D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
So they were not able to legally talk to one entity wanting to own the club about future deals... but were able to talk to other entities?
ACL & Council need your advice....... (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter Cheshire Sky Blue
- Start date
So they were not able to legally talk to one entity wanting to own the club about future deals... but were able to talk to other entities?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
They wouldn't have been talking to Ltd.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Not allowed too and no point as Appleton was in charge anyhow.
skybluefred
New Member
Sisu where in admin ie they own Cov City Ltd and therefore all talk had to go through the administrator.Sisu lied and said all player contract's where held by Holdings and Fisher continued to shoot his mouth off. ACL did it correctly and only talked to the administrator,who incidentally agreed that contracts where with holdings. By taking this line of thought he
was unable to tell prospective purchasers what they where bidding for.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Surely the law has some standards on administration ? This sounds Fishy too me !!
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
@ Norman....Which part of "Ltd being in Admin so not legally able to talk to SISU, only Administrator" don't you understand???
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Good lateral thinking. No CCFC prospective legal entity to negotiate with. No Haskell prospective legal entity to negotiate with either.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
They were talking to the person in charge of CCFC Ltd namely a Mr Paul Appleton
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
So all talk had to go through the administrator, but they talked to other prospective bidders outside of the administrator?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
But why? Why were they getting hung up on it? Why if they never intended to sign the CVA were they trying to discuss a future rental agreement with a company that would be liquidated?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
So they were allowed to talk to certain prospective bidders outside of the administrator... but not certain of the others?
What part of that question are you choosing to ignore?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
They were also talking to people not in charge of CCFC.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Seems potentially hypocritical in the context of the court action against Northampton Town
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I'm trying to understand why they talked to one entity wishing to buy the club about future deals regarding the stadium... but not another.
All I get back is it would not have been legal for them to talk to an entity re: CCFC, outside of the administrator, while it was in administration.
As an answer this does not clarify, it merely asserts!
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
No.............only talk on CCFC Ltd.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Did this ever materialise ? Lost track to be honest.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
So why not speak to Otium Ltd?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I am not sure, it's gone quiet so I suspect not.
I hope that this will help to clarify some of the things that are being discussed in this thread:
Until the CVA was proposed ACL communicated with the Joint Administrators about anything that pertained to the benefits of the lease and licence held by CCFC Ltd (ia). ACL suggested to the Joint Administrators that following the publication of the CVA there could be an opportunity to reach an agreement that would allow CCFC Ltd (ia) to come out of administration. ACL proposed two changes to the CVA and proposed two conditions precedent which would have to be agreed by the Otium Entertainment Group. These conditions precedent could not be a part of the CVA but without them ACL could not approve the CVA. This is quite normal when a CVA is proposed, to try to sort out the other elements at the same time. A meeting was held and at its conclusion it was clear that Sisu were not prepared to agree the conditions precedent that were proposed by ACL to the Otium Entertainment Group. At the meeting to vote on the CVA a last chance was offered and rejected.
Until the CVA was proposed ACL communicated with the Joint Administrators about anything that pertained to the benefits of the lease and licence held by CCFC Ltd (ia). ACL suggested to the Joint Administrators that following the publication of the CVA there could be an opportunity to reach an agreement that would allow CCFC Ltd (ia) to come out of administration. ACL proposed two changes to the CVA and proposed two conditions precedent which would have to be agreed by the Otium Entertainment Group. These conditions precedent could not be a part of the CVA but without them ACL could not approve the CVA. This is quite normal when a CVA is proposed, to try to sort out the other elements at the same time. A meeting was held and at its conclusion it was clear that Sisu were not prepared to agree the conditions precedent that were proposed by ACL to the Otium Entertainment Group. At the meeting to vote on the CVA a last chance was offered and rejected.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
@ Norman....Any other bidder could talk to ACL/CCC....ie PH4th....Byng, (ACL/CCC can sell the Ricoh to anyone they like)....SISU COULDN'T!...Why????....because the were not Legal owners of CCFC ltd!...Any clearer now?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
No.
In fact to quote my acountant friend.
"As one of the largest non intercompany creditors, they are more than able to have a cup of tea with anyone"
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Never mind, go and have a lie down.
Cheshire Sky Blue
New Member
So as it stands the conversation has gone off in one direction.
In response to the question.....
"Following on from some of the content in other threads.
Assume that the scenario exist where, representatives of Otium / SISU (Not Timmy note) come knocking on the door of ACL / CCC and say they want a deal to:-
a) Return to the RICOH Arena before Christmas 2013
b) With the longer term intent to purchase the 100% ownership.
Consider if you were in a position and were asked to advise the CCC & ACL on what to do next. What would you be advising them?
There's is not a lot of compelling advice coming forward and my hunch is that its because we are so close and so emotional about our Club, we struggle to see the wood for the trees. Lets just hope ACL / CCC are clearer in their plans and strategy.:thinking about::thinking about::facepalm:
In response to the question.....
"Following on from some of the content in other threads.
Assume that the scenario exist where, representatives of Otium / SISU (Not Timmy note) come knocking on the door of ACL / CCC and say they want a deal to:-
a) Return to the RICOH Arena before Christmas 2013
b) With the longer term intent to purchase the 100% ownership.
Consider if you were in a position and were asked to advise the CCC & ACL on what to do next. What would you be advising them?
There's is not a lot of compelling advice coming forward and my hunch is that its because we are so close and so emotional about our Club, we struggle to see the wood for the trees. Lets just hope ACL / CCC are clearer in their plans and strategy.:thinking about::thinking about::facepalm:
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
My advice would be it's good to talk.
My advice would be not to set any parameters on the conversation and, if no resolution was reached after the first slice of cake, arrange a time to have another slice... just for the craic if nothing else.
And to keep talking, and keep talking.
And to listen, think... and not to dismiss out of hand anything. No need to agree, but it's good to talk...
My advice would be not to set any parameters on the conversation and, if no resolution was reached after the first slice of cake, arrange a time to have another slice... just for the craic if nothing else.
And to keep talking, and keep talking.
And to listen, think... and not to dismiss out of hand anything. No need to agree, but it's good to talk...
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Agree, NW. And keep talking and talking and talking. That is the only way this whole mess will be resolved. Simply one side talking to the other. No one is winning a the moment.
Astute
Well-Known Member
That is the problem. One side is talking to the other. But the other side refuses to reply back to them or even meet.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
I didn't realise that Bob Hoskins was a sky blue fan.
RegTheDonk
Well-Known Member
SISU? I shit 'em!