Statement

Coventry City Chat!
Can *Insert current manager here* keep us up?
Has *insert whatever shite midfielder we have here* made a forward pass?
Keep up to date with Covenders!


Previous topicNext topic

Re: Statement

Postby AD » Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:49 pm

The Yid wrote:Got my hands on a copy of the statement of facts to do with the judicial review application. Does not make pretty reading for Council or ACL.


Care to share?

As it's an application for a review it's bound to not look good for either of them - it's the least I''d expect. It's the statement of facts as perceived by those asking for the review. And as a judge said in 2005, she's not necessarily that good on them....

"Ms Seppala was the least satisfactory of all the witnesses. In making my general comments above, I said that no-one was deliberately lying. But I fear Ms Seppala has a distorted recollection of some events – particularly about what happened at the meetings in New York in January 2005 – and, with the benefit of hindsight, has introduced a "spin" (I am sorry not to be able to find a better word) which suits the Applicants' case. She is also prone to exaggerate – the Respondents would characterise it as lying, but I give her the benefit of the doubt on that – for instance her suggestion (eventually withdrawn by her) that Mr Wallace had "continually" represented to the Applicants that the RCF Banks had a strong direct claim against TXU Corp when in fact he never said that at all. She also recollects (and she may well have believed what she was saying) events which did not, as I conclude, take place (namely a conversation with Mr Wallace "in a small room" and Mr Olin reading and explaining a position paper in New York on 11 January 2005). She is, I am quite sure, an astute and effective business woman. I totally reject her description of herself as naïve. I am quite sure that she was closely involved in developments as the representative of SISU as a Committee Creditor. But she had many other business matters on her mind and when it came to producing her witness statement and giving her oral evidence, her recollection was not, I think, as accurate as she would like to make out. "
User avatar
AD
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:53 pm
 



Re: Statement

Postby The Yid » Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:04 pm

So much in there - such as details of how actually club originally owned part of Ricoh - but sold it. How Higgs don't own any of the Ricoh at all. The biggest part is surrounding the £14m council buy out. The council paid almost 3 times more than the bank valued the ACL debt just to avoid SISU paying the debt in return for an extended lease and revenue access.

Now I can understand the scepticism surrounding a document produced by SISU. Apart from the document telling the sequence of events - it's the 5000 supporting pages of emails, correspondence, signed documents from both parties. Every claim they've made in the press over the last 12 or so months is backed up with some piece or pieces of evidence. I always thought that ACL could have refuted Fisher's claims easily if they weren't true. I understand now why they didn't.
iPhone [ Post made via iPhone ]
Image
User avatar
The Yid
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:57 pm
Highscores: 5
 



Re: Statement

Postby The Englander » Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:01 pm

Nice work The Yid! How did you get hold of that? If the club has to die, I would like for it to be proved both sides are equally as ****, if only to shut the muppets up that see SISU as the only guilty party. Obvious to anybody with a brain really....
User avatar
The Englander
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6899
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 4:38 pm
Location: What's it to you fuck-face?
Highscores: 7
 



Re: Statement

Postby AD » Sun Jul 21, 2013 9:39 am

The Yid wrote:So much in there - such as details of how actually club originally owned part of Ricoh - but sold it. How Higgs don't own any of the Ricoh at all. The biggest part is surrounding the £14m council buy out. The council paid almost 3 times more than the bank valued the ACL debt just to avoid SISU paying the debt in return for an extended lease and revenue access.

Now I can understand the scepticism surrounding a document produced by SISU. Apart from the document telling the sequence of events - it's the 5000 supporting pages of emails, correspondence, signed documents from both parties. Every claim they've made in the press over the last 12 or so months is backed up with some piece or pieces of evidence. I always thought that ACL could have refuted Fisher's claims easily if they weren't true. I understand now why they didn't.


So how do you get hold of it? I'd love a read through.

Impressed you managed to get through 5000 pages - just how long have you been reading that for? It must be months! Also interesting they can find the time to create and file a 5000 page argument for a judicial review but can't find the time to file a set of 100 page accounts where all the info should pretty much just need printing off it it's been recorded correctly.... or the time to file a simple piece of paper changing the Memorandum and Articles of Association.....

A few questions spring to mind. Such as how do SISU know the council paid 3 times more than the bank value? Such details are confidential and should only be passed between the two entities involved, which would be the bank and ACL. If SISU got hold of that information someone somewhere broke confidentiality, or it was obtained in other illegal ways. Or they're guessing.

I mean, why would the council do that anyway? All you have to do is cover the debt including any pre-existing early payment clauses (which they'd know exactly how much they were), the bank would then have no option to sell to SISU as the title has passed to ACL. It's not highest bidder wins.

Also, how do SISU know how the money was given by the council? Again they aren't party to that information. If the council have a pecuniary interest in something they have a duty to protect that interest for the good of the public purse. Deals like this go on all the time - hundreds of millions in government grants to big business - are all of those going to be reviewed? It's hardly that different.

Also, why did SISU spend months negotiating with the Higgs to buy their share in the stadium if they don't own any of it?

And you're last comment on ACL could have refuted Fisher's claims. There are many claims by ACL that could have been refuted by Fisher/SISU easily, but haven't been. And SISU are a company that like to do a lot of work in the courtroom and are notoriously litigious. So why not this time? I can only guess it because they've done exactly the same as SISU - they haven't lied. They may have spun it to suit their argument but it isn't untrue.

Have you ever thought there are many other pieces of information and correspondence that they haven't included because it doesn't fit their narrative? I've worked with people who operate like this before, but not on this scale, and trust me no good will ever come out of it for CCFC. This is a hostile takeover attempt pure and simple, and they aren't doing it for the good of CCFC. It's following a tried and trusted path- sell us your business for a pittance or we'll put it out of business altogether with prolonged legal proceedings that you can't afford to fight. This entire judicial process is another in a long line of delaying tactics to ensure more money is spent and ACL are financially stretched.
User avatar
AD
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:53 pm
 



Re: Statement

Postby The Yid » Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:31 am

The document is split into 2 parts - summary statement of 26 pages - the 5000 pages is the evidence to support the summary. I got it from the High Court in London. £35 well spent. The reason SISU appear to know all this information is that they were part of the finance restructuring process. They negotiated the value of ACL's debt with the bank - had deal set and ready to go - but Council blocked it - took it on themselves and then paid 3 times more. God only knows why though.

As for Higgs - they own a company called FIL - which was created by CCFC as an contribution to stadium for 2m. In 2003 they were in the shit - so sold it to Higgs. FIL have a 50% ownership of ACL, not the stadium. But as the rest of ACL is owned by Council - Higgs attempts to sell their share of ACL to SISU have been repeatedly blocked.

I can only tell you what is written down. There may well be other stuff around... But the facts in the document do not read well.
iPhone [ Post made via iPhone ]
User avatar
The Yid
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:57 pm
Highscores: 5
 



Re: Statement

Postby The Yid » Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:41 am

Also on a different note - the club transferred the golden share from Holdings to Limited in 1995!! The confusion arose when the club swapped their Premier League share for Football League share, as the wrong company was recorded as having the share.
iPhone [ Post made via iPhone ]
User avatar
The Yid
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:57 pm
Highscores: 5
 



Re: Statement

Postby plastic scouser » Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:29 pm

the club transferred the golden share from Holdings to Limited in 1995


...Errr....so doesn't that put sisu & the club in even deeper shit?

I thought "Ltd" was a non-trading arm of the business that held no assets etc. etc. (according to fisher) & thats why Sisu placed it in admin themselves.....

...God...I'm confused. :?

I wish they'd all just fuck off & die....ACL, SISU & CCC....just die you suited bullshitting money grabbing incompetent ****
......waiting for the great leap forwards [smilie=icon_paper.gif]
User avatar
plastic scouser
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 2900
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:36 pm
Location: The City of Culture!!
 



Re: Statement

Postby AD » Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:26 pm

plastic scouser wrote:
the club transferred the golden share from Holdings to Limited in 1995


...Errr....so doesn't that put sisu & the club in even deeper shit?

I thought "Ltd" was a non-trading arm of the business that held no assets etc. etc. (according to fisher) & thats why Sisu placed it in admin themselves.....

...God...I'm confused. :?

I wish they'd all just fuck off & die....ACL, SISU & CCC....just die you suited bullshitting money grabbing incompetent ****


I wrote something along those lines earlier and the computer froze.

Who made the error in where to record it - the FL or the club? Is it saying that the club should have put it in Limited and put it in Holdings by mistake, hence why TF argues it is in Holdings? Or is it saying that CCFC asked for it to be put in Holdings and the league put it in Limited because that's where the PL share was? Is no-one capable of basic fucking admin anymore?

And with this 'threat' of liquidation if ACL don't agree to the CVA - just where is the actual threat?

According to TF all the assets such as player contracts, league share etc are in Holdings (or possibly transferred to Otium by now but we won't find out until the accounts for this year are finalised sometime around 2020.) so the running of the club is not in jeopardy.

And if that's true, then Ltd has no assets and I fail to see how liquidation could provide the second highest value outcome for creditors over any of the other bids?

So given that the last filed accounts showed players contracts and salaries were in Ltd, and if the creditors get a higher return from liquidation than the other bids, and as TF states it would jeopardise the football club operations, then at least some of those assets HAVE to be in CCFC Ltd and TF has been lying throughout the admi process.

As far as I can see, the only threat is that ACL would forfeit £500k. And to do that in favour of enabling further investigation you'd have to be damn sure something was seriously amiss....
User avatar
AD
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:53 pm
 



Re: Statement

Postby Burf » Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:43 pm

< uggh>

sorry - just nodded off there for a bit.

So,where were we ? [smilie=icon_blink.gif]

We're back in the Prem this season, yes ? :D

Please tell me this has all been like Bobby Ewing's dream in Dallas.... :lol:
"...your feeble skills are no match for the power of the Dark Side..."
User avatar
Burf
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 6105
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:38 am
 



Re: Statement

Postby The Yid » Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:01 pm

In 1995 the club transferred golden share from Holdings to Limited. It appears to be perfectly above board and done properly

In 2001 when relegated 'the clubs football league Holden share was transferred to Limited. However, an entry was made in the Football League register of members on the page relating to Holdings'

It goes on... 'The FL and Holdings conducted business on the mutual understanding that Holdings was the club for all regulatory compliance, trading and investment purposes. Player contracts and transfer agreements entered into by the club with its players and other football clubs are in the name of Holdings, and the bank account registered by Club with FL Limited for payment of basic award is held by Holdings.'
iPhone [ Post made via iPhone ]
User avatar
The Yid
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:57 pm
Highscores: 5
 



Re: Statement

Postby The Yid » Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:10 pm

Probably a combination of both parties error - something SISU probably didn't check properly at the time. But SISU didn't move it. They did however change the trading name of the club from 'The Coventry City Football Club, Limited' to 'Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) Limited' after relegation in 2012 but still retained same company number
iPhone [ Post made via iPhone ]
User avatar
The Yid
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:57 pm
Highscores: 5
 



Re: Statement

Postby Des » Mon Jul 22, 2013 7:14 pm

The Yid wrote:The document is split into 2 parts - summary statement of 26 pages - the 5000 pages is the evidence to support the summary. I got it from the High Court in London. £35 well spent.


Is this a document submitted by SISU to support their case? I mean, in general, plaintiffs don't normally submit evidence to undermine their own argument?
--
"I'm curvy, it's just the way I yam"
User avatar
Des
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4587
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:04 pm
 



Re: Statement

Postby The Yid » Mon Jul 22, 2013 7:17 pm

Yes all the evidence has been submitted by SISU to support their application
iPhone [ Post made via iPhone ]
User avatar
The Yid
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:57 pm
Highscores: 5
 



Re: Statement

Postby the boss » Mon Jul 22, 2013 7:56 pm

Des wrote:
The Yid wrote:The document is split into 2 parts - summary statement of 26 pages - the 5000 pages is the evidence to support the summary. I got it from the High Court in London. £35 well spent.


