I was asking the same question the other day, if we are still in admin when it has to be finalised where we play will it be the administrators decision/choice where we play?
What happens if the football league and FA grant the golden share to holdings?
All this nonsense about where we will play is a complete fabrication. Coventry City (Holdings) Limited has no right to say where we will play. If they "do a deal" for example, to play at Walsall, they could end up with egg on their face if Coventry City Football Club Limited is sold. Only the Administrator at the end of the day can decide where Coventry City Football Club Limited can play surely ?
Well the argument would be they haven't taken anything away from them, the share was registered to Ltd and it would still be registered to Ltd, Holdings would disagree of course which is why it's most likely to come down to a court to ratify that the FL have operated within their own rules and processes if this becomes the situation. The only other legal challenge Holdings could mount would be to challenge the legality of the FL's rules that they have granted it to Ltd under. I class here the argument about whether the league were right in recording that the share was with Ltd initially in with the FL operating within their own rules.
Ramification? If the court overturned the ruling the FL and possibly Ltd could appeal the court decision and it could drag on a lot long while. If ultimately going Holdings way in court, significant damages paid by the FL to Holdings, FL forced to allow Holdings to play instead of Ltd, potential claim for damages on the FL from Ltd and CCFC would have no good faith with the league so I would expect in future all rules would be enforced with CCFC very rigorously, like non of the flexibility some other clubs get under the 'special dispensation' tag that the FL seem to grant whenever it suits them. If Holdings then failed to meet any of the criteria around their ground plans they'd probably jump at the chance to chuck you out the league.
PS. If anyone was foolish enough to go all the way to purchasing Ltd with an undertaking from the FL to grant the share you could equally have similar ramifications but with the parties reversed. FL is caught in the middle with everyone saying 'I'm spartacus!'
So to sum up, we're screwed whatever happens?
So to sum up, we're screwed whatever happens?
So long as its not JoyI hope that the fat lady sings soon,because I'm getting really pissed off with all of this none action.:thinking about:
It wouldn't be that funny as we'd lose Ryton and the academy who I believe are within holdings, as it payments we should be receiving as part of bigi and Keogh's transfers.
FWIW, I think taking on the FL in court would be pretty tricky unless there's a watertight case. Stevenage tried and failed, and the judgement said...
"The onus of showing that a restraint is reasonable as between the parties lies on the party seeking to impose the restraint. But where the restraint is part of a system of control imposed by a body exercising regulatory powers in the public interest the onus of proving that the particular restraint is unreasonable, because it is contrary to the public interest, lies on the party who makes that assertion. If admission criteria are shown to be arbitrary or capricious in effect, whether because of their content or the way they are applied, they are open to challenge. But the onus is on the challenger, and the Court will give due weight to the judgment of the responsible bodies."
http://www.5rb.com/case/Stevenage-Borough-FC-v-The-Football-League
Wordy, but in essence saying that as long as the FL have stayed within their own rules, and those rules aren't "arbitrary or capricious", then trying to sue them for stuff like restraint of trade (based on not getting the 'golden' share) is going to be hard work.
What would the legal ramifications be if the football league were to be seen to take away the golden share from a company that had already (according to them ) invested 60 million into football at coventry.:thinking about:
By Stevenage taking the league to court and failing, then in law there is a precedent. As such, unless sisu can show something completely original, or different to Stevenage, then the judge must comply with that precedent. By setting up so many companies, by deliberately arranging their affairs in a confusing manner, I cannot see how they can argue the league is being unreasonable IF they agree with Ltd as holder of the licence.
Lets not forget the share / licence whatever is under the name CCFC Ltd. The league made their preliminary ruling based on this. Sisu may try, but that will take years (if it ever gets to court) and by that time no doubt Ltd will be taken over by another owner, and they will have the upper hand.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Let this be true, and do not let sisu defy natural justice.
That's what Appleton seems to be hinting at. Fisher can make all the statements he likes but at the moment they're not from a position of authority.
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?