but why would they?)
If American tycoon Preston Haskell IV or anyone else wants this Golden Share they will have to pay Holdings enough for them to want to release it!

imp:

They have to prove beneficial ownership first Surely Greggo??

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Appleton says,
"Should Holdings maintain their claim to a beneficial ownership of the Share, ultimately only the Court can overturn that."

"So far, the only confirmed bidder for the club is American tycoon Preston Haskell IV but his consortium's deal depends on acquiring this Golden Share."


Translating,
If Holdings maintain their claim to a beneficial ownership of the Share, only the Court can overturn that. (but why would they?)
If American tycoon Preston Haskell IV or anyone else wants this Golden Share they will have to pay Holdings enough for them to want to release it!

imp:

The share itself is not saleable, nor transferable by anyone except the FL is my understanding of the FL stance. The only stumbling block is the potential legal stance on this "beneficial" thing. So I think the naming rights are what needs to be bought - which if the new CCFC Ltd owner obviously would think of as big value. That's what they'd be buying.

 

[grego_gee]

Its not what I say its what Appleton says

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22664367?

imp:

 

[James Smith]

Its not what I say its what Appleton says

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22664367?

imp:

The only bits of that text that are from the Administrators report are in quotation marks, that last bit isn't and is not part of the report.

In his statement, Appleton attempted to clear up the confusion.
"I now believe the registration of the Golden Share lies with Coventry City FC Limited," he said.
"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.
"Should Holdings maintain their claim to a beneficial ownership of the Share, ultimately only the Court can overturn that."
So far, the only confirmed bidder for the club is American tycoon Preston Haskell IV but his consortium's deal depends on acquiring this Golden Share.

Only the bolded bits are taken from the report, the underlined bits are the Journalists words;

 

[Otis]

They have to prove beneficial ownership first Surely Greggo??

As Wingy says, they have to prove beneficial ownership. You can't just take their claim to it as the gospel truth.

 

[bigfatronssba]

I claim beneficial ownership. Its mine unless you want to challenge me to a lengthy court case.

Now that I am in control my first act is to declare that CCFC shall not be moving to Walsall.

 

[wingy]

The only bits of that text that are from the Administrators report are in quotation marks, that last bit isn't and is not part of the report.

Only the bolded bits are taken from the report, the underlined bits are the Journalists words;

It does make you worry about that Third party ownership element .

How will the league deal on that,is it their error ? Were they fooled ,Incompitent? so brush it aside?

 

[grego_gee]

They have to prove beneficial ownership first Surely Greggo??

Not according to the words used by Appleton and I am sure he chooses his words very, very carefully!
He seems to be saying, if they maintain their claim on it, only a court could release it. But his suggestion of "IF" suggests they might release it - for the right price!

imp:

 

[SkyBlueBlood]

I claim beneficial ownership. Its mine unless you want to challenge me to a lengthy court case.

Now that I am in control my first act is to declare that CCFC shall not be moving to Walsall.

Fantastic start to the new era

 

[Paxman II]

Arrh I see some are beginning to see the light....

Not as straight forward as some on here keep expressing is it?

If we had to put a percentage on where the chances of ownership are for next season at the moment then I'd say:

SISU 60% Haskell 30% Rest 10%

 

[cloughie]

we know its not going to be straight forward , hardly about seeing the light yet g always seems to be living in hope that sisu will retain control

 

[grego_gee]

My comments were not expressing any preference for either party.
I was making comment on the words used by Appleton.
Take it as my opinion if you like but I think its pretty clear what those words mean.

imp: