Search results

As you rightly say though, Yeovil and Oakland are noteable because they are exceptions to the general rule. It's not impossible to go against it - it's just not very likely.

At least I could go to it then - NOPM

I'll be there :p

As you were asked earlier - how did it take "PRIORITY" (excellent use of capitals by the way) "over CCFC's HOME" (gosh, there it is again - very impressive) fixture!!!!!!!!!" (got to be honest, I think you overdid it a bit with the exclamation marks - sometimes less is more)?

Which January did you have in mind?

I tend to agree, but Highfield Road aint coming back and the Ricoh is so much better than Northampton.

Or the intelligence of the person writing it?

The way things are looking at the moment, I'd say aiming to keep us in League 1 was pretty ambitious!

Let's just review the very basics of contract law shall we. One party makes an offer. The other party accepts it. There is now a contract. Nothing has to be written down (although the issue is then proving what has been offered and accepted), nothing has to be "stipulated" (whatever that...

You mean in the days before embargos? :)

Well done to Bristol City - happy memories of watching games at Ashton Gate in my student days.

Reckon so. If I understand it correctly, acceptance of the CVA would involve the acceptance of a small sum for the termination of the lease. If they were going to accept termination of the lease, I'd assume that they wouldn't be taking this action against Northampton. So, if all of that...

Agreed - I'd been wondering when this avenue would start to be explored.

OK - we're aