Well Worth the read (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Sub
- Start date
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
A good read. And looking at the weight-loss advert at the bottom, that's surely Andy Thorn in the 'before' profile?
Skybluesquirrel
New Member
Cheers Sub! Much appreciated just posting a link.
Is the weight loss thing at the bottom of the blog - if so some bastards selling advertising space without even asking.
Is the weight loss thing at the bottom of the blog - if so some bastards selling advertising space without even asking.
Let me add, FL are not considering our case as a third party ownership of players. Simply because Limited and Holdings are owned by the same owner.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
The point is I think that several of these errors went unnoticed by the FA/FL. As did ours.
You can claim that ours is different but the League have admitted it was an error same as many of those examples yet those clubs still got punished.
Personally I don't care about the League punishing us as much as I do about the Admin process getting rerun. Though the Leagues admission is a bit useless without dates.
But are any of the cases similar to ours?
West Ham / Thevez was a clear case of third party ownership.
But in any case - the article clearly show that FL have a history of making glaring errors.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Well technically it is third party ownership, unless you get into "the boards discretion" which is what makes this whole thing a farce. It's irrelevant what's happened at other clubs as all it how's is there is no reliable outcome.
As I say the FL can and do do what they want. They should be replaced and our case is another straw on that camel, but I think they won't be of any help in our case.
Johnnythespider
Well-Known Member
The point is they new about this in march but never bothered telling anybody until last week. The whole thing was a stitch up, why will people not just admit it.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I think your answe might be in that 12 page legal document on Greg Clarke' desk.
Now THAT is a document Id like to see leaked!
Johnnythespider
Well-Known Member
Me too shmmeee, the truth of it all, now there's a novel idea.
Skybluesquirrel
New Member
Who fills out the original forms/contracts. The clubs.
Who completes the administration side of the loans/sales of clubs. The Football League.
When a club fucks up, the league make them pay. With points deductions and fines. Except with Sisu, the league issues an APOLOGY and writes to the sports minister!
You have to admit that is quite unique - hence the other examples given. It was the city that had to have made the first error on the form.
I do believe that's quite unique and it makes me think we're missing a piece of information. Was it actually ccfc that made the first mistake?
Don't you think the FL would have been all over the club if ccfc had made the initial mistake? Or do you think some sort of corruption have taken place?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't be surprised if it links back to transfer betting under Richardson.
The real question here is: is it legal now? Can any club do it? If not surely all assets should be reregistered in the right company.
If so and it's just a case of assets straddling related companies, surely Holdings should be treated as Ltd and ACL can go after them for the lease.
Skybluesquirrel
New Member
It would be good to see what, if anything, is missing. The FL have audited the other 71 clubs. That must also mean they have audited CCFC. They know and have known for some time what 'errors' have occurred and who committed them.
I wouldn't be surprised if it stretches back a number of years. If that is the case, how come they allowed registrations across two separate enities.
One piece of information we are missing is the exact description of what error(s) was made and who made the error(s).
You could see the 'express audit' of the other 77 clubs as an indication the error was made internally at FL and they did the audit to make sure it wasn't repeated elsewhere.
When it comes to the point of allowing registrations across two different companies, I think the rule is aimed at preventing third party ownership of players. As Limited and Holdings are owned by the same company in the SBS&L group it is fair to say the players are owned by the same company who own the right to play in the league. So there's no case of third party ownership.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
If they're not a third party then surely their assets should be treated as such. The point for me is the FL admit its not as simple as all players in Holdings (at least I think that's what it said). Surely both companies should've gone into admin?
Or is it a case that all players were in Holdings?
I want to know whether when Sisu took over, and especially since mid 2011 when Fisher joined, were all players in Holdings or were there a mix and they've all been moved there over the last few years.
Skybluesquirrel
New Member
Why would the FL administrator even think to change the details on the documents. Why would they even consider that the registration should go to a different party to that on the form.
Express audit? They gave had 5 months to do it. It may well be a quick process as its so straight forward. Check the company names and numbers. All the same? Next!
Third party ownership rules may have been set up to prevent different types of ownership to that at CCFC. However,the way the rules are written means it looks like we fall foul of their regulations. Two separate companies means its third party involvement. Unintended consequence maybe, but still against their statutes.
It shows how poorly thought through and written their regs are. A contract with BT is more precise than the stuff the FL produce.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Would be nice if whoever the mysterious, probably not at all permatanned "deep throat" who is doing the Bradley Manning part for Covileaks leaked all the boardroom minutes from when Sisu took over.
Must have access to them all surely? Whoever this masked man is.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
And contracts and liabilities? Otherwise, it simply looks like accruing debt and unwanted contracts with one entity, and moving assets to another to the detriment of others
The situation may have dire consequences for players registered with Ltd. What happens if the contracts end with liquidation. Can't see the PFA being happy.
The FL rules are to stop any third party ownership. I believe it's irrelevant whether it's another group company. 3rd party ownership is always for a reason, I'm fairly sure SISU know why different players are registered to different companies.
The FL rules are to stop any third party ownership. I believe it's irrelevant whether it's another group company. 3rd party ownership is always for a reason, I'm fairly sure SISU know why different players are registered to different companies.
Skybluesquirrel
New Member
The Administrator declared that all contracts are now in Holdings. I think Clarke may have said more recently that they have all now been transferred to Otium.