Like many I'm lost can someone just confirm what I think has happened
- Sisu have administrated a company called Arvo which pays the rent to ACL on behalf of ccfc, true or false ?
- The club is in breach of contract at the Ricoh for doing this and will most likely be kicked out, t or f ?
- The court hearing is on today but is likely to be thrown out due to sisus actions yesterday, t or f ?
- 10 point deduction, can someone clear up on that front please ?
- is there anything I've missed ?
Sorry to make even more posts but think I may have missed some more twists last night so need clearing up
Thanks in advance
Edit: Please just keep it facts and not a Sisu ACL slanging match
You're right that it is confusing. As no one else has answered you at the time of writing, I'll give it a go. I'm no expert so I might have this wrong - and I'm happy to be corrected by anyone who does know - but as I understand it:
1. False. It seems to be CCFC Ltd that has been put into administration. I don't think we know for sure which company holds the lease, but the CET and CWR are reporting it is CCFC Ltd, not CCFC Holdings (which the club suggests is the main company running the Sky Blues). Put simplistically, ARVO is a Sisu sister company that for some reason (which remains unclear) is the only other company apart from ACL known to be owed money by the club. This debt to ARVO could potentially have been used as the vehicle to push CCFC Ltd into administration, but we don't know whether it was or not.
2. Unknown. The club was already in breach of contract because it wasn't paying the rent. Whether administration affects the lease will depend on which company (CCFC Ltd or CCFC Holdings) is holding the lease agreement. CWR and the CET report the lease agreement is sitting with CCFC Ltd. So if CCFC Ltd was to be liquidated as a result of administration that lease should die and that being so the club would have no agreement to play at the Ricoh. On another thread yesterday I posted some details about the complicated impact of administration on the lease arrangement in a situation where CCFC Ltd emerges from administration via a Company Voluntary Arrangement.
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/28462-Confused.com?p=401076#post401076
3. Unknown. If the lease agreement is with CCFC Ltd and it is already in administration there should be no need to have a long hearing to determine whether CCFC Ltd should be put into administration. But ACL could try to argue that the parent company is also insolvent and try to have it pushed into administration too. It that argument is advanced, it might take place another day.
4. Unknown. If the golden share which gives the club entry to the league resides with CCFC Ltd then (assuming that is the subsidiary put into administration) that would attract a 10-point penalty or worse. If the share resides with CCFC Holdings, a 10-point deduction would be in the hands of the Football League and might be determined by how closely linked the two companies are judged to be. Based on the Southampton scenario, my guess is the club will be hit with at least a 10-point deduction.
Tried to help. Not sure if I have!
