With CCFC being named as a complainant in the JR2, could it be a risk free roll of the dice from SISU. If SISU win they get the money from the council. If they lose then CCFC will have to pay the costs but they can just liquidate the club not having to pay a penny. The council won't get anything and SISU disappear sticking their middle finger up at every Coventry tax payer.
When you think about it, it was ccfc that had the option for the higgs share not sisu, so I imagine they it has to come through the club. Hopefully it will be no win no fee arrangement so it doesn't cost the club.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
.
Usually for a solicitor to offer a no win, no fee deal, they'd want to judge the chance of success at 60%+.
Given SISU's track record in court cases, that might be a tricky hurdle to leap.
Even if they got that kind of deal, they'd still be on the hook for the other side's costs if they lost (again).
Usually for a solicitor to offer a no win, no fee deal, they'd want to judge the chance of success at 60%+.
Given SISU's track record in court cases, that might be a tricky hurdle to leap.
Even if they got that kind of deal, they'd still be on the hook for the other side's costs if they lost (again).
That's a good point but who has evoked JR2. Is it Coventry City FC or is it SISU. Have CCFC really been named as complainants for this. We keep being told that the club are independantly ran from SISU - even though we know they are bed fellows - If it's CCFC that are making the claim then I fear you could be right in your suspicions but.......
I think I'll go and have a lie down.....:emoji_disappointed:
I don't really understand corporate law but how could anyone liquidate a business if there is someone wiling to take over. (assuming there would be, based on recent speculation and comments from interested parties). Presumably in that situation they would have to go into administration first, liquidation would follow if the company cannot be saved.
Sorry was going to bed but had to come back on this I hear they have not given any money to CCC for costs from the JR 1 added to speculation on here tonight seems as though there not paying any debts did the stewards get paid today .If I were the old bill I would have someone round there a bit sharpish
I fear death by drowning and being buried alive, but each and every to their own I suppose.
I suspect the husk of an asset stripped non-league club will be sold to highest bidder in about 4 years time. I do not believe the vendors will have any regard to the character of the new owner.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
A couple of thoughts. If this is true (CCFC is taking the action) then I wouldn't put it past SISU to try such a dirty trick - but of course it's all speculation (and it does seem unlikely - see notes below).
- They will have to accelerate selling remaining assets before the case, otherwise the assets would be split upon liquidation between creditors which would include CCC. If I understand the law correctly, at this point SISU are the only major creditors and hence no issue to sell down. However, this doesn't reconcile with refusing bids in the transfer window - making it unlikely to be the plan.
- And by selling Ryton and any player that could fetch a few quid now before CCC is owed anything, they neatly avoid the directors being accused of not acting in the best interests of creditors (I think). If they were accused of that then the creditors could go after the directors personally. It's a big risk for SISU and another argument against this being the plan.
- If they did start such a fire sale they run the risk of the FA finally growing a pair and stepping in. But maybe they don't believe this would ever happen due to the threat of more litigation, this time against the FA.
- The CCFC brand could be considered an asset which could be sold as part of the liquidation. However I think we'd have to apply to start from the very bottom of the pyramid? Not that SISU would give a fig about that.
But on the positive side, we'd finally, at the end of all of it, have the club name back.
- They will have to accelerate selling remaining assets before the case, otherwise the assets would be split upon liquidation between creditors which would include CCC. If I understand the law correctly, at this point SISU are the only major creditors and hence no issue to sell down. However, this doesn't reconcile with refusing bids in the transfer window - making it unlikely to be the plan.
- And by selling Ryton and any player that could fetch a few quid now before CCC is owed anything, they neatly avoid the directors being accused of not acting in the best interests of creditors (I think). If they were accused of that then the creditors could go after the directors personally. It's a big risk for SISU and another argument against this being the plan.
- If they did start such a fire sale they run the risk of the FA finally growing a pair and stepping in. But maybe they don't believe this would ever happen due to the threat of more litigation, this time against the FA.
- The CCFC brand could be considered an asset which could be sold as part of the liquidation. However I think we'd have to apply to start from the very bottom of the pyramid? Not that SISU would give a fig about that.
But on the positive side, we'd finally, at the end of all of it, have the club name back.
The FA & EFL are shit scared of litigation, they won't do anything.
Is it possible that the players we have kept are in fact already "sold"? That agreements are in place for the summer?
These players are now unsettled and that is why they are nowhere near the first team this week?
Stevenson, Harries, Willis (suspended I know so cannot be sure) even Lameiras?
If not the club is pretty sure they can get small fees for them when they need the cash later?
All questions I know but the fact that they are still here is not a sign that we are not witnessing a fire sale IMO.
These players are now unsettled and that is why they are nowhere near the first team this week?
Stevenson, Harries, Willis (suspended I know so cannot be sure) even Lameiras?
If not the club is pretty sure they can get small fees for them when they need the cash later?
All questions I know but the fact that they are still here is not a sign that we are not witnessing a fire sale IMO.
I think inside the club (manager, chairman, board, staff) they already know and accept that we are down and are already looking to next season.
Wouldn't surprise me at all if players already know they are going in the summer.
Even though many respected intelligent posters on here dismiss the prospect of liquidation
Out of hand, with lines like' why would they, how could they, makes no sense etc.
Unfortunately I still see it as the most likely outcome.
Out of hand, with lines like' why would they, how could they, makes no sense etc.
Unfortunately I still see it as the most likely outcome.
So do you think SISU were conned by Richardson et al?
Look SISU have had nearly 10 years to sort this mess out, they have only made things worse.
In my opinion they are far worse owners than the previous lot and I don't hold Richardson & Co. in anything but contempt.
Completely agree, liquidation (post JR2 now) seems the most likely exit. Though BHSBs rumours last night are a chink of light.
Nah can't see it.
Liquidation would realise the losses on their balance sheet, so why wouldn't they sell to someone for a million or two to reduce that dent
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
Agree it is unlikely. But if they could get more by selling everything and avoiding paying, for example, CCC legal costs then I wouldn't put it past them.
I would accept that now if it meant they were finally gone. Anything to get rid of them, even starting at level 9 like Wimbledon.
Could that be a reason for not selling players in January, so any funds remain un-utilised by the Club?
Still can't see how liquidation of CCFC deprives CCC of awarded expenses.
Surely the SISU entities would still be liable?
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
As a limited company, the debts incurred are the responsibility of that company alone (that is where the title limited comes from). However on liquidation if the creditors can prove that the directors acted in a way to deliberately defraud creditors then they can be held personally liable. However there is no way that a shareholder (such as the myriad of off-shore companies that make up our ownership) can be held responsible to my knowledge.
Venus is prime patsy candidate number one after all he admitted on camera he only does Football! If I were him I'd resign my Directorship tout suite.