Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: Companies House and 'Compulsory Strike Off'

  1. #11
    Update was meant in relation to 'Pleased to learn this evening that finances from last season are all in order...' which I presume is from Brandman's capacity with the National League but also in relation to my initial concerns about the strike off and that we don't appear to be in trouble.

  2. #12
    Not only is it not an update, it isn't actually very helpful at all. For someone who "deals in facts" it is frankly full of speculation. In fact his initial assertion that the striking off order is something to do with the accounts is almost definitely wrong. Looking at the companies house record it will almost certainly be to with the fact that the confirmation statement was submitted late. This form simply tells companies house who controls the company and will contain no information on finances etc.

    The inference that in may in someway be to do with the finances is a postulation that one can simply not make, in fact you can't infer anything of any worth about the financial statements from either the striking off notice or the confirmation statement. The finances might be perfectly okay, they might not.

    Finally as an open forum for football fans I don't think there is really anything really wrong with speculation, but you would expect someone to steer away from it if they have a history of continually calling people out for not dealing in facts.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post
    Not only is it not an update, it isn't actually very helpful at all. For someone who "deals in facts" it is frankly full of speculation. In fact his initial assertion that the striking off order is something to do with the accounts is almost definitely wrong. Looking at the companies house record it will almost certainly be to with the fact that the confirmation statement was submitted late. This form simply tells companies house who controls the company and will contain no information on finances etc.

    The inference that in may in someway be to do with the finances is a postulation that one can simply not make, in fact you can't infer anything of any worth about the financial statements from either the striking off notice or the confirmation statement. The finances might be perfectly okay, they might not.

    Finally as an open forum for football fans I don't think there is really anything really wrong with speculation, but you would expect someone to steer away from it if they have a history of continually calling people out for not dealing in facts.
    Not wishing to be picky, but you post has an 'almost definitely' ... an 'almost certainly' and a 'might be perfectly okay'. I'm positive these comments are helpful???

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Cookie View Post
    Not wishing to be picky, but you post has an 'almost definitely' ... an 'almost certainly' and a 'might be perfectly okay'. I'm positive these comments are helpful???
    Ha - very good point, I guess I could have worded it better. My overall point is that GCAFC fans have enough worries, without jumping to conclusions about finances which can't be drawn on the basis of the information to hand. I guess wherever there is a void of information it is natural for negative speculation (or speculation of any kind) to fill it, but I felt on this point I might have been able to offer some clarification on why a striking off notice was probably issued, and I would personally be very surprised if it was for anything else other than the late filing of the confirmation statement.

    I say all of this as an outsider and as someone who as a fan a very long time ago, I just felt I could offer some clarity on that one point, if I haven't then I apologise.

  5. #15
    Here is the Companies Act 2006 ...

    Maybe the termination of Secretary (Jul 2017) triggered a suspicion, perhaps followed by a missing return regarding list of directors at the end of the year? Certain admin & reporting is necessary for Companies...

    1000 Power to strike off company not carrying on business or in operation
    1. If the registrar has reasonable cause to believe that a company is not carrying on business or in operation, the registrar may send to the company by post a letter inquiring whether the company is carrying on business or in operation.
    2. If the registrar does not within one month of sending the letter receive any answer to it, the registrar must within 14 days after the expiration of that month send to the company by post a registered letter referring to the first letter, and stating —
    1. that no answer to it has been received, and
    2. that if an answer is not received to the second letter within one month from its date, a notice will be published in the Gazette with a view to striking the company's name off the register.
    3. If the registrar—
    1. receives an answer to the effect that the company is not carrying on business or in operation, or
    2. does not within one month after sending the second letter receive any answer
    the registrar may publish in the Gazette, and send to the company by post, a notice that at the expiration of three months from the date of the notice the name of the company mentioned in it will, unless cause is shown to the contrary, be struck off the register and the company will be dissolved.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •