Non AMP
Sky Blues Talk
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Coventry City Football Club
  • Coventry City General Chat
This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Tonight's statement from the administrator..... (1 Viewer)

  • Thread starter skybluearmy88
  • Start date May 24, 2013
Forums New posts
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Next
1 of 4 Next Last

skybluearmy88

New Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #1
So the administrator has tonight released the following statement.......

The administrator for Coventry city has set a deadline of next week for bids for the company - and has made a crucial announcement on the elusive golden share.

The Telegraph has also learned that eight parties have expressed an interest in buying the club and several of those have already lodged bids.

A statement from administrator Paul Appleton concludes that the golden share rests with Coventry City FC Limited - the company in administration.

It is the announcement that club takeover hopefuls have long awaited.

But Mr Appleton has warned fans not to leap to conclusions that it spells the end for hedge fund owners Sisu and Coventry City FC (Holdings) Ltd - the company not in administration that has been running the club and has the players' contracts.

Holdings and Sisu are one of the parties interested in buying the assets in CCFC Ltd, the company it placed in administration in March.

The full statement from Mr Appleton:

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.

While that may have appeared self-evident, the bulk of my investigation has been involved with discovering WHY that is the case.

Indeed, there is still information outstanding which, despite repeated pleas and requests, has not been presented. This has hardly helped clarify a confusing state of affairs dating back some 20 years.

Also, Holdings believe they have a beneficial ownership of the Share given the level of investment they have made and the fact the players contracts are in their name, together with many other important elements.

This has seemingly been endorsed by the Football League who have completed all current player registrations in the name of Holdings.

In my opinion, the importance of the ownership of the Share has been exaggerated in the media and on social networks. Of course, it is a significant element but ownership does not necessarily mean control of the club.

Just as important is the location of the players contracts, the right to use the name Coventry City and the right to sell season tickets - all of which Holdings assert is theirs.

Should Holdings maintain their claim to a beneficial ownership of the Share, ultimately only the Court can overturn that.

I am anxious to avoid such a lengthy process given the amount of uncertainty surrounding the Club and am doing everything in my power to alleviate that uncertainty.

A sale process has begun, I have spoken and met with a number of parties who have expressed an interest in the assets Limited possesses and its interest in the Share.

To that end, I have set a deadline of May 31 for indicative offers from those interested parties.

If a suitable purchaser is identified, it will still be subject to the consent of the Football League and will also likely involve discussions between Holdings and that purchaser.

The Football League holds its next Board Meeting on June 5 and I hope something can be resolved before then.

It will need a major amount of goodwill to be shown by a number of parties and whether we succeed or not remains to be seen. But it will not be for the want of trying on my part.


What does everyone make of what he has said and can anyone see anything that hints at anything?
 
S

SkyBlueBlood

Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #2
The hopeful bit is that any buyer may have to negotiate with Holdings / SISU, that could mean that their bid is as pathetic as normal
 
R

rupert_bear

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #3
Well that is atleast something to ponder and hopefully come June 5th we will have a better idea where we are going, Still going to take some time i think but i feel a solution is on the way. Still think the ground is the key without that Holdings or anybody else has no chance of getting football league approval IMO
 
S

Steve.B50

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #4
Now he knows where it is, he should talk to ACL and get next season sorted out, just like he did for last three games of last season. Maybe now TF can keep out of things.
 
D

dadgad

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #5
"Subject to the consent of FL"
That's another ray of sunshine
 

Flying Fokker

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #6
Would Walsall fit the bill?
 
S

SkyBlueBlood

Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #7
Maybe the buyer should ask SISU to surrender their shares in holdings free of charge.

What was good for them is surely ok for a new buyer "in the interest of the club"
 

SkyBlueUkeman

New Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #8
With the players registrations with Sisu, couldn't the players just leave Holdings and re-register with the CCFC Ltd administrated company?

Or, failing that, we go batshitmental in the Transfer market over the summer?
 
P

psgm1

Banned
  • May 24, 2013
  • #9
I thought you clique apologists said this information was NOTHING new!

Then they claim credit for it!

Are there no depths you guys will not stoop to!

CLEARLY NOT
 
B

Broken Hearted Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #10
psgm1 said:
I thought you clique apologists said this information was NOTHING new!

Then they claim credit for it!

Are there no depths you guys will not stoop to!

CLEARLY NOT
Click to expand...

I do not stoop for any one Paul
 
S

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #11
I wonder if this might mean SISU are definitely here to stay unless someone is prepared to come to favourable terms to buy them (Holdings) out too...CCFC Ltd on its own is pretty worthless as a footballing entity. All it is is a the Golden share football-wise, but without players to put on the pitch..? AND the Coventry City FC name! That having been said it must be worth something if 8 interested parties have spoken with him.?
 

cloughie

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #12
SkyBlueBlood said:
Maybe the buyer should ask SISU to surrender their shares in holdings free of charge.

What was good for them is surely ok for a new buyer "in the interest of the club"
Click to expand...

Yep as according to timmy boy the club is the most important thing :thinking about:
 
S

SkyBlueBlood

Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #13
So if it comes down to CCFC Ltd being granted permission to play in League 1 and players contracts with Holdings are deemed ib breech so they can all walk foc, which ones would you sign?

For me; Murphy, Christie, Adams, Baker, Fleck, Thomas, Jennings and Clarke. Then get stuck into the out of contract market. Oh yes and find a Manager as Pressley would be out of contract too.
 
P

psgm1

Banned
  • May 24, 2013
  • #14
I presume this description of beneficial ownership is accurate (OSB / squirrel or a.n.other financial wiz could confirm / deny):

Investopedia explains 'Beneficial Owner'

1. For example, when shares of a mutual fund are held by a custodian bank or when securities are held by a broker in street name, the true owner is the beneficial owner, even though, for safety and convenience, the bank or broker holds title.

2. Beneficial ownership may be shared among a group of individuals. If a beneficial owner controls a position of more than 5% it must file Schedule 13D under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Assuming this is correct (and is the UK definition) have sisu fulfilled this requirement?

As I said, like Al Capone, he was jailed on tax evasion, and I decided to use a supposedly innocuous fact about the website!

I was roundly attacked for doing something pointless, then when I announced the info about the golden share the same people said this was irrelevant. Now the administrator has released this, the trust has taken credit, and it has been announced on the news!

Seems the critics saying it was a non-story were ABSOLUTELY WRONG!!! AS PER!!!
 
B

Broken Hearted Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #15
cloughie said:
Yep as according to timmy boy the club is the most important thing :thinking about:
Click to expand...
Wish people would stop using my quotes, are you from the trust you inbred cretin Sorry its getting to me me me :facepalm:
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #16
Steve.B50 said:
Now he knows where it is, he should talk to ACL and get next season sorted out, just like he did for last three games of last season. Maybe now TF can keep out of things.
Click to expand...


He did say last week that was a possibility and TF's rantings were basically an assertion.
 

ccfcway

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #17
interesting !!!!!!

certainly doesnt read like a "SISU puppet" statement
 
S

SkyBlueBlood

Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #18
SkyblueBazza said:
I wonder if this might mean SISU are definitely here to stay unless someone is prepared to come to favourable terms to buy them (Holdings) out too...CCFC Ltd on its own is pretty worthless as a footballing entity. All it is is a the Golden share football-wise, but without players to put on the pitch..? AND the Coventry City FC name! That having been said it must be worth something if 8 interested parties have spoken with him.?
Click to expand...

The only thing the Administrator thinks a new buyer would have to negotiate for is the players contracts and this frivolous claim of beneficial ownership. So if the new owner laughs at the beneficial claim and says tell you what SISU keep your players we will get a new squad that leaves SISU with sweet FA and pretty much in the position they tried to force ACL into.
 
S

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #19
psgm1 said:
I thought you clique apologists said this information was NOTHING new!

Then they claim credit for it!

Are there no depths you guys will not stoop to!

CLEARLY NOT
Click to expand...

Get a grip & pull yourself together man!!! Who are "they" that are claiming credit...& for what? (Actually, no - please do not answer that)
Stop your seemingly obsessed ranting - it makes you appear a bit ridiculous.
 
S

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #20
ccfcway said:
interesting !!!!!!

certainly doesnt read like a "SISU puppet" statement
Click to expand...

There are many out there that will contrive to find a way...
 
R

rupert_bear

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #21
I think Fisher's comments are calculated and coincide with statements he obviously knows are iminent, why i don't know but i suspect his strings are being pulled from afar
 

Paxman II

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #22
There is nothing new in this statement.

As said unless parties are willing to talk then we will be in a court battle that I think SISU would win.

I said before whoever wants it bad enough and not for free go talk to SISU and cut them a cheque. They will relinquish if a decent enough return is offered. Then get the council to play ball with a stadium deal.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #23
ccfcway said:
interesting !!!!!!

certainly doesnt read like a "SISU puppet" statement
Click to expand...

No to be fair to him it doesn't. He is stuck in a rock and a hard place. The statement is transparent and fair. It is clear if there is genuine interest in securing the club that there is a window of opportunity to get this sorted.
 
S

Steve.B50

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #24
psgm1 said:
I thought you clique apologists said this information was NOTHING new!

Then they claim credit for it!

Are there no depths you guys will not stoop to!

CLEARLY NOT
Click to expand...

Where have we tried to claim any credit? It's all down to you and we all thank you.
 

letsallsingtogether

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #25
:claping hands::claping hands::claping hands: Hail PSGM1 our savior or hero Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo brrrrrrr ikkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
chhhhhhhhhhh
Some give me my pills
Steve.B50 said:
Where have we tried to claim any credit? It's all down to you and we all thank you.
Click to expand...
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #26
SkyBlueBlood said:
The only thing the Administrator thinks a new buyer would have to negotiate for is the players contracts and this frivolous claim of beneficial ownership. So if the new owner laughs at the beneficial claim and says tell you what SISU keep your players we will get a new squad that leaves SISU with sweet FA and pretty much in the position they tried to force ACL into.
Click to expand...

What about the academy and rights for Instalments from Keogh and bigi sales? Oh and Ryton? And all of the coaching and office staff, etc?
 
R

Ripbuster

New Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #27
What if...
The "fundamental restructuring" in June 2012
Was done so
TF and CO
could use a loophole where if they could slip tiny bits of information past certain bodies,that if ever if came to this they could prove "without doubt" holdings had held the rights to the football club............then where we find ourselves today is right on schedule for what they had planned...they may use the rules of the football league,against the league itself........TF said it would become clearer by June....I believe it will
 
S

SkyBlueBlood

Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #28
stupot07 said:
What about the academy and rights for Instalments from Keogh and bigi sales? Oh and Ryton? And all of the coaching and office staff, etc?
Click to expand...

If the football club is CCFC Ltd and SISU try to claim monies from transfer of players that would be third party trading which is against FL rules, so not even sure they could claim income from transfers and do you really think they would carry on paying the office staff and coaches once they have lost the club. Ryton is a good point though.
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #29
Ripbuster said:
What if...
The "fundamental restructuring" in June 2012
Was done so
TF and CO
could use a loophole where if they could slip tiny bits of information past certain bodies,that if ever if came to this they could prove "without doubt" holdings had held the rights to the football club............then where we find ourselves today is right on schedule for what they had planned...they may use the rules of the football league,against the league itself........TF said it would become clearer by June....I believe it will
Click to expand...


Am convinced late books etc have been exactly for this purpose .
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #30
SkyBlueBlood said:
If the football club is CCFC Ltd and SISU try to claim monies from transfer of players that would be third party trading which is against FL rules, so not even sure they could claim income from transfers and do you really think they would carry on paying the office staff and coaches once they have lost the club. Ryton is a good point though.
Click to expand...

But holdings have the player registrations and contracts, the football league have allowed this despite ltd having the golden share. I presume the FA even paid the £500k academy grant to holdings.

This is the problem and why I really can't see any alternative than sisu being the prefered bidder for ltd, regardless f what us the fans think.
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #31
stupot07 said:
What about the academy and rights for Instalments from Keogh and bigi sales? Oh and Ryton? And all of the coaching and office staff, etc?
Click to expand...

Should come cheaply as it would'nt exactly benefit them once control of club is lost.
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #32
wingy said:
Should come cheaply as it would'nt exactly benefit them once control of club is lost.
Click to expand...

Also, Holdings believe they have a beneficial ownership of the Share given the level of investment they have made and the fact the players contracts are in their name, together with many other important elements.

This has seemingly been endorsed by the Football League who have completed all current player registrations in the name of Holdings.

In my opinion, the importance of the ownership of the Share has been exaggerated in the media and on social networks. Of course, it is a significant element but ownership does not necessarily mean control of the club.

Just as important is the location of the players contracts, the right to use the name Coventry City and the right to sell season tickets - all of which Holdings assert is theirs.

Should Holdings maintain their claim to a beneficial ownership of the Share, ultimately only the Court can overturn that.
 
G

georgehudson

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #33
having read TF's stuff in the CT today, i can only conclude that this is a person who is solely presenting a case in his / their case,
here's to a situation where true justice prevails,
for far too long the CCFC fans have been treated like cannon fodder,
in summation i hope that the relevant persons receive the appropriate !
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #34
stupot07 said:
Also, Holdings believe they have a beneficial ownership of the Share given the level of investment they have made and the fact the players contracts are in their name, together with many other important elements.

This has seemingly been endorsed by the Football League who have completed all current player registrations in the name of Holdings.

In my opinion, the importance of the ownership of the Share has been exaggerated in the media and on social networks. Of course, it is a significant element but ownership does not necessarily mean control of the club.

Just as important is the location of the players contracts, the right to use the name Coventry City and the right to sell season tickets - all of which Holdings assert is theirs.

Should Holdings maintain their claim to a beneficial ownership of the Share, ultimately only the Court can overturn that.
Click to expand...

The words Benficial which are capable of being challenged in court and the word assert imply vagueries Stu,the main surprise for me is player registrations ,which its possible were only shifted last summer,all still open to question.
 
S

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2013
  • #35
stupot07 said:
Also, Holdings believe they have a beneficial ownership of the Share given the level of investment they have made and the fact the players contracts are in their name, together with many other important elements.

This has seemingly been endorsed by the Football League who have completed all current player registrations in the name of Holdings.

In my opinion, the importance of the ownership of the Share has been exaggerated in the media and on social networks. Of course, it is a significant element but ownership does not necessarily mean control of the club.

Just as important is the location of the players contracts, the right to use the name Coventry City and the right to sell season tickets - all of which Holdings assert is theirs.

Should Holdings maintain their claim to a beneficial ownership of the Share, ultimately only the Court can overturn that.
Click to expand...

Now that's what I call a bold post!
 
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Next
1 of 4 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Share:
Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Coventry City Football Club
  • Coventry City General Chat
  • Default Style
  • Contact us
  • Terms and rules
  • Privacy policy
  • Help
  • Home
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2021 XenForo Ltd.
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Home
  • Forums
    • New posts
    • Search forums
  • What's new
    • New posts
    • Latest activity
  • Members
    • Current visitors
  • Donate to the Season Ticket Fund
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?