Here we go again. ACL is a limited business. It's directors have a legal responsibility to act in its best interests. They may have sympathies for the football club, but this goes out if the window when it comes to them exercising their responsibility.
My guess of one motivation is that they rejected the CVA in the hope of forcing - alongside their representations to the FL, etc - the administration process to be revisited; and perhaps another buyer nominated who might honour their 40-odd year lease.
That would have been a better outcome for their business and therefore the way they would have been bound to follow.
The reality is; once a club sells its ground, or site to a Limited company and is therefore nothing more than a tenant; then it can't complain when the directors of that Limited company vote in favour of its own interests over their tenants. Don't like that reality; then don't sell your interests to third parties.
Don't complain about CCC or ACL; as to do so shows ignorance of where assets, interests and responsibilities lie
And when Otium/SISU directors do they same, they're publically castigated on here? Not saying they're right at all, but it's a totally level playing field.
ACL are as complicit in our issues as SISU, Otium, Fisher, Seppalla, CCC, Richardson, Ranson, Simon Cowell, Ant and Dec, The Tweenies, The bloke who cried on CWR and Spot the Dog.
It can't be one rule for one and one rule for another.
WM