Grendel
Well-Known Member
They all dropped down the league pyramid
Liquidation (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter mark_ccfc
- Start date
They all dropped down the league pyramid
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Grendel
Well-Known Member
They all ceased to exist end reformed under a different trading name
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
We're now Otium Entertainment Group trading as Coventry City. If you're splitting hairs, the club that was Coventry City no longer exists.
You try telling Newport fans theyre a different club. It's an insult to suggest it, given the work they've done to keep their name alive.
Nick
Administrator
Still Coventry City though and not AFC Coventry City or something like that.
The limited companys behind will change all the time.
It's now Chester FC with new branding and no history. No different to saying Coventry United is ccfc if every city fan went to watch them instead.
I don't know about the others.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Nick
Administrator
Didn't Newport change their name too?
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
And that's the issue. There's a growing band of fans who don't want to keep the CURRENT club alive, it's almost if.....they want us to be liquidated. Surely not!
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
They still ceased to exist and had to reform - so if no one wanted to reform no club
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Well partly I was just being a nob, but also I find this whole “if it’s not exactly the same organisation it’s NOTHING TO ME!!” A little dramatic. The club isn’t a golden share or a corporation, it’s in all of us (off to vomit now)
Nick
Administrator
No but I would bet limited companies behind clubs change without people even realising most of the time. Nobody supports a limited company.
If 10,000 city fans went to support cov United it doesn't mean I'd go thinking it was the new ccfc.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
All depends on the timing of things. If the assets have been sold to a third party to trade as a new entity then the usual conclusion is that the company is then liquidated. At that point it is a shell company holding only the remaining liabilities. So it is not liquidation then reforming .....it is reforming prior to liquidation
Ccfc limited when it was liquidated was a manufactured shell company holding only a lease no one wanted. The trade or club had been moved to another company well before administration ,Ccfc holdings, to make sure ownership was retained in spite of any legal action.
In the examples above the assets were sold off then what remained was placed in to liquidation. A new entity was created. Whether it is the same club is another argument and largely is to do with emotional ties to a past.
However it is perfectly possible to liquidate a company with no intention of reforming as a new entity. Registrations etc allowed to lapse rather than sold or transferred. Which of course maximises a shareholders losses. Any new entity would be an entirely new club legally.
Ccfc limited when it was liquidated was a manufactured shell company holding only a lease no one wanted. The trade or club had been moved to another company well before administration ,Ccfc holdings, to make sure ownership was retained in spite of any legal action.
In the examples above the assets were sold off then what remained was placed in to liquidation. A new entity was created. Whether it is the same club is another argument and largely is to do with emotional ties to a past.
However it is perfectly possible to liquidate a company with no intention of reforming as a new entity. Registrations etc allowed to lapse rather than sold or transferred. Which of course maximises a shareholders losses. Any new entity would be an entirely new club legally.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Got to look at the actual timeline to realise that ACL were never actually in control of that process.
When the rent strike started Sisu investors were in control of the assets and the process. Assets were no longer in Ccfc limited. The largest creditor had the say over what happened in the process. That was SISU. They remained in control throughout the process.
The process
Ccfc Ltd sued in high court for rent debt. Unchallenged by Ccfc ltd. Judgement given against Ccfc Ltd. Debt unpaid ACL have to move to next part of process
Ccfc Ltd sued in county court for rent debt. Unchallenged by Ccfc Ltd judgement given to ACL against Ccfc limited. Debt unpaid ACL have to move to next part of process.
Statutory demand for payment of debt issued by ACL against Ccfc Ltd. Remains unpaid and unchallenged.
Final option to recover debt is to pursue administration. At which point the largest creditor steps in to take final control of any administration.
It then becomes apparent that assets thought for years to be within Ccfc Ltd had moved to another company some months or years before. ACL may have thought they were in control of the legal process may even have thought they could create new ownership. The reality is that once the massive debt was created and the key assets moved to other group companies before or during the original rent strike then they were following a course set for them by Sisu with the ultimate successful aim for Sisu of breaking the lease at the ricoh.
All perfectly legal and to be honest pretty clever
So who really created the Ccfc administration, ACL might have filed an application that was never granted but ACL were never in control of a very clever use of process. So in reality regime change never was anything other than sound bites ..... It simply was not possible or available. It seems to me Sisu created the administration, planned it to safeguard assets and made successful use of legal process for once
Last edited:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
From memory I think you will also find that in the fans ownership model that the shares in club do not actually become owned by what is the sky blue trust. The shares are held within a separate entity not owned by the trust.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Given we're told that the club can be separated from SISU as much because the club is the players, the fans, the goals, the atmosphere... that remains regardless.
It's also pretty much nonsense to say there's this groundswell saying we should go bust - there isn't. Now, we *have* gone bust once, and reformed as Otium Entertainment Group (there's only one Otium Entertainment Group!) and it's due to the consent of fans that that's seen as Coventry City. There's also a particular logic that says with massive debts, no ground, nothing to call our own, we're just putting off the inevitable anyway.
But... that's what fans do, so the general consent is, let's put it off as long as possible... and maybe get lucky in the process.
If, however, it goes bust, then sure some may as well form Coventry Gardening and Shopping Talk, and they'll look back fondly on the time they supported Coventry City on a Saturday and regret the fact they can't do that anymore. Meanwhile, others will get behind Coventry City and watch them as they kick off in Kettering, fighting to get them hope in Hinckley, before Bossing the lower leagues in bedworth, before a triumphant homecoming. To them, the fans, the goals, the atmosphere will be the club, as it is for many now.
And for some, now, then Otium are no longer the club they supported.
None of those approaches are wrong, and nor are they right. But, I repeat, it's an insult to the fans of Newport, Aldershot, Halifax to say that they are not their club - they are. Newport fans who've watched their club in the Cup Winners Cup, watched John Aldridge bang the goals in, suffered them hijacked by a madman to see them go bust, endured them having to do a tour of Gloucestershire, celebrated as they made a heroic return to the league... they deserve to be acknowledged as the club, for they are. The club is the club, and it is a continuum... and what a great story how hope never dies.
Want the club to be separated from SISU's antics? Apply the same to clubs such as Newport and Halifax and don't start all this literalism and ah-but it's different. It's as feeble as people who would welcome Wasps, but hate us leaving the city.
(And no, I wouldn't want Joe Elliott being that continuum!)
Last edited:
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
It does appear to be a clever way to keep control. I think one part where SISU failed in their thinking/plan was losing track of the rules over the right to buy back the Higgs shares (either by way of a maximum calculated price, or a negotiated lower one). This allowed the possibility of other parties acquiring ACL in the knowledge that the football club no longer had the right to buy a 50% stake. If the club had retained the right to buy 50% I can't see that anyone else would have bought ACL.
hill83
Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Did they ? Or was the intention that ACL would go bust and sisu could effect regime change of their own and for a pittance?
Sky Blue Harry H
Well-Known Member
Haven't read all the thread, but if there were an impasse and we had nowhere to play, presumably the golden share would have to be handed back? If so, can a.n. other (presumably not Otium related, otherwise Wasps wouldn't talk to them) obtain the share from the Football league and restart the club AND play at The Ricoh? I don't know what the sanctions would be (demotion etc), but is this a possibility? If so, I know SISU would have lawyers lined up to sue the world - but frankly, who cares. Not sure where that would leave the players, management etc, but I'd be prepared for almost anything to get the monkey off our backs.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't that be based on SISU assuming there would be no other credible bidders for ACL though?
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
If we go out of business, then Braintree or AN Other would take our place in the league. We'd have to find out which non league would accept us.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Yes and right up until they got wind of a serious threat from wasps they believed it was working. More than anything the wasps deal forced Sisu to bring Ccfc back. They miscalculated that there were no other options. Had they not come back from sixfields then there was no way to create any pressure on other parties. Ccfc would have died in Northampton and Sisu hopes of investor return with it.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Yup, it's where the notion of a boycott at Northampton was flawed. SISU were prepared to lose money, as long as there was the opportunity of gaining more. As soon as that went out the window - back they came! Far harder to argue against a sale to Wasps, if they're in Northampton.
The concern, of course, is that as soon as any prospect of a return (financial) dies, what happens after that... Is there another cunning plan? At what stage do they give up, and how do they choose to give up?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
If we went out of business then the EFL could promote from non league or even just leave the place void for a season. There is no guarantee that the EFL would let Ccfc new co have it.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
The problem in the scenario we have is it would be SISU making the decision and unless someone is going to offer them millions for the assets that constitute the club, unlikely now let alone if we've lost our league status, they will liquidate. Can't see any reason why they wouldn't.
mark82
Moderator
Who gives a shit about the trading name though? We have changed trading name.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
This is where ACL, CCC and the Trust misjudged things. Was clear with who was sniffing around at the time they were trying to force regime change but when it turned out SISU had moved the assets around without the FL noticing it was game over for that plan.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It’s not just a trading name. It’s an entirely new company and would mean a new team playing in the 9th tier below Sphinx as well as the small matter of having somewhere to play
mark82
Moderator
There would be enough appetite to reform. I'm sure no-one would want the club to die, despite the hysterics.
It would be a disastrous thing to happen though. Would likely mean us dropping into at least the conference to restart. We'd have to start again in terms of players, staff, etc. Not sure it's something anyone should want to happen. It's most definitely the worst case scenario by any stretch of the imagination.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
It sounds like there's no point in anyone asking them to drop the legals then, it's their best (maybe only) way of getting an investor return.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Certainly an option, particularly if that is the best option for their investors overall.
It has always been and will remain what is best for the investors. There is every possibility that what is best for them is not what is best for Ccfc. People do not seem to understand that.
mark82
Moderator
We wouldn't drop that low. It's generally a 2 tier drop. That's bad enough though. Agree with the rest, as I said above, not something anyone should want.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Indeed. It's also missed that it's what's best for their investors as a whole. The benefits of winding the club up rather than selling it on could be more overall, even if the immediate financial loss is slightly worse.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
But what was the mechanism for forcing regime change. They might have wanted it but so long as there was no legal lever to achieve it then it was impossible. All Sisu had to say was no. The administration when it happened was planned months before by Sisu and set in motion by their own actions, controlled every step of the way.
This idea of regime change was first floated in the press by fisher I believe. It was at a time when things within the group were being rearranged for a purpose. Don't look here look there. Yes there were parties saying they wanted a change of ownership, we all still do, but there is no mechanism to achieve it without direct involvement of Sisu. Any administration or liquidation was, is and will be controlled by Sisu, any sale has to be agreed by Sisu.
Regime change could never have been forced by ACL, CCC or the trust. It was a fact then as it is now
Last edited:
