Golden Share now with Football League (1 Viewer)

Forums New posts
C

CovFan

Well-Known Member
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/co...-coventry-city-s-golden-share-92746-33266038/

The High Court papers shine a light of the much-discussed mystery of the "golden share" – which enables Coventry City to play in the Football League.

The debate surrounds whether the share was in Coventry City Football Club Ltd before it went into administration under the ownership of administrator Paul Appleton – or whether it was with Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd, still owned by Sisu.

Takeover hopefuls want the Football League and Mr Appleton to conclude the share was in the company now in administration when he reports to court on his investigations by May 16.

They hope that would make a takeover easier, with the new owners taking ownership of the golden share and Football League backing – after any creditors are paid part or all of what the club owes them.



Football League documents appear to show the golden share was with CCFC Ltd, and the last filed accounts say that CCFC Ltd was principally for the club’s playing activities.

Holdings denies the share was in Ltd – and says it has claim to the golden share.

But its own High Court document states: "On the club’s return to the Football League in 2001, it appears that the club’s Football League golden share was transferred to CC Limited."

It then goes on to explain Holdings’ challenge to the evidence.

It states: "However, an entry was made in the Football League register of members on the page relating to CC Holdings.

"The Football League and CC Holdings conducted business on the mutual understanding that CC Holdings was the club for all regulatory compliance and trading and investment purposes.

"Players’ contracts and transfer agreements entered into by the club with its players and with other football clubs are in the name of CC Holdings, and the bank account registered by the club with FL Limited for payment of basic award is held in the CC Holdings."

The golden share is currently suspended. The League will at a future point decide which owner it wants to hand the share back to.

Ultimately the League’s decision, and that of the administrator, could be the subject of a legal challenge, resulting in the club’s problems rumbling on in the courts.
Click to expand...

According to this article, with it to be given back to the right entity when the FL have decided who that is.
 
Last edited:
ccfc92

ccfc92

Well-Known Member
This is good? so basically the fl will give it to pk4, or back to sisu if they are still here?
 
G

Godiva

Well-Known Member
ccfc92 said:
This is good? so basically the fl will give it to pk4, or back to sisu if they are still here?
Click to expand...

I think the Golden Share will be returned to the club - whatever company that is.
 
Nonleagueherewecome

Nonleagueherewecome

Well-Known Member
J

John_Silletts_Nose

Well-Known Member
This is the case being put by CCFC Holdings Ltd in their high court papers and does not necessarily reflect the sitation as defined by the Football League.

The Football League, we are told by thrd parties, has said that the share is held by CCFC Ltd and this is the first comment I have heard that it is "suspended".

It may be "suspended" and this is why the administrator is being coy on confirming his understanding regarding the golden share.
 
cloughie

cloughie

Well-Known Member
John_Silletts_Nose said:
This is the case being put by CCFC Holdings Ltd in their high court papers and does not necessarily reflect the sitation as defined by the Football League.

The Football League, we are told by thrd parties, has said that the share is held by CCFC Ltd and this is the first comment I have heard that it is "suspended".

It may be "suspended" and this is why the administrator is being coy on confirming his understanding regarding the golden share.
Click to expand...

All clubs that go into administration the share goes back to the FL and is suspended until they come out of admin.
 
S

SkyBlueScottie

Well-Known Member
Is there not wider implications here, The football league share was transferred to ltd way before SISU's time, seemingly with agreement from the FL that all dealing with Holdings. Therefore the club was sold to SISU on this basis...... Why did the league agree to this in the first place? Could this be why there is a fair amount of silence on the matter as the football league may have realised an error has occurred or a precedence has been set, with potentially the 10 point deduction being applied incorrectly?
 
cloughie

cloughie

Well-Known Member
The High Court papers shine a light of the much-discussed mystery of the "golden share" – which enables Coventry City to play in the Football League.

The debate surrounds whether the share was in Coventry City Football Club Ltd before it went into administration under the ownership of administrator Paul Appleton – or whether it was with Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd, still owned by Sisu.

Takeover hopefuls want the Football League and Mr Appleton to conclude the share was in the company now in administration when he reports to court on his investigations by May 16.

They hope that would make a takeover easier, with the new owners taking ownership of the golden share and Football League backing – after any creditors are paid part or all of what the club owes them.