Is this a document submitted by SISU to support their case? I mean, in general, plaintiffs don't normally submit evidence to undermine their own argument?



and I for one believe all of it. When did they ever lie to me :roll:
2014 will be our year !!
the boss
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 7780
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:35 pm
 



Re: Statement

Postby The Yid » Mon Jul 22, 2013 8:12 pm

Don't shoot the messenger... I'm telling you what it says. Plus it's a court document, so if they are fucking stupid enough to lie in it then they deserved to get shafted then.
iPhone [ Post made via iPhone ]
User avatar
The Yid
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:57 pm
Highscores: 5
 



Re: Statement

Postby AD » Mon Jul 22, 2013 9:58 pm

The Yid wrote:
In 1995 the club transferred golden share from Holdings to Limited. It appears to be perfectly above board and done properly

In 2001 when relegated 'the clubs football league Holden share was transferred to Limited. However, an entry was made in the Football League register of members on the page relating to Holdings'

It goes on... 'The FL and Holdings conducted business on the mutual understanding that Holdings was the club for all regulatory compliance, trading and investment purposes. Player contracts and transfer agreements entered into by the club with its players and other football clubs are in the name of Holdings, and the bank account registered by Club with FL Limited for payment of basic award is held by Holdings.'


Probably a combination of both parties error - something SISU probably didn't check properly at the time. But SISU didn't move it. They did however change the trading name of the club from 'The Coventry City Football Club, Limited' to 'Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) Limited' after relegation in 2012 but still retained same company number


That sounds like it could have just been a genuine error by either side but one that should really have been picked up by one or the other at some point given the number of contracts etc that are done.

However, that statement from the FL just makes things weirder. According to that, the club had it down as being in Ltd, but have been arguing it's in Holdings, whereas the league have it down as being in Holdings but are arguing it's in Ltd, hence the 10 point deduction [smilie=icon_confused2.gif]

Just had a look at the Companies House site, and it appears the name change from The Coventry City Football Club Limited to Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) Limited occurred on 16/2/96, not in 2012, and has the co. no. 00094305. This is actually the historic company set up for the club, being incorporated in 1907

However, just to confuse matters on the same day as that name change, a company set up in 1995 called CCFC Limited changed its name to Coventry City Football Club Limited, co.no.03056875.

So how on earth it's supposed to be clear when you've just changed the name of two separate companies, with the only difference between the old name of one and the new of the other two being the word "The" I don't know. It almost seems designedto cause confusion. But this is in the BR era, so again hardly surprising.

All this is way pre-SISU though, so they shouldn't really have been confused by it. I can only guess that most of the actual staff didn't change and so things just kept on being done as before.
User avatar
AD
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:53 pm
 



Re: Statement

Postby billythefish » Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:31 am

Surely we cant blame the BR era (including Orange Joe) when this is all down to SISU! How dare you.

Is there one person involved in this that we can trust?
billythefish
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6311
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 10:00 am
Location: Normally on Sofa with keebab and lager.
 
Prediction League Wins: 2



Re: Statement

Postby The Yid » Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:31 am

AD wrote:However, just to confuse matters on the same day as that name change, a company set up in 1995 called CCFC Limited changed its name to Coventry City Football Club Limited, co.no.03056875.


Just to confuse matters further - earlier that year (May 95) Clubon Limited changed its name to CCFC Limited - then they changed it again a few months later. How many fucking name changes does a company need?? And more importantly why?
User avatar
The Yid
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:57 pm
Highscores: 5
 



Re: Statement

Postby AD » Tue Jul 23, 2013 9:43 am

The Yid wrote:
AD wrote:However, just to confuse matters on the same day as that name change, a company set up in 1995 called CCFC Limited changed its name to Coventry City Football Club Limited, co.no.03056875.


Just to confuse matters further - earlier that year (May 95) Clubon Limited changed its name to CCFC Limited - then they changed it again a few months later. How many fucking name changes does a company need?? And more importantly why?


I can only think it was to try and make the company more identifiable as Coventry City. Clubon means nothing, so CCFC was better, until someone pointed out Cardiff, so Coventry City. Completely unimportant but the things a boardroom will concern themselves with a mindboggling. Igwe's 'Sam's a bad role model" for example.
User avatar
AD
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:53 pm
 



Re: Statement

Postby AD » Tue Jul 23, 2013 9:50 am

billythefish wrote:Surely we cant blame the BR era (including Orange Joe) when this is all down to SISU! How dare you.

Is there one person involved in this that we can trust?


I doubt it. It's all a bit Bleak House really - no-one getting anywhere except the lawyers making a fortune.

It is amazing how the only MP not backing calls for an inquiry into the club's dealings is a certain GR - former board member and chairman.
User avatar
AD
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:53 pm
 



PreviousNext

Return to CCFC Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], CommonCrawl [Bot], dotbot, Google [Bot] and 15 guests