latest statement from Mr Appleton (1 Viewer)

sky blue zam · Apr 26, 2013

so basically since the start of admin:

ccfc ltd goes into admin owning just the lease to play at the ricoh and nothing else.

we then find out the golden share is in ccfc ltd.

which means the player contracts must be in ccfc ltd otherwise theyll be playing illegally.

with the golden share in ccfc ltd, the acadmey is in ccfc ltd.

ccfc ltd is in £60m of debt.

ccfc holdings was paying for ccfc academy at the aeh centre.

what else is in ccfc holdings, they cant have been paying anything else as ccfc ltd are in debt.

does this make sense, if not i apologise

Sky blue north east · Apr 26, 2013

Dear Mr Appleton, Start doing your effing job properly because you are acting like a effing sisu rent boy everyone can see that!!!! Your really getting on our nerves useless c-unit

torchomatic · Apr 26, 2013

It's funny. Sometimes before you click on a thread you just know what the last person was going to say.

Sky blue north east said:
Dear Mr Appleton, Start doing your effing job properly because you are acting like a effing sisu rent boy everyone can see that!!!! Your really getting on our nerves useless c-unit

valiant15 · Apr 26, 2013

I havent posted yet torch. Oops. I'm trying to be a good boy.

oldskyblue58 · Apr 26, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
So Holdings paying despite not having the liability to pay is a bad thing then?

as far as AEH is concerned no but the issue for AEH is the contractual liability not who pays. If CCFCH pays on behalf of CCFC then the amount of debt that CCFC Ltd has goes up because in effect CCFCH are lending CCFC Ltd the money - the liability is CCFC Ltds not CCFC H Ltd

The debt owed to AEH for maintenance is a liability of CCFC Ltd but if CCFCH pay it under the current contract (the only academy contract there is) then instead of CCFC Ltd owing AEH it now owes CCFCH

The contract for academy facilities to meet FA requirements is with CCFC Ltd, because it was set up that way and it follows the golden share which is apparently in CCFC Ltd. CCFC H simply have no contract. Who in their right mind would do business with a SISU owned company with no contract, even if you have one it doesnt always mean you get paid as we all know. Also if CCFC H have no contract to be there and no right to the academy then to operate as an FA academy could be construed as fraudulent, could negate insurance cover, and could leave AEH with debts that do not get paid.

I am sure there may well be some element of awkwardness from AEH in doing a deal, in wanting i's dotted and t's crossed on a proper contract but it is pretty certain that CCFCH is being just as awkward about things they do not have a contract for as yet (i really query whether it will be a category B academy at CCFC next season in our position immediate finances indicate we have not got the money to spend on it).

In theory the debt outstanding to AEH is CCFC Ltd so should be the administrators to deal with.

Of course CCFCH could simply have continued paying for the academy usage as they have in the past ............ kept everything up to date and met the terms of the agreement...... no one would have been any the wiser. They chose not to.

lordsummerisle · Apr 26, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
Of course CCFCH could simply have continued paying for the academy usage as they have in the past ............ kept everything up to date and met the terms of the agreement...... no one would have been any the wiser. They chose not to.

I wasn't aware that continued payment from Holdings was a problem, just needed an invoice to be able to pay it?

RPHunt · Apr 26, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
I wasn't aware that continued payment from Holdings was a problem, just needed an invoice to be able to pay it?

Maybe an invoice has been presented - to the company that ACL have the contract with.

I would be amazed if we don't see Holdings in administration very shortly - its continuing existence and pretences to be relevant have become farcical. Holdings in administration would, I am sure, make life for the current administrator much simpler.

theferret · Apr 26, 2013

If both Holdings & Ltd are happy with the arrangement, then there is no reason for AEH not to take the money. Nobody has an issue, not the people paying it, not the FA, only the people set to benefit from the arrangement. It's madness. All this talk of contract terms is just a shameless attempt to tie everything up in legal knots and discredit people you don't like. As LS says, just send them a bloody invoice and take their money and stop trying to make matters worse than they already are.

torchomatic · Apr 26, 2013

All this reminds me of the problems with that well known "outdoor" store, Millets. Or Milletts. One firm had one T and one had two. Nothing to do with each other, of course.

Broken Hearted Sky Blue · Apr 26, 2013

psgm1 said:
http://www.insolvency-practitioners.org.uk/

Just contacted these guys awaiting feedback as to whether this statement is in line with the code of practice. Surprised the SBT haven't done this as I thought they were all about ensuring everything was done in the best interest of the club.

I guess some people talk, whilst others simply get on with it and do!

Perhaps I should charge a pound - but then again I would be ashamed to take money and NOT do anything!

Must be wonderfull being you! some people work you know might not have even seen the statement but you carry on being a self rightious arrogant prick it suits you

SkyBlueSwiss · Apr 26, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
as far as AEH is concerned no but the issue for AEH is the contractual liability not who pays. If CCFCH pays on behalf of CCFC then the amount of debt that CCFC Ltd has goes up because in effect CCFCH are lending CCFC Ltd the money - the liability is CCFC Ltds not CCFC H Ltd

The debt owed to AEH for maintenance is a liability of CCFC Ltd but if CCFCH pay it under the current contract (the only academy contract there is) then instead of CCFC Ltd owing AEH it now owes CCFCH

The contract for academy facilities to meet FA requirements is with CCFC Ltd, because it was set up that way and it follows the golden share which is apparently in CCFC Ltd. CCFC H simply have no contract. Who in their right mind would do business with a SISU owned company with no contract, even if you have one it doesnt always mean you get paid as we all know. Also if CCFC H have no contract to be there and no right to the academy then to operate as an FA academy could be construed as fraudulent, could negate insurance cover, and could leave AEH with debts that do not get paid.

I am sure there may well be some element of awkwardness from AEH in doing a deal, in wanting i's dotted and t's crossed on a proper contract but it is pretty certain that CCFCH is being just as awkward about things they do not have a contract for as yet (i really query whether it will be a category B academy at CCFC next season in our position immediate finances indicate we have not got the money to spend on it).

In theory the debt outstanding to AEH is CCFC Ltd so should be the administrators to deal with.

Of course CCFCH could simply have continued paying for the academy usage as they have in the past ............ kept everything up to date and met the terms of the agreement...... no one would have been any the wiser. They chose not to.

Exactly OSB.
Football league rules are quite clear on this. The academy has to be in the legal entity that the Football League has granted the Golden share to. The Football League has quite clearly stated that according to their records they have granted the Golden Share to CCFC Ltd, and that is why the Football League deducted the 10 points from the club on entering administration.
The AEH therefore legally MUST have any contractual arrangement for the use of its facilities by a category B academy with the legal entity to whom the Football League have granted the Golden Share. This is not a matter of choice on the part of either party - it is a MUST.
For the administrator to try and dodge the issue by claiming that historically the EAH have had no problem accepting PAYMENTS from CCFC Holdings rather than CCFC Ltd is disingenuous to say the least, and in my opinion is a poor attempt at diverting attention from the real issue being addressed by the AEH, which is the CONTRACTUAL position and not the issue of who is paying for the services provided under the contract.
The AEH know that they must have a contract with CCFC Ltd, which is in administration, so the AEH have no option but to contact the administrator concerning the use of the academy facilities. For the administrator to then deny any responsibility and start talking about historical payments is to my mind pointing towards a serious bias towards SISU and is in breach of the required independence of a court appointed administrator.

James Smith · Apr 26, 2013

skyblue1523 said:
READING the paper it clearly says that sisu do not operate ccfc ltd and the acadamy is in ccfc ltd so why is he asking ccfch to talk to higgs they are nothing to do with it as they dont own it or is it different.I got a funny feeling that PA favors sisu.I HOPE THE FL & FA take note.ccfc still being screwed.

More to the point what happened to the £500,000 grant for the Academy? :thinking about:

sky blue john · Apr 26, 2013

theferret said:
If both Holdings & Ltd are happy with the arrangement, then there is no reason for AEH not to take the money. Nobody has an issue, not the people paying it, not the FA, only the people set to benefit from the arrangement. It's madness. All this talk of contract terms is just a shameless attempt to tie everything up in legal knots and discredit people you don't like. As LS says, just send them a bloody invoice and take their money and stop trying to make matters worse than they already are.

I take it you have some relationship with Sisu maybe an employee ?
the reason i ask is your statement doesn't benefit anyone but Sisu.

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 26, 2013

This is when this forum gets pathetic, when a difference of opinion means someone must be in the pay of sisu.

Are you in the pay of acl just because you have a view?

lordsummerisle · Apr 26, 2013

sky blue john said:
I take it you have some relationship with Sisu maybe an employee ?
the reason i ask is your statement doesn't benefit anyone but Sisu.

The only people it benefits monetarily is the Higgs Trust.

sky blue john · Apr 26, 2013

What a lot of you don't realise it seems that the Higgs not accepting the payment is nothing to do with anything but part of building a case against Sisu regarding who and what is in administration.

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 26, 2013

I understand that full well. I just wonder why the administrator doing his job is him being incompetent on this board, whilst the academy being put under threat through underhand means is seen as ok

sky blue john · Apr 26, 2013

why is the academy under threat ?
not a lot of point having academy as i currently see it, we can't sign any of the players we want to retain.
Not until we are out of embargo admin !!!
Some of you want to start worrying about ccfc !!!!!!!

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 26, 2013

If we don't have the right facilities we have no academy.

I'd say that's a ccfc worry.

sky blue john · Apr 26, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
If we don't have the right facilities we have no academy.

I'd say that's a ccfc worry.

not a worry if theirs no ccfc !!!!!

theferret · Apr 26, 2013

sky blue john said:
I take it you have some relationship with Sisu maybe an employee ?
the reason i ask is your statement doesn't benefit anyone but Sisu.

I mean, really?

covmark · Apr 26, 2013

Ahh I wondered how long it would take for someone to be accused of being a sisu employee because of a differing opinion. Plank!

Pete in Portugal · Apr 26, 2013

Jack Griffin said:
The academy grant is £480,000.. according to the FL that goes to CCFC Ltd.

Hmmm. CCFC Ltd have received grant income of £480,000 for the Academy - that's not bad for a 'non-trading' Company with no income streams whatsoever is it? I really don't understand how CCFC Ltd can own the Club, (via the Golden Share and presumably, player registrations) and the Academy, but can considered to be essentially non-trading by the Administrator? I must be missing something here, because it just doesn't stack up.

I agree entirely with OSB. Legally, what matters is that the contract for the Alan Higgs Centre is with Ltd, not Holdings. It's completely irrelevant who pays this bill. Unless of course Ltd and Holdings are to all intents and purposes the same entity :thinking about::thinking about: In which case it might be argued that Holdings are also in Administration.

DazzleTommyDazzle · Apr 26, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
I understand that full well. I just wonder why the administrator doing his job is him being incompetent on this board, whilst the academy being put under threat through underhand means is seen as ok

If the academy is under threat, don't you think that the mean reason might be that the legal entity that has permission to run it is in administration?

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 26, 2013

Yet someone is offering to pay the bill on its behalf

theferret · Apr 26, 2013

SkyBlueSwiss said:
For the administrator to then deny any responsibility and start talking about historical payments is to my mind pointing towards a serious bias towards SISU and is in breach of the required independence of a court appointed administrator.

It does nothing of the sort, it points to the fact CCFC Ltd are not in a position to pay the bill because they have no money.

Again, more attempts to muddy the waters with spin, legalese and talk of contractual complexities. Appleton clearly stated that no issue with the prior contractual arrangements have been raised by the FA subsequent to CCFC Ltd going into admin. Is he lying?

As for the serious bias allegation - you are actually accusing him of doing his job. He is an officer of the court whose role is to act in the interests of the creditors, and SISU are easily the largest creditor and a secured creditor to boot - but that would have applied whoever had appointed him. Of course there is some bias - that is what he is there to do.

I don't know this chap - I'll probably start to dislike him soon enough, just like everyone else in this sorry mess, but some of the stuff being aimed at him today is bordering on the hytserical if you ask me.

DazzleTommyDazzle · Apr 26, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
Yet someone is offering to pay the bill on its behalf

I think you're missing the point.

RoboCCFC90 · Apr 26, 2013

DazzleTommyDazzle said:
If the academy is under threat, don't you think that the mean reason might be that the legal entity that has permission to run it is in administration?

Tut tut shocking..

Main

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 26, 2013

Not missing any point, just fed up with the over personal claptrap I've been reading when all he's said is the company he's responsible can't pay, but someone wants to!

RoboCCFC90 · Apr 26, 2013

sky blue john said:
why is the academy under threat ?
not a lot of point having academy as i currently see it, we can't sign any of the players we want to retain.
Not until we are out of embargo admin !!!
Some of you want to start worrying about ccfc !!!!!!!

I believe we can sign any of Academy Boys to Pro Deals SBJ..

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/co...o-clinch-new-sky-blues-deal-92746-33221122/2/

DazzleTommyDazzle · Apr 26, 2013

RoboCCFC90 said:
Tut tut shocking..

Main

I can only offer my most humble apologies.

RoboCCFC90 · Apr 26, 2013

DazzleTommyDazzle said:
I can only offer my most humble apologies.

It's welcomed with open arms..

DazzleTommyDazzle · Apr 26, 2013

Your graciousness does you credit

SkyblueBazza · Apr 26, 2013

Just copied & pasted this from another post I just made on another thread...

Some of you need to get off the guys case IMO.
The man has a job to do, which is to operate in an impartial manner while finding a way to best serve the creditors of the company in administration. He is not here to sort out CCFC specifically because SISU have tangled several webs together in financial and operational terms which are probably making it difficult to untangle & hard to get to the bottom of what is where, owed by who to who & maybe even how much. He cannot say too much publicly about the situation either because he has to report back to the courts & might either upset the court or even open himself up to legal action from someone or other for some reason.

I understand everyone wants answers yesterday, but that's simply not not likely to happen.

bigfatronssba · Apr 26, 2013

SkyblueBazza said:
Just copied & pasted this from another post I just made on another thread...

Some of you need to get off the guys case IMO.
The man has a job to do, which is to operate in an impartial manner while finding a way to best serve the creditors of the company in administration. He is not here to sort out CCFC specifically because SISU have tangled several webs together in financial and operational terms which are probably making it difficult to untangle & hard to get to the bottom of what is where, owed by who to who & maybe even how much. He cannot say too much publicly about the situation either because he has to report back to the courts & might either upset the court or even open himself up to legal action from someone or other for some reason.

I understand everyone wants answers yesterday, but that's simply not not likely to happen.

I do agree that until his report is produced for the court we don't really know where we are.

However I think some are criticising because he is expressing opinions on what CCFC Holdings should/are doing. He has no authority to speak on behalf of Holdings, nor has he any right to ask them to pay Limited's bills.

latest statement from Mr Appleton (1 Viewer)

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

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