Questions about exiting Administration (1 Viewer)

[chorlton]

Sorry if these questions are already answered in other threads but it's easy to miss stuff at the minute. Anyway, I've got a few questions about the process of exiting Administration.

1. Firstly what steps need to happen for CCFC Ltd to be taken out of Admin? I understand there needs be an agreement, presumably by the creditors. If SISU are the main creditors is this a formality? Can ACL have any meaningful say?

2. Does anybody have any indication when this will happen (if things go smoothly)?

3. Will Appleton's report be made public? If so, what sort of information will it include? As Administrator his job is purely to get the business back on it's feet for the court. Is it likely to include details of how the mess occurred and any comments?

Thanks for this. Going back to Appleton's comments where he hinted at the difficulties being faced I felt that there were issues he wanted addressing. I'd love to see them outlined but it may well not be in his remit.

 

---

[Noggin]

Les reed said they expected it to be at least 3 weeks for the sale of ltd to be concluded and for us to come out of administration, that was a week ago, so presumably that means 2 weeks more if all goes well and it seems to me things are always taking longer than expected.

Presumably another week at least after that to submit accounts and get the embargo lifted. So it's likely preseason will have started before we are in the position to buy players and thats with everything going well.

 

[Florence1898]

There is always the chance ACL will vote the CVA down, as doubt Otium will have offer the only real non-connected creditor much, so they have little to lose given they could never trust Fisher Labovitch and Co

 

[Grendel]

There is always the chance ACL will vote the CVA down, as doubt Otium will have offer the only real non-connected creditor much, so they have little to lose given they could never trust Fisher Labovitch and Co

I thought the CVA only applied to creditors with more than 75% of all debt?

 

[TasmanSeaSkyBlue]

It there any way CCFC will ever be rid of SiSU? Maybe not.

With their murky web of companies with only a slight change of spelling in their names, I believe they can play the administration game whenever it will benefit them. CCFC is not SiSU's cash cow but it gives them access to a consistent revenue stream to the detriment of all CCFC supporters & maybe the city council.

 

[BrisbaneBronco]

It really annoys me that SISU are deemed to be the major creditor by inflating the debt in limited.
ACL should be the major creditor simply because their debt is legitimate. For a start there is approx 1.3m owed in rent plus say 43 years lease where rent payable would be approx 56m.
It is morally wrong that SISU could liquidate limited to rid themselves of the lease to ACL whilst at the same time transferring the SISU debt in Limited to another SISU entity so that the debt stays with CCFC.
As said by others previously, it is not all SISU'S fault how we are where we are. Richardson/Robinson/McGinnity etc laid the foundations by agreeing the ridiculous rent agreement.
I really have no sympathy for ACL either, just pointing out that they should be the major creditor. If they were accepted as such, SISU would be gone.

 

[Steve1974]

How can SISU claim to be the main creditor? If they have put in the 70 odd millions they say ... On what??? Paying rent? Lol. Both Acl and SISU have been playing games at the cost of the club. The way things have gone so far ccfc will be back into administration before the end of next season.

 

[Godiva]

It really annoys me that SISU are deemed to be the major creditor by inflating the debt in limited.
ACL should be the major creditor simply because their debt is legitimate. For a start there is approx 1.3m owed in rent plus say 43 years lease where rent payable would be approx 56m.
It is morally wrong that SISU could liquidate limited to rid themselves of the lease to ACL whilst at the same time transferring the SISU debt in Limited to another SISU entity so that the debt stays with CCFC.
As said by others previously, it is not all SISU'S fault how we are where we are. Richardson/Robinson/McGinnity etc laid the foundations by agreeing the ridiculous rent agreement.
I really have no sympathy for ACL either, just pointing out that they should be the major creditor. If they were accepted as such, SISU would be gone.

Actually the debt to ACL is only £650.000.
And as it has been said many times - ACL will receive all of that.

Then there's the lease with the remaining 40+ years. If limited exit administration through a CVA (creditors voluntary agreement) the lease is still valid.
If on the other hand limited is liquidated as part of the exit, then ACL will be in title to a compensation. That is suggested to be worth around three years rent.

It would make sense if the club then stayed at the Ricoh those three years as it would benefit ACL and the businesses in and around the stadium in that period.

 

[Godiva]

How can SISU claim to be the main creditor? If they have put in the 70 odd millions they say ... On what??? Paying rent? Lol. Both Acl and SISU have been playing games at the cost of the club. The way things have gone so far ccfc will be back into administration before the end of next season.

They have never put in £70m. That figure is the accrued losses in limited since 1995. It's not a debt.

ARVO (sisu) is owed £10m and ACL £650k.

Does that information make any difference to you?

 

[Godiva]

It there any way CCFC will ever be rid of SiSU? Maybe not.

With their murky web of companies with only a slight change of spelling in their names, I believe they can play the administration game whenever it will benefit them. CCFC is not SiSU's cash cow but it gives them access to a consistent revenue stream to the detriment of all CCFC supporters & maybe the city council.

What do they use that revenue stream for?
Year after year they put money in to the club - They don't take any out and it will be some time before they can start taking back some of those £30m+ they are out of pocket - even a lot longer before they can take out more than they have put in.

 

[BrisbaneBronco]

Actually the debt to ACL is only £650.000.
And as it has been said many times - ACL will receive all of that.

Then there's the lease with the remaining 40+ years. If limited exit administration through a CVA (creditors voluntary agreement) the lease is still valid.
If on the other hand limited is liquidated as part of the exit, then ACL will be in title to a compensation. That is suggested to be worth around three years rent.

It would make sense if the club then stayed at the Ricoh those three years as it would benefit ACL and the businesses in and around the stadium in that period.

So, have to assume that we will not be going with the CVA option thus being stuck with lease.
This will mean a further points deduction, am I correct?

 

[TasmanSeaSkyBlue]

What do they use that revenue stream for?
Year after year they put money in to the club - They don't take any out and it will be some time before they can start taking back some of those £30m+ they are out of pocket - even a lot longer before they can take out more than they have put in.

Just possibly, the money that one of SiSU's shelf companies transfers the debt to another of their own companies. With that slight of hand & creative accounting the debt is able to used as credit & debt at the same disclosure, by the same mother company but by different & separate departments/companies. It could be used by other non football related companies under the SiSU umbrella.

There's a conspiracy.