Search results

This is a little like the debate in 2001 as to whether or not we should drop out the premiership, spend a year thrashing everyone and come back stronger. That worked out well.... For me it would have to be promotion - we may never get another chance.

We're not the only club with fans who desire admin. There are lots of fans that think it is a way to shed the debt and build again. Indeed, it can be - but it can be a disaster. I remember Forest fans saying Dougherty should be forced out. All I, as an outsider, could see was Dougherty had...

Exactly. The only assets ccfc have are the players - and the bailiffs have realised they won't get anything for them!! Although, maybe now that horse is off the menu in beef burgers, we could find a buyer for the players!

Agreed. The only thing that is certain in a courtroom is that the lawyers are getting richer, whilst the parties are getting poorer! It's also worthwhile making the point that an average barrister earns £1k a day. Makes you think if they could compromise we could get a decent player for that.

On what grounds do you consider SISU could argue the rent to be unlawful? This is civil law - parties can agree what they like (even the parameters of the judges discretion) subject to certain safeguards put in place by Acts of parliament/case law. If it was unlawful I am sure SISU would have...

I don't profess to be an expert in insolvency law but there are a lot of statements made in here that I don't believe to be correct. Firstly, why would SISU bring an action to demonstrate the level of rent is unlawful? At the moment they are paying nothing - undoubtedly a court would rule it...

Your opinion - fair enough! (But, you're wrong)!

Fancy pointing me in the direction of that law?

The problem is you've been wrong on all 3 occasions!! ACL have gone for administration as they believe they can convince a judge that the threats of insolvency demonstrate insolvency. I don't believe a judge would agree - it is merely posturing (which the courts expect to happen in business).

If a court has ruled that the rent should be paid you are correct - I didn't believe it had gone that far? The third party order they got was an interim order - no more than SISU asking for security of costs (which I guess is their next move as the court has also asked for acl's accounts).

No, all Tim did was reinforce negotiations had been taking place. This demonstrates a dispute which, by virtue of the fact negotiations have faltered, has crystallised, and can be adjudicated upon by a third party. The call for administration actually, to me as a total outsider guessing like...

I don't see it like that. For me it is more brinkmanship. It is SISU saying, "come on then, sue us if you want but if you win we ain't paying! Oh, and by the way, we may just take your main source of income away - just for the spite of it!!!!"

Because SISU haven't decided if they want to pump £5m in. And why would they if ACL agree to a lower rent such that they only have to pump £4m in? But, as I say, I'm no accountant - just my thoughts.

This is spot on! SISU are hard nosed businessmen. They have seen a way not to pay the rent and scare the wits out of ACL that to try and force their hand would be a complete waste of further money. Add to that the threat to move the main source of ACL income and they have moved the...

I'm not an accountant, but does it matter what the accounts say? If they show we, on paper, lost £4m but SISU pumped in £5m are we not solvent. If not, then surely a lot of clubs are trading insolvently.

Agreed. But it would be for a court to decide that the rent is due. ACL haven't taken those steps. There is, however, a crystallised dispute that can be demonstrated on and adjudicated upon by a third party. The court hearing on Friday will not address that issue.