How can the Club argue that the 2 Companies are not linked? (1 Viewer)

jas365 · Mar 22, 2013

If i've understood this right, CCFC Ltd has been placed into admin and CCFC (Holdings) Ltd continues to trade.

Looking at the info held by Companies House, CCFC Ltd's parent company is, yep you've guessed it CCFC (Holdings) Ltd.
Fisher is a director of both companies.
The trading address for CCFC Ltd is the Ricoh Arena
CCFC Ltd's ultimate holding company is Sky Blue Sports & Leisure Ltd.

The club can put whatever spin they want on it, but the 2 companies are intrinsically linked and the judge will see it this way as well. It's exactly the same fiddle as Southampton tried to pull. Didn't work then, won't work now either.

I'd like to get OSB's view on this if he's around this morning......

Diehard Si · Mar 22, 2013

I wonder about this as well. At what point did all the trading and licences get moved up to the Holding company?

Usually a company is called 'Holdings' when it doesn't deal with the day to day trade, but sits on top. I'm curious how ccfc holdings is suddenly the main trading company.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 22, 2013

The interesting point being who holds the playing share. It's damn embarrassing. It's like a kid with his hands behind his back asking you what hand the sweets are in

italiahorse · Mar 22, 2013

I assume funds feed down from the Holding Company, so any administrator would assume no more funds are coming to the club.
Unless SISU let the holding company go and take control directly of the club finances from the top. Effectively an internal buy out of the club.

Its like sending out a lifeboat from the main ship with all the crap on it and sailing on to "better" things with the main ship.

Still trying to see why this would be different to Southampton and whose on which ship.

OyJimmy · Mar 22, 2013

Someone should ask the administrator when were the assets moved and how?

WestEndAgro · Mar 22, 2013

This moving of funds from one company to another happens all the time, big money is paid to Big Hitters, to ensure companies don't lose their fortunes, SISU will be paying Huge sums to someone, but in the overall scheme of things it would be a very small percentage of what they potentially could lose.
They will find one loop hole after another, and ridiculously all legal,until they are closed.

Diehard Si · Mar 22, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
The interesting point being who holds the playing share. It's damn embarrassing. It's like a kid with his hands behind his back asking you what hand the sweets are in

If everything else is in the Holding company I would guess that is too. The question though might be more like "WHEN did the football share get transfered to the Holding company?"

wingy · Mar 22, 2013

Diehard Si said:
If everything else is in the Holding company I would guess that is too. The question though might be more like "WHEN did the football share get transfered to the Holding company?"

And How, as CCFC ltd is the CLUB until yesterday anyway,Guess thats Why PWKH was sceptical or confused on the Golden Share moving away from the club.

Brighton Sky Blue · Mar 22, 2013

Diehard Si said:
I wonder about this as well. At what point did all the trading and licences get moved up to the Holding company?

Usually a company is called 'Holdings' when it doesn't deal with the day to day trade, but sits on top. I'm curious how ccfc holdings is suddenly the main trading company.

Problem is that CCFCH is itself a subsidiary of Sky Blue Sports and Leisure.

speedie87 · Mar 22, 2013

I think this is the grp structure

Sky blue sports and leisure ltd
Own (90.01%) of
Optimum entertainment (remainder owned by arvo master fund)
Which owns
Ccfc holdings ltd
Which owns
Ccfc ltd

Jack Griffin · Mar 22, 2013

And they are probably creating additional companies to delay & complicate matters further. Just hope the judge sees this as an attempt to evade debts.

Warwickhunt · Mar 22, 2013

italiahorse said:
I assume funds feed down from the Holding Company, so any administrator would assume no more funds are coming to the club.
Unless SISU let the holding company go and take control directly of the club finances from the top. Effectively an internal buy out of the club.

Its like sending out a lifeboat from the main ship with all the crap on it and sailing on to "better" things with the main ship.

Still trying to see why this would be different to Southampton and whose on which ship.

The difference is the Ground Ownership, Southampton had the ground in the company that went into admin thus the judge said that they were intrinsically linked and put both companies into Administration, where as we do not own the property and was leasing it off the Company that has been put into administration so we are basically homeless until we can come up with a new agreement with ACL or whatever ground they find.. They have spoken to the league I believe and we have a responsibilty to play the remaining home games at an agreed venue and the club must ptovide free transport to the Season ticket holders who wish to travel to those games.

How can the Club argue that the 2 Companies are not linked? (1 Viewer)

jas365

Well-Known Member

Diehard Si

New Member

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member

italiahorse

Well-Known Member

OyJimmy

Member

WestEndAgro

Well-Known Member

Diehard Si

New Member

wingy

Well-Known Member

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member

speedie87

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Warwickhunt

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

How can the Club argue that the 2 Companies are not linked? (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency