With CCFC up for sale no club is currently controlled by a Hedge fund. Now is the time for the FA to act and stop all future takeovers/ clubs in admin being taken over by Hedge funds. Hedge funds are not accountable as we do not know who owns the club. This is the biggest single problem with them in my view.
We should urge FA to block Hedge funds from owning clubs (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter OyJimmy
- Start date
gaziola
New Member
Can't remember his name but there was a mp talking about this a while ago. He was trying to push for a ruling where fans should have the right to know who owns their club.any club who did not put that information forward should not be allowed to play in the league.Think something happened at leeds concerning this too.
Otis
Well-Known Member
What we have done is entirely wrong on the admin front too. You have to admit that. I'm sure rival fans think we've pulled a fast one. To only put part of the club in administration is plain wrong and shouldn't be allowed.
You go into admin, you go into admin. For Sisu (or any owner) to still retain the player contracts etc. is just not right.
You go into admin, you go into admin. For Sisu (or any owner) to still retain the player contracts etc. is just not right.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
It is interesting though that ccfc was split into 2 companies in 1995.....I do wonder if other clubs have similar set ups.
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
The MP was a David Greene i believe. He stood up in the House months ago highlighted our problems and talked about unknown owners of football clubs. I don't think this will go away and expect some sort of legislation to come in eventually from Government and FA, even UEFA.
As for going back to 1995 the administrator has said he is going back through the history and i am certain previous directors will have questions to answer which could be interesting.
As for going back to 1995 the administrator has said he is going back through the history and i am certain previous directors will have questions to answer which could be interesting.
Last edited:
Otis
Well-Known Member
True, but we'd be the first to complain on here if another club did it.
Seemingly they have gone into admin and come out pretty much scott free. The 10 points didn't hurt us one little bit.
If you take the FL statements at Face value they see it as the Whole club in Admin.
vRS19TD
New Member
If that were true, then Fisher and co have nothing but if they're still paying the contracts, etc, then it doesn't fit in. The administrator and FL needs to come out and say that the whole company is in admin but at the moment they're just saying Ltd is.
Get SISU Out!!
Monkeyface
Well-Known Member
They should insist on fan representation on the board too, say two members nominated through supporters groups.
CJ_covblaze
Well-Known Member
Similar system works in Germany. Their clubs aren't dong to badly atm!
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
The 10% bar to anomimity doesn't work, the rule needs to be changed to declare the 4 largest shareholders, whatever their stake, and any other shareholders owning 10% or more. It is too easy to hide the way it is set up.
Can you inform us how the vote went CJ??
SkyBlueBlood
Member
I totally agree with this but the problem is that it is impossible to manage.
For example a stooge can be put forward as a club owner or director and must pass fit and proper, but in some cases the actual power and investment may sit with someone who is wholly unacceptable holding the actual power and telling the stooge what to do. There is no way for the Football Authorities to control this.
For example a stooge can be put forward as a club owner or director and must pass fit and proper, but in some cases the actual power and investment may sit with someone who is wholly unacceptable holding the actual power and telling the stooge what to do. There is no way for the Football Authorities to control this.
CJ_covblaze
Well-Known Member
Give you one guess mate
The premise behind this view (original post) is correct.
The "fit and proper" rule is unenforceable because no-one can identify any owner or investor.
They could be gun runners or selling Internet porn of minors.? In addition they could be running down a community asset merely to offset profitable investments elsewhere......using the club as a scam? This might account for their lack of scruples and footballing 'idiocy'.
The FL have a duty to get to the bottom of any suspicion that this is the case.
The "fit and proper" rule is unenforceable because no-one can identify any owner or investor.
They could be gun runners or selling Internet porn of minors.? In addition they could be running down a community asset merely to offset profitable investments elsewhere......using the club as a scam? This might account for their lack of scruples and footballing 'idiocy'.
