I think that he has been sent to bed my his Mummy.
I'm just observing the fantastic wit from you and your fellow Council employees. It's true Comedy Gold. Seriously you could give Bobby Davro a run for his money in the comedy genius stakes.
I think that he has been sent to bed my his Mummy.
bloody hell whats the score now? sisu 7 -0 council?
give it up already,you lose everytime
people can hate sisu but fuck me they run rings around council.
just let um by the ricoh you fuckwits.
stikes me grendel has had one or two too many fizzy drinks...he i hyper, and obviously cannot sleep.
His amazing analytical mind cannot differentiate me from a totally different user!!
I'm just observing the fantastic wit from you and your fellow Council employees. It's true Comedy Gold. Seriously you could give Bobby Davro a run for his money in the comedy genius stakes.
Oh Grendal you have appropriately named yourself after a fictitious character to portray your fictitious arguments, deluding yourself that we tremble at your powerful use of words an insight! Yeah really zzzzzz
bloody hell whats the score now? sisu 7 -0 council?
give it up already,you lose everytime
people can hate sisu but fuck me they run rings around council.
just let um by the ricoh you fuckwits.
Us "Supporters" do not matter at all now. All this shit that is going on , and whatever "we" do or say , whether for or against the owners does not matter one iota . None of them give a fuck . Face it , SISU or CCC will tie whichever "loses" up in litigation for years .
CCFC is doomed.
I went to most games at home ,loved MK Dons last season etc etc. but now I am getting to the stage where I am not bothered anymore. Between all the Fuckers , and I blame Sisu mostly they have ripped the heart out of the team I have supported for 35 yrs.
Saturdays will never be the same again .
Us "Supporters" do not matter at all now. All this shit that is going on , and whatever "we" do or say , whether for or against the owners does not matter one iota . None of them give a fuck . Face it , SISU or CCC will tie whichever "loses" up in litigation for years .
CCFC is doomed.
I went to most games at home ,loved MK Dons last season etc etc. but now I am getting to the stage where I am not bothered anymore. Between all the Fuckers , and I blame Sisu mostly they have ripped the heart out of the team I have supported for 35 yrs.
Saturdays will never be the same again .
Was the MK Dons game you enjoyed at home?
You know you lost that bit of moral high ground when AFC brought large numbers don't you? Or should we boycott after their own fans have stopped?
You'll need to find another spot to look down on people for reasons that have nothing to do with the argument they're making.
As the club has consistently maintained, the players contracts have been registered by CCFC (Holdings) Ltd and registered by the Football League in the name of Holdings for over 10 years - way before Sisu took over the club.
Today's admission by the Football League confirms that.
Despite claims to the contrary, it should also come as no surprise to many of those who have been involved for many years at a senior level at the club and ACL - including former directors and a finance director - that this was the case.
To be clear, players have been contracted to CCFC (Holdings) Ltd and registered as such by the Football League since well before Sisu's takeover when the club was relegated from the Premier League.
The mistake if there was one, was not that the players’ contracts should have been registered in the name of CCFC Ltd, but that the Golden Share should have been registered in Holdings, which owned the beneficial interest in the club.
Surely the fa will know when they were changed and can go back through past player registrations?
I emailed them asking when the registrations to CCFC(Holdings) Ltd started? No doubt I'll be given an answer like "we can't disclose this information"...
The administration process should be re run with the player assets & a new administrator.
Just another thought the FL have said clearly that they made a mistake in registering players to CCFC H Ltd. That must say that such registrations broke the regulations because they were not in the member entity. Therefore CCFC are being told clearly that the contracts should never have been in CCFC H Ltd in the first place.
What should have happened is that all registrations/contracts in CCFC H should have been re - registered to CCFC ltd back dated to the time the contract was taken out. Instead what they have permitted is the re registration from CCFC H to Otium.
The administrator will argue that he didnt know what was in CCFC Ltd, that he offered for sale the rights to any assets in CCFC Ltd whatever they might be and that Otium won those rights so the effect is the same as re registration.
However without reliance on the FL mistake the administrator would have been able to list the player contracts for the bid process, If players and share in CCFC Ltd then so too is the trade (ie CCFC Ltd was not a non trading property subsidiary as it was described). In that case the bid offer papers were put together on the wrong basis. Not only that but there is also a requirement of saving the business for an administrator not just getting best deal for the creditors. A straight cash bid without a business plan is not in my opinion appropriate to the business that in reality existed. The bid process in my opinion was flawed and skewed to a particular outcome.
The share and its where abouts is key and now the FL has said categorically that they made mistakes in registering players to CCFC H means that there must be serious concerns about the whole process. It is not a matter of saying the players are in CCFC H , the regulator of the competition has said they should not have been. It is not a question of saying it has been this way for years, the regulator has said it should not have been. Relying on the contracts being in CCFC H is a false premise. Quite why contracts were registered in CCFC H in the first place or the purpose are different questions entirely. All evidence and the FL says the club were wrong to register contracts in that manner
They said they shouldn't have been but although not ideal isn't against their rules.
The League claims the errors did not breach its rules and regulations, claiming assets can straddle two companies - but it accepts it was not “ideal” and “should not have happened”.
Assets can straddle companies but player assets MUST be registered to the company owning the golden share.
And not one of the other 71 clubs did this... they all understand..
So why don't the FL give us another 15-20 point deduction for fielding illegally registered players?
Because they admitted it was their fault for not spotting it and that also the FA didn't spot it.
As the club has consistently maintained, the players contracts have been registered by CCFC (Holdings) Ltd and registered by the Football League in the name of Holdings for over 10 years - way before Sisu took over the club.
Today's admission by the Football League confirms that.
Despite claims to the contrary, it should also come as no surprise to many of those who have been involved for many years at a senior level at the club and ACL - including former directors and a finance director - that this was the case.
The reason given for refusing the CVA and penalising the club by a further 10 points was their stated aim to undertake an investigation into that which they already knew the answer.
To be clear, players have been contracted to CCFC (Holdings) Ltd and registered as such by the Football League since well before Sisu's takeover when the club was relegated from the Premier League.
The mistake if there was one, was not that the players’ contracts should have been registered in the name of CCFC Ltd, but that the Golden Share should have been registered in Holdings, which owned the beneficial interest in the club.
At least now, with this out in the open and with the club reconstituted, we can get on with the business of running the football club and giving our full support to Steven Pressley and the team.
We would now suggest the City Council and ACL drop their efforts to force a change of ownership of the club - conduct which is now subject to oral argument in the request for judicial review.
Why should ACL say who owns us? They're not interested in the club, they want the surrounding land regenerated which is why they prefer Heskell
I would imagine that ACL, CCC and all the sensible people in Cov want the land around the Arena regenerated. Take your self back 10 years to what was there at the time and compare it with the facilities we have now and the job creation.
Is it just me who gets sick to the back teeth of the football club's website being used for this propaganda?
The statement goes well beyond factual comment and into spurious broadcast.
Leave the website for football fare, please Fisher
bloody hell whats the score now? sisu 7 -0 council?
give it up already,you lose everytime
people can hate sisu but fuck me they run rings around council.
just cause there professional crooks , ok that's all right have the ground no problem,, are you on drugs or are you fisher !
just let um by the ricoh you fuckwits.
But it isn't the clubs job to deliver regeneration projects. (I can see the benefits though)
Yes it is. It became our responsibility when we entered into a joint venture with the Council. You may not like the deal that brought about the Ricoh, but the understanding was always there that regeneration was part of the project. After all CCC don't just prop up football clubs, something had to be in it for them. The Ricoh was built because it was a regeneration project, we simply wouldn't have got the funding otherwise.
I'll let you into a secret, we'll probably have the exact same deal at the Fisherbowl with another Council (one that we as Coventry citizens cannot hold to account). It's how stadia get built these days. In fact Fisher said as much at the Forums.
Name one football club that has embarked successfully on such a project when it had a break even measure of 22,000.
Are you interested in the club at all? Personally I think you are not.
Yes it is. It became our responsibility when we entered into a joint venture with the Council. You may not like the deal that brought about the Ricoh, but the understanding was always there that regeneration was part of the project. After all CCC don't just prop up football clubs, something had to be in it for them. The Ricoh was built because it was a regeneration project, we simply wouldn't have got the funding otherwise.
I'll let you into a secret, we'll probably have the exact same deal at the Fisherbowl with another Council (one that we as Coventry citizens cannot hold to account). It's how stadia get built these days. In fact Fisher said as much at the Forums.
Edit: some people have said "why can't we just buy the football bit" the whole point Sisu have been making is that the club can't survive on football related income. Same point the council made in the late 90s.
This whole plan isn't HR2, it's Ricoh 2: This Time It's Personal