EDMs are used to publicise an MP's views, drawing attention to specific events or campaigns, and demonstrating the extent of parliamentary support for a particular cause.
In the first EDM, Mr Ainsworth questioned whether there had been a “a conspiracy to defraud” over how assets had been moved at the club - a claim the the club’s owners have denied.
Two further EDMs raised questions about the company structure of Coventry City FC and the role of company secretary Adam Bradley and also asked the government to review the law in relation to company secretaries.
The first of the two motions raised this morning called on City joint administrator Paul Appleton to disclose why he agreed to the club's sale to Sisu-releated company Otium.
It read: “That this House notes that almost four months after his appointment, Paul Appleton of David Rubins and Partners LLP, the joint administrator for Coventry City Football Club Ltd, is still in discussions with BDO, its auditors, about the accounting procedures used by the company and has not yet used the powers available to him under the Insolvency Act 1986 to compel individuals and organisations to render information to him.
“Further notes therefore that he has not yet secured full knowledge of the company’s assets and whether any inappropriate devices have been used to facilitate its transfer to any other organisation.
“Further notes that despite this he has sold the company without conditions to Otium Entertainment a connected party.
“And calls on him to make a full disclosure of why he has acted as he has and to stand prepared to surrender his position as joint administrator to someone who, even at this late date, is prepared to use the powers provided in legislation.”
The second of today’s early day motions questioned the movement of assets between Coventry City Football Club Ltd - the company currently in administration - and CCFC Holdings Ltd.
It read: “That this House notes that the March and April 2008 board minutes show that Coventry City Football Club Ltd (CCFC) had ownership of the Football League’s golden share and the registration of the playing staff and that since then various service agreements with the club’s many managers’ and players’ contracts continued to be vested with the company.
“Further notes that the accounts for year ending 31 May 2011 showed playing staff contracts were still owned by the company; calls on the Football League to explain why it has allowed those contracts to be altered to the ownership of CCFC Holdings Ltd, an entity that has not possessed the golden share, in contradiction of its own clearly stated rules.
“Further calls on it to explain why it agreed to allow the club to leave the Coventry area in a ground share with Northampton Town without obliging the club’s owners to demonstrate a clear plan with timescales for its return to Coventry, again in clear contradiction of its own policies.
“Further calls on it to reveal whether it received a 12-page solicitor’s letter on the eve of agreeing to do so on behalf of the club’s owners.
“And further calls on it to co-operate fully with those charged with discovering how the company’s assets have been removed and to review its decision to allow the ground share with Northampton Town.”