CCFC Statement (1 Viewer)

Grendel

Well-Known Member
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.
 

cloughie

Well-Known Member
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.


only a fool would let sisu anywhere near running the Ricoh

seems like sisu have run rings round you
 

lifelongcityfan

Well-Known Member
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!!
 

RPHunt

New Member
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 suspect the Samaritans block his number a few nights a week so they can spend some time dealing with more normal people.
 

cloughie

Well-Known Member
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.

No you just cannot stomach facts that you don't like so resort to petty answers
 
Last edited:

DaleM

New Member
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 .
 
Last edited:

Hobo

Well-Known Member
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
 

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
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

Are you a tramp then?
 

Snozz_is_god

New Member
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.

You're so wrong.

It's quite the opposite, ACL are one step ahead of SISU & if you don't believe me, we'll return back to this statement in a few months time, I've bookmarked it.
 

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
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 .

I agree, all this will only lead to apathy amongst fans.

To cov4Iife, i would say that SISU have hardly run rings around anyone. They now have the team playing in front of a few hundred home fans, taking far less revenue which will significantly increase losses. Unless acl folds this will continue for at least another 4-5 years in conjunction with having to spend tens of millions for a new stadium, by which point the fanbase is likely to have decreased even further from when they took control.

Most hedge funds job is to get a good return for their investors in a relatively short period of time. I'd imagine this is likely to spectacularly fail on both counts. Unfortunately it will ruin our club in the process.
 

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
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?
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
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.
 

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
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.

No, hypocrisy is hypocrisy, whichever way you look at it.
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
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.

So what is it we know

The League share was in CCFC Ltd
- the accounts say so from 1995 to 2011
- annual returns at Company House for FL say so
- SBS&L Group (a SISU owned company) directors minutes say so
- the memorandum & articles for both CCFC Ltd and CCFC H Ltd say so
- the FL and FA say so
- the FA & FL have confirmed so when the companies were split
- the administrator says so
- the club per the above statement says so.

Therefore the share was where it should be according to all parties except one (see above)

The importance of that is that the registrations and contracts follow the Golden share not the other way round. The share gives that company/entity the ability to play in the Football League. For that entity to take part in the League it needs players. CCFC H is not the member of the League which ever way you look at it from 1995. Beneficial ownership of the share? doesn't really come in to it. The name on the share is CCFC Ltd and had CCFC H sold that company (CCFC Ltd) then the share would still be with CCFC Ltd under new owners - ccfc h couldn't still claim beneficial membership of the league even if it had players

Originally we were told that the registrations were in CCFC Ltd and contracts in CCFC H Ltd. Now we are told the registrations and contracts are in CCFC H and have been for 10 years or more. Not for the first time the story changes. There may well be elements of truth in what is said - but that truth points to serious error at best not only at the FL but also CCFC

The directors of each and every company have a legal duty to safeguard assets, to produce accounts that are true and fair and to have procedures that identify error, misstatement or fraud. It doesn't matter that someone else got it wrong each director for the period of their appointment has a duty to get it right.

The accounts clearly state that the players were included in CCFC Ltd. There are no players included in CCFC H Ltd from 1995 to 2011. It isn't just a matter of paying the wages in CCFC Ltd. The contracts are disclosed as intangible assets on the balance sheet, those contracts are amortised based on the duration of the contract, the profits or losses on the sale of those contracts are disclosed in the accounts of CCFC Ltd. The number of players, rights under pension arrangements, future liabilities/assets under transfers of players are all disclosed in CCFC Ltd accounts. The reason I highlight that is because they are core to the accounts produced by the directors, and any auditor (of which I am one) is required to not only check the calculation but also the rights & ownership under those contracts, to ensure the disclosures in the accounts are backed with evidence gathered, to make sure the statements are TRUE & FAIR. They will have had to see the contracts to be able to do that.

Everyone expected to see the contracts in CCFC Ltd because that is where they should be - linked directly to the golden share which was where it should be

Minutes of directors meetings disclosed on the 200% website indicate that the directors were very clear as to which company the players were in together with the golden share. You might say that SISU didnt know but then I would have to point you to as to who was at the Board meetings, Onye for one a fund manager at SISU but also Laura Deering Seppala's trusted assistant. So they knew in my opinion would be a stretch to think they didn't wouldn't it

Even the administrators report includes information prepared by the director of CCFC Ltd indicating there were £466k worth of registrations in CCFC Ltd when it entered administration. Clearly not all registrations were in CCFCH - Mr Fisher said so himself despite what the statement above says

So CCFC H apparently had the contracts, well even if they did surely as the players must be used by CCFC Ltd (as the league member), paid by CCFC Ltd up to 2011 at least (the administrators figures in his first report indicate 2012 also) then CCFC Ltd can claim beneficial ownership of those contracts and/or registrations. Now where have i that beneficial ownership argument? The contracts follow the share not the other way round. The League confirm there is no similar problem in the other 71 clubs, despite many having a group structure - why would that be?

Bottom line is that the FL may have admitted to errors (although not exactly what or when) but the directors and auditors of CCFC Ltd and CCFC H Ltd have a legal responsibility to get it right year after year. No publicaly available evidence shows that the contracts/registrations were not or should not have been with the Golden Share in CCFC Ltd
 
Last edited:
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
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"...
 

paulcalf

Member
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"...

I've also been contacting the FL, loads, asking about when registrations were moved. The last time I emailed them was yesterday morning! I wonder if they will give a proper reply now they have admitted their mistake.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 4 Beta
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
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
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
The administration process should be re run with the player assets & a new administrator.
 

RichieGunns

New Member
Wait a minute. I'm pretty sure th league admitted that the players were registered in LTD, not holdings and that they had willing allowed SISU to get away with the fiddling the books. How thick is Fisher!!
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
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”.
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
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..
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Broken Hearted Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
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.

Although the regulator made a mistake with the web thats been made of companies by Sisu its pretty understandable also as the FL have said nobody else has done this. Sisu knew the regulations so why didnt they abide by them:thinking about:
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
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.

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
 

Ashdown1

New Member
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.
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
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.

But it isn't the clubs job to deliver regeneration projects. (I can see the benefits though)
 

Ashdown1

New Member
Better facilities directly around the ground would benefit the club I'm sure. A couple of decent bar/restaurants a rail stop etc would help to encourage home and away fans to return for a visit. I know I tend to target some of my away games based on the locality and the quality of the boozers and access.
 

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
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

Personally I think all sides should have a statement amnesty, hand in all their statements to a drop-off point, and commit to not issuing any statements from now on in.
 

thaiskyblue

New Member
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.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
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.

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
 
Last edited:

Grendel

Well-Known Member
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.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
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.

Do you even read what you're writing any more, or is this some kind of automatic writing psychotherapy for you?

I'll entertain your insanity as I'm bored. Well I'd imagine the answer to your question is: any club that maintained a 22k+ attendance after the move, there are quite a few of those.

Answer me this Grendel: What will be different about our situation post relocation? We will have asked another company (Sisu) to fund the stadium project, we will require ALL income from the site to be viable, what's to stop Sisu deciding "Hey, we have this really profitable site, but all the money goes to that money pit of a football club. We should really sell the club off and keep the site." At which point we're back to square one. Except now we have a predatory hedge fund instead of a democratically accountable council as landlords. Oh and we're also outside the city boundaries so any future disputes with the Police or council (and of course there will be more, perhaps when we want to expand) are with people who are not accountable to the vast majority of CCFC supporters.

It doesn't fit your binary narrative I know, but I can accept the need for the club to own more income streams. What I disagree with is the strategy taken to get there.

Oh, and the break even at the Ricoh wouldn't be 22k, and 22k was not the Ricoh break even, it was the club break even. 22k x 23 x say £15 is £7.59m, you didn't think that was the yearly cost of being at the Ricoh did you? It's the cost of running the entire club, which stadium we played at doesn't chnge that, our wage bill does.

Our wage bill at that time was @£8m, now it's closer to £3m. Do the maths, our break even now would be closer to 7.5k (now, where have I heard that attendance figure before?)
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
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

We aren't in a joint venture with the council, Higgs are not us. We are tenants. Nothing stopping CCC selling off the land to regeneration companies if they are desperate for the area to be regenerated.

And ccc haven't been propping up the football club, they have been its landlord and have got an asset that cost circa £115m for nothing.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top