Sky Blue Sports and Leisure Limited Being Wound Up? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Manchester_sky_blue
Well-Known Member
I thought it was the case that SBSL were still the operating entity on paper but wholly owned by Otium, in turn owned by SISU capital. Could be wrong though.
Manchester_sky_blue
Well-Known Member
As an aside, Timmy Fish Face is now listed as the sole director of Otium. Not sure if that means anything but it seems unusual.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
No one else wants the job. Probably as simple as that.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Isn’t SBS&L just an empty company? Contains no assets etc? Probably just a tidying up process in that case I would think.
Nick
Administrator
That's what I thought, but then they own 90% of Otium.
It is probably just tidying but hopefully OSB can confirm what it probably is!
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Don’t know then. Have you sounded the OSB alarm?
MatthewWallis
Well-Known Member
Many companies get stricking off notice’s and then the notice will be discontinued when they’ve submitted anything that’s overdue
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
It was the owner of group, something "interesting" is going on. The strike off is not issued because of a late registration, that is a trivial issue.
Why would a company be struck off and dissolved?
Why is a company struck off or dissolved? Dissolution is usually voluntary by the members (shareholders) if they have no further use for the company. ... It is worthwhile noting that prior to limited companies being struck off or dissolved a notice is placed by the Registrar of Companies in the London Gazette.
Why is a company struck off or dissolved? Dissolution is usually voluntary by the members (shareholders) if they have no further use for the company. ... It is worthwhile noting that prior to limited companies being struck off or dissolved a notice is placed by the Registrar of Companies in the London Gazette.
SKY BLUE SPORTS & LEISURE LIMITED - Filing history (free information from Companies House)
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Like I said earlier, it's probably a failure to submit the confirmation statement. It might be an admin oversight or could be for another reason, though why they'd wind up SBSL whilst it is named as one of the disgruntled parties in JR2 I do not know.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
We will see when the notice becomes available. The request can be from the company or from the registrar, for the registrar to issue the notice he must be have ascertained that the company is no longer in business.
Company Status - Striking Off and Dissolution
PS I also found this about Confirmation statement, which is overdue since 14 Nov.
It’s a criminal offence not to file your statement within 14 days of the end of the review period. If you don’t file, your company and its officers may be prosecuted. Your company may also be struck off the register.
Last edited:
mark82
Moderator
I'm guessing they'll just be tidying up the company structure. @oldskyblue58 don't keep us hanging 
mark82
Moderator
Yep, just seen confirmation statement is well overdue. Still think it'll just be a tidying up exercise.
bawtryneal
Well-Known Member
Probably received the postal order in the post from Dale Evans this morning and clearer the decks before he takes over :happy:
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
hopesprings
Well-Known Member
He does seem very unusual in many respects. Not surprised that he is alone at Otium most people seem to want to avoid him wherever possible :happy:
SkyBlueScottie
Well-Known Member
Well ive just spent 1/2 an hour in a companies house wormhole, I note that Kenny Dalglish was a director or Pro Zone ( in the past) and that in 2016 Pro Zone underwent a name change to Stat Sports...I wonder what sort of deal we got for all of that equipment seeing as we were previously connected with Pro Zone.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
I believe it was taken by SISU as part of 'divorce' settlement from Ranson and sold off, for something like £5M?
£5m Prozone sale saved Coventry City from administration
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Mentioned that the confirmation statement was late end of last year. Companies House are a lot stricter on time limits and will proceed to striking off if forms not filed
It shouldn't affect Otium as the Otium debt is to ARVO. However given SBS&L has been a main claimant in all legals so far then I am not sure why they would allow SBS&L to be struck off. The shares SBS&L own in Otium could be transferred to another entity at very little value if they wanted to reorganise. So either way(late or restructuring) not sure it will harm Otium and therefore CCFC.
Other than the initial investment vehicle (which they wont get a sniff of back unless there is many tens of millions compensation from winning the court case JR2) and being a JR2 claimant then SBS&L is of little use. Perhaps it suits to move things about and take the losses. Who knows.
Wouldn't be the first time they have been late with the paperwork. I am sure Les Reid could find out and put everyones minds at ease with a proper explanation from them
ps the shares SBS&L own in Otium/CCFC are fully covered by a charge due to ARVO. So looks like the worst that could happen is that ARVO owns Otium/CCFC 100%
It shouldn't affect Otium as the Otium debt is to ARVO. However given SBS&L has been a main claimant in all legals so far then I am not sure why they would allow SBS&L to be struck off. The shares SBS&L own in Otium could be transferred to another entity at very little value if they wanted to reorganise. So either way(late or restructuring) not sure it will harm Otium and therefore CCFC.
Other than the initial investment vehicle (which they wont get a sniff of back unless there is many tens of millions compensation from winning the court case JR2) and being a JR2 claimant then SBS&L is of little use. Perhaps it suits to move things about and take the losses. Who knows.
Wouldn't be the first time they have been late with the paperwork. I am sure Les Reid could find out and put everyones minds at ease with a proper explanation from them
ps the shares SBS&L own in Otium/CCFC are fully covered by a charge due to ARVO. So looks like the worst that could happen is that ARVO owns Otium/CCFC 100%
Last edited:
Is SBSL where all the debt converted to shares resides OSB.
Could any costs of all the previous Count action be hidden away in there If it was allowed to die.
One more but unrelated, do you have an opinion on how the Club resisted offers for players linked with moves last January would the Club have required an injection to resist that?
Edit ;-Oh and it apoears we're down to one director.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
the debt converted to preference shares is in Otium 65m the ones SBS&L own I believe are charged to ARVO
in theory SBS&L is liable for the court costs of the JR1 claim and CCC joint and severally with ARVO. So not hidden as such but I don't see how SBS&L pay it with no income. So it could be to avoid paying. However CCC couldn't then claim on Otium for JR1 because Otium not involved. Nor could they claim the shares SBS&L own in Otium because they are all charged to ARVO
Possibly had a short term loan but didn't they sell Maddison previously perhaps stage payments due? a short term loan could have been repaid from Wembley or maddison stage payments. should know end of February when accounts filed
no reason a company has to have more than one director - it is not illegal
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Seems like they registered SISU Capital as the person with significant control then de-registered it. Weird.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Ranson got a nice pad in the very affluent Bowden
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Ranson got a nice pad in the very affluent Bowden
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Basically amateur hour.
No great conspiracy or reorganisation of the group. Just missed paperwork
Firstly the confirmation statement should have been filed within 14 days of the due date. You get a reminder sent from Companies House to the registered office. Followed by at least one if it remains outstanding. Followed by letter to directors stating the company will be struck off. Seems they ignored all that. Not only that but you can set up email reminders from Companies House so it is hard to miss.
Along with the confirmation statement it is a requirement since 06/04/2016 that people with significant control of a company are listed at Companies House and the company itself keeps a register of such people or entities. It looks to me that whoever was filing the confirmation form, included a statement that SISU had significant control of SBS&L. Either they didn't check with London HQ or didn't care or understand the significance and listed SISU. Previously it has been the case that apparently SBS&L were still investigating who controls the company, something I find in my opinion to be a bit of a nonsense - how can they not know after 2 years of having to list it? I suppose the argument is that there are many investors in the funds that own SBS&L however they have given authority to SISU to act for them - comes back to who is ARVO or Sconset. However proper enquiries should not take nearly 2 years whatever the result. Someone pointed out the "error" in the first control statement and there is a correction removing SISU as the entity with significant control.
Apparently it is not clear that the person referred to as the owner or the company operated under that persons control actually controls to any significant degree SBS&L. Yet they meet managers oversee the budget sign contracts appear in court etc etc .............
Just to be clear, control in this context is not just about the person or entity owns less than 25% of the issued share capital or between 25 to 50% or 50 to 75% or more than 75% it also includes those people or entities that influence the company decisions and under whose instructions the company does or is required to act. Make your own minds up as to what control is where.
So that might also include ARVO who have major debt and a charge over all assets. Seppala has signed documents for ARVO
SISU Capital Ltd lists persons of significant control as Seppala & Coleman
No great conspiracy or reorganisation of the group. Just missed paperwork
Firstly the confirmation statement should have been filed within 14 days of the due date. You get a reminder sent from Companies House to the registered office. Followed by at least one if it remains outstanding. Followed by letter to directors stating the company will be struck off. Seems they ignored all that. Not only that but you can set up email reminders from Companies House so it is hard to miss.
Along with the confirmation statement it is a requirement since 06/04/2016 that people with significant control of a company are listed at Companies House and the company itself keeps a register of such people or entities. It looks to me that whoever was filing the confirmation form, included a statement that SISU had significant control of SBS&L. Either they didn't check with London HQ or didn't care or understand the significance and listed SISU. Previously it has been the case that apparently SBS&L were still investigating who controls the company, something I find in my opinion to be a bit of a nonsense - how can they not know after 2 years of having to list it? I suppose the argument is that there are many investors in the funds that own SBS&L however they have given authority to SISU to act for them - comes back to who is ARVO or Sconset. However proper enquiries should not take nearly 2 years whatever the result. Someone pointed out the "error" in the first control statement and there is a correction removing SISU as the entity with significant control.
Apparently it is not clear that the person referred to as the owner or the company operated under that persons control actually controls to any significant degree SBS&L. Yet they meet managers oversee the budget sign contracts appear in court etc etc .............
Just to be clear, control in this context is not just about the person or entity owns less than 25% of the issued share capital or between 25 to 50% or 50 to 75% or more than 75% it also includes those people or entities that influence the company decisions and under whose instructions the company does or is required to act. Make your own minds up as to what control is where.
So that might also include ARVO who have major debt and a charge over all assets. Seppala has signed documents for ARVO
SISU Capital Ltd lists persons of significant control as Seppala & Coleman
Last edited:
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
Does any incoming money ie transfer fees go through SBL&S direct or did ? So if there was a lump of money coming in from a sell on clause for example could that be snatched ?
Nick
Administrator
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Never has happened in the past. The players are registered as assets to otium so any sale etc has to be accounted for through otium. Sbs&l accounts show no income
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
Okay thanks
SkyBlueScottie
Well-Known Member
Yes, thats correct, I was thinking more about the way they spun the deal made with Stat Sports, trying to make out we were forward thinking club, investing in the infrastructure however, neglecting to mentrion there was a previous relationship with the company under its former guise.
