For PWKH (1 Viewer)

[Voice_of_Reason]

It has been alleged that there may have been an illegal movement of assets from Coventry City Football Club Limited into Coventry City (Holdings) Limited and other accounting irregularities. My concern is that the Administrators may have "overlooked" this allegation and not include their findings in their report to the Court should there be any foundation. (The Administrators were appointed by SISU and have also, I understand, been appointed by SISU in 30 or so other administrations). I wonder if SISU would appoint them in future should it be found that the directors have acted illegally or inappropriately in this current administration process ? I would hope that ACL's Lawyers are making their own investigations and will take any appropriate action.

 

---

[SkyBlueScottie]

You can easily check if that's the case by going through the books. My understanding is that share has been with Ltd since 95. Isn't this the basis of Sisu's argument?

 

[sotv1987]

Voice, who has alleged the illegal movements?? Surely it would be an illegal act on the aidministrators part to overlook this???

 

[Skybluerevolution (Pt2)]

you only have to look at The Rangers fiasco and how they're administrators Duff and Phelps got away with murder...tbh these people are all leeches and they all line each others pockets...this will run on for a while yet.

 

[BrisbaneBronco]

By the time the legal and admin bills are paid they could have paid the fucking rent.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

Voice, who has alleged the illegal movements?? Surely it would be an illegal act on the aidministrators part to overlook this???

I didn't say there had. There have been several comments relating to assets being moved and, if so, this MAY be illegal. Yes, you are right, the Administrator should include his findings in his final report. My question is : were assets moved from Coventry City Football Club Limited into Coventry City (Holdings) Limited and if so, was this illegal ?

 

[wingy]

I didn't say there had. There have been several comments relating to assets being moved and, if so, this MAY be illegal. Yes, you are right, the Administrator should include his findings in his final report. My question is : were assets moved from Coventry City Football Club Limited into Coventry City (Holdings) Limited and if so, was this illegal ?

And information witheld which would be available on on week insolvency request.

 

[BrisbaneBronco]

I didn't say there had. There have been several comments relating to assets being moved and, if so, this MAY be illegal. Yes, you are right, the Administrator should include his findings in his final report. My question is : were assets moved from Coventry City Football Club Limited into Coventry City (Holdings) Limited and if so, was this illegal ?

OSB will know the legality on this.
Also what about the timing of the transfer from Limited to Holdings. My guess is between the time ACL applied to HC for CCFC Ltd admin and the time SISU did it themselves.

 

[sw88]

I thought I read in the report that this was their first dealing with SISU ?

 

[Bluegloucester]

It has been alleged that there may have been an illegal movement of assets from Coventry City Football Club Limited into Coventry City (Holdings) Limited and other accounting irregularities. My concern is that the Administrators may have "overlooked" this allegation and not include their findings in their report to the Court should there be any foundation. (The Administrators were appointed by SISU and have also, I understand, been appointed by SISU in 30 or so other administrations). I wonder if SISU would appoint them in future should it be found that the directors have acted illegally or inappropriately in this current administration process ? I would hope that ACL's Lawyers are making their own investigations and will take any appropriate action.

How do you know SISU have appointed them previously? The Administrators' statement says otherwise.

 

[stupot07]

If they have done something illegally, the administrator will have spotted it and report it in his final report.

I think people need to be careful what they post, accusing someone of illegal acts may be taken as libellous.

 

[grego_gee]

Yawn, yawn.
I shot the sheriff!

imp:

 

[luwalla]

If they have done something illegally, the administrator will have spotted it and report it in his final report.

I think people need to be careful what they post, accusing someone of illegal acts may be taken as libellous.

Ohh yes, he's an officer of the court, so of course he would ... Just as the police will always be 100% truthful in their reports, and government officials will always be truthful with their expense claims

 

[James Smith]

If this was a plc and uncle Tim made the claims he has made, the lawyers would have stopped him or corporate communications would have done so. I remember during the BA strike when the union came out with drivel and claims like there are loads of BA planes at Shannon airport and Cardiff. There weren't (as plane spotters confirmed) but it didn't stop them publicising the claim they also claimed that there were 85 BA planes parked at Heathrow which is ridiculous because if they have that much space to play with they wouldn't need to demolish sipson village to build a third runway. http://communist-party.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=816&Itemid=145

BA came out and said this isn't true and we are publishing accurate information about the number of flights that have taken off and passenger numbers. They also said that they couldn't release false or misleading info to the stock exchange as that was a very serious offence.

 

[Sky Blues]

From memory, the administrator's report said he had not worked with the Company (CCFC Ltd) or the directors (Tim Fisher) before. I do not recall it mentioning Sisu in that respect.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

If they have done something illegally, the administrator will have spotted it and report it in his final report.

I think people need to be careful what they post, accusing someone of illegal acts may be taken as libellous.

Who has actually accused them of acting illegally ? Big difference in questioning if they have or not !

 

[Jack Griffin]

From memory, the administrator's report said he had not worked with the Company (CCFC Ltd) or the directors (Tim Fisher) before. I do not recall it mentioning Sisu in that respect.

An evasive answer hiding the reality that he has previously been the administrator for a number of SISU owned companies. This worries me no end, as it is in his own interests to get more work from them.

It would be nice to get a list of SISU owned companies Rubin & partners have been involved in.. any one know how to do that?

 

[The Prefect]

I didn't say there had. There have been several comments relating to assets being moved and, if so, this MAY be illegal. Yes, you are right, the Administrator should include his findings in his final report. My question is : were assets moved from Coventry City Football Club Limited into Coventry City (Holdings) Limited and if so, was this illegal ?

These complexities need to left to the administrator. If you read their report they didn't miss this. To quote their Point 6 - Action Taken By the Administrators the second paragraph reads:

"In addition to the foregoing, significant investigatory work has been undertaken in an attempt to resolve the issue over the entity within which the Football League Share is held together with the ownership of certain assets, which, it could be presumed, ought to be owned by the entity holding that share"

The administrator has confirmed that in his opinion the Football League share was held in CCFC Ltd . I'd read the above point as suggesting that if the company owns the Football League share then you would presume other assets relating to that ought to be owned by it - an example of that could be a player's registration / contract. Perhaps the academy?

In the statement of affairs as at 21 March 2013 the CCFC Ltd is assetless (no pledged assets). The other assets of Player Registration (£466k). Rates Bill Refund (£395k), Prepayments (£176k) and Accrued Income (£78k) may or may not be recoverable by the administrator.

Perhaps the most important line of the administrators report for me is in section 3 - Background and Trading History. He shows turnover figures for the year ending 31 May 2011 as £10.267m. In the sentence underneath it states "Management accounts for the year ended 31 May 2012 disclose that the Company's turnover for the year amounted £9,407,018, net of VAT, with a loss recorded of £3,238,522."

From that we know that the company was turning over (including VAT) above £10m up until 31 May 2012 and I just wonder how such a significant business with such high turnover ends up with no income and no pledged assets less than a year later and is apparently non-trading (to quote CCFC (Holdings) Ltd).

The 31 May 2011 accounts for CCFC Ltd were signed off by the director on 19th June 2012 (one year and 19 days after the year end). I can see no mention in Post Balance sheet events (note 20 of the accounts on Page 15) that the company had ceased trading although this comment may be reserved for the accounts for the year ending 31 May 2012. Post balance sheet events are defined as those that occur between the balance sheet date and the date on which the financial statements are approved by the board of directors. If the company has not been trading in the year ending 31 May 2013 (which includes the accounts sign-off date of 19 June 2012) why wasn't this fact mentioned?

Basically there are two types of 'Post Balance Sheet' events. Here is a quote from the Financial Reporting Council's website on SSAP 17 (Post Balance Sheet Events).

"Adjusting events are those post balance sheet events which provide additional evidence of conditions existing at the balance sheet date. Non-adjusting events are those post balance sheet events which concern conditions that did not exist at the balance sheet date.

Events arising after the balance sheet date need to be reflected in financial statements if they provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the balance sheet date and materially affect the amounts to be included.

To prevent financial statements from being misleading, disclosure needs to be made by way of notes of other material events arising after the balance sheet date which provide evidence of conditions not existing at the balance sheet date. Disclosure is required where this information is necessary for a proper understanding of the financial position."

My question would be that if the Company (CCFC Ltd) had ceased trading and now had no assets should this have been disclosed when the accounts were approved by the board on 19th June 2012? It is difficult to answer that question without knowing when the Company ceased trading.

I am sure the administrators will sort this out.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

These complexities need to left to the administrator. If you read their report they didn't miss this. To quote their Point 6 - Action Taken By the Administrators the second paragraph reads:

"In addition to the foregoing, significant investigatory work has been undertaken in an attempt to resolve the issue over the entity within which the Football League Share is held together with the ownership of certain assets, which, it could be presumed, ought to be owned by the entity holding that share"

The administrator has confirmed that in his opinion the Football League share was held in CCFC Ltd . I'd read the above point as suggesting that if the company owns the Football League share then you would presume other assets relating to that ought to be owned by it - an example of that could be a player's registration / contract. Perhaps the academy?

In the statement of affairs as at 21 March 2013 the CCFC Ltd is assetless (no pledged assets). The other assets of Player Registration (£466k). Rates Bill Refund (£395k), Prepayments (£176k) and Accrued Income (£78k) may or may not be recoverable by the administrator.

Perhaps the most important line of the administrators report for me is in section 3 - Background and Trading History. He shows turnover figures for the year ending 31 May 2011 as £10.267m. In the sentence underneath it states "Management accounts for the year ended 31 May 2012 disclose that the Company's turnover for the year amounted £9,407,018, net of VAT, with a loss recorded of £3,238,522."

From that we know that the company was turning over (including VAT) above £10m up until 31 May 2012 and I just wonder how such a significant business with such high turnover ends up with no income and no pledged assets less than a year later and is apparently non-trading (to quote CCFC (Holdings) Ltd).

The 31 May 2011 accounts for CCFC Ltd were signed off by the director on 19th June 2012 (one year and 19 days after the year end). I can see no mention in Post Balance sheet events (note 20 of the accounts on Page 15) that the company had ceased trading although this comment may be reserved for the accounts for the year ending 31 May 2012. Post balance sheet events are defined as those that occur between the balance sheet date and the date on which the financial statements are approved by the board of directors. If the company has not been trading in the year ending 31 May 2013 (which includes the accounts sign-off date of 19 June 2012) why wasn't this fact mentioned?

Basically there are two types of 'Post Balance Sheet' events. Here is a quote from the Financial Reporting Council's website on SSAP 17 (Post Balance Sheet Events).

"Adjusting events are those post balance sheet events which provide additional evidence of conditions existing at the balance sheet date. Non-adjusting events are those post balance sheet events which concern conditions that did not exist at the balance sheet date.

Events arising after the balance sheet date need to be reflected in financial statements if they provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the balance sheet date and materially affect the amounts to be included.

To prevent financial statements from being misleading, disclosure needs to be made by way of notes of other material events arising after the balance sheet date which provide evidence of conditions not existing at the balance sheet date. Disclosure is required where this information is necessary for a proper understanding of the financial position."

My question would be that if the Company (CCFC Ltd) had ceased trading and now had no assets should this have been disclosed when the accounts were approved by the board on 19th June 2012? It is difficult to answer that question without knowing when the Company ceased trading.

I am sure the administrators will sort this out.

Thank you for taking the time to explain this - much appreciated.