FL reply on new ground evidence (2 Viewers)

skybluetony176 · Sep 22, 2013

i sent the FL an email asking for them to share the evidence that they have seen from shitsu that allowed them to have permission to ground share at sixfields, the reply is :-

Tony,

Thank you for your email.

While I understand you are keen to establish potential plans the club’s owners may have, I’m afraid you would need to direct these queries to the club themselves. As an individual business it is at their discretion what to publicise at this stage regarding such plans.

As we have done The League can provide some clarity and background to the administration procedure, the transfer of membership, the temporary relocation and our position, but for further insight into the club’s strategy we can only suggest you contact them at this stage.

Thank you for contacting The Football League.

Regards,

Andrew Pomfret

Customer Services Officer

The Football League Limited

www.football-league.co.uk

what a complete cop out is what springs to mind

Tonylinc · Sep 22, 2013

Well that was a great help.....NOT. The FL sanction a "temporary" move but require absolutely no evidence of plans to return? What sort of organisation are they?

bradwellskyblues · Sep 22, 2013

they are a joke and not a very good joke

Tonylinc · Sep 22, 2013

Oh I forgot......We have no rules, everything is in our discretion. The result of this is that we will make up a rule depending on:-
1. How we feel on the day in question.
2. Whether you grease our palms for the result which you desire.

Yes, Brad they are a joke.

Hobo · Sep 22, 2013

On asking their rules around players registration
Thank you for your email.

I presume you are referring to Coventry City given the nature of previous emails received.

Over time the ownership arrangements of Coventry City have become extremely complicated. The contracts of employment for Coventry City players were entered into by a different company to that which held the share in the Football League. Both The Football League and The FA registered those contracts, because The Football League effectively treated the two companies as a single entity and thus considered there to be no breaches of existing regulations at the time.

Through the Administration process this issue has been addressed. The League share and players contracts are now held by the same entity.

The League has reviewed its procedures and measures put in place to ensure that this situation cannot be repeated.

Thank you for contacting The Football League.

Kind Regards

Amanda

ohitsaidwalker king power · Sep 22, 2013

Tonylinc said:
Well that was a great help.....NOT. The FL sanction a "temporary" move but require absolutely no evidence of plans to return? What sort of organisation are they?

Billy Bell summed them up at the charity match when he called them... " A bloody disgrace..."

Hobo · Sep 22, 2013

Then asking them at what meeting their rules were changed/clarified and when the FL members were notified of such changes....
Thank you for your reply.

To confirm there have been no amendments to the rules regarding player registrations so therefore has not been raised at a Club meeting. As previously mentioned The League has reviewed its procedures and measures have been put in place to ensure that the situation relating to Coventry City cannot be repeated.

Thank you for contacting The Football League.

Kind Regards

Amanda

What a load of bollocks they think we are thick..Real Fans Real Football folks!

Sky Blue Pete · Sep 22, 2013

Would you have preferred. Due to the inability of the club to meet it's fixtures, the golden share for Coventry city football has been given to the team that finished 22nd in league 1 in 2012-2013 season

Stafford_SkBlue · Sep 22, 2013

\What on earth did you think the FL were going to say. The site is at so and so.

thegameaintstraight · Sep 22, 2013

Passed a pub in Burslem on the way to the game yesterday called "The Holy Inadequate", I kid you not.
Could it be named after the FL?

ohitsaidwalker king power · Sep 22, 2013

thegameaintstraight said:
Passed a pub in Burslem on the way to the game yesterday called "The Holy Inadequate", I kid you not.
Could it be named after the FL?

http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Restau...ate-Stoke_on_Trent_Staffordshire_England.html

Trip advisor seems to suggest you should have gone in.....!!

SkyblueBazza · Sep 22, 2013

Tonylinc said:
Well that was a great help.....NOT. The FL sanction a "temporary" move but require absolutely no evidence of plans to return? What sort of organisation are they?

They have not said they haven't seen any evidence. They are pointing out that it is outside of their remit to share any details of whatever they may (or may not) have seen. Any enlightening information on the issue is the club's owners to divulge...otherwise they are setting themselves up for a shit storm!

SonOfSnoz · Sep 22, 2013

Pass this onto Nicki Sinclaire mate!
Better response than:
"Oi scum, give us your money & sod off you pathetic idiot!"
Signed: The Football League

Tonylinc · Sep 22, 2013

SkyblueBazza said:
They have not said they haven't seen any evidence. They are pointing out that it is outside of their remit to share any details of whatever they may (or may not) have seen. Any enlightening information on the issue is the club's owners to divulge...otherwise they are setting themselves up for a shit storm!

This reply together with the Chairman's statement, "I have no idea whether CCFC will ever return to Coventry", leads me to believe that no plans have been asked for or provided.

SkyblueBazza · Sep 22, 2013

Tonylinc said:
This reply together with the Chairman's statement, "I have no idea whether CCFC will ever return to Coventry", leads me to believe that no plans have been asked for or provided.

...& you might be right. All I'm saying is that the FL are not in a position to divulge ANY information about the plans IF they actually have any. So asking them to divulge it is either a bit naive or a contrived attempt to make them look silly...which they need no help with.

Philosoraptor · Sep 23, 2013

Hobo said:
On asking their rules around players registration
Thank you for your email.

I presume you are referring to Coventry City given the nature of previous emails received.

Over time the ownership arrangements of Coventry City have become extremely complicated. The contracts of employment for Coventry City players were entered into by a different company to that which held the share in the Football League. Both The Football League and The FA registered those contracts, because The Football League effectively treated the two companies as a single entity and thus considered there to be no breaches of existing regulations at the time.

Through the Administration process this issue has been addressed. The League share and players contracts are now held by the same entity.

The League has reviewed its procedures and measures put in place to ensure that this situation cannot be repeated.

Thank you for contacting The Football League.

Kind Regards

Amanda

For me what interesting in all this is, "..The Football League effectively treated the two companies as a single entity.."

I just wonder if a judge will see it this way as well.

TheRoyalScam · Sep 23, 2013

Philosorapter said:
For me what interesting in all this is, "..The Football League effectively treated the two companies as a single entity.."

I just wonder if a judge will see it this way as well.

Good point Philosorapter - again the words 'asset' and 'stripping' keep coming to mind - the question is a) whether this gets to court and b) how the judge interprets the facts.

Philosoraptor · Sep 23, 2013

TheRoyalScam said:
Good point Philosorapter - again the words 'asset' and 'stripping' keep coming to mind - the question is a) whether this gets to court and b) how the judge interprets the facts.

If it does get to court and a judge does state that the companies are the same entity, then the judge should rule for a re-running of the administration process, the companies that are connected to SISU will lose control of Coventry City at the very minimum.

I dont think it is as wrapped up as is being reported.

Hobo · Sep 23, 2013

The FL did treat it as one entity to begin with, they said so at the time, but backed off once Sappala threstend to sue over the share. It would hsve been FL rules vs Company Law during an Administration process. The FL were relieved the Administrator went for Otium it brought everything back tpgether for them.
What I find interesting is they say changes have been made so it cant happen again yet cant or wont tell me what they are.

skybluetony176 · Sep 23, 2013

Stafford_SkBlue said:
\What on earth did you think the FL were going to say. The site is at so and so.

i just asked them to share the evidence, whatever that may be.

this is their last reply in a number of emails i have sent and recieved from them, the reply prior stated that they were happy that the evidence provided that shitsu had given them of proof that they had a plan to return to coventry, all i did is ask them to make that evidence public as the fans have seen no such evidence and surely we deserve that.

FL reply on new ground evidence (2 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency