The Price of an Exclusive is Reid and Thorne downfall (2 Viewers)

Florence1898

New Member
Clearly it may not be a coincidence that Mr Thorn the CT Editor or do we assume Mr Reid is now the Editor, that in recent weeks the very paper representing the people of Coventry has so vividly joined the ranks of SISU. What's more alarming is the CT's Politically Journalist seems incapable of piecing together the facts presented in public, and Reid now seems to have become the papers Sports Journalist.

The Facts as per public documents

1/ On 21 March 2013 Arvo appointed David Rubin & Co & Stephenson Harwood as Joint Administrators in the Administration of Coventry City Football Club Limited 03056875

2/ According to the papers leaked by Mr Ainsworth earlier this week, on 22 March 2013 Speechly Bircham the Lawyers instructed on behalf of Sky Blue Sports & Leisure Limited, wrote to the Football League stating," whilst it is unfortunate that the legal relationship between the League and Coventry City Football Club Holdings Limited (0094305) (CHH) and Coventry City Football Club Limited (03056875) (CCFC) is so poorly documented an examination of the dealings between the parties quickly clarifies the truth".

3/ The Speechly Bircham letter went on to state, that the, "Football League have advised that in 1995 CHH informed the League that it intended to transfer/sell a significant portion of its assets to CCFC and that pursuant to that notification CCFC was registered as the owner of the League share". However the following paragraph explicitly states," Whatever the intention, there is no documentation which our client can find after a diligent search that records any legal transfer of assets, contracts or other obligations in 1995 or indeed at any other time between CCH and CCFC. We cannot at present throw any light on what was intended or why the transfer was recorded as it was in the list of members in October 1995".

4/ The letter goes on to state," Whatever the intention, nothing actually changed and CHH and the League continued to do business with one another as they had always done. We conclude that whilst some form of re-organisation was or may have been anticipated, it whatever it was) was not completed and the contractual rights between CCH and the League remained unaltered". The leaked documents clearly prove otherwise, although probably too complex for a Political Journalist.

5/ On 25 May 2013 after weeks of investigation into the ownership of the FL share, Paul Appleton released the following statement," Since my appointment as Joint Administrator of Coventry City FC Limited, there has been a huge amount of interest surrounding the ownership of the Football League’s ‘Golden Share’. Following information I have received from various stakeholders, I now believe the registration of the Golden Share lies with Limited". - Again clearly contradicting the comments made by the Club and their Lawyers.

6/ On 28 June 2013 Paul Appleton of David Rubin & Co released the following statement," I can confirm that the asset sale by Coventry City FC Limited to Otium Entertainment Group Limited has been completed … I stress that I have only been able to sell such right and title to these as Limited possesses, because CCFC Holdings Ltd asserts beneficial ownership over them". - Clearly again untrue given the contents of the documents released by Mr Ainsworth, ironically Mr Appleton the man who could have repatriated both Club and Ground given the evidence contained in the asset sale document of 31 May 1995, had missed another opportunity due to the depth of his investigation, although he was appointed by Arvo.

7/ Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) Accounts for year ending 31 May 1996 signed off the Bryan Richardson state in the Business Review Commentary," In order to provide a more orderly structure to the business, on 1 June 1995 the company transferred all of its playing activities of the football club, including assets, management executives, players and certain other employees to its wholly owned subsidiary, Coventry City Football Club Limited".

8/ The Board minutes of March 2008 leaked in late summer and confirmed at the time by two ex Directors Joe Elliot and Gary Hoffman as correct, confirmed that the Joint Board Minutes of Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) and Coventry City Football Club (Limited), attended by Directors of both Companies and SISU Management, explicitly recorded Limited (03056875) as responsible for:

Football operations both on and off the field
Shareholder relationships with the FA/FL (usually the Chairman or Secretary of the Club)
Relationship with the FA/FL etc
Current Land use issues: Ryton, Ricoh
Football media management
Holding of "golden share"
Employment of all football staff (players, football management)
Player wages
Fan issues
Community liaison (e.g. CIP,JSB etc)
Transfer activities
Player registrations
Advice on commercial activities of the Club: sponsorship, ticket pricing, stadium zones, hospitality packages, access policies, Daily cash management of commercial operations of the business

9/ Ironically on 21 March 2013, Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) Limited released the following statement," It is important to stress that the football club itself is not under threat. This is merely a property subsidiary which owns no material assets and has no employees, on or off the pitch"

10/ On 16 August 2013 the Coventry Telegraph released, "Under repeated questioning from the Telegraph, the League has confirmed publicly for the first time that it made an “administrative oversight” in registering Sky Blues players to Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd. The League admitted the players’ contracts ought to have been registered with another company - Coventry City Football Club Limited - because it held the League’s “golden share” which allowed it to play in the league as the club. We can also reveal the League is writing to sports minister Hugh Robertson to admit the errors. It says the mistakes in allowing players to reside in CCFC Holdings were also made by the FA.

11/ The documentation released by Mr Ainsworth relating to the Transfer/Sale from Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) (094305) to Coventry City Football Club (Limited) (03056875), of playing activities of the Club, in particular the Sale Agreement dated 31 May 1995, explicitly provides evidence that rejects the claims made by the Solicitors representing Sky Blue Sports and Leisure and those repeated claims made by the Directors of Holdings, that the assets were not sold or transferred to "the Company" in Administration now liquidation, namely Coventry City Football Club Limited.

12/ Do we know whether Mr Appleton was or is in receipt of the Sale Agreement of 1995, and if he is why did he ignore the 1995 asset sale, as clearly the evidence questions the Administration process and asks why the Administrator Paul Appleton rushed his investigation and subsequent sale resulting in a missed opportunity to reunite the Football Club with the Football Stadium in Coventry.

13/ There are two very poignant clauses from the Sale Agreement which are worth review, for example the Agreement relating to transfer of Assets dated 31 May 1995, more especially clause 2.1, which states:

2.1 Agreement for Sale

The Transferor (0094305 Holdings) hereby sells or transfers as beneficial owner and the Transferee (03056875Limited), purchases or acquires as a going concern, with effect from the start date of the business on Effective Date, the Business including all of the Transferor's rights, title and interests in and to the following:-

(a) the Assets and all engagements, contracts and obligations relating to the Assets

(b) the Business including the exclusive right to operate the Business as from the Effective Date

(c) the Goodwill, defined as the Business together with the exclusive right of the Transferee (Holdings) to represent itself as carrying on the Business in succession to the Transferor and to carry on the Business under the name of "The Coventry City Football Club" or any variants or derivatives thereof.

(d) the Employees, being the Management Executives referred to in part 1 of Schedule1, the Players referred to in Part 2 of Schedule 1 and the other employees referred to in part 3 of Schedule 1, including the right to the player registrations and registrations and player contracts of the Players registered with the Premier League and the Football Association;

(e) the right in succession to the Transferor to become a member of the Football Association and the Premier League;

(f) the right to receive the Gate Money, the Club Sponsorship Money, the Broadcasting Money, the Sponsorship Money all transfer fees in respect of the Players and all other Television and Radio fees receivable by the Club in each case by reference to the period starting on the Effective Date;

Well Mr Reid and Thorne just a flavour of the art of the possible if you put your mind to it. I am sure the people of Coventry who buy your Newspaper look forward to the day, when you can afford the time to review the evidence in front of you, then report the facts, or if fiction is your preference, then your probably in good company!!
 

Hobo

Well-Known Member
Is that you Councillor?

It doesn't matter who it is?
It is a thought out post....perhaps you should put more thought and analysis behind yours?
 

TheRoyalScam

Well-Known Member
Great post Florence1898.

In essence:

CCFC Limited - according to board meeting 2008 responsible for:

1) Football operations both on and off the field
2) Shareholder relationships with the FA/FL (usually the Chairman or Secretary of the Club)
3) Relationship with the FA/FL etc
4) Current Land use issues: Ryton, Ricoh
5) Football media management
6) Holding of "golden share"
7) Employment of all football staff (players, football management)
8) Player wages
9) Fan issues
10) Community liaison (e.g. CIP,JSB etc)

11) Transfer activities
12) Player registrations

13) Advice on commercial activities of the Club: sponsorship, ticket pricing, stadium zones, hospitality packages, access policies, Daily cash management of commercial operations of the business

CCFC Limited - according to CEO Fisher 21/3/2013:

'...merely a property subsidiary which owns no material assets and has no employees, on or off the pitch."

So when did items 1-3, half of 4, and 5-13 get moved to CCFC (Holdings)?

I know we've been concentrating (correctly) on the playing staff because of their value as assets (items 7, 8, 11 and 12), but there are still 8 other items that have mysteriously metamorphosed into CCFC (Holdings).

And what about Ryton - isn't that a 'material asset'? How come Ryton doesn't come under the CCFC Ltd's control (because CCFC Ltd is a 'property subsidiary')?

How on Earth can anybody with the slightest bit of sanity envisage selling the Ricoh to SISU?
 

edgy

Well-Known Member
It doesn't matter who it is?
It is a thought out post....perhaps you should put more thought and analysis behind yours?

Lighten up for fucks sake.

I would, however, be worried if it was a councillor.
 

Florence1898

New Member
Thanks the Royal Scam, but for clarification the 1995 Sale Agreement excludes four elements from the sale, 1- Highfield Road, 2- Ryton, - 3/ Any Debt, - 4/ Any Money in the account from the effective date, these four items remained with Holdings, otherwise job lot sold. All very visible from the documents posted by Mr Ainsworth on Monday, and if Reid took notice he could have done a proper job
 
Thanks the Royal Scam, but for clarification the 1995 Sale Agreement excludes four elements from the sale, 1- Highfield Road, 2- Ryton, - 3/ Any Debt, - 4/ Any Money in the account from the effective date, these four items remained with Holdings, otherwise job lot sold. All very visible from the documents posted by Mr Ainsworth on Monday, and if Reid took notice he could have done a proper job

Don't be too hard on Les Reid. It requires a level of skill and insight to be able to unravel this mess. That may not be what he is best at or enjoys.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Don't be too hard on Les Reid. It requires a level of skill and insight to be able to unravel this mess. That may not be what he is best at or enjoys.

Well then he probably shouldn't be in a job where they are required skills.

Landing hundreds of planes requires lots of skill and insight I don't possess or enjoy, that's why I'm not an air traffic controller.
 

tisza

Well-Known Member
Right I still don't get this.
The separate accounts for Ltd and Holdings post-2008 state what the principle activities of each part is. Ltd is the football part.
All costs associated with buying, selling and employing players were in Ltd.
Various directors including Fisher signed off on the accounts in this form.
It is only when the administration started that the situation seems to have changed i.e. in the gap between the last published accounts and the administration date.
 

duffer

Well-Known Member
The Facts as per public documents...

Tremendous bit of work this. I don't know why the paper hasn't looked into this properly, or at least asked Fisher for an explanation, given that he's been signing off the accounts. Fisher is actually on record saying that he could explain everything, and yet it seems that no one with a bit of clout has ever actually asked him to.

This, of course, is why ACL didn't want to sign the CVA. I guess they're still hoping that someone might actually do some proper digging, given the seeming incompetence of the official administrator .
 

cofastreecity

New Member
I suggest Les Reid calls the tune not Alun Thorne at the Telegraph, perhaps a call to the Trinity Mirror would help, that is unless they have also sold their souls. Not convinced our local paper has the intellect to piece together the jigsaw like Florence has, mind you there was obviously a deal done with Reid for Ms Seppala to give an exclusive, what would the CT have given for a photo?
 

Speedie

New Member
1/ The great irony is Florence's post uses evidence obtained solely by the Coventry Telegraph and the very journalist Florence attacks. That is, the evidence gathered by Les Reid's questioning of Greg Clarke and the Football League concerning those discrepancies in the accounts and assets between CCFC companies.

2/ The same journalist also forced an admission from Tim Fisher for the first time that some assets had been registered in CCFC Limited, following the last leaked documents. The paper has also reported the 2008 board minutes.

3/ Among several weak aspects of Florence's post is that he/she completely ignores that the Coventry Telegraph and Les Reid have many times reported the evidence from the 2010/11 CCFC Ltd accounts, and League documents, that the assets and golden share sat in CCFC Ltd. Their work has clearly held Sisu/Otium to account over their apparently contradictory claims.

4/ In light of the Coventry Telegraph helping to establish all the above over the months, it could be argued that this new evidence from 1995 does not move things too far forward. That is not to say it is not useful evidence.

5/ Anybody looking at the Coventry Telegraph this week can see that the Bob Ainsworth debate, in which he refers to the documents, WAS covered in the Telegraph by another reporter while Les Reid covered the council meeting that day.

6/ It does matter who Florence1898 is. If he/she was sensible, they would have approached the Coventry Telegraph editor Alan Thorne or Les Reid in a reasonable way, rather than alienating them on message boards. This king of thing can only backfire.

7/ Florence1898 is perhaps very, very close to ACL and/or their lawyers who, let's face it, are highly likely to be doing Bob Ainsworth's work for him. It is hardly a balanced approach that above all considers what offers the best prospect of getting our club back to the Ricoh Arena, which is what fans want.

8/ Finally, here is an email written by Les Reid to Tony, which Tony posted here on a thread a few days ago called Shame on You Coventry Telegraph.


Dear Tony,


We have reported, scrutinised and challenged Bob Ainsworth's work at length for months, and the regular leaking of documents in detail.

Both of his activities this week were reported either in the paper or website, including with an earlier version of my story yesterday which was replaced with a later version by web editors.

In fact, the last set of leaks of internal club documents concerning assets saw me extracting key admissions from Tim Fisher (as I had also done with the League) which Bob Ainsworth then referred to in a Parliamentary EDM.

Yet again yesterday, Bob Ainsworth referred to information he had read in the Cov Tel - this time quoting information which was not useful to his argument.

He completely misrepresented that information in Parliament, quoting that the £7million Ricoh valuation was produced by "Sisu's fans" rather than by property consultants CBRE last year which was used by Yorkshire Bank writing to ACL.

Not many people have done more than me to question Sisu et al, the League and administrator over irregularities in club accounts and assets.

It is inevitable that people will have selective memories, perhaps forgetting the work they championed as "excellent journalism" when it suited their point of view.

I will continue to report and scrutinise all sides.

I am not remotely convinced that the release of documents from 1995 was the most significant news angle to cover from all of yesterday's activities for a general readership - although the very useful evidence from these documents will be kept in mind in any future detailed coverage.

As a former Ricoh and Highfield Road season ticket holder, I fully understand the level of anger and emotion in all of this - and I will continue to make my contribution towards hopefully getting the club back at the Ricoh.
 

Speedie

New Member
... It should be added that if ACL and their lawyers, who are using a certain MP, are so convinced these arguments are legally watertight and represent the best prospect of returning the Sky Blues to the Ricoh, why don't they test them in court?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Tremendous bit of work this. I don't know why the paper hasn't looked into this properly, or at least asked Fisher for an explanation, given that he's been signing off the accounts. Fisher is actually on record saying that he could explain everything, and yet it seems that no one with a bit of clout has ever actually asked him to.

This, of course, is why ACL didn't want to sign the CVA. I guess they're still hoping that someone might actually do some proper digging, given the seeming incompetence of the official administrator .

This isn't why the wouldn't sign the CVA.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Grendel: Why wouldn't we sign the CVA?

Did you not state on here that 2 clauses were not met which you could not disclose?
 

PWKH

New Member
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by duffer
Tremendous bit of work this. I don't know why the paper hasn't looked into this properly, or at least asked Fisher for an explanation, given that he's been signing off the accounts. Fisher is actually on record saying that he could explain everything, and yet it seems that no one with a bit of clout has ever actually asked him to.

This, of course, is why ACL didn't want to sign the CVA. I guess they're still hoping that someone might actually do some proper digging, given the seeming incompetence of the official administrator .

and you, Grendel said:

This isn't why the wouldn't sign the CVA.


 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by duffer
Tremendous bit of work this. I don't know why the paper hasn't looked into this properly, or at least asked Fisher for an explanation, given that he's been signing off the accounts. Fisher is actually on record saying that he could explain everything, and yet it seems that no one with a bit of clout has ever actually asked him to.

This, of course, is why ACL didn't want to sign the CVA. I guess they're still hoping that someone might actually do some proper digging, given the seeming incompetence of the official administrator .

and you, Grendel said:

This isn't why the wouldn't sign the CVA.



On this I am genuinely confused. Was there never a statement on here by you which you sited two points that could not be agreed which prevented the signing of the CVA? Did I imagine that?
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
... It should be added that if ACL and their lawyers, who are using a certain MP, are so convinced these arguments are legally watertight and represent the best prospect of returning the Sky Blues to the Ricoh, why don't they test them in court?
Maybe they will, who knows - maybe they want to wait until after Judicial Review Application Appeal is heard?
 

PWKH

New Member
Grendel: I misread your post. I did indeed say that there were two conditions precedent that had to be met before the CVA would be agreed by ACL.
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
On this I am genuinely confused. Was there never a statement on here by you which you sited two points that could not be agreed which prevented the signing of the CVA? Did I imagine that?

Grendel: I misread your post. I did indeed say that there were two conditions precedent that had to be met before the CVA would be agreed by ACL.

I hope that this will help to clarify some of the things that are being discussed in this thread:

Until the CVA was proposed ACL communicated with the Joint Administrators about anything that pertained to the benefits of the lease and licence held by CCFC Ltd (ia). ACL suggested to the Joint Administrators that following the publication of the CVA there could be an opportunity to reach an agreement that would allow CCFC Ltd (ia) to come out of administration. ACL proposed two changes to the CVA and proposed two conditions precedent which would have to be agreed by the Otium Entertainment Group. These conditions precedent could not be a part of the CVA but without them ACL could not approve the CVA. This is quite normal when a CVA is proposed, to try to sort out the other elements at the same time. A meeting was held and at its conclusion it was clear that Sisu were not prepared to agree the conditions precedent that were proposed by ACL to the Otium Entertainment Group. At the meeting to vote on the CVA a last chance was offered and rejected.

What precisely were the two conditions?
 

tisza

Well-Known Member
PWKH - my understanding was that the Higgs Trust accepted the CVA (as a separate creditor) but the ACL didn't.
As 50% of ACL was the Higgs Trust position at odds with the Council's?
If so why?
 

PWKH

New Member
There are two separate bodies: the Alan Edward Higgs Charity which owns 50% of ACL and The Alan Higgs Centre Trust which owns the Alan Higgs Centre. It was the AHCT that accepted the CVA. The Charity and the City Council both accepted the recommendation of the Board of ACL that should the two conditions precedent not be accepted by the Sisu web of companies the CVA should be rejected.

I know that Mr Fisher in his statement muddled the two up but it is very complicated: the two names are very similar and although as a director of CCFC Ltd and of Otium he has had contracts with the AHCT and ACL it was probably too much detail for him.
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
What precisely were the two conditions?

There are two separate bodies: the Alan Edward Higgs Charity which owns 50% of ACL and The Alan Higgs Centre Trust which owns the Alan Higgs Centre. It was the AHCT that accepted the CVA. The Charity and the City Council both accepted the recommendation of the Board of ACL that should the two conditions precedent not be accepted by the Sisu web of companies the CVA should be rejected.

Have the two conditions ever been revealed to the public?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Have the two conditions ever been revealed to the public?

I believe on the same thread you found that post he stated this was confidential.

What would you guess - stop the Judicial Review? Sign a new 10 year lease?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top