Trust Meeting with Football Laegue (1 Viewer)

They're waiting to post a transcript of the whole meeting, need permission and vetting from the football league and the representative from supporters direct who was also present.

It seems the protocol of having a foot in the door does'nt come without restriction ,I doubt its deliberate ,Like you though am Impatient to see /hear what was said.

The Football League have informed us their lawyers will be reading though the statement asap. This could take a week or so but could be sooner.

Just to keep all in the loop as there is some interest this is the E-mail reply from FL

Hi Jan,
Just wanted to make you aware that I’m unlikely to get this signed off until next week. Following a few events here the notes have had to go through our lawyers before we can agree to them.
Regards
Peter

Thursdays PA statement no doubt ,Curious timing.

ashbyjan said:

Just to keep all in the loop as there is some interest this is the E-mail reply from FL

Hi Jan,
Just wanted to make you aware that I’m unlikely to get this signed off until next week. Following a few events here the notes have had to go through our lawyers before we can agree to them.
Regards
Peter

Click to expand...

Jan, could you not give us some sort of feedback without breaking the code?

I don't want to say anything that might alienate us from the FL now that we have finally got a meeting with promise of future ones but the main thing I would say is that there was nothing earth shattering revealed, it was more about the procedure of administration, what might happen going forward and about the FL protocol about ground sharing etc.

It was made clear that the FL is very aware of the strength of feeling against a ground share and that this would be taken into account in any decision but more from a financial consequences of low crowds re SCMP (FFP) calculations point of view rather than just because we we didn't like the plan.

ashbyjan said:

but more from a financial consequences of low crowds re SCMP (FFP) calculations point of view rather than just because we we didn't like the plan.

Click to expand...

So, "Not a penny more" does have value, validity then, and may be a factor in FL thinking?

CJ_covblaze said:

The Football League have informed us their lawyers will be reading though the statement asap. This could take a week or so but could be sooner.

Click to expand...

This legality is getting to the point of ridiculous !!!
I take it might have been easier if sisu would not threaten everyone at the drop of a hat with legal action allegedly !!!
Thing that annoys me is they will use ccfc generated money to sue everyone or at least add it to the bill and charge fees against it !!!!
Again allegedly but until they pull their finger out and file some accounts what are we suppose to think !!!

ashbyjan said:

I don't want to say anything that might alienate us from the FL now that we have finally got a meeting with promise of future ones but the main thing I would say is that there was nothing earth shattering revealed, it was more about the procedure of administration, what might happen going forward and about the FL protocol about ground sharing etc.

It was made clear that the FL is very aware of the strength of feeling against a ground share and that this would be taken into account in any decision but more from a financial consequences of low crowds re SCMP (FFP) calculations point of view rather than just because we we didn't like the plan.

Click to expand...

So what can we do to push things along, if anything?

dadgad said:

So, "Not a penny more" does have value, validity then, and may be a factor in FL thinking?

Click to expand...

I doubt the NOPM campaign has any real validity with the FL thinking. Common sense that crowds will even by SISU admissions be lower hence reducing all-round revenue is the factor they will consider.

sky blue john said:

This legality is getting to the point of ridiculous !!!
I take it might have been easier if sisu would not threaten everyone at the drop of a hat with legal action allegedly !!!
Thing that annoys me is they will use ccfc generated money to sue everyone or at least add it to the bill and charge fees against it !!!!

Click to expand...

That's coming across to me a straightforward anti-SISU ranting lol
Fact is in any business situations lawyers seek to pounce on anything which is a bone of contention & that'll earn them a bob or two in the name of correctness.
In fairness to the FL & their efficiency (or lack of it) - I guess they always have to look well beyond the given situation & toward the potential impact on other FL (& beyond) clubs too.

SkyblueBazza said:

That's coming across to me a straightforward anti-SISU ranting lol
Fact is in any business situations lawyers seek to pounce on anything which is a bone of contention & that'll earn them a bob or two in the name of correctness.
In fairness to the FL & their efficiency (or lack of it) - I guess they always have to look well beyond the given situation & toward the potential impact on other FL (& beyond) clubs too.

Click to expand...

A possibility as to what they thought was straightforward at the time of meeting the trust, changed around the same time they sat down with PA's statement

Jan

Is the prospect of Otium taking over against fans wishes taken into account at all when awarding the golden share?

SkyblueBazza said:

That's coming across to me a straightforward anti-SISU ranting lol
Fact is in any business situations lawyers seek to pounce on anything which is a bone of contention & that'll earn them a bob or two in the name of correctness.
In fairness to the FL & their efficiency (or lack of it) - I guess they always have to look well beyond the given situation & toward the potential impact on other FL (& beyond) clubs too.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately not only do we live by law it is also an industry where the written word can be used in evidence of a thought pattern or transgression . No doubt the chap from acl ceased to post for that very reason . The trust wouldn't want to fall foul at this stage of the "game" either

ashbyjan said:

I don't want to say anything that might alienate us from the FL now that we have finally got a meeting with promise of future ones but the main thing I would say is that there was nothing earth shattering revealed, it was more about the procedure of administration, what might happen going forward and about the FL protocol about ground sharing etc.

It was made clear that the FL is very aware of the strength of feeling against a ground share and that this would be taken into account in any decision but more from a financial consequences of low crowds re SCMP (FFP) calculations point of view rather than just because we we didn't like the plan.

Click to expand...

So if fans are not prepared to travel. Then it is less likely that we will be ground sharing.

As the FL will see it as financially unviable, whereas SISU, don't care about the club losing millions as they just add it to the debt whilst trying to break ACL

AFC - Basically no, they are governed by whoever the legally appointed officer of the court, the administrator, puts up as his choice of buyer for the company that is entitled to the FL membership (golden share) and they then work with them to try and come up with a workable plan for coming out of administration etc.

I know its frustrating but please wait until we can issue full minutes of meeting or I will get myself and Trust into trouble - believe me its frustrating from our point of view to have to wait to publish things because of others lawyers, but we have to play the game if we are to maintain a potentially useful relationship.

ashbyjan said:

Just to keep all in the loop as there is some interest this is the E-mail reply from FL

Hi Jan,
Just wanted to make you aware that I’m unlikely to get this signed off until next week. Following a few events here the notes have had to go through our lawyers before we can agree to them.
Regards
Peter

Click to expand...

Were the FL lawyers present at the meeting? If not, they can't possibly comment on whether or not they are a true reflection of what was said at the meeting; and that should be the only consideration the FL should give them.

I'm intrigued to know what the "few events" were.

YamYam said:

We're the FL lawyers present at the meeting? If not, they can't possibly comment on whether or not they are a true reflection of what was said at the meeting; and that should be the only consideration the FL should give them.

I'm intrigued to know what the "few events" were.

Click to expand...

Well why not get your Trust to have there own meeting?

Because our club isn't being flushed down the bog like yours. I do apologise for expressing an interest.

Although the FL may end up endorsing SISU, at least is shows they are taking our situation seriously, which is a positive thing.

I am sure the FL's lawyers are figuring out what would happen if they reject SISU/Otium. What the legal backlash would be and can they defend it.

Sooner or later the FL will have to stand up to rogue owners, because of FFP, and government pressure to get football's house in order. It may as well start with CCFC.

Jan

Surely for the FA to judge the impact on the FFP. They need to see the fans reaction to the proposed ground and Mr fisher's marketing.

For example £5 a ticket and free transport to ST Andrews will get a different reaction to £15 a ticket and make your own way to Northampton.

Mr Fisher maintains the FL will not allow him to discuss the proposals. I do not understand this.

He can discuss them as just that 'proposals' so feedback can be gauged and the FL can make a more educated assessment of the impact, as oppose to guesswork.

I contacted the FL to see why they were blocking Mr Fisher. I received the standard response.

I wonder if whilst you have a dialogue with them you could find out if we the fans will know of the proposal before it is a done deal?

I bet Fisher has not even talked to the FL,

How could he? At this moment in time the only person who can talk to the FL is Appleton.

Never mind all this where is my matePSGM? He still hasn't replied to my invitation so Im now adding a meal as well as picking him up dropping him off a drink or two Plus paying his pound to the Trust so he can have his say then tell them to whatever he wants I think thats a fair offer

Maybe a room for 2 at the squirrel will sway it

Broken Hearted Sky Blue said:

Never mind all this where is my matePSGM? He still hasn't replied to my invitation so Im now adding a meal as well as picking him up dropping him off a drink or two Plus paying his pound to the Trust so he can have his say then tell them to whatever he wants I think thats a fair offer

Click to expand...

letsallsingtogether said:

Maybe a room for 2 at the squirrel will sway it

Click to expand...

Plus a room for tw at the Squirrell thank you Last

Broken Hearted Sky Blue said:

Never mind all this where is my matePSGM? He still hasn't replied to my invitation so Im now adding a meal as well as picking him up dropping him off a drink or two Plus paying his pound to the Trust so he can have his say then tell them to whatever he wants I think thats a fair offer

Click to expand...

Seems very fair to me.
Hope he takes you up on the offer.

simple_simon said:

Seems very fair to me.
Hope he takes you up on the offer.

Click to expand...

Depends if he's listening to me or

Now up on the trust website...

From Cov Mad:

NOTE OF MEETING - SKY BLUE TRUST, SUPPORTERS DIRECT & FOOTBALL LEAGUE - 27 JUNE 2013

Peter Hannon (PH) of The Football League (FL) travelled to Coventry to meet representatives of the Trust and Supporters Direct. He confirmed that the Trust could share with Trust Members (and therefore with the public) the points made in the meeting. However, he also stressed that there would be some issues on which he could not comment at this stage, due to legal constraints.

The FL have yet to take any decisions regarding the outcome of the Administration of CCFC Limited or the location of future home games. What follows is a summary of the process being undertaken and the matters which The League takes into account in all cases of clubs in financial distress.

The FL operates on the principle of a “rescue culture” under which it tries to secure the future of the club as an ongoing member of The Football League, if possible.

The FL has previously issued statements regarding the ownership of the so-called “golden share” to the effect that it is held by CCFC Limited. When that Company was placed into Administration, the FL served a notice of withdrawal of that share and applied a 10 point deduction in line with its regulations. However, as is normal, that notice of withdrawal was suspended to give the Club the opportunity to continuing playing matches in the competition while the Administration process was completed. The FL deal with Clubs in Administration under the terms of its (unpublished) Insolvency Policy. Whilst in Administration a club is under a transfer embargo and can only sign players at the discretion of The Football League – it can sell players, however.

The Administrator is an officer of the Court whose role is to maximise financial return for an insolvent company’s creditors through finding a new purchaser for the company or by liquidating it. It is up to him who he sells the club to and it is for The Football League to then work with the proposed new owner towards satisfying the conditions of the FL’s Insolvency Policy

The League would normally expect there to be a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA.) agreed with unsecured creditors. The Administrator can propose a CVA and where he does so he is required to call a meeting of creditors to consider the proposed CVA by giving 14 days notice. If the CVA is then agreed, there is a 28 day “cooling-off” period during which any unsecured creditor can challenge the terms of the CVA. Where no challenge is brought, the CVA binds unsecured creditors. We understand that no notice of such a meeting has yet been given. PH also pointed out that the process could potentially go on for some time whilst the CVA is negotiated – e.g. Portsmouth went on for many months but under FL rules a club cannot start two consecutive seasons in administration.

Where a CVA is not possible but the Administrator does have a buyer for the Club, (for example if a creditor with sufficient voting power opposes the CVA) the FL Board can “make an offer” to the Club as to the terms on which the Club could come out of Administration and hold the FL share. In previous, but not all, cases those offers have involved a further points deduction along with other conditions.

A number of processes have to be completed before the League will approve a transfer of membership to a new entity, thus ending the period of Administration. The first is that the proposed purchasers must meet with the approval of the League, including meeting the requirements of the FL’s “Owners and Directors test.” This is an objective test whereby the intended owners and directors have to sign a disclosure relating to the matters set out in the FL Regulations (which cover, amongst other things, matters such as any unspent convictions, suspensions from other sporting governing bodies and involvement with two or more insolvent football clubs).

In considering the suitability of the proposed owners, the League are interested in any “ultimate beneficial owners” of the Club and anyone with a 10% stake or more will be required to be publicly disclosed. They will consider the information disclosed by the proposed owners and directors and any other relevant information in the FL’s possession. We asked whether they would consider information provided by the Trust and they confirmed that they would take any relevant factual information provided.

We asked whether the FL would take into account the record of the owners of CCFC over the last few years - for example in failing to file their statutory accounts in two successive seasons. PH said they could only take account of the matters set out in the regulations. They would consider any information about the involvement of individuals who may not be formally appointed as Directors but who exercise decision-making authority, which includes any “shadow directors.”

The FL also consider the new owners’ business plan for the Club. Their aim here is to try and ensure that such a plan “stacks-up” so that there is little risk that the Club will soon be back into Administration. This process, is again conducted under the Insolvency Policy. The FL Board will “concentrate on the numbers.”

That seems to clarify the process somewhat (as much as anything involving unpublished insolvency policies can do), but doesn't seem to get us much nearer to any concrete answers about where we will play etc.

TurkeyTrot said:

Now up on the trust website...

Click to expand...

Good stuff.

Nothing particularly insightful out of it (not that I suppose any of us expected much revelation) but very good stuff for getting there, getting the information, providing the information.