SlowerThanPlatt
Well-Known Member
Just missing every question and talking about something irrelevant
greg clarke interveiw on cwr after 7 this morning (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Sub
- Start date
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
It's never been about the rent Otis.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
You know that's not the point though. They want the Ricoh.
I and we as fans are happy that CCfc in Northampton is not CCfc.
SlowerThanPlatt
Well-Known Member
If FL didn't accept Sixfields groundshare Coventry City replaced from League 1
Yes - but ACL wouldn't agree to a deal running less than 10 years.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't have happened though they would have tried everything to avoid it
SlowerThanPlatt
Well-Known Member
I'm quite happy with how the club is being run. Is this guy having a laugh?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
the company in administration and to be liquidated was CCFC Ltd. Mr Appleton was very clear that it was CCFC H Ltd that was running the club. Indeed TF was also clear on it. From 22/03/13 the club was being operated by something other than CCFC Ltd and that had been accepted by the Football League otherwise CCFC would not have completed the fixtures. There was an arrangement to play at the Ricoh outside of the lease. So was CCFC going to go out of existence ? Or would it have been continued on a different basis?
Portsmouth were in administrationfor what nearly 18months before they got new owners and the golden share returned. All under agreement with the FL to continue to play fixtures.
There were other choices
Is Brighton in Brighton?
Rotherham was working with the council - hardly going to create problems for the FL
Portsmouth were in administrationfor what nearly 18months before they got new owners and the golden share returned. All under agreement with the FL to continue to play fixtures.
There were other choices
Is Brighton in Brighton?
Rotherham was working with the council - hardly going to create problems for the FL
Last edited:
RegTheDonk
Well-Known Member
The bloke is mad if he thinks ACL and SISU can be "reasonable" and come to an agreement. SISU want the stadium cheap, the council won't sell it.
Its as simple as that Greg, and both parties are leading you up the garden path.
Its as simple as that Greg, and both parties are leading you up the garden path.
Sky Blues
Active Member
Part Two of the Les Reid interview with Greg Clarke (apologies if this has been posted elsewhere and I haven't seen it):
“I spend most of my efforts trying to keep Coventry alive," says Football League chairman
16 Aug 2013 08:05
Greg Clarke says Sisu would not fail its “fit and proper test” because of late filing of accounts
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/i-spend-most-efforts-trying-5739539
The Football League’s chairman admitted he did not know if Sky Blues players were sanctioned by the League in CCFC Holdings – when the crucial “golden share” had been in another company, CCFC Ltd.
Arena Coventry Limited’s High Court and other legal challenges have maintained all the playing assets should have been in one company prior to March’s administration of CCFC Ltd.
As the Telegraph reported in March, the evidence from Football League registrations and the club’s last filed accounts for 2010/11 pointed to CCFC Ltd having the golden share.
The League and administrator Paul Appleton, who is still to report his investigation’s findings to government, later accepted that was the case – before the share was suspended during administration.
The Telegraph challenged Football League chief Greg Clarke over fans’ group the Sky Blue Trust’s claim that the League had mistakenly allowed players contracts to reside in Holdings, and therefore the League was too fearful of legal challenges against it by Otium/Sisu to uphold its own rules.
Mr Clarke said: “I don’t know the answer to that question. It may be interesting to get to the bottom of – but it wouldn’t change anything. The club has been sold.
“To the best of our ability, we and the FA registered players in the right place within the corporate structure... I am reasonably confident we did it right.
“I spend most of my efforts trying to keep Coventry alive, and let the administrator as a court-appointed officer decide what to sell. We don’t try to do his job.”
Mr Clarke also said the Football League would not fail any football club owners on its “fit and proper test” because of late filing of accounts, which he said was commonplace.
He said late filing of accounts could often be due to reasonable uncertainty about assets and liabilities before a company could be signed off as a going concern by auditors.
Owners only failed the League’s “owners and directors’ test”, he said, for serious wrongdoing, including criminal convictions, two football insolvencies, or being struck off.
And neither did an admission of “catastrophic insolvency” – made by a barrister representing Coventry City’s owners in the High Court in March – mean Sisu/Otium should not be permitted to run the club, added Mr Clarke.
He said barristers were not immune to “hyperbole” and all football insolvencies could be considered catastrophic for fans and clubs.
But he said company law allowed assets and liabilities to be located in different related companies.
On transferring the share to Otium – a company which before this year was part of the Sky Blues’ complex structure of companies – Mr Clarke said: “The administrator had sold the assets to a new vehicle.
“We had to decide whether to grant it admission to the Football League. The choice was ‘yes’ or ‘no’ – to approve the club going to Northampton or decline membership of the Football League.”
“I spend most of my efforts trying to keep Coventry alive," says Football League chairman
16 Aug 2013 08:05
Greg Clarke says Sisu would not fail its “fit and proper test” because of late filing of accounts
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/i-spend-most-efforts-trying-5739539
The Football League’s chairman admitted he did not know if Sky Blues players were sanctioned by the League in CCFC Holdings – when the crucial “golden share” had been in another company, CCFC Ltd.
Arena Coventry Limited’s High Court and other legal challenges have maintained all the playing assets should have been in one company prior to March’s administration of CCFC Ltd.
As the Telegraph reported in March, the evidence from Football League registrations and the club’s last filed accounts for 2010/11 pointed to CCFC Ltd having the golden share.
The League and administrator Paul Appleton, who is still to report his investigation’s findings to government, later accepted that was the case – before the share was suspended during administration.
The Telegraph challenged Football League chief Greg Clarke over fans’ group the Sky Blue Trust’s claim that the League had mistakenly allowed players contracts to reside in Holdings, and therefore the League was too fearful of legal challenges against it by Otium/Sisu to uphold its own rules.
Mr Clarke said: “I don’t know the answer to that question. It may be interesting to get to the bottom of – but it wouldn’t change anything. The club has been sold.
“To the best of our ability, we and the FA registered players in the right place within the corporate structure... I am reasonably confident we did it right.
“I spend most of my efforts trying to keep Coventry alive, and let the administrator as a court-appointed officer decide what to sell. We don’t try to do his job.”
Mr Clarke also said the Football League would not fail any football club owners on its “fit and proper test” because of late filing of accounts, which he said was commonplace.
He said late filing of accounts could often be due to reasonable uncertainty about assets and liabilities before a company could be signed off as a going concern by auditors.
Owners only failed the League’s “owners and directors’ test”, he said, for serious wrongdoing, including criminal convictions, two football insolvencies, or being struck off.
And neither did an admission of “catastrophic insolvency” – made by a barrister representing Coventry City’s owners in the High Court in March – mean Sisu/Otium should not be permitted to run the club, added Mr Clarke.
He said barristers were not immune to “hyperbole” and all football insolvencies could be considered catastrophic for fans and clubs.
But he said company law allowed assets and liabilities to be located in different related companies.
On transferring the share to Otium – a company which before this year was part of the Sky Blues’ complex structure of companies – Mr Clarke said: “The administrator had sold the assets to a new vehicle.
“We had to decide whether to grant it admission to the Football League. The choice was ‘yes’ or ‘no’ – to approve the club going to Northampton or decline membership of the Football League.”
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
unbelievable in so many senses !
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
That's rubbish!! Club is still in administration, well CCfc ltd are!!
Sky Blues
Active Member
So is the implication of what Mr Clarke said to essentially give the green light for any club to franchise to another town or city as long as they have lawyers sending them letters saying their company must be allowed to do what is in its own commercial interests? :thinking about:
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
How do we know that?
SISU will lose a fortune by playing at Sixfields (8k fans per game lost?) - they could have made an offer to ACL that would leave them (SISU) much better off, compensate ACL for the shorter lease and stop alienating their customer base.
Has that offer been made?
SIR ERNIE
Well-Known Member
hahaha is that really the best you can do?
first it was the rents too high, then it was we need the pie money, then when theyre offered a 150k deal, the term's too long!
clutching at straws is the phrase that comes to mind.
pathetic argument.
Sky Blues
Active Member
These lines are confusing me. In one line Mr Clarke is saying the league and the FA are confident they registered players in the right place, but in this line “I don’t know the answer to that question. It may be interesting to get to the bottom of – but it wouldn’t change anything. The club has been sold." is he saying they don't know where the players were registered? Or am I misunderstanding this or needing to see the specific text of the question actually asked? :thinking about:
I am quite confident ACL wanted a 10 year agreement as a condition to sign the CVA. If anybody know otherwise I am happy to be corrected.
My own thoughts at that point was something in the line of what you ask - couldn't they have agreed to a 10 year lease, then build a new stadium and move in when finished and either keep paying rent to ACL or buy out the remainder of the lease.
But ACL aren't stupid, I guess they would put in clauses to prevent that scenario.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
In an effort to see things from all sides - toothless etc they may appear, but the FL must comply with the law. So I do not believe they've abandoned us - they have been equally royally stitched up by JS & her crew. Though it was not admitted the FL were slow off the mark & probably naive expecting fair compromise with these people. They have learned the hard way...& might continue to with the Bond (we know what SISU think of that sort of arrangement - worth nothing at all).
Our one weapon is NOPM. I think the following was a subtle word of encouragement for that precise action...“We’re trying to generate goodwill. Hopefully commercial reality will overcome bad blood and both sides can be hailed as heroes.”...COMMERCIAL REALITY. Lose your customers, there is no business. Then CCFC are sold at a knock down price & the customers come back.
Our one weapon is NOPM. I think the following was a subtle word of encouragement for that precise action...“We’re trying to generate goodwill. Hopefully commercial reality will overcome bad blood and both sides can be hailed as heroes.”...COMMERCIAL REALITY. Lose your customers, there is no business. Then CCFC are sold at a knock down price & the customers come back.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
the 10 year lease is supposed to be the minimum tenure required under Football League regulations too
Right - forgot that. Cheers!
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
FL - F*****g Liability
They're an absolute disgrace.
WM
They're an absolute disgrace.
WM
Just a couple of things I fine interesting from pt2 of Clarke's interview
1)
He said barristers were not immune to “hyperbole” and all football insolvencies could be considered catastrophic for fans and clubs.
But he said company law allowed assets and liabilities to be located in different related companies.
This would be about as disingenuous as it gets. The FL have their own insolvency rules where secured Football creditors (owners, players etc) get paid out first and unsecured creditors (HMRC small businesses) pick the bones out of what's left through the CVA. It's why HMRC took them to court costing millions and lost the case, it's why HMRC always veto any CVA and why the Govenrment consider it so unfair and thinking of intervening to change the rules To suggest the FL are applying 'company law' is just plain wrong.
2)
On transferring the share to Otium – a company which before this year was part of the Sky Blues’ complex structure of companies – Mr Clarke said: “The administrator had sold the assets to a new vehicle.
“We had to decide whether to grant it admission to the Football League. The choice was ‘yes’ or ‘no’ – to approve the club going to Northampton or decline membership of the Football League.”
There you have it, Clarke's admission the FL have given this 'new vehicle' Otium/SISU and their companies CCFC Holdings/Limited who in there own words would be without a doubt 'intricately linked' (see Southampton) the Golden Share. As I see it, the FL have left themselves open to all sorts of future challenges because the reality is, they've permitted your club to go into administration and future liquidation of one of those intricately liked companies running CCFC and carry on without even the due process of their own rules.
1)
He said barristers were not immune to “hyperbole” and all football insolvencies could be considered catastrophic for fans and clubs.
But he said company law allowed assets and liabilities to be located in different related companies.
This would be about as disingenuous as it gets. The FL have their own insolvency rules where secured Football creditors (owners, players etc) get paid out first and unsecured creditors (HMRC small businesses) pick the bones out of what's left through the CVA. It's why HMRC took them to court costing millions and lost the case, it's why HMRC always veto any CVA and why the Govenrment consider it so unfair and thinking of intervening to change the rules To suggest the FL are applying 'company law' is just plain wrong.
2)
On transferring the share to Otium – a company which before this year was part of the Sky Blues’ complex structure of companies – Mr Clarke said: “The administrator had sold the assets to a new vehicle.
“We had to decide whether to grant it admission to the Football League. The choice was ‘yes’ or ‘no’ – to approve the club going to Northampton or decline membership of the Football League.”
There you have it, Clarke's admission the FL have given this 'new vehicle' Otium/SISU and their companies CCFC Holdings/Limited who in there own words would be without a doubt 'intricately linked' (see Southampton) the Golden Share. As I see it, the FL have left themselves open to all sorts of future challenges because the reality is, they've permitted your club to go into administration and future liquidation of one of those intricately liked companies running CCFC and carry on without even the due process of their own rules.
