"That statement seems clear to me. The important part is the reference to the annual return that clearly states the member of the Football League is CCFC Ltd not CCFC H Ltd dated 23/06/12"
If they shifted the golden share after June last year and the Football League allowed it, doesn't it make a nonsense of all the other administrations and points deductions etc? What is to stop any Club building up debts in company A, shift the golden share into company B and stick company A into admin and carry on as if nothing has happened. Have Sisu fooled the League or has the League just cocked up? Whichever it is there is going to be one hell of a noise from all the other clubs.
If you read the answers, they were also happy to cut down the escrow obligation by £300k, so I don't think so.
I don't usually post ACL statements, I make my own comments, but as it is a Saturday and the news media seem to be slow, I thought it might be a good idea if I put this up for people to read. I am sure that it will be used by the news media and they will add reactions and the like.
The ACL statement:
The Board of Arena Coventry Limited (ACL) is pleased by the decision by the High Court in London to adjourn ACL’s application for an administration order against Coventry City Football Club (CCFC) until Tuesday 26 March 2013. The application relates to the failure of CCFC to pay ACL £1.3 million in rent that ACL is lawfully owed for the use by CCFC of the Ricoh Arena.
It is clear to the Board that the High Court judge was as perplexed as the Board itself by the unclear and contradictory statement made last night by CCFC (Holdings) Ltd, the parent company of CCFC.
While publically available sources of information including the Football League Handbook and the annual return made by the Football League to Companies House (dated 23 June 2012) state that CCFC’s Football League share rests with Coventry City Football Club Ltd; the statement issued by CCFC suggests that all assets and liabilities relevant to this application have been moved to CCFC (Holdings) Ltd. ACL’s lawyers will now be writing to the Directors of CCFC, the Football League and the administrators appointed by CCFC to request more information about this matter.
The judge clearly agreed that there is a need to understand precisely where the business and the assets of CCFC actually lie and that additional time is now required for this to be investigated thoroughly. The Board shares this view and is surprised that CCFC did not choose to represent itself at such an important hearing at the High Court; the outcome of which was of critical importance to the supporters of CCFC and the people of Coventry, as well as CCFC’s creditors and suppliers.
The Board believes that CCFC supporters should feel reassured by the fact that this matter is now being dealt with by the High Court where the truth of the matter will now be uncovered. This is an unusual situation in which a creditor (ACL) is actually trying to save a debtor (CCFC).
The Board wishes also to reiterate that there is no truth whatsoever in suggestions reported by some media today that ACL will prevent CCFC from playing at the Ricoh Arena. The whole point of the course of legal action that the Board has taken is to ensure that a successful and sustainable Sky Blues team is able to play at the Ricoh Arena for many years to come.
Could the football league have allowed the transfer if asked by the club?
The scenario you refer to happens all the time. If say you own a small business you would normally run the business and the property as 2 separate entities. Walsall football club pays a whacking great rent to the person who owns Walsall football club - but to another holding company.
If anyone owned the Ricoh and the club the assets would a be split as separate companies to protect if one fell down.
That would mean that only £200,000 would have to go back into the scrow account, but they would still have the original £500,000 for the rent arrears wouldn't it?
I understand your frustration and suspicion. I think most people would agree that the whole financial model of football in this country is broken. When the player wages exceed the total income of a club it is not sustainable. In 2005 when the Lease and Licence were agreed between ACL and CCFC the Club had two directors on the Board of ACL. The rent was set at the same level as at Highfield Road. That was the only comparable available and the only argument about it was from my late brother-in-law who suggested base rents at different levels in different leagues and with an escalator that would pay more if the gate was well over the average. This was rejected by the CCFC board who wanted to stick with the rental as we all now know it.
"That statement seems clear to me. The important part is the reference to the annual return that clearly states the member of the Football League is CCFC Ltd not CCFC H Ltd dated 23/06/12"
If they shifted the golden share after June last year and the Football League allowed it, doesn't it make a nonsense of all the other administrations and points deductions etc? What is to stop any Club building up debts in company A, shift the golden share into company B and stick company A into admin and carry on as if nothing has happened. Have Sisu fooled the League or has the League just cocked up? Whichever it is there is going to be one hell of a noise from all the other clubs.
This is very important information that not many people were aware of!
Oh and btw that option dies with CCFC Limited
It would mean that they're asking the club to repay something in the region of £700k rather than £1.3 million. Bear in mind that the escrow money (the original £520k) wasn't put there by the club.
Reading ACL's answers they already were happy to write off £800k.
Yes it was.
Councillor Mutton revealed that ACL had been able to withdraw from a reserve of £500,000 deposited by Coventry City in one of the escrow accounts set up when the Ricoh was being built.
However , reading SISUs stamens today, it seems ACL changed their position once they got to court and stated that they wants full settlement of the total debt.. Which it seems is one if the reasons SISU decided they had to vacant the premises
That is interesting. But I suspect ACL will claim the group of companies can't simply walk away from their responsibillities & debts, it sets a bad precedent in law. In return I suspect ACL will not rescind the option.
That is interesting. But I suspect ACL will claim the group of companies can't simply walk away from their responsibillities & debts, it sets a bad precedent in law. In return I suspect ACL will not rescind the option.
Yep not massively surprising.. But still a fact, so regardless of what ACL said back then, they changed position nowThat isn't completely surprising though-the club had rejected every attempt at a compromise. If ACL had appointed their choice of administrator they would still likely have accepted the reduced figure-but with SISU now controlling it they want the arrears in full. The club has shown very little flexibility throughout this whole process.
This ones for OSB, do you think that SISU bought CCFC to use as a vehicle to off set tax liabilities through its London office?
Yep not massively surprising.. But still a fact, so regardless of what ACL said back then, they changed position now
PWKH, I put it to you that ACL only care about CCFC fans because of lost revenues on match day and it would be breaking the contract you signed with Compass. It's funny you didn't give a feck about fans when you said you could survive without a football club 2 months ago. Stinks of bullshit to me.
I've heard that your administrators plans were to close the academy to save costs? So much for caring about the future of the future of the football club.
Yep not massively surprising.. But still a fact, so regardless of what ACL said back then, they changed position now
Mutton has his facts wrong. The money was put there from a third party grant.
ACL still have that money though, wherever it came from, ACL now have it as payment of rent arrears.
option is not with ACL Jack its with the Charity
ACL still have that money though, wherever it came from, ACL now have it as payment of rent arrears.
It still means that the club has on obligation to top it back up given that it's a) A security deposit and b) was paid with money that wasn't theirs.
OK, but I was looking at the other end of the option, I assumed that was with CCFC Ltd, or is it elsewhere?
It's also money that wasn't ACL's, which they now have.
It was put there as a safeguard for ACL in the event that a tenant defaulted-it's not the same.
They defaulted. ACL took the money. Served it's purpose.
I'm certain that the implications of rejecting the offer would've been made clear to the CCFC board-bear in mind also that the last talks were held after ACL issued their statutory order, which they didn't follow up.
you always seem "certain", and "sure".. and seem to surmise a lot of things... but truth is, neither you, me, or anyone on this board can confirm anything for 'Certain'.. you are purely guessing !
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?