Recent content by SkyBlueWomble

ACL has a monopoly over the rights to the catering at the Ricoh - that's it's position as leaseholder of the Ricoh from ultimately the council. This is nothing to do with past agreements with the club. ACL no longer has any say over the club's revenue streams because it no longer has a contract...

Well that's business. ACL seemingly took advantage of CCFC when it was down to agree terms of £1.2m rent pa plus match day revenues leaving very little scope to survive without 20k+ crowds. As I've said before, time for a new deal.

Intangible assets don't really work like that. If you had shares in Woolworths would you still be turning up to where they usually had their AGM to cast your votes in a company that no longer exists saying you paid £x for your shares and you demand your rights?

I suspect that the catering contractor isn't exactly happy with the way the way the contract is going at the moment and would be happy to vary terms that would generate say 200k+ paying customers come into the Ricoh over the course of the football season.

The house and the land no longer exist in your scenario. The buyer and seller now have nothing. Bad deals all around. Time for a new deal.

Which is exactly why the contract between CCFC Ltd and ACL isn't worth anything and is now null and void.

CCFC Holdings Ltd as it held the player contracts and other club assets.

Yes. A t/a contract will list the company(s) that it relates to - to avoid any legal confusion. It could not bind future parties without agreement of all parties. Again, if the contract covered these eventualities why hasn't ACL gone after the other parties for the lost rent?

A football club isn't a contracting entity because a club isn't a legal person - the club's owner is. You cannot bind future owners or shareholders - you could restrict current owners from selling but that's another matter. It doesn't really matter whether you think is preposterous or not...

If there were more parties (i.e. all CCFC entities) to the contract, why didn't ACL take legal action against all the parties on the contract? My view is that ACL tried to mitigate their exposure to a (pretty economically non-viable tenant) with the GR/MM (then director) guarantees. If you...

ACL owned the rights to the match day revenues of CCFC Ltd. CCFC Ltd no longer exists. ACL rights in CCFC Ltd's match day revenues are now worthless.

The company that sold the match day rights to ACL no longer exists. ACL no longer owns the rights to the club's match day revenues because it initiated administration proceedings against the club and then rejected a CVA agreement by a court appointed administrator. If ACL wants the club's match...

The selling off council houses isn't the problem. Not using the proceeds to build new social housing is the problem and moreover the chronic lack of house building in the past couple of decades has caused prices to rise due to a lack of supply. Selling the houses to the tenants had to be...

Are you saying that so long as the football creditors are met the football authorities will be ok with the a transfer of assets and liabilities to another company? If SISU transfer football assets and liabilities to Sky Blue Sports & Leisure Ltd (which won't be party to the lease agreement) and...