The High Court papers shine a light of the much-discussed mystery of the "golden share" – which enables Coventry City to play in the Football League.
The debate surrounds whether the share was in Coventry City Football Club Ltd before it went into administration under the ownership of administrator Paul Appleton – or whether it was with Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd, still owned by Sisu.
Takeover hopefuls want the Football League and Mr Appleton to conclude the share was in the company now in administration when he reports to court on his investigations by May 16.
They hope that would make a takeover easier, with the new owners taking ownership of the golden share and Football League backing – after any creditors are paid part or all of what the club owes them.
Football League documents appear to show the golden share was with CCFC Ltd, and the last filed accounts say that CCFC Ltd was principally for the club’s playing activities.
Holdings denies the share was in Ltd – and says it has claim to the golden share.
But its own High Court document states: "On the club’s return to the Football League in 2001, it appears that the club’s Football League golden share was transferred to CC Limited."
It then goes on to explain Holdings’ challenge to the evidence.
It states: "However, an entry was made in the Football League register of members on the page relating to CC Holdings.
"The Football League and CC Holdings conducted business on the mutual understanding that CC Holdings was the club for all regulatory compliance and trading and investment purposes.
"Players’ contracts and transfer agreements entered into by the club with its players and with other football clubs are in the name of CC Holdings, and the bank account registered by the club with FL Limited for payment of basic award is held in the CC Holdings."
The golden share is currently suspended. The League will at a future point decide which owner it wants to hand the share back to.
Ultimately the League’s decision, and that of the administrator, could be the subject of a legal challenge, resulting in the club’s problems rumbling on in the courts.
This is good? so basically the fl will give it to pk4, or back to sisu if they are still here?
Or someone completely different.
This is good? so basically the fl will give it to pk4, or back to sisu if they are still here?
As long as it benefits ccfc, they could give it to anyone
I hope that they give it to me.
I hope that they give it to me.
This is the case being put by CCFC Holdings Ltd in their high court papers and does not necessarily reflect the sitation as defined by the Football League.
The Football League, we are told by thrd parties, has said that the share is held by CCFC Ltd and this is the first comment I have heard that it is "suspended".
It may be "suspended" and this is why the administrator is being coy on confirming his understanding regarding the golden share.
We should invest in a balloon printing firm at the same time. You then do something shitty as owner, and we rake it in on those expensive 'nonleagueherewecome out' balloons.
This time next year we'll be millionaires!
to seperate the property dealings from the trade I would have thought NW. They didnt want to put the property at risk if the football club side failed, well that was the intention but it didnt work out that way. It isn't an unusual thing to do
Worked out well that, then
Is that why a lot of owners (Chandrai at Pompey, Dickens(?) at Wrexham, the Stockport bloke) end up with the ground safe in their hands even after administration?
I have been saying this for weeks this isn't new info
it can be the reason yes. It also works the other way though where the ground could be sold to say a pension fund without the club being sold with it.
wouldnt have thought so sbj because they still need an auditors report and what auditor would sign off on them right now? the club doesnt have a ground to play in for a start, well not one we have been told about anyway........ how could you sign off as a going concern. If the accounts didnt need an audit the club could prepare their own ...... but the directors still have to satisfy the criteria for being a going concern. The court could i suppose order they file interim figures but I wouldnt have they would
The club doesnt need to own the freehold .......... it needs to own the income streams from the site. Only reason currently that an owner needs the freehold is to (a) mortgage it or (b) sell it
How long are they allowed to not release the accounts for? Or is it all irrelevant now we're in administration, as in theory the administrator's deciding for us if we're a going concern or not?
Apologies for the questions btw but you're fairly clued upand don't resort to calling me a SISU rent boy...
Could you put it on the books as an asset however?
CCFC have few enough of them, be it Ltd or Holdings!
Makes you wonder how football clubs get away with being signed off as going concerns when they tend to own so little but owe so much. Is that just the intangible assets of brand and league status counting for 'a lot' thatlets them get awy with it?
To get the freehold you would have to pay for it so you would be putting loans equal to the freehold on the balance sheet too...... probably charges on the property.... probably interest charges to pay
as they say every credit has a debit
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?