Page 1 of 1

Trusts Questions that need answering

PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 3:12 pm
by billythefish
They include

Ms Seppala is not on the list of directors of any Sky Blue Sports & Leisure Group company, yet she appears to be taking the decisions for the Group. Isn’t she therefore a “shadow director“, with responsibilities under the Companies Act and subject to investigation under the Insolvency Act 1986?

How does this apparent role as a “shadow director” square with the Football League’s Owners and Directors Test? Did she complete that test? If not, why not?

Surely they realise that this isnt a multiple choice written examination that new owners have to sit. Had visions of all these new foreign owners sitting in a sports hall somewhere whilst David Davies tells them they have two hours to complete the test, must not copy any answers and must leave all school bags etc at the front.

Just made me laugh when I read this.

Re: Trusts Questions that need answering

PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 3:36 pm
by Nick
I wish they would get of the fence and start asking similar questions about ACL/CCC and also hope Sisu sue the **** at the skyblue trust

Re: Trusts Questions that need answering

PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 5:09 pm
by The Englander
If what The Yid says about the Juducial Review is true, I can't see any agreement being signed on Friday. If SISU (Otium) want the ground, but were denied it by ACL scum-baggery, and still only have the option to rent, why would they compile a 5,000 page document then not nail ACL? SISU have been seen as the bad guys though-out, and surely would not pass up the chance to show who the real villains are? With that in mind, welcome to liquidation, and a points deduction....

Re: Trusts Questions that need answering

PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 8:52 pm
by Burf
No agreement is gonna be signed tomorrow Sid. Or any other day... Not by this set of opposing ****.

They've clearly got other agendas - both of them. I can't honestly work out what those are , but clearly the well-being & prosperity of Coventry City is not high on the agenda of SISU or ACL.
that's the only logical conclusion I can make that explains why we are where we are.

Re: Trusts Questions that need answering

PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:15 am
by billythefish
Burf wrote:No agreement is gonna be signed tomorrow Sid. Or any other day... Not by this set of opposing ****.

They've clearly got other agendas - both of them. I can't honestly work out what those are , but clearly the well-being & prosperity of Coventry City is not high on the agenda of SISU or ACL.
that's the only logical conclusion I can make that explains why we are where we are.


I think that would be most peoples view on it.

Re: Trusts Questions that need answering

PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 9:32 am
by the boss

Re: Trusts Questions that need answering

PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:16 pm
by AD
billythefish wrote:They include

Ms Seppala is not on the list of directors of any Sky Blue Sports & Leisure Group company, yet she appears to be taking the decisions for the Group. Isn’t she therefore a “shadow director“, with responsibilities under the Companies Act and subject to investigation under the Insolvency Act 1986?

How does this apparent role as a “shadow director” square with the Football League’s Owners and Directors Test? Did she complete that test? If not, why not?

Surely they realise that this isnt a multiple choice written examination that new owners have to sit. Had visions of all these new foreign owners sitting in a sports hall somewhere whilst David Davies tells them they have two hours to complete the test, must not copy any answers and must leave all school bags etc at the front.

Just made me laugh when I read this.


It does make it sound a bit stupid, but the basic question is a valid one. If Seppala isn't on the board as a director why is she allowed influence over decision making, something against the league code of practice?

Re: Trusts Questions that need answering

PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:24 pm
by AD
The Englander wrote:If what The Yid says about the Juducial Review is true, I can't see any agreement being signed on Friday. If SISU (Otium) want the ground, but were denied it by ACL scum-baggery, and still only have the option to rent, why would they compile a 5,000 page document then not nail ACL? SISU have been seen as the bad guys though-out, and surely would not pass up the chance to show who the real villains are? With that in mind, welcome to liquidation, and a points deduction....


So exactly what action is 'scum-baggery'? Making a derisive offer? Trying to send someone out of business to get it on the cheap?

It will be interesting to see what they do with that info. As you say why not release it all, prove ACL are the bad guys? Probably because it's not got a hope in hell. The entertainment industry runs off government grants and subsidies, especially the opera and ballet despite being privately owned and in the hands of incredibly rich people. So to call a review on this would be opening a can of worms for them to judicially review all other grants and subsidies offered - not going to happen.

ACL have given up £500k and made themselves look like the reason for CCFC starting with a points deduction to the uninitiated. Plus the other side threatening to instigate a judicial review of financing. Why? You'd only do that if you really felt the entire thing was a stitch up and needing investigating. I don't want a points deduction, but if it allows an enquiry into the goings on of this football club for the past twenty years I'm willing to accept it before we fall even further.