SunZoomSpark
New Member
bring on 1883 Coventry
Just a couple of things I fine interesting from pt2 of Clarke's interview
1)
He said barristers were not immune to “hyperbole” and all football insolvencies could be considered catastrophic for fans and clubs.
But he said company law allowed assets and liabilities to be located in different related companies.
This would be about as disingenuous as it gets. The FL have their own insolvency rules where secured Football creditors (owners, players etc) get paid out first and unsecured creditors (HMRC small businesses) pick the bones out of what's left through the CVA. It's why HMRC took them to court costing millions and lost the case, it's why HMRC always veto any CVA and why the Govenrment consider it so unfair and thinking of intervening to change the rules To suggest the FL are applying 'company law' is just plain wrong.
2)
On transferring the share to Otium – a company which before this year was part of the Sky Blues’ complex structure of companies – Mr Clarke said: “The administrator had sold the assets to a new vehicle.
“We had to decide whether to grant it admission to the Football League. The choice was ‘yes’ or ‘no’ – to approve the club going to Northampton or decline membership of the Football League.”
There you have it, Clarke's admission the FL have given this 'new vehicle' Otium/SISU and their companies CCFC Holdings/Limited who in there own words would be without a doubt 'intricately linked' (see Southampton) the Golden Share. As I see it, the FL have left themselves open to all sorts of future challenges because the reality is, they've permitted your club to go into administration and future liquidation of one of those intricately liked companies running CCFC and carry on without even the due process of their own rules.
1)
He said barristers were not immune to “hyperbole” and all football insolvencies could be considered catastrophic for fans and clubs.
But he said company law allowed assets and liabilities to be located in different related companies.
This would be about as disingenuous as it gets. The FL have their own insolvency rules where secured Football creditors (owners, players etc) get paid out first and unsecured creditors (HMRC small businesses) pick the bones out of what's left through the CVA. It's why HMRC took them to court costing millions and lost the case, it's why HMRC always veto any CVA and why the Govenrment consider it so unfair and thinking of intervening to change the rules To suggest the FL are applying 'company law' is just plain wrong.
2)
On transferring the share to Otium – a company which before this year was part of the Sky Blues’ complex structure of companies – Mr Clarke said: “The administrator had sold the assets to a new vehicle.
“We had to decide whether to grant it admission to the Football League. The choice was ‘yes’ or ‘no’ – to approve the club going to Northampton or decline membership of the Football League.”
There you have it, Clarke's admission the FL have given this 'new vehicle' Otium/SISU and their companies CCFC Holdings/Limited who in there own words would be without a doubt 'intricately linked' (see Southampton) the Golden Share. As I see it, the FL have left themselves open to all sorts of future challenges because the reality is, they've permitted your club to go into administration and future liquidation of one of those intricately liked companies running CCFC and carry on without even the due process of their own rules.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
In some ways this proves what the anti SISU faction of fans have been saying.
1 They could afford the rent.
2 They could have used their option to buy the Ricoh
3. They could have started building a new stadium years ago if that is what they really wanted
4. They have been trying to distress ACL
5. They have used flimsy company law and the administration/liquidation process to dispatch debt and leases.
6. They have held a gun to the head of the football league
7. They could, Football League, afford to pay the 1million bond upfront and should have....you made Farnborough pay theirs
8. The Football League are saying SISU don't need fans, certainly not the ones in Coventry
9. No one knows SISUs real motive but I think they would liquidate us rather than sell us when it suits them
Conclusion, I can't support another team, at the moment I don't have a team, I won't support SISU....I feel like I done with football (for other reasons as well but our situation seems the final straw).
1 They could afford the rent.
2 They could have used their option to buy the Ricoh
3. They could have started building a new stadium years ago if that is what they really wanted
4. They have been trying to distress ACL
5. They have used flimsy company law and the administration/liquidation process to dispatch debt and leases.
6. They have held a gun to the head of the football league
7. They could, Football League, afford to pay the 1million bond upfront and should have....you made Farnborough pay theirs
8. The Football League are saying SISU don't need fans, certainly not the ones in Coventry
9. No one knows SISUs real motive but I think they would liquidate us rather than sell us when it suits them
Conclusion, I can't support another team, at the moment I don't have a team, I won't support SISU....I feel like I done with football (for other reasons as well but our situation seems the final straw).
Last edited:
