Voice_of_Reason
Well-Known Member
My understanding is that when a club enters administration the golden share is taken back by the Football League (as it's theirs anyway) and the the Football League decides who to allocate it to ?
I guess that SISU would argue that the share is in Holdings, which is not in administration.....
Then why did the Football League deduct 10 points if they don't know where the Golden Share is ?
My point exactly, maybe if they got it wrong they will give us 10 points back for start of next season.
Then why did the Football League deduct 10 points if they don't know where the Golden Share is ?
While the football league remain strangely silent on the whole issue.
so the golden share is with the FA according to football administrator on the radio
Then why did the Football League deduct 10 points if they don't know where the Golden Share is ?
I was grateful of this guy on the radio Sub - he seemed to lay it out quite plainly as to where everything should by rights stand. Seems hes had quite a lot of experience in this regard and said ultimately the FL have the share and should give it to whoever fits their criteria and rules the best. With all the double dealing thats gone on, you would therefore think the the Hoff/Elliot/PH4 group would stand a reasonable chance of satisfying that criteria.
Liked his dig at Appleton saying this is the first footy club hes administered. Dunno if its sour grapes or a genuine observation that the guy isn't doing his job correctly.
Then why did the Football League deduct 10 points if they don't know where the Golden Share is ?
Very good question, and if they were wrong, why did SISU so quickly withdraw their appeal?
Cos we lost a couple of matches?
To add to the confusion?
To make us thing they have us fans interests at heart?
Trouble is at the moment, every question could have a number of answers (plus more if you count conspiracies...)
My answer is "because the FL were correct to deduct 10 points and SISU don't have a leg to stand on". However if this is the case, why can't the Administrator find out where the GS is? Other than because he is SISU's lickspittle, of course.
For once we are on the same wavelength.
It appears as though the FL are waiting for administrators, lawyers and courts to decide where the share is before they feel they dare to make any statement that otherwise might get them into trouble or controversy.
They really need to dramatically change their rules and stop all these fantasy structures. There should be one legal entity per football club. That would stop most of these confusing tactics that groups like SISU create to confuse the issue.
The share in that case rests with the football league.
It didn't previous to admin and it's not going to stay there for long, is it?
If they have the share its hard to believe they will hand it back to an organisation that has piled debts abc has nowhere to play.
I have two theories.
1. The golden share is being used as a bookmark. I hear Tim is reading 50 Shades of Grey.
You read it here first.
We keep coming back to the golden share.
Lets just keep in mind that which entity legally has a right to say they have it is in dispute.
CCFC LTD went into admin but whether that company or the Holdings company have the golden share is the issue.
It has been said SISU the ultimate owners of the football club have a right to it and have not relinquished it.
The football league deducted 10 points on the basis that the football club went into administration based on a preponderance of evidence proving that any company or subsidiary or otherwise associated and running that football club, be it Holdings, CCFC Ltd or otherwise are consider linked and as one entity for the purpose of. No argument there as that precedence had been set before. So SISU decided unwinnable and withdrew appeal also knowing the 10 point hit would not affect us anyway, so over and done with.
Now SISU it has been said maybe transferred the share into Holdings. Even if they did not evidence does support them trading the football club as Holdings. (playing games, players registrations etc) It could be argued that is enough to show that Holdings does have the legal right to keep the golden share.
The FL have been given a royal headache with this one. The administrator can sell CCFC Ltd but it's worthless if SISU's contention is they have the Share. Haskell has made a formal offer based on the provision CCFC Ltd own the share right and Holdings do not.
It looks like a court will be forced to prove it and the FL will be desperately searching through their rule book with a view to giving a definitive answer that will stand up in court when challenged by SISU.
Of course SISU can equally purchase CCFC Ltd as anyone else and if the share is proven and stated and agreed it's there they would do this wouldn't they?
The administrator will have to place a figure on CCFC Ltd (assuming eventually it has the share) and draw a line under it. Then perhaps Haskell has a chance.
Something has to give. If ultimately after the court hearings and arguing is over that the entity CCFC Ltd has the golden share rights then the FL must decide which bidder is fit and proper. Would that be SISU? I think that could be where SISU is finally undone.
Do you think that maybe Hoffman and Elliott fecked up on where the Golden Share is?
Cut a deal with ACL on a buyer for the club and the Arena, "Look, if you put Limited into Admin, the GS is there and we have somebody lined up to get the club cheaply and invest in the Arena".
Similar conversation with Haskell as well, "Look, ACL are going to put Limited into admin, you can pick up the club cheap, and ACL want somebody to invest in the stadium, so willing to let you have it cheap".
All predicated on where the Golden Share is of course.
Might as well try a conspiracy theory from the other side!
Do you think that maybe Hoffman and Elliott fucked up on where the Golden Share is?
Cut a deal with ACL on a buyer for the club and the Arena, "Look, if you put Limited into Admin, the GS is there and we have somebody lined up to get the club cheaply and invest in the Arena".
Similar conversation with Haskell as well, "Look, ACL are going to put Limited into admin, you can pick up the club cheap, and ACL want somebody to invest in the stadium, so willing to let you have it cheap".
All predicated on where the Golden Share is of course.
Might as well try a conspiracy theory from the other side!
Something has to give. If ultimately after the court hearings and arguing is over that the entity CCFC Ltd has the golden share rights then the FL must decide which bidder is fit and proper. Would that be SISU? I think that could be where SISU is finally undone.
Gut feeling says no, but that's not based on anything factual. I thought ACL just wanted the rent payments they were owed, Higgs would sell to SISU and PH4 but Council would veto any sale to SISU.
The thing is they knew that if put into admin they would only ever get a fraction back of what was owed.
As my old man says 100% of something is normally better than 100% of nothing, which is after all nothing. You could say that they figured that SISU would never hand over the owed rent and it was better to get some of it back, via admin rather than none of it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?