The FL have a duty to get to the bottom of any suspicion that this is the case.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
The first director's duty under section 171 is to follow the company's constitution, but also only exercise powers for implied "proper purposes". Prior proper purpose cases often involved directors plundering the company's assets for personal enrichment,[98] or attempting to install mechanisms to frustrate attempted takeovers by outside bidders,[99
This is an interesting piece of company law. We all know SISU take risks and like court cases. Perhaps Fisher, the puppet is the possible fall guy if it all blows up in their face. Ever wondered why Joy who reputedly the driving force, yet so much in the background?
This is an interesting piece of company law. We all know SISU take risks and like court cases. Perhaps Fisher, the puppet is the possible fall guy if it all blows up in their face. Ever wondered why Joy who reputedly the driving force, yet so much in the background?
Would seem to fit the bill would'nt it...................". or attempting to install mechanisms to frustrate attempted takeovers by outside bidders".
Interesting I've just Listened to the Linnel interview again ,does make me chuckle where he says its been pointed out to him that PWKH is a prominant poster on a messageboard and may have Implied fisher is a LIAR.
Any way I digress but PWKH alludes to the point about the Admins remarks re;- withheld information ,and cites something called " the one week insolvency request ".
Now the implication from the following was that ACL have given more information than Admin requested ,and that he has seen paperwork that the admin is short of ,but that the admin can't get ,so I think its safe to say that must be SISU,over to you admin.
Interesting I've just Listened to the Linnel interview again ,does make me chuckle where he says its been pointed out to him that PWKH is a prominant poster on a messageboard and may have Implied fisher is a LIAR.
Any way I digress but PWKH alludes to the point about the Admins remarks re;- withheld information ,and cites something called " the one week insolvency request ".
Now the implication from the following was that ACL have given more information than Admin requested ,and that he has seen paperwork that the admin is short of ,but that the admin can't get ,so I think its safe to say that must be SISU,over to you admin.
The German model is based on SHAREHOLDERS being fans, NOT simply a supporters group having to decide!
And Which supportersgroup? Surely as the london and international supporters group have been established longer THEY should have that place!
If it is just assigned to a supporter's group over another, the other group could argue they should be represented.
Which is precisely WHY the german model is based on the fans BUYING shares in the club.
Which is precisely why a fan share issue and not just giving a seat on the board is the way forward.
The Swansea fans provided funding for the club, so did the pompey fans. They were not simply given the place - they PAID for it!
I appreciate this is NOT what the current trust's website states, as they have really struggled to get funding it appears, which is possibly why cetain supporters of the trust have been so pernicious in their attempts to silence me!
deanocity3
New Member
the hedge fund should stay with hedges
and leave this coven tree alone:facepalm:
and leave this coven tree alone:facepalm:
Also the german system as proved by Borussia Dortmund and others is by no means perfect, as is highlighted in one analysis of that system:
http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2010/03/11/fan-ownership-the-bundesliga-model/
"in recent years Borussia Dortmund have racked up considerable debt following their glory years in the Champions League. Meanwhile, their neighbours and fierce rivals, Schalke, are currently feeling the pinch with stories coming out in the the German media of tight financial constraints and even talk of bankruptcy. The city of Leipzig, despite a brand new stadium built for the 2006 World Cup, has seen a succession of professional clubs that go to the wall.
Whilst the 50+1 system is fine in principle, if that 50% is provided, yet no additional finance is brought in by that 50+1, then it could significantly impact the future financial stability of the club.
http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2010/03/11/fan-ownership-the-bundesliga-model/
"in recent years Borussia Dortmund have racked up considerable debt following their glory years in the Champions League. Meanwhile, their neighbours and fierce rivals, Schalke, are currently feeling the pinch with stories coming out in the the German media of tight financial constraints and even talk of bankruptcy. The city of Leipzig, despite a brand new stadium built for the 2006 World Cup, has seen a succession of professional clubs that go to the wall.
Whilst the 50+1 system is fine in principle, if that 50% is provided, yet no additional finance is brought in by that 50+1, then it could significantly impact the future financial stability of the club.
