Could we face another transfer embargo (12 Viewers)
- Thread starter coop
- Start date
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
How remiss of me.
The rent will be less than our bill for 'professional fees' in this year's accounts in any case - auditors, solicitors, etc.
What does Waggy do when we're in our annnual state of lent-embargo anyway? Play Kerplunk with David Bell in the treatment room?
Wrenstreetcarpark
New Member
According to Tim Fisher CCFC is debt free, supported 100% by the owner and breaking even. Surely that must mean its a going concern
or was he just lying?
or was he just lying?
Wrenstreetcarpark
New Member
sorry, missed out: again.
mark82
Super Moderator
What a bunch of clueless idiots. Glad most you guys aren't in charge - think you would all be asking ACL for a rent increase the way you go on. All that blinkered with hate for SISU that you refuse to see anything they do as right.
Starting to get on my tits now. Why don't you all go support Portsmouth? They have been run the way you would like us to be run.
Starting to get on my tits now. Why don't you all go support Portsmouth? They have been run the way you would like us to be run.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Are you for real? We are about to enter a transfer embargo for the second year running; and we're facing a winding up order.
What do you think we should do? Congratulate SISU for their fine stewardship?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Wonder if Fisher, Clarke & co are up to speed on this ..... they must have an eye on it surely
Wrongful Trading is the unlawful act as set out in Section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Insolvent Trading or trading whilst insolvent would be part of the evidence of an act of Wrongful Trading, however it is not necessarily an unlawful act. It depends upon the facts of the case.
So what is the difference between the two?
There is no statutory recognition afforded to Insolvent Trading. Whilst undesirable in many instances it is not necessarily unlawful.
Wrongful Trading is an action that can only be undertaken by a person occupying the position of Director of a limited company. That position of “Director” can be determined in a number of ways, being official (recognised at Companies House and in a company’s statutory register), de facto or shadow as set out in the Companies Act.
Wrongful trading is the act by Directors of a period of trading in which debts and liabilities are incurred and typically increase, whilst having no reasonable prospect of a company avoiding insolvent liquidation. It is the action by Directors of accepting credit when it is highly unlikely that the same would be discharged due to the financial position of a company.
Wrongful Trading only applies to company Directors, whereas Insolvent Trading can be undertaken by individuals such as sole traders.
There are two tests for solvency defined in Section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986, being 1) are your assets exceeded by your liabilities and 2) are you failing to discharge your debts as and when they fall due. If you satisfy either criteria then you are technically insolvent in accordance with the definition of the same in the legislation.
What is the risk? Well if you are accused by a liquidator of a company of Wrongful Trading then as Director you could be personally liable for the damage the company suffered during a period of Wrongful Trading
(source accountingweb)
Think I would be worried if I was a director of any football club not just ccfc !
Wrongful Trading is the unlawful act as set out in Section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Insolvent Trading or trading whilst insolvent would be part of the evidence of an act of Wrongful Trading, however it is not necessarily an unlawful act. It depends upon the facts of the case.
So what is the difference between the two?
There is no statutory recognition afforded to Insolvent Trading. Whilst undesirable in many instances it is not necessarily unlawful.
Wrongful Trading is an action that can only be undertaken by a person occupying the position of Director of a limited company. That position of “Director” can be determined in a number of ways, being official (recognised at Companies House and in a company’s statutory register), de facto or shadow as set out in the Companies Act.
Wrongful trading is the act by Directors of a period of trading in which debts and liabilities are incurred and typically increase, whilst having no reasonable prospect of a company avoiding insolvent liquidation. It is the action by Directors of accepting credit when it is highly unlikely that the same would be discharged due to the financial position of a company.
Wrongful Trading only applies to company Directors, whereas Insolvent Trading can be undertaken by individuals such as sole traders.
There are two tests for solvency defined in Section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986, being 1) are your assets exceeded by your liabilities and 2) are you failing to discharge your debts as and when they fall due. If you satisfy either criteria then you are technically insolvent in accordance with the definition of the same in the legislation.
What is the risk? Well if you are accused by a liquidator of a company of Wrongful Trading then as Director you could be personally liable for the damage the company suffered during a period of Wrongful Trading
(source accountingweb)
Think I would be worried if I was a director of any football club not just ccfc !
Last edited:
SkyBlueBlood
Member
If we sign a striker on loan today they wont need to hand them in till June.
SkyBlueBlood
Member
This would only come into reality if SISU stated they were not prepared to back the club financially. As it now stands they are paying any defecit so the club is not trading insolvent.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
hear what you say SBB but ........ it is something the Directors have to keep an eye on
There are two tests for solvency defined in Section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986, being 1) are your assets exceeded by your liabilities and 2) are you failing to discharge your debts as and when they fall due. If you satisfy either criteria then you are technically insolvent in accordance with the definition of the same in the legislation.
There are two tests for solvency defined in Section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986, being 1) are your assets exceeded by your liabilities and 2) are you failing to discharge your debts as and when they fall due. If you satisfy either criteria then you are technically insolvent in accordance with the definition of the same in the legislation.
That is the problem for me when it comes to Sisu, i agree the club deserve the right to the correct rent, but this cant be used every time to cover over the bad management decisions that have been made while under there control. I don't think Sisu have many places to turn now and although most understand the rent us important we as a club have been here before without the rent being an issue or the reason.
mark82
Super Moderator
Don't get me wrong, if they miss the accounts again it is poor management and I certainly don't agree with everything they do, it's just some of the crap spouted from those who believe we should continue with the same rent deal that's driving us quickly to insolvency and disadvantaging us with FFP rules.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Im sorry but you must be on the wrong website. I haven't seen a single post saying that we should continue with the current rent deal !!!!
What you will find that we are pissed off with is the tactics used which undoubtedly will cost us any chance of owning the stadium.
Constant fed lies.
45million debt !!
Relegation from the championship !!
No assets !!
mark82
Super Moderator
What would you have done? ACL were not willing to talk according to Fisher. If you are outright calling him a liar then I hope you have proof as you would be leaving yourself open to prosecution.
Warwickhunt
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the detailled view Oldskyblue do you really believe that Fisher,Clarke, waggott have hung them selves out to dry on this because of their ingnorance? or do you think they have the money to walk in the court on 2 may and blow smoke up ACL's butts!
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
wouldnt know same as you dont .............. would assume that being clever guys and having sought lots of insolvency advice that they would have a proper handle on it.......... that their actions will be sufficient to prove that whilst maybe technically insolvent they are not wrongfully trading.
The purpose of the post was to inform others as to what constitutes as legal or not ............. hence why it wasnt anti SISU, Fisher etc ........... but a statement of what is
The meeting on 02/05 is to finalise the 3rd party debtor orders, so has nothing to do with whether they are trading insolvently or wrongfully or even a winding up so doubt there will be any smoke blowing being done but there you go.
Last edited:
skyblueman
New Member
As long as there is a reasonable source of funds that likely will be made available to the company (club) if required then it's not wrongful trading and it's ok - obviously the Director's are working under the understanding which would have been made previously to the auditors that someone (i.e SISU in this case) would make up any losses - it would exactly the same for the likes of Chelsea & Man City- where the Directors there obviously would be over-trading if the owners weren't promising to fund the losses. If that offer is withdrawn however then they have to declare insolvency or they do become liable. Happens alot when banks withdraw over drafts suddenly and the like
Warwickhunt
Well-Known Member
I dont have an issue with either party I am just gobsmacked at how far they let things go- i am more concerned that there is no resolution full stop
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Totally agree with that
skyblueman
New Member
Obviously it's suiting SISU to drag it out as long as possible because they don't have to pay anything until it's sorted (and that my friends is what worries me the most here) and they also know now full well that ACL won't lock them out nor bankrupt them over it... now if it were HMRC after them for big money you can bet your life this would have been sorted AGES ago because HMRC don't give a toss about the consequences of their actions...
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
If thats a threat its a weak one !!!
Grendel
Well-Known Member
He has already accused fisher and waggott of giving robins a backhander at the Huddersfield press conference so in terms of libel suggestions this is tame stuff.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Every time you try to drag up an old story why do you have to embelish and make up more lies?
Hope your looking forward to the embargo your friends will have us in tonight !!!
Personally i feel embarrased every time they drag us to a new low !!!!