More from APOM (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter CovFan
- Start date
gally9
Well-Known Member
Not being rude, but I really couldn't give a shiny shite anymore, they could have registered them to Dr Quicks shit school for all I care, I just want my club back in Coventry.. He said, she said, he did this, she did that.. It's all childish bollocks and they should just get round the table.. Put there cocks and bollocks away, mark who has pissed the highest and thrash out a deal..
georgehudson
Well-Known Member
thus, it must be about time for Mr Fisher, Timothy, not Jeremy, that is,
to hold another fans forum,
as fans, i'm sure we'd welcome this,
though i think there might be a need for restricted access
to hold another fans forum,
as fans, i'm sure we'd welcome this,
though i think there might be a need for restricted access
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Nar he will have an excuse like we have to put them through there first then we transfer them over and then we register them in the Cayman isles then back again so that everyone is confused and can't prove anything
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
You're surely suggesting player laundering I trust not
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
To be fair this was pointed out to Mr Fisher at the forums with the proof of players and workers payslips but he still denied it and passed it over to the accountant who then tried to come up with some shit that we laymen can't understand.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
No they have to wash their own kit club can't afford it.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Would be nice if the amounts weren't blanked out and could get some idea of what "undisclosed" fees really are.
Looks like we must have lashed out a bit to Walsall overall from the looks of it.
Looks like we must have lashed out a bit to Walsall overall from the looks of it.
lewys33
Well-Known Member
It doesn't surprise me that Tim has been lying ....... again. The only thing that does concern me is that all of these documents are dated pre 2010. I dont know the full ins and outs of this BUT i do believe that if the players were transferred to Holdings within a reasonable time before there was a threat of Admin (for example pre 2012) then they haven't done anything wrong.
Am I also right in thinking that even though they were linked Holdings had to pay the going rate to Ltd. for the players to transfer them legally?
Am I also right in thinking that even though they were linked Holdings had to pay the going rate to Ltd. for the players to transfer them legally?
Exactly what does the documents show other than players were registered in Limited post the current management?
We all knew that ... hence the small player asset value in Limited at point of administration.
It was explained at the fans forums ... still available on youtube.
The documents does not show where the FL have registered the players.
The documents does not prove any illegal shifting of players registration from Limited to Holdings.
Somebody previously highly positioned within ccfc is leaking documents. That's excellent as it gives us more insight than we otherwise would have.
I just wonder why we haven't seen documents to support the claim that assets were moved illegally - surely our whistleblower would have access to such documents if they existed?
I am also pretty confident that Appelton would have a legal obligation to disclose such evidence to the courts - if they existed.
It seems more and more likely that Fisher and his legion of legal advisers have been operating within the law all along and registered new player contracts in Holdings to clean up the 'mess' created by previous boards and to get in line with how the FL are registering players.
It also seems more and more likely that ACL and their backing of our whistleblower, former ccfc directors, legal and finance experts pinned their entire strategy on the expectation that the club had continued to register players in Limited. That strategy has failed completly and instead of having new owners and playing at the Ricoh as the strategy was supposed to achieve, we are stuck with sisu and playing in Northampton with a 10 point handicap. Well done!
We all knew that ... hence the small player asset value in Limited at point of administration.
It was explained at the fans forums ... still available on youtube.
The documents does not show where the FL have registered the players.
The documents does not prove any illegal shifting of players registration from Limited to Holdings.
Somebody previously highly positioned within ccfc is leaking documents. That's excellent as it gives us more insight than we otherwise would have.
I just wonder why we haven't seen documents to support the claim that assets were moved illegally - surely our whistleblower would have access to such documents if they existed?
I am also pretty confident that Appelton would have a legal obligation to disclose such evidence to the courts - if they existed.
It seems more and more likely that Fisher and his legion of legal advisers have been operating within the law all along and registered new player contracts in Holdings to clean up the 'mess' created by previous boards and to get in line with how the FL are registering players.
It also seems more and more likely that ACL and their backing of our whistleblower, former ccfc directors, legal and finance experts pinned their entire strategy on the expectation that the club had continued to register players in Limited. That strategy has failed completly and instead of having new owners and playing at the Ricoh as the strategy was supposed to achieve, we are stuck with sisu and playing in Northampton with a 10 point handicap. Well done!
Last edited:
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
That is quite rude really though isn't it? Lol
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
Then when TF signed off the last set of CCFC Ltd accounts (I think in June 2012) why was no mention made of the transfer of trade to Holdings. About as fundamental as it gets....
Appleton & The Football League know all of the above , and will do absolutely nothing about this, because they also had massive failings & want this to all go away as soon as possible
for me, it really doesnt matter what is uncovered anymore.. the bad decisions & the papering over have already happened & none of the parties involved want it all res erected.
Honestly its like watching an episode of crimewatch.. where you see some guy get caught red handed smashing his way into a bank, stealing a couple of million, battering a load of people on the way out, stealing a car, crashing it into a police car down the road .. and then at the end of the program it says "The guy was caught & found non-guilty of robbery, assault & stealing a car due to lack of evidence.. but he was found guilty of public order offence and was given a police caution!" sadly it seems again, if you know how to play the system, you can get away with quite a lot
for me, it really doesnt matter what is uncovered anymore.. the bad decisions & the papering over have already happened & none of the parties involved want it all res erected.
Honestly its like watching an episode of crimewatch.. where you see some guy get caught red handed smashing his way into a bank, stealing a couple of million, battering a load of people on the way out, stealing a car, crashing it into a police car down the road .. and then at the end of the program it says "The guy was caught & found non-guilty of robbery, assault & stealing a car due to lack of evidence.. but he was found guilty of public order offence and was given a police caution!" sadly it seems again, if you know how to play the system, you can get away with quite a lot
covboy1987
Well-Known Member
Steve Waggott
I think that the quiet man in the background Steve Waggott deserves major credit in the way he has got on with his job under circumstances that many would break under the strain, and he has also shown tremendous loyalty by sticking with us when obviously there would be a queue of clubs if he was looking for pastures new it is clear he is very talented in spotting good player's, particularly young players. He comes across as a bloke that just gets on with it and stays focused no matter the upheaval lesser people would have walked by now, but I think he is shrewd and long term, he knows that things will change for the better which should give all confidence
It seems his view irrelevant who he works for and if he likes them or not the club long-term is more impotent, and I would not be surprised if he was prominent in keeping all of our players whom we thought we might lose in the transfer window. I think the club panicked a little bit when he was unsettled a few months ago as he papers over a lot of cracks
I think that the quiet man in the background Steve Waggott deserves major credit in the way he has got on with his job under circumstances that many would break under the strain, and he has also shown tremendous loyalty by sticking with us when obviously there would be a queue of clubs if he was looking for pastures new it is clear he is very talented in spotting good player's, particularly young players. He comes across as a bloke that just gets on with it and stays focused no matter the upheaval lesser people would have walked by now, but I think he is shrewd and long term, he knows that things will change for the better which should give all confidence
It seems his view irrelevant who he works for and if he likes them or not the club long-term is more impotent, and I would not be surprised if he was prominent in keeping all of our players whom we thought we might lose in the transfer window. I think the club panicked a little bit when he was unsettled a few months ago as he papers over a lot of cracks
I don't know ... but if at that time the majority of players (or the greatest player asset value) were still registered in Limited, then I suppose it is in line with company law?
Do we have a list of players at that time?
The Prefect
Active Member
Yes. There isn't a problem with transferring assets from CCFC Ltd to Holdings. Holdings will have to pay a proper value or reduce their debts owed by CCFC Ltd.
Things become more complex when assets transfer ahead of a company going into administration - which is what happened here. They still have to move at a proper value and Holdings will have to prove that the move wasn't to the detriment of creditors of CCFC Ltd.
Really? So you have the proof that everybody is looking for!
Excellent ... please upload what you have.
Warwickhunt
Well-Known Member
Just tells me that Ray Ransom was an arsehole for letting players leave the club with no claw back unlike Walsall who seemed to have screwed us for 25%
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
The point is that if this was a "sensible plan" by the Board to "clean up the mess created by previous boards" and that this involved "gradually" moving the players (and hence the trade - golden share and all that) out of Ltd - how could this possibly go unmentioned in the accounts of Ltd? How could any reader of the accounts get a "true and fair" view of what was going on without this fundamental piece of information?
A more cynical person might think that it was not an accidental oversight.
Certainly if you were a major creditor of the company - let's say a lessor with a long lease - you'd certainly have been very interested in what was going on.
But there are NO evidence that any player were moved from Limited to Holdings. I haven't seen any, have you?
I assume new players were registered in Holdings from some point in time, and players who left the club were simply written off in Limited.
At least before the last accounts were signed. Otherwise Appelton would have been obliged to disclose this to the courts?
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
I think you're missing the point.
Ltd was the trading company per its accounts.
If the Board made a decision to transfer that trade to Holdings (whether by a single transfer, or gradually as new players came in), that fact should surely have been disclosed in the accounts.
I say again, what could be more fundamental than the fact that a decision had been taken to run the company down to a "non-trading property owning subsidiary?
GaryPendrysEyes
Well-Known Member
A few questions:
1. Were some/all players not included in the sale of CCFC Ltd? did that effect the settlement value proposed to all creditors....
2, When did players contracts start to be registered in the name Holdings? Why was this done?
1. Were some/all players not included in the sale of CCFC Ltd? did that effect the settlement value proposed to all creditors....
2, When did players contracts start to be registered in the name Holdings? Why was this done?
But was that decision made before or after the accounts were signed off? Surely that is a board decision and minutes of the board meetings will show the date of the decision? Any minutes of board meetings will be accessible to Mr Appelton, and he is obliged to report his findings to the court.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
If your assertion is correct, and Fisher is only clearing up the mess created by others, and harmonising assets as one in their true home; how would you explain away forgetting to also transfer associated liabilities, such as the contact to play at the Ricoh?
To move assets and not liabilities appears a bit wrong, does it not?
1: All assets were bought by Otium ... I believe that included the players still registered in Limited.
2: That's the question I have asked many times. As to why ... well the majority on this board believe it was done to create a situation where the club could escape the lease at the Ricoh. I agree and would probably have done the same. Then again - the main purpose could have been to align the club with the way FL registered the players. As it stand, it served both purposes.
As I just said in another post - isolating the lease in Limited was probably the main driver, and I would likely do the same.
It is very common to have property assets/liabillities isolated from the main operations. It's not a sisu invention.
And let me add this:
Every legal and financial expert attached to ACL in this battle would most likely - if asked by sisu two years ago - have advised them to do exactly what they have.
CJ_covblaze
Well-Known Member
Some if not all were moved between January and April 2012.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
I agree with you there. It does - by means of admission - detract from the pigletty innocence you afforded Tim in your original claim that he was purely cleaning up mess generated by others though
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
What is a club actually buying when it pays a transfer fee?
Is it buying out a player's contract or is it just making an arbitrary payment so that a player will be released from their contract?
Is it buying out a player's contract or is it just making an arbitrary payment so that a player will be released from their contract?
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
The important thing here is isolating the lease from the trade of the club.
Where companies set up separate companies regarding property holdings, you'd expect a lessor to take out a cross guarantee from the holding and/or trading company.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Agreed. Unless they didn't want to. Ahem.....
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Surely the correct procedure as far as CCFC and FL goes was for CCFC to point out to the FL that they had incorrectly registered players in a company that did not have the golden share (contrary to League Regulations) or the trade and to request that they rectify their mistake by re-registering the players to the company that had ownership of the golden share since 1995. As it was the FL mistake they could not penalise the club for their mistake.
What happened appears to be something different, that was built on by CCFC/SISU and relied on in the administration process, and as pointed out left the lease isolated in CCFC Ltd.
What happened appears to be something different, that was built on by CCFC/SISU and relied on in the administration process, and as pointed out left the lease isolated in CCFC Ltd.
Last edited:
