Must we wait until the second week of May to find out? (1 Viewer)

[SkyBlueSwiss]

According to my understanding of what went on in the court, the judge - after ACL withdrew their suit for administration - agreed that CCFC Ltd were already in liquidation. The judge further agreed that ACL and the administrator had 6 weeks to make their findings and return to court where the judge would make whatever determinations concerning just who and what is actually involved, who owns what and who, besides CCFC Ltd may or may not also be in administration.

The Football League believe that the golden share is with CCFC Ltd, which per the judge is in liquidation, hence the 10 points deduction. SISU/CCFC Holdings, who claim that all assets apart from the rental contract with ACL are with CCFC Holdings and not in CCFC Ltd., are apparantly appealing this decision.
And apparently, the Football League are continuing to investigate the claims of SISU/CCFC Holdings concerning how and when SISU transferred the share and player contracts and all other assets from Ltd to Holdings without them being informed or knowing about it.

So without making assumptions as to the activities of SISU and whether they are/were legal in accordance with both the laws of the land and the laws of the Football League, as well as the laws of the Football Association (who are also involved as they I believe also issue a share to each club to play in the cup competition):

- We will be back in court the second week of May, and until then we have no idea whether or not the actions of SISU will result in the judge declaring that more SISU-owned companies will join CCFC Ltd in administration.
- I assume that the Administrator, irrespective of whatever claims SISU may make, will similarly be in the dark until they return to court in May.
-The Football League (and the FA) will, I assume, not take further action until the judge has been provided with (hopefully) full information, at which time they also will then have better and fuller information on which to judge whether SISU have breached their rules and decide what penalties, if any, our club should suffer in addition to the 10 points already deducted.

In my opinion (and it is only an opinion with no other information than that generally available) it is rather unlikely that any appeal will get the 10 point deduction revoked this season. The FL made it clear that according to their records, the share resides with Ltd. The last audited accounts of Ltd. also made this clear.

My understanding is also that the share had better be with Ltd., because if Fisher does manage to prove that the share is in Holding and not Ltd., then he has breached the FL rules and much more than 10 points are liable to be deducted.
The problem I have with the appeal is that the 10 point deduction either stands, or Fisher proves that the share is in Holdings and we are in even more trouble. I cannot see this appeal as anything but a lose/lose proposition. If anyone has a better understanding of how the appeal might result in no points being deducted at all, I would be most pleased to hear them.

Fisher has additionally clearly stated several times that the players contracts are in Holding. This may or may not be the case. Fisher also clearly stated that the golden share was in Holdings, but the Football League equally clearly believe the golden share is in Ltd.
Let us assume that Fisher is correct and the contracts are in Holdings, then we have two potential scenarios at least:
-Football league rules state that the share and the players contracts must be in the same entity. If Fisher is correct that the players contracts are in Holdings and the FL determines that as far as they are concerned the share is in Ltd., then all of the players have been playing illegally since whatever date SISU/Fisher transferred the contracts from Ltd. to Holdings. We would then be in deep trouble.
-Similarly, if Fisher can prove that he and SISU did indeed move both the share and the players contracts to Holdings at some time between the last audited statements submitted in June? and the date of administration in March, then we are equally in deep trouble with the FL because SISU/Fisher did this without the knowledge or approval of the FL.

Please understand that I am not trying to apportion blame or take sides here. I am just trying to understand where we are and what the potential consequences might be.
My conclusion, however, is that - based on the information above - we are in deep trouble with the football league no matter what is determined with reference to the share and player contracts, unless the share and the contracts are in reality all still in Ltd., in which case we would have been lied to by Fisher/SISU concerning the true position.

Reference returning to the courts in May, I find it hard to see how the judge could not determine that Holdings - who according to Fisher/SISU hold the player contracts and golden share - is inextricably linked with CCFC Ltd. in the operations of the football club, and that therefore the judge must determine that CCFC Holdings is also in liquidation.
Again, the only way I can see that the judge would not determine this would again be if we have been lied to and in reality the share and the contracts are still with Ltd.

So to conclude this rather long post, I think either we have been badly lied to by SISU/Fisher, or we are in deep trouble with both the courts and with the Football League, and the only good thing is that this season will be over before we find out what our future - if any - might be.

Happy Easter

 

---

[Bluegloucester]

The FL will clarify who owns what before the courts do.

 

[Samo]

According to my understanding of what went on in the court, the judge - after ACL withdrew their suit for administration - agreed that CCFC Ltd were already in liquidation. The judge further agreed that ACL and the administrator had 6 weeks to make their findings and return to court where the judge would make whatever determinations concerning just who and what is actually involved, who owns what and who, besides CCFC Ltd may or may not also be in administration.

The Football League believe that the golden share is with CCFC Ltd, which per the judge is in liquidation, hence the 10 points deduction. SISU/CCFC Holdings, who claim that all assets apart from the rental contract with ACL are with CCFC Holdings and not in CCFC Ltd., are apparantly appealing this decision.
And apparently, the Football League are continuing to investigate the claims of SISU/CCFC Holdings concerning how and when SISU transferred the share and player contracts and all other assets from Ltd to Holdings without them being informed or knowing about it.

So without making assumptions as to the activities of SISU and whether they are/were legal in accordance with both the laws of the land and the laws of the Football League, as well as the laws of the Football Association (who are also involved as they I believe also issue a share to each club to play in the cup competition):

- We will be back in court the second week of May, and until then we have no idea whether or not the actions of SISU will result in the judge declaring that more SISU-owned companies will join CCFC Ltd in administration.
- I assume that the Administrator, irrespective of whatever claims SISU may make, will similarly be in the dark until they return to court in May.
-The Football League (and the FA) will, I assume, not take further action until the judge has been provided with (hopefully) full information, at which time they also will then have better and fuller information on which to judge whether SISU have breached their rules and decide what penalties, if any, our club should suffer in addition to the 10 points already deducted.

In my opinion (and it is only an opinion with no other information than that generally available) it is rather unlikely that any appeal will get the 10 point deduction revoked this season. The FL made it clear that according to their records, the share resides with Ltd. The last audited accounts of Ltd. also made this clear.

My understanding is also that the share had better be with Ltd., because if Fisher does manage to prove that the share is in Holding and not Ltd., then he has breached the FL rules and much more than 10 points are liable to be deducted.
The problem I have with the appeal is that the 10 point deduction either stands, or Fisher proves that the share is in Holdings and we are in even more trouble. I cannot see this appeal as anything but a lose/lose proposition. If anyone has a better understanding of how the appeal might result in no points being deducted at all, I would be most pleased to hear them.

Fisher has additionally clearly stated several times that the players contracts are in Holding. This may or may not be the case. Fisher also clearly stated that the golden share was in Holdings, but the Football League equally clearly believe the golden share is in Ltd.
Let us assume that Fisher is correct and the contracts are in Holdings, then we have two potential scenarios at least:
-Football league rules state that the share and the players contracts must be in the same entity. If Fisher is correct that the players contracts are in Holdings and the FL determines that as far as they are concerned the share is in Ltd., then all of the players have been playing illegally since whatever date SISU/Fisher transferred the contracts from Ltd. to Holdings. We would then be in deep trouble.
-Similarly, if Fisher can prove that he and SISU did indeed move both the share and the players contracts to Holdings at some time between the last audited statements submitted in June? and the date of administration in March, then we are equally in deep trouble with the FL because SISU/Fisher did this without the knowledge or approval of the FL.

Please understand that I am not trying to apportion blame or take sides here. I am just trying to understand where we are and what the potential consequences might be.
My conclusion, however, is that - based on the information above - we are in deep trouble with the football league no matter what is determined with reference to the share and player contracts, unless the share and the contracts are in reality all still in Ltd., in which case we would have been lied to by Fisher/SISU concerning the true position.

Reference returning to the courts in May, I find it hard to see how the judge could not determine that Holdings - who according to Fisher/SISU hold the player contracts and golden share - is inextricably linked with CCFC Ltd. in the operations of the football club, and that therefore the judge must determine that CCFC Holdings is also in liquidation.
Again, the only way I can see that the judge would not determine this would again be if we have been lied to and in reality the share and the contracts are still with Ltd.

So to conclude this rather long post, I think either we have been badly lied to by SISU/Fisher, or we are in deep trouble with both the courts and with the Football League, and the only good thing is that this season will be over before we find out what our future - if any - might be.

Happy Easter

It's a big shit sandwich and we all have to take a bite.

 

[georgehudson]

if all said turns out to be fact,
then why are specific individuals not accountable for their statements ?
why should the fans & players suffer for the misdemeanors of others ?

 

[Cornwallskyblue]

Just to conclude it don't matter what the court says as the F.A will do what they want. (John Terry)

 

[dongonzalos]

The judge should have said
In two weeks time he wants the administrator, joy the FA and ACL in front if him.

Or their barristers

All their info and makes a decision.

This info should already be there and held by each party how can it take 6 weeks!

 

[ampthill_sba]

According to my understanding of what went on in the court, the judge - after ACL withdrew their suit for administration - agreed that CCFC Ltd were already in liquidation. The judge further agreed that ACL and the administrator had 6 weeks to make their findings and return to court where the judge would make whatever determinations concerning just who and what is actually involved, who owns what and who, besides CCFC Ltd may or may not also be in administration.

The Football League believe that the golden share is with CCFC Ltd, which per the judge is in liquidation, hence the 10 points deduction. SISU/CCFC Holdings, who claim that all assets apart from the rental contract with ACL are with CCFC Holdings and not in CCFC Ltd., are apparantly appealing this decision.
And apparently, the Football League are continuing to investigate the claims of SISU/CCFC Holdings concerning how and when SISU transferred the share and player contracts and all other assets from Ltd to Holdings without them being informed or knowing about it.

So without making assumptions as to the activities of SISU and whether they are/were legal in accordance with both the laws of the land and the laws of the Football League, as well as the laws of the Football Association (who are also involved as they I believe also issue a share to each club to play in the cup competition):

- We will be back in court the second week of May, and until then we have no idea whether or not the actions of SISU will result in the judge declaring that more SISU-owned companies will join CCFC Ltd in administration.
- I assume that the Administrator, irrespective of whatever claims SISU may make, will similarly be in the dark until they return to court in May.
-The Football League (and the FA) will, I assume, not take further action until the judge has been provided with (hopefully) full information, at which time they also will then have better and fuller information on which to judge whether SISU have breached their rules and decide what penalties, if any, our club should suffer in addition to the 10 points already deducted.

In my opinion (and it is only an opinion with no other information than that generally available) it is rather unlikely that any appeal will get the 10 point deduction revoked this season. The FL made it clear that according to their records, the share resides with Ltd. The last audited accounts of Ltd. also made this clear.

My understanding is also that the share had better be with Ltd., because if Fisher does manage to prove that the share is in Holding and not Ltd., then he has breached the FL rules and much more than 10 points are liable to be deducted.
The problem I have with the appeal is that the 10 point deduction either stands, or Fisher proves that the share is in Holdings and we are in even more trouble. I cannot see this appeal as anything but a lose/lose proposition. If anyone has a better understanding of how the appeal might result in no points being deducted at all, I would be most pleased to hear them.

Fisher has additionally clearly stated several times that the players contracts are in Holding. This may or may not be the case. Fisher also clearly stated that the golden share was in Holdings, but the Football League equally clearly believe the golden share is in Ltd.
Let us assume that Fisher is correct and the contracts are in Holdings, then we have two potential scenarios at least:
-Football league rules state that the share and the players contracts must be in the same entity. If Fisher is correct that the players contracts are in Holdings and the FL determines that as far as they are concerned the share is in Ltd., then all of the players have been playing illegally since whatever date SISU/Fisher transferred the contracts from Ltd. to Holdings. We would then be in deep trouble.
-Similarly, if Fisher can prove that he and SISU did indeed move both the share and the players contracts to Holdings at some time between the last audited statements submitted in June? and the date of administration in March, then we are equally in deep trouble with the FL because SISU/Fisher did this without the knowledge or approval of the FL.

Please understand that I am not trying to apportion blame or take sides here. I am just trying to understand where we are and what the potential consequences might be.
My conclusion, however, is that - based on the information above - we are in deep trouble with the football league no matter what is determined with reference to the share and player contracts, unless the share and the contracts are in reality all still in Ltd., in which case we would have been lied to by Fisher/SISU concerning the true position.

Reference returning to the courts in May, I find it hard to see how the judge could not determine that Holdings - who according to Fisher/SISU hold the player contracts and golden share - is inextricably linked with CCFC Ltd. in the operations of the football club, and that therefore the judge must determine that CCFC Holdings is also in liquidation.
Again, the only way I can see that the judge would not determine this would again be if we have been lied to and in reality the share and the contracts are still with Ltd.

So to conclude this rather long post, I think either we have been badly lied to by SISU/Fisher, or we are in deep trouble with both the courts and with the Football League, and the only good thing is that this season will be over before we find out what our future - if any - might be.

Happy Easter

Superb post...it's exactly how I see the situation.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

So many words just to say either way we are fucked

 

[WFC]

According to my understanding of what went on in the court, the judge - after ACL withdrew their suit for administration - agreed that CCFC Ltd were already in liquidation. The judge further agreed that ACL and the administrator had 6 weeks to make their findings and return to court where the judge would make whatever determinations concerning just who and what is actually involved, who owns what and who, besides CCFC Ltd may or may not also be in administration.

The Football League believe that the golden share is with CCFC Ltd, which per the judge is in liquidation, hence the 10 points deduction. SISU/CCFC Holdings, who claim that all assets apart from the rental contract with ACL are with CCFC Holdings and not in CCFC Ltd., are apparantly appealing this decision.
And apparently, the Football League are continuing to investigate the claims of SISU/CCFC Holdings concerning how and when SISU transferred the share and player contracts and all other assets from Ltd to Holdings without them being informed or knowing about it.

So without making assumptions as to the activities of SISU and whether they are/were legal in accordance with both the laws of the land and the laws of the Football League, as well as the laws of the Football Association (who are also involved as they I believe also issue a share to each club to play in the cup competition):

- We will be back in court the second week of May, and until then we have no idea whether or not the actions of SISU will result in the judge declaring that more SISU-owned companies will join CCFC Ltd in administration.
- I assume that the Administrator, irrespective of whatever claims SISU may make, will similarly be in the dark until they return to court in May.
-The Football League (and the FA) will, I assume, not take further action until the judge has been provided with (hopefully) full information, at which time they also will then have better and fuller information on which to judge whether SISU have breached their rules and decide what penalties, if any, our club should suffer in addition to the 10 points already deducted.

In my opinion (and it is only an opinion with no other information than that generally available) it is rather unlikely that any appeal will get the 10 point deduction revoked this season. The FL made it clear that according to their records, the share resides with Ltd. The last audited accounts of Ltd. also made this clear.

My understanding is also that the share had better be with Ltd., because if Fisher does manage to prove that the share is in Holding and not Ltd., then he has breached the FL rules and much more than 10 points are liable to be deducted.
The problem I have with the appeal is that the 10 point deduction either stands, or Fisher proves that the share is in Holdings and we are in even more trouble. I cannot see this appeal as anything but a lose/lose proposition. If anyone has a better understanding of how the appeal might result in no points being deducted at all, I would be most pleased to hear them.

Fisher has additionally clearly stated several times that the players contracts are in Holding. This may or may not be the case. Fisher also clearly stated that the golden share was in Holdings, but the Football League equally clearly believe the golden share is in Ltd.
Let us assume that Fisher is correct and the contracts are in Holdings, then we have two potential scenarios at least:
-Football league rules state that the share and the players contracts must be in the same entity. If Fisher is correct that the players contracts are in Holdings and the FL determines that as far as they are concerned the share is in Ltd., then all of the players have been playing illegally since whatever date SISU/Fisher transferred the contracts from Ltd. to Holdings. We would then be in deep trouble.
-Similarly, if Fisher can prove that he and SISU did indeed move both the share and the players contracts to Holdings at some time between the last audited statements submitted in June? and the date of administration in March, then we are equally in deep trouble with the FL because SISU/Fisher did this without the knowledge or approval of the FL.

Please understand that I am not trying to apportion blame or take sides here. I am just trying to understand where we are and what the potential consequences might be.
My conclusion, however, is that - based on the information above - we are in deep trouble with the football league no matter what is determined with reference to the share and player contracts, unless the share and the contracts are in reality all still in Ltd., in which case we would have been lied to by Fisher/SISU concerning the true position.

Reference returning to the courts in May, I find it hard to see how the judge could not determine that Holdings - who according to Fisher/SISU hold the player contracts and golden share - is inextricably linked with CCFC Ltd. in the operations of the football club, and that therefore the judge must determine that CCFC Holdings is also in liquidation.
Again, the only way I can see that the judge would not determine this would again be if we have been lied to and in reality the share and the contracts are still with Ltd.

So to conclude this rather long post, I think either we have been badly lied to by SISU/Fisher, or we are in deep trouble with both the courts and with the Football League, and the only good thing is that this season will be over before we find out what our future - if any - might be.

Happy Easter

That's pretty much how I see it. So in terms of your situation the only question is pretty much 'which orifice?'

 

[Baginton]

Portsmouth have until the last game of the season to come out of administration or they will be liquidated

we are just starting, sit back and relax, it will all come out in the wash!! :facepalm:

 

[Disorganised1]

Yeah the good news is that the FA have agreed to use lubricant - the bad news is that it's horse radish sauce

 

[singers_pore]

According to my understanding of what went on in the court, the judge - after ACL withdrew their suit for administration - agreed that CCFC Ltd were already in liquidation. The judge further agreed that ACL and the administrator had 6 weeks to make their findings and return to court where the judge would make whatever determinations concerning just who and what is actually involved, who owns what and who, besides CCFC Ltd may or may not also be in administration.

The Football League believe that the golden share is with CCFC Ltd, which per the judge is in liquidation, hence the 10 points deduction. SISU/CCFC Holdings, who claim that all assets apart from the rental contract with ACL are with CCFC Holdings and not in CCFC Ltd., are apparantly appealing this decision.
And apparently, the Football League are continuing to investigate the claims of SISU/CCFC Holdings concerning how and when SISU transferred the share and player contracts and all other assets from Ltd to Holdings without them being informed or knowing about it.

So without making assumptions as to the activities of SISU and whether they are/were legal in accordance with both the laws of the land and the laws of the Football League, as well as the laws of the Football Association (who are also involved as they I believe also issue a share to each club to play in the cup competition):

- We will be back in court the second week of May, and until then we have no idea whether or not the actions of SISU will result in the judge declaring that more SISU-owned companies will join CCFC Ltd in administration.
- I assume that the Administrator, irrespective of whatever claims SISU may make, will similarly be in the dark until they return to court in May.
-The Football League (and the FA) will, I assume, not take further action until the judge has been provided with (hopefully) full information, at which time they also will then have better and fuller information on which to judge whether SISU have breached their rules and decide what penalties, if any, our club should suffer in addition to the 10 points already deducted.

In my opinion (and it is only an opinion with no other information than that generally available) it is rather unlikely that any appeal will get the 10 point deduction revoked this season. The FL made it clear that according to their records, the share resides with Ltd. The last audited accounts of Ltd. also made this clear.

My understanding is also that the share had better be with Ltd., because if Fisher does manage to prove that the share is in Holding and not Ltd., then he has breached the FL rules and much more than 10 points are liable to be deducted.
The problem I have with the appeal is that the 10 point deduction either stands, or Fisher proves that the share is in Holdings and we are in even more trouble. I cannot see this appeal as anything but a lose/lose proposition. If anyone has a better understanding of how the appeal might result in no points being deducted at all, I would be most pleased to hear them.

Fisher has additionally clearly stated several times that the players contracts are in Holding. This may or may not be the case. Fisher also clearly stated that the golden share was in Holdings, but the Football League equally clearly believe the golden share is in Ltd.
Let us assume that Fisher is correct and the contracts are in Holdings, then we have two potential scenarios at least:
-Football league rules state that the share and the players contracts must be in the same entity. If Fisher is correct that the players contracts are in Holdings and the FL determines that as far as they are concerned the share is in Ltd., then all of the players have been playing illegally since whatever date SISU/Fisher transferred the contracts from Ltd. to Holdings. We would then be in deep trouble.
-Similarly, if Fisher can prove that he and SISU did indeed move both the share and the players contracts to Holdings at some time between the last audited statements submitted in June? and the date of administration in March, then we are equally in deep trouble with the FL because SISU/Fisher did this without the knowledge or approval of the FL.

Please understand that I am not trying to apportion blame or take sides here. I am just trying to understand where we are and what the potential consequences might be.
My conclusion, however, is that - based on the information above - we are in deep trouble with the football league no matter what is determined with reference to the share and player contracts, unless the share and the contracts are in reality all still in Ltd., in which case we would have been lied to by Fisher/SISU concerning the true position.

Reference returning to the courts in May, I find it hard to see how the judge could not determine that Holdings - who according to Fisher/SISU hold the player contracts and golden share - is inextricably linked with CCFC Ltd. in the operations of the football club, and that therefore the judge must determine that CCFC Holdings is also in liquidation.
Again, the only way I can see that the judge would not determine this would again be if we have been lied to and in reality the share and the contracts are still with Ltd.

So to conclude this rather long post, I think either we have been badly lied to by SISU/Fisher, or we are in deep trouble with both the courts and with the Football League, and the only good thing is that this season will be over before we find out what our future - if any - might be.

Happy Easter

Yes, this is exactly my reading of the situation too. Instead of merely a 10 point deduction I can see SISU landing us in a lot more trouble than that.

 

[Flying Fokker]

Let's wait and see. Some people on here will think you're crazy.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Swiss, have you read the FL & FA rules, if you have then can you:

1) point out the FL league rule that states "Football league rules state that the share and the players contracts must be in the same entity."
2) Where the FA "issue a share to each club to play in the cup competition"

I can't find them.. can anyone else? Personally, I think it is as clear as mud & I doubt Fisher would be making statements like he has if those stipulations were down black & white.

 

[Sky Blues]

Swiss, I suspect you mean CCFC Ltd are in administration, not liquidation? Liquidation is the end of the line. A company in administration might recover or it might move into liquidation.

But on your basic point, it's a mess. If the Golden Share is in CCFC Ltd and the player registrations are in Holdings, then in the normal course of events I would have thought the club's management should just argue the companies are inextricably linked to avoid the threat of further punishment for third party ownership or moving the registrations without permission etc. But Sisu will be to arguing exactly the opposite to try to insulate CCFC Holdings from CCFC Ltd.

If the share has been transferred, that background will need exploring before we know what happened there. If the league unwittingly gave permission, I would have thought it either can't punish CCFC again or it risks legal action from Sisu to stop any further punishment of the club. If the league did not give permission, then there could be trouble ahead.

On this reading, it would appear the club's best hope of avoiding further punishment is either the league discovering it unwittingly approved the golden share transfer (if it is in Holdings) or (if the share is in CCFC Ltd) CCFC Holdings are judged to be inextricably linked to CCFC Ltd and are also put into administration. It wouldn't seem right to add another 10 penalty for Holdings going into admin if they are judged to be inextricably linked would it? The argument in that scenario being that the club is CCFC Ltd and Holdings combined.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Please note, there are 2 other companies in the group, Sky Blue Sport & Leisure Ltd and Otium Entertainment Ltd ... it is a deliberate rats nest.

 

[Wrenstreetcarpark]

Swiss, have you read the FL & FA rules, if you have then can you:

1) point out the FL league rule that states "Football league rules state that the share and the players contracts must be in the same entity."
2) Where the FA "issue a share to each club to play in the cup competition"

I can't find them.. can anyone else? Personally, I think it is as clear as mud & I doubt Fisher would be making statements like he has if those stipulations were down black & white.

41 and 48 might help you.

 

[James Smith]

So to conclude this rather long post, I think either we have been badly lied to by SISU/Fisher, or we are in deep trouble with both the courts and with the Football League, and the only good thing is that this season will be over before we find out what our future - if any - might be.

Happy Easter

I think you may have sadly summed it up perfectly in that post. The sad thing is I can think of at least one poster on here who will still be defending SISU despite all this.

 

[James Smith]

41 and 48 might help you.

And it's a shame that if we are found guilty of breaching them the FL probably wouldn't see that level of incompetence as a reason to fail the fit and property test.

 

[mattylad]

Please note, there are 2 other companies in the group, Sky Blue Sport & Leisure Ltd and Otium Entertainment Ltd ... it is a deliberate rats nest.

In his recent interview with the Coventry Telegraph, Coventry City chairman Ken Dulieu has claimed there is nothing sinister about Otium Entertainment Group Ltd. (OEG) which has three club board members on their board of directors. The CT asked Mr Dulieu to explain the reasoning behind the need to set up OEG and why club directors Leonard Brody Onye Igwe and and Dulieu are on its board and why the two companies have the same offices in Hannover Street, London. OEG now makes three companies involved with the ownership of Coventry City FC - Sky Blues Sports and Leisure and Coventry City Holdings. OEG appears to sit between the other two companies in the hierarchy.
The addition of a licenced insolvency practitioner, Adam Bradley on the board of OEG has led to fears among many City fans that the new company has been formed to prepare for administration. The CT asked if OEG, which was established in April 2011, are now the new owners of the club and if they are paving the way for administration and why did they keep its creation a secret after promising the fans in March that they would be more open and transparent?

In his written reply Mr Dulieu’s said: “The group structure was changed to include Otium Entertainment Group Limited in April. OEG was placed into the ownership structure as a result of the fund-raising that took place at the time. “For the avoidance of doubt, OEG was set-up as a vehicle to allow the ultimate shareholder of Coventry City FC to provide the football club with working capital at a time when such an injection was vital. “At no time has OEG been viewed as anything other than a vehicle for raising new money for Coventry City. Otium is not a ‘mystery’ company. The ownership structure was disclosed in CCFC’s regular filings to the Football League and the FA in June. “The directors are the same as those at the ultimate holding company Sky Blue, including the corporate secretary who also acts as secretary to the whole group of companies, including Coventry City Football Club Limited and Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) Limited.”

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

Swiss, I suspect you mean CCFC Ltd are in administration, not liquidation? Liquidation is the end of the line. A company in administration might recover or it might move into liquidation.

But on your basic point, it's a mess. If the Golden Share is in CCFC Ltd and the player registrations are in Holdings, then in the normal course of events I would have thought the club's management should just argue the companies are inextricably linked to avoid the threat of further punishment for third party ownership or moving the registrations without permission etc. But Sisu will be to arguing exactly the opposite to try to insulate CCFC Holdings from CCFC Ltd.

If the share has been transferred, that background will need exploring before we know what happened there. If the league unwittingly gave permission, I would have thought it either can't punish CCFC again or it risks legal action from Sisu to stop any further punishment of the club. If the league did not give permission, then there could be trouble ahead.

On this reading, it would appear the club's best hope of avoiding further punishment is either the league discovering it unwittingly approved the golden share transfer (if it is in Holdings) or (if the share is in CCFC Ltd) CCFC Holdings are judged to be inextricably linked to CCFC Ltd and are also put into administration. It wouldn't seem right to add another 10 penalty for Holdings going into admin if they are judged to be inextricably linked would it? The argument in that scenario being that the club is CCFC Ltd and Holdings combined.

Yes, I did indeed mean administration, not liquidation. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[WestEndAgro]

I was scoffed at when I announced administration would be coming, I stated it would be before the end of last year,I was wrong by around 3 months, I have since been told LIQUIDATION is inevitable, I await the " Shit Storm " heading my way.

 

[Grendel]

I was scoffed at when I announced administration would be coming, I stated it would be before the end of last year,I was wrong by around 3 months, I have since been told LIQUIDATION is inevitable, I await the " Shit Storm " heading my way.

We are in administration due to a court case wishing to do exactly that. A case that many on here wanted to happen.

 

[WestEndAgro]

We are in administration due to a court case wishing to do exactly that. A case that many on here wanted to happen.

The hole which we find ourselves in, is apparently to big to get out of, I'm told the administration is just delaying the inevitable.

 

[Grendel]

The hole which we find ourselves in, is apparently to big to get out of, I'm told the administration is just delaying the inevitable.

However if the league share is in the company which is in administration the owners are not able to liquidate the company anyway. The administrator will have to consider bidders and they have at least 12 months to find one.

 

[Jack Griffin]

41 and 48 might help you.

41 covers registation of players.
48 covers prohibition of 3rd part investment.

So in what sense are these rules have been broken by CCFC, I still think they are not clear cut. I think when they were written they did not consider companies in the group.

It depends on an interpretations that can be challenged.

 

[WestEndAgro]

However if the league share is in the company which is in administration the owners are not able to liquidate the company anyway. The administrator will have to consider bidders and they have at least 12 months to find one.

Agreed,but apparently the situation is that grim , much worse than we actualy know, finding a buyer is going to be impossible.

 

[mattylad]

The hole which we find ourselves in, is apparently to big to get out of, I'm told the administration is just delaying the inevitable.

Administration is always bad for any company and as I pointed out about a hundred times on this board anyone who thinks otherwise is in for a very very rude awakening. This thought of some super rich tycoon riding in to town and saving us from SISU is just pie in the sky...bcos a) he wont be able to spend the money and b) SISU will not agree any deal which see's their investment written off, so to force a deal through will probably see us as relegation favourites and with even less income streams and a depleted squad.

 

[jas365]

The club can argue a toss about where the FL share lies, but it's in CCFC Ltd, not CCFC (Holdings) Ltd. End of. Companies House shows that the FL share is held in company reg. no. 03056875 - CCFC Ltd. The Holdings company reg. no. is 00094305.

Any share transfer must be submitted to the FL and filed at Companies House, this has not been done. There is no way this can come out in the clubs favour.

 

[James Smith]

In a strange way a small part of me is glad that this has come to a head now. To my mind the fact that we could have been and possibly still are fielding a third party ownership team is clearly wrong as pointed out above. If left unchecked there is a remote possibility that the League could have docked us points for every player we fielded or match a team played under the name Coventry City if they felt like it.

 

[mattylad]

In a strange way a small part of me is glad that this has come to a head now. To my mind the fact that we could have been and possibly still are fielding a third party ownership team is clearly wrong as pointed out above. If left unchecked there is a remote possibility that the League could have docked us points for every player we fielded or match a team played under the name Coventry City if they felt like it.

We are fine its all checked when the league ratify a transfer, if they have slipped up we won't be punished.

 

[Sky Blues]

We are fine its all checked when the league ratify a transfer, if they have slipped up we won't be punished.

You are probably right if the players were signed to CCFC Holdings, but what if they were signed to CCFC Ltd and were quietly moved to CCFC Holdings at a later date (say, within the last year) under TUPE? If it is successfully argued the two companies are not inextricably linked, might it not then depend on whether the Football League approved such an inter-company transfer...

 

[jas365]

You are probably right if the players were signed to CCFC Holdings, but what if they were signed to CCFC Ltd and were quietly moved to CCFC Holdings at a later date (say, within the last year) under TUPE? If it is successfully argued the two companies are not inextricably linked, might it not then depend on whether the Football League approved such an inter-company transfer...

But the two companies ARE inextricably linked, and the FL did not approve a share transfer or the moving of player registrations....

 

[Sky Blues]

But the two companies ARE inextricably linked, and the FL did not approve a share transfer or the moving of player registrations....

You might think they are inextricably linked and I might think that too, but will Sisu argue that in court? Or will they argue the opposite?

 

[Wrenstreetcarpark]

You might think they are inextricably linked and I might think that too, but will Sisu argue that in court? Or will they argue the opposite?

Maybe they will argue to the FL that they are inextricably linked and to the Court that they are "and this is the honest truth guv" completely separate?