Football League documents appear to show the golden share was with CCFC Ltd, and the last filed accounts say that CCFC Ltd was principally for the club’s playing activities.

Holdings denies the share was in Ltd – and says it has claim to the golden share.

But its own High Court document states: "On the club’s return to the Football League in 2001, it appears that the club’s Football League golden share was transferred to CC Limited."

It then goes on to explain Holdings’ challenge to the evidence.

It states: "However, an entry was made in the Football League register of members on the page relating to CC Holdings.

"The Football League and CC Holdings conducted business on the mutual understanding that CC Holdings was the club for all regulatory compliance and trading and investment purposes.

"Players’ contracts and transfer agreements entered into by the club with its players and with other football clubs are in the name of CC Holdings, and the bank account registered by the club with FL Limited for payment of basic award is held in the CC Holdings."

The golden share is currently suspended. The League will at a future point decide which owner it wants to hand the share back to.

Ultimately the League’s decision, and that of the administrator, could be the subject of a legal challenge, resulting in the club’s problems rumbling on in the courts.


I cannot see how anyone can deny that Ltd and Holdings are 2 seperate arms of one and the same operating company, thus holdings should be put into administration as well
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
the share has been "suspended" because the league own it and have taken it back for safe keeping. CCFC Ltd or for that matter CCFC H would only be custodians of the share so long as they remain in the FL.

The statement saying that all reglutaory matters, trade and investment is in ccfc h is a little puzzling. It quite clearly says in the memorandum and articles of CCFC Ltd in 1996 that the main function of CCFC Ltd was to acquire the trade of the club and to continue as Coventry City Football Club. From that point forward all statutory accounts signed by the directors of the club have included the trade of putting football players on a pitch as being in CCFC Ltd. The players have been declared as employees of CCFC Ltd (up until 31/05/11 certainly) and therefore any FL regulatory matters relating to them it would be reasonable to assume was through CCFC Ltd. If the trade is in CCFC Ltd (the directors including TF signed off that it was ) then football regulation of that trade must also be. It doesnt actually matter where income was banked or from which account payments were made, that is all dealt with through the inter company accounts and therefore an internal matter. As for investment, well mute point whether there has been, but would seem CCFC H was merely a chanel through which money passed from SBS&L/SISU to CCFC Ltd. It is not unusual for clubs to keep the trade seperate from the land assets.

Bottom line is when looking at the accounts of the club what would a lay man have seen .............. trade, most of the income and all players in CCFC Ltd ....... the land assets, trademark, and a minority of the income in CCFC H. That was the picture painted by all the directors & signed off by auditors since 1995 ...... are we to believe they all got it wrong?
 
Last edited:
Nonleagueherewecome

Nonleagueherewecome

Well-Known Member
ajsccfc said:
We should invest in a balloon printing firm at the same time. You then do something shitty as owner, and we rake it in on those expensive 'nonleagueherewecome out' balloons.

This time next year we'll be millionaires!
Click to expand...

Hmm, maybe we should be checking SISU's portfolio to see if they did just that themselves?
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
what might be interesting would be to ask a former player say from 7 years ago and 3 years ago was it CCFC Ltd or CCFC H named on the contract
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
to seperate the property dealings from the trade I would have thought NW. They didnt want to put the property at risk if the football club side failed, well that was the intention but it didnt work out that way. It isn't an unusual thing to do
 
NorthernWisdom

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58 said:
to seperate the property dealings from the trade I would have thought NW. They didnt want to put the property at risk if the football club side failed, well that was the intention but it didnt work out that way. It isn't an unusual thing to do
Click to expand...

Worked out well that, then;)

Is that why a lot of owners (Chandrai at Pompey, Dickens(?) at Wrexham, the Stockport bloke) end up with the ground safe in their hands even after administration?
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
note 9 of the CCFC Holdings accounts lists the fixed asset investments of that company at £200

that investment is detailed as 100% Subsidiary Coventry City Football Club Limited

the nature of business is disclosed in that note as "Playing activities of a professional football club"

the accounts were signed off 19/06/2012 by one Tim Fisher

seems to contradict their submission to the court ..... i do not see how they can have that both ways
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
NorthernWisdom said:
Worked out well that, then;)

Is that why a lot of owners (Chandrai at Pompey, Dickens(?) at Wrexham, the Stockport bloke) end up with the ground safe in their hands even after administration?
Click to expand...

it can be the reason yes. It also works the other way though where the ground could be sold to say a pension fund without the club being sold with it.
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
wouldnt have thought so sbj because they still need an auditors report and what auditor would sign off on them right now? the club doesnt have a ground to play in for a start, well not one we have been told about anyway........ how could you sign off as a going concern. If the accounts didnt need an audit the club could prepare their own ...... but the directors still have to satisfy the criteria for being a going concern. The court could i suppose order they file interim figures but I wouldnt have they would
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
skybluegod said:
I have been saying this for weeks this isn't new info
Click to expand...

I didnt say it was new or anything that many people havent mentioned before including me ..... it was a reminder used to illustrate the weakness in what was reported today
 
NorthernWisdom

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58 said:
it can be the reason yes. It also works the other way though where the ground could be sold to say a pension fund without the club being sold with it.
Click to expand...

As in Walsall?

So would it be a fair position to suggest the council continuing to own the freehold of our ground isn't necessarily a bad thing? That's different to ACL and revenues of course, buta third party owning the ground in the public interest could well be to our benefit as a club as protection, and in that bit Maton's right?
 
NorthernWisdom

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58 said:
wouldnt have thought so sbj because they still need an auditors report and what auditor would sign off on them right now? the club doesnt have a ground to play in for a start, well not one we have been told about anyway........ how could you sign off as a going concern. If the accounts didnt need an audit the club could prepare their own ...... but the directors still have to satisfy the criteria for being a going concern. The court could i suppose order they file interim figures but I wouldnt have they would
Click to expand...

How long are they allowed to not release the accounts for? Or is it all irrelevant now we're in administration, as in theory the administrator's deciding for us if we're a going concern or not?

Apologies for the questions btw but you're fairly clued up;) and don't resort to calling me a SISU rent boy...
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
as they say owners are transitory and a club is for ever (or should be) ...............

The club doesnt need to own the freehold .......... it needs to own the income streams from the site. Only reason currently that an owner needs the freehold is to (a) mortgage it or (b) sell it

even PH4 only wanted a long lease
 
NorthernWisdom

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58 said:
The club doesnt need to own the freehold .......... it needs to own the income streams from the site. Only reason currently that an owner needs the freehold is to (a) mortgage it or (b) sell it
Click to expand...

Could you put it on the books as an asset however?

CCFC have few enough of them, be it Ltd or Holdings!

Makes you wonder how football clubs get away with being signed off as going concerns when they tend to own so little but owe so much. Is that just the intangible assets of brand and league status counting for 'a lot' thatlets them get awy with it?
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
NorthernWisdom said:
How long are they allowed to not release the accounts for? Or is it all irrelevant now we're in administration, as in theory the administrator's deciding for us if we're a going concern or not?

Apologies for the questions btw but you're fairly clued up;) and don't resort to calling me a SISU rent boy...
Click to expand...

should file accounts 9 months after year end. Company House will go past that but by the time you get to 1 year + past the due deadline you are looking at Company House taking action against directors for not fulfilling duties. Administration can and will get in the way of that, Pompey 2010 ltd still havent filed theirs and were due Feb 2012 for instance
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
NorthernWisdom said:
Could you put it on the books as an asset however?

CCFC have few enough of them, be it Ltd or Holdings!

Makes you wonder how football clubs get away with being signed off as going concerns when they tend to own so little but owe so much. Is that just the intangible assets of brand and league status counting for 'a lot' thatlets them get awy with it?
Click to expand...

To get the freehold you would have to pay for it so you would be putting loans equal to the freehold on the balance sheet too...... probably charges on the property.... probably interest charges to pay

as they say every credit has a debit
 
NorthernWisdom

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58 said:
To get the freehold you would have to pay for it so you would be putting loans equal to the freehold on the balance sheet too...... probably charges on the property.... probably interest charges to pay

as they say every credit has a debit
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Like I say, always thought it was crazy to demand the club owned the Arena (as opposed to ACL) just trying to find a rationale why we might want to, to the benefit of club rather than owner. Is there one you can think of?
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
like I say the thing the club needs to own are the income streams................ could have bought those back long ago. There is no essential need to own the freehold.

A longer lease would be welcome certainly but thats no where near as expensive.

However an owner (not the club itself) might see the need to be able acquire then sell on to recoup losses
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top