If the allegations turn out to be fact ie, that Otium, CCFC Ltd, CCFC H Ltd and SBS & L Ltd are in breach of the Companies Act Sections 441 and 451 (I understand a criminal offence) and a breach of Football League rules, did the Administrator mention this in his findings to the appropriate authorities when selecting his preferred bidder ?
It's irrelevant as the Football League would already be aware of the breach (remember they imposed a transfer embargo on the club because of it).
This was several months ago, yet still not complied !
Typo, sections 441 and 451 (not 551).
If the allegations turn out to be fact ie, that Otium, CCFC Ltd, CCFC H Ltd and SBS & L Ltd are in breach of the Companies Act Sections 441 and 451 (I understand a criminal offence) and a breach of Football League rules, did the Administrator mention this in his findings to the appropriate authorities when selecting his preferred bidder ?
It's irrelevant as the Football League would already be aware of the breach (remember they imposed a transfer embargo on the club because of it).
So why have they approved Otium?
Great thread.
VofR the FL have a system that is NON-legal binding and they decide whether a company is 'fit' not through any legal requirement but that the said company 'fit' their criteria. It's like the police have their own system for regulating their staff's actions.
I have said before and now I believe it is so important that EVERY club have a trust - each trust pay £1000 and that money goes to employ 2 full time lawyers and 2 student part timers. Their job is to step in when it is required.
Why is this so?
1. How can a company/team go into administration but then hire the administrator and then take over the company/team again. IF this is NOT law then it should be the 'Trusts' legal requirement.
2. The FA and FL have their 'bodies' to protect their members but we supporters have no such body. In this country alone we could get 1 million members who elect a president and council to oversee supporters' rights. As mentioned above we can employ professional lawyers to assist with making OUR laws and regulations.
(Why should we fans be controlled by a body that has no interest in our rights? If there were no fans there would be no Sky TV or BBC interest.
I suggest WE CCFC form a 'Trust' that has funds to work towards employing a lawyer
Place your bets now on the possibility of SISU putting Otium into Administration in 12 - 18 months time for another SISU company buying it back ? What would the odds be ? It's possible based on what we know isn't it ?
Place your bets now on the possibility of SISU putting Otium into Administration in 12 - 18 months time for another SISU company buying it back ? What would the odds be ? It's possible based on what we know isn't it ?
E-mail sent to the Football league. Nothing will happen, expect the usual gunf however the more voices the merrier! At the very least they cannot claim they weren't aware of the status of Otium!
Well done PSGM1...very good email & post. You even resisted the historical urge you often display (re:Trust...though note you did still get "trust" in there ;-) )
Section 448 of the Companies Act exempts dormant subsidiaries from filing accounts in certain prescribed circumstances. Since Odious did not, it would seem, trade during the relevant financial year they are likely to fulfil the "dormant" criteria
I think people need to be careful before making allegations to the FL etc that are likely to be easily refuted - it makes the case look weak. We should also remember that whatever else SHITSU may be they are not naive business people. The likelihood of them overlooking something as fundamental as this is remote. They have an army of expensive accountants and lawyers to ensure that they do not make the kind of errors that are being suggested.
If the FL do give full approval to Odious / SHITSU and groundshare then Judicial Review is the only (realistic) legal course open
Whilst letters such as the one above are written with the best of intentions it may be counter-productive to make inaccurate or unsubstantiated accusations
Odious being struck off the company register would help though for all the above reasons it is unlikely to happen
Great thread.
VofR the FL have a system that is NON-legal binding and they decide whether a company is 'fit' not through any legal requirement but that the said company 'fit' their criteria. It's like the police have their own system for regulating their staff's actions.
I have said before and now I believe it is so important that EVERY club have a trust - each trust pay £1000 and that money goes to employ 2 full time lawyers and 2 student part timers. Their job is to step in when it is required.
Why is this so?
1. How can a company/team go into administration but then hire the administrator and then take over the company/team again. IF this is NOT law then it should be the 'Trusts' legal requirement.
2. The FA and FL have their 'bodies' to protect their members but we supporters have no such body. In this country alone we could get 1 million members who elect a president and council to oversee supporters' rights. As mentioned above we can employ professional lawyers to assist with making OUR laws and regulations.
(Why should we fans be controlled by a body that has no interest in our rights? If there were no fans there would be no Sky TV or BBC interest.
I suggest WE CCFC form a 'Trust' that has funds to work towards employing a lawyer
Yeh they would never make an error like that... or fail to notice a massive flaw in the rental agreement during due dilligence.
Are those two sections of the customs act criminal law, if they are any member of the public can complain to the police, whether it is followed up is another question. I wonder if the likes of ACL or CCC are waiting to see what becomes official and maybe then complain.
Section 448 of the Companies Act exempts dormant subsidiaries from filing accounts in certain prescribed circumstances. Since Odious did not, it would seem, trade during the relevant financial year they are likely to fulfil the "dormant" criteria
I think people need to be careful before making allegations to the FL etc that are likely to be easily refuted - it makes the case look weak. We should also remember that whatever else SHITSU may be they are not naive business people. The likelihood of them overlooking something as fundamental as this is remote. They have an army of expensive accountants and lawyers to ensure that they do not make the kind of errors that are being suggested.
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?