CCFC Ltd or Holding Company (1 Viewer)

[Big_Ben]

So many comments, ranging from the erudite to the ridiculous, from gloomy optimism to outright fantasy.
There's a point that's left me more than a little confused about the latest move by ACL to push for administration (as opposed to liquidation), and it's about the status of the company which is threatened with administration.
A post a few days ago (days, weeks, years - it seems to have been going on forever) was made about CCFC Ltd being the limited entity that ran the day to day operation of the football club, including the contract with ACL for the Ricoh, and this entity was virtually penniless anyway as all of the valuable stuff is held by CCFC Holdings Ltd - the football league registration, the players' registrations, etc, etc.
So, I'm presuming that the ACL action has to be against CCFC Ltd as that is who the ACL contract is with, whilst CCFC Holdings Ltd are not part of the action, and as such will still keep hold of the key cards regarding the league status and players if any bidder can be found to buy whatever it is that the administrator, if it gets that far, can actually sell.

Ranters and smart arses need not respond, I've read most of that ad infinitum, but I would be grateful if someone could clarify this for me.

Thanks.

 

---

[theferret]

How do we know if we qualify as a smart arse or a ranter?

Or have I just answered my own question?

Good question though.

 

[kirby485]

This would be an incredible loop hole to use if it meant keeping hold of players, however I fear there would then be the issue of third party ownership, as the players should be linked to the club as one entity.

It will be interesting to see all the dirt of past and present be brought up, so we can see how we got to where we are now!

 

[VegetableSamosa]

Coming from people I know in the Council, it is against the Holdings company and the Football arm will not be effected. SISU are apparently quite adept at splitting their business and moving funds and debts between different companies under the same name. However, we do stand to lose playing at the Ricoh.

 

[dadgad]

So many comments, ranging from the erudite to the ridiculous, from gloomy optimism to outright fantasy.
There's a point that's left me more than a little confused about the latest move by ACL to push for administration (as opposed to liquidation), and it's about the status of the company which is threatened with administration.
A post a few days ago (days, weeks, years - it seems to have been going on forever) was made about CCFC Ltd being the limited entity that ran the day to day operation of the football club, including the contract with ACL for the Ricoh, and this entity was virtually penniless anyway as all of the valuable stuff is held by CCFC Holdings Ltd - the football league registration, the players' registrations, etc, etc.
So, I'm presuming that the ACL action has to be against CCFC Ltd as that is who the ACL contract is with, whilst CCFC Holdings Ltd are not part of the action, and as such will still keep hold of the key cards regarding the league status and players if any bidder can be found to buy whatever it is that the administrator, if it gets that far, can actually sell.

Ranters and smart arses need not respond, I've read most of that ad infinitum, but I would be grateful if someone could clarify this for me.

Thanks.

I think that someone referred to this difference (one company split into two) as a hedge against Admin. Southampton tried this, but it did not work. The Football League
stepped in and lumped the two together. Therefore, in terms of a precedent, I think the same outcome here.

 

[chiefdave]

Coming from people I know in the Council, it is against the Holdings company and the Football arm will not be effected. SISU are apparently quite adept at splitting their business and moving funds and debts between different companies under the same name. However, we do stand to lose playing at the Ricoh.

we will still get any points deduction, it will be the same scenario as Southampton.