That's because you're an intelligent person who understands that just because we have differing political views, you don't have to automatically disagree with everything I post.
ACL will have enough votes to reject deal at creditors meeting (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter AFCCOVENTRY
- Start date
That's because you're an intelligent person who understands that just because we have differing political views, you don't have to automatically disagree with everything I post.
Ahhhh, nice. You are therefore somebody who I can do business with
There is a difference between ideological views and political views.
I.e. no party does what their founding principles suggest they should.
I would class myself as a right wing capitalist, but only in a regulated capitalist way. Hence I find hedge fund antics as disgusting as the next person. Real capitalism is the ordinary working class lad who through hard work overcomes the class system and makes it in life.
Anyway I certainly wouldn't dislike someone for having different views to me, infact I enjoy it if someone wants to have a debate with me.
Enough politics, back to insolvency law.
Nothing about politics allowed? Is that why Cov Council get off scot free in all the blame games re our predicament? Kinda makes sense.
It was a polite request to stop having a go and insulting people before being banned
Well it is a football forum? If people wanted to read tory this.gove that they would go on a politics forum.
Looking at the statement on ccfc.co.uk it seems Otium HAVE NOT purchased Ltd but have instead cherrypicked the assets the want out of Ltd.
Les Reid has indicated it's the administrators report that has said if the CVA is not approved he will liquidate, I can see how that ties with an aim of administration being to have an ongoing business when it is known there are other interested buyers. To me it comes across as SISU and PA saying do it our way or we'll liquidate.
I'm not sure if SISU and PA are being very clever here or doing something very dodgy that they might get caught out with, would need someone who's an expert in both the legality of this and the FL insolvency process to be able to tell us that I think.
These are the tweets I'm basing that on: "Administrator's report proposes liquidation if CVA can't be agreed for #CCFC Ltd"
"Appleton's statement says, he's only been able to sell the "rights & title" to #CCFC Ltd "assets", including share, to Otium"
"Asset sales process from #CCFC Ltd to Otium completed. Licence to play at Ricoh still remains in Ltd. Could be scrapped"
"If no CVA agreed, #CCFC Ltd liquidated & share would go to any interested entity League wishes to transfer it to. 15pt deduction"
the last one is interesting as it indicates that, as you say, if Ltd is liquidate it the FL would not view it as the end of CCFC so we wouldn't be in a Rangers type situation. I'm not sure how that can be the case if Ltd had the share and the sale of the share is not allowed unless the FL is saying we can issue it to anyone but how do they then prevent another club rolling their debt into one company, putting that into admin and just buying the share out of it?
So if the licence to play at the Ricoh lies in LTD do they still own the lease if so it costs 1.4 million a year and we play else where ??? :thinking about::thinking about::thinking about:
That would make ACL the biggest creditor?? This has been mentioned before does anyone know?
That would make ACL the biggest creditor?? This has been mentioned before does anyone know?
Common sense innit.
No deal agreed between parties, offer for free while in admin.
Therefore if come out of admin with no deal agreed, off we go on our travels!
I take it as ltd still being in admin, with nothing but the lease in it. Either PA will liquidate ltd or SISU will as soon as they take it over and unless the lease has a clause which ties it to the golden share (very unlikely I would have thought) the lease will end with liquidation.
The amount they would currently owe ACL would only be up to the date of admin (or possibly it keeps going up while in admin), don't see how ACL could say they are owed money that's not due yet. What happens when Ltd gets liquidated I don't know. I assume ACL would have to take legal action to claim the value of the lease but without Ltd existing can they take action against the owners of Ltd as a connected organisation?
None of the parties involved give a shit about the club's prospects. The League are happy to wait a month to approve Otium (no such vetting for fecking Pompey) and prevent one of its members from doing anything that it needs to function. Everybody should be ashamed.
Sorry misinterpreted the meaning ,thought you meant thrown out by FL.:facepalm:
I have to say what a day this has been! First we find out that we will hardly have any players apart from a bunch of kids, then the brilliant news about Otium, then more statements about creditors blah blah blah. And now the trust have issued a statement that states absolutely nothing, genius! No wonder the fans are disappearing in droves!
CCFC play at a temporary home then Compass will take ACL to court for breach of contract as nobody will buying there F&B, casino will pull out as saturday being there main money spinner, Yorkshire bank pull out of there offices there too, ACL go in to admin and SISU buy and the stadium and club are re-united, SISU sell as a whole package
They can't wait that long should have built the new stadium by then sorry dog track....
I posted similar the other week GTT, but have reflected upon this somewhat. I believe exactly as you post, but actually SISU have no desire to unite club and Arena they will always want to keep them separate. Can't see any reason for them uniting, they want to become ACL but on a much longer lease - didn't they propose 125 yrs when the supposed 'deal' was made?!? SISU want the stadium, don't care for the club and so the club is actually not worth much. If you are breaking even and know that you can get your hands on the ricoh - where does the football club come into it?!? Unprofitable football club long term, sell in the short term, or 125 year lease on the arena for peanuts?
Whether ACL have enough votes to veto the CVA is irrelevant as if they are offered their debts paid in full they would have to accept as some of that is council tax payers money.
What are they owed? I would say its the debt from last season plus the debt from the early termination of the contract which might be millions. They also have every right to want fit and proper owners to secure the long term future of CCFC at the Ricoh as that's also in the tax payers interests
I'm not sure about that Brighton, they don't want to do any sort of deal with the current owners, which in my view is right. But it would be difficult to see on what grounds they would block it if they got their money. Does anyone else know any other reasons they could use?
Sisu don't have that kind of money by breaking the lease ACL can take them to court for the 50 million or so they have lost due to them breaking the deal....IMHO
Good point, sorry I keep thinking about next season and the debt they owe from the last one and forgetting they would owe for the broken lease.
No doubt any company which goes ahead and breaks the lease will be engineered by SISU to be liquidated therefore no on-going responsibility from the team/club owner.
I think maybe SISU are holding all of the cards (subject to FL approval).
I think maybe SISU are holding all of the cards (subject to FL approval).
Yeah *if* they were liable for all 40+ years (unlikely) and *if* that debt were applied to the company, the only valid course of action would be to wind the company up.
It would be tricky to justify rejecting a proposal to settle the arrears and then chuck in some more to cover their lost business in the immediate future.
