sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Question 4: should the club pay McGinnity/Robinson 300k ?
Question 5: where does it say that the 590k was supposed to be locked in the escrow account and not just paid straight to Acl ?
Last edited:
Simon Gilbert, has there been an FL response? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter skybluetony176
- Start date
Question 4: should the club pay McGinnity/Robinson 300k ?
Question 5: where does it say that the 590k was supposed to be locked in the escrow account and not just paid straight to Acl ?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Still no comment from the only party who's opinion matters, the FL. ML, TF, ACL, GR & MM don't come into this. Only the FL's decision can have an effect on next season either way yet they say FA.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Perfect timing from the council Evening telegraph.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Just to confuse things further the G2 of the FL insolvency policy says
"those debts that are required to be paid in full (or payment secured in full) in all circumstances are".................
"G2. 3 such other sums as are required to be paid by the League, FIFA, UEFA or the Football Association from time to time"
Did the FL demand payment of figure of £590k to ACL as a penalty or did they refer to it as rent because as has been discussed before £590k doesn't actually represent rent. It is a calculated figure in a CVA that never existed.
It would seem to me that the FL have got themselves in a mess with things again
Last edited:
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Are you swearing to try and not sound like a nerdy school teacher?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Should they fuck pay the discount
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
You can almost see the court case approaching cant you .............................. 
SkyBlueScottie
Well-Known Member
"The £590,000 was the amount ACL would have received for unpaid rent if a company voluntary agreement (CVA) had been accepted when the club was in administration. It was rejected by ACL and HM Revenue and Customs.
Football club officials insist the full amount has been paid into an escrow set up at the request of the Football League. But now the club is challenging the amount the Football League said it must pay.
Mark Labovitch, CCFC non-executive director, said: “We have heard nothing from ACL regarding the money they received from third parties. In order to settle this matter, we have now offered to pay ACL the net amount they are owed."
Interesting....
Football club officials insist the full amount has been paid into an escrow set up at the request of the Football League. But now the club is challenging the amount the Football League said it must pay.
Mark Labovitch, CCFC non-executive director, said: “We have heard nothing from ACL regarding the money they received from third parties. In order to settle this matter, we have now offered to pay ACL the net amount they are owed."
Interesting....
You can almost see the court case approaching cant you ..............................
McGinnity/Robinson vs SISU/Otium/Arvo coming to a courtroom near you.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I'd like to see that as some of the workings behind the terrible dealings to set up ACL might be exposed.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't the net amount owed be on the full rent arrears rather than a figure from a rejected CVA? I was under the impression the £590K was a payment ordered by the FL as a condition of receiving the golden share rather than the payment of an actual debt owed to ACL, so is ML just cherry picking figures that lead to a lower payment or have I misinterpreted it?
The Prefect
Active Member
We're not party to the agreement between Robinson, McGinity and ACL and we don't know GR and MM actually 'guaranteed'. If it was specifically 'rent' then there is a case that it could be deducted - I would be very surprised if that were the case because it is too specific. If the guarantee was for 'loss of income' - which is more likely then there would seem to be no case to answer.
In my opinion SISU are fishing for a discount - and you can't blame them. If the decision goes against them I'm sure they'll challenge it under Joy's 'litigation' threat.
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
To be honest mate, I would rather see some of the workings behind why we are in so much debt and a look at our accounts rather than a company that at present has nothing to do with us.
I am actually amazed that McGinnity/Robinson didn't insist on a short time limit of the personal guarantees. Three years maximum.
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
So, let me get this straight....£590k is owed to ACL.
MM and GR have already paid ACL £300k...correct?
Are ACL still then claiming £590k?
If they are, why? Surely they're only owed £290k??
Yours confused,
WM
MM and GR have already paid ACL £300k...correct?
Are ACL still then claiming £590k?
If they are, why? Surely they're only owed £290k??
Yours confused,
WM
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
They are claiming it as they are greedy bastards. I genuinely hope sisu hold firm on this and get the fuckers in court again.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Nothing to say they didn't ask for a limit as you'd think it not unreasonable to do so. ..
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
I heard voodoo was used and also stonehenge was involved !!
Lorksalordy
New Member
Would just be nice if one thing in this utter bollocks of a mess was concluded in time, on plan with no complications
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
The FL have said £590k needs to be paid for one thing.
MM & GR have paid £300k for something.
The argument is whether the one thing is the same as the something, or whether the something is for something else.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Surely the first thing that needs to be established is in the contract between Otium and FL what was the £590k described as.
If it is "rent" then how do Otium legally have an obligation to pay a debt that is not theirs in law and they did not acquire from the administrator? What was the basis of the calculation? Did the FL understand the calculation in the failed CVA? Do Otium actually have any legal right of set off against a guarantee given to CCFC Ltd? The accepted debt now filed in court by the administrator is £636k is this now a challenge to his findings? Did the guarantee relate to rent or debts in total or expenses? Did the guarantee run in parallel so was in law never anything to do with CCFC Ltd as such?
If it was a figure picked as a penalty for not completing CVA then it is not rent at all and surely the guarantee is irrelevant to it.
ACL of course have no legal or contractual right to demand any payment.
same old story isn't it ....... nothing is ever what it seems.......... confusion reigns !
Timing is interesting of the todays comments ........ same day as fixtures list ............ and we all know that integrity of the competition is important above all to FL. Btw to be clear am not wishing CCFC and fans to be punished further but I think it just points to how the FL will deal with it.
If it is "rent" then how do Otium legally have an obligation to pay a debt that is not theirs in law and they did not acquire from the administrator? What was the basis of the calculation? Did the FL understand the calculation in the failed CVA? Do Otium actually have any legal right of set off against a guarantee given to CCFC Ltd? The accepted debt now filed in court by the administrator is £636k is this now a challenge to his findings? Did the guarantee relate to rent or debts in total or expenses? Did the guarantee run in parallel so was in law never anything to do with CCFC Ltd as such?
If it was a figure picked as a penalty for not completing CVA then it is not rent at all and surely the guarantee is irrelevant to it.
ACL of course have no legal or contractual right to demand any payment.
same old story isn't it ....... nothing is ever what it seems.......... confusion reigns !
Timing is interesting of the todays comments ........ same day as fixtures list ............ and we all know that integrity of the competition is important above all to FL. Btw to be clear am not wishing CCFC and fans to be punished further but I think it just points to how the FL will deal with it.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Lol !!
If they do or don't that's up to them but your views are obviously against us getting back to the Ricoh !!
Grendel
Well-Known Member
We never will get back until ACL are bankrupt. The sooner the better.
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
If that's the case Grendel, then that's ridiculous. So potentially owed £290k but seeking double that?! Unreal.
That said, no different I'm sure to what SISU might have sought before. They were unsuccessful so I hope ACL have the same result.
Alls fair in love and war and all that...
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
No future with SISU
New Member
You got the name wrong, only a 33.3% right which is good for you.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
To come back after ACL are bankrupt would presumably involve the club, or the clubs owners, buying a lease off the Council. I'd have thought it would be cheaper to buy the shares in ACL.
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
Good point but probably more complicated?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The shares are worthless so I doubt that.
SimonGilbert
Telegraph Tea Boy
I'd just like to point out I have never made tea for Alan Poole.
We have a hot drink vending machine
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
I hardly think that CCC would sell a lease to Sisu even if Acl go under. This is where Grendels plan comes unstuck !!
Grendel should be supporting to get new owners for the club !!!
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
I'd have thought buying something worthless would be cheaper than buying something valuable.
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
I'd just like to point out I have never made tea for Alan Poole.
We have a hot drink vending machine
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
However, if you ever did feel like making tea then Grendel was looking for an assistant for £50k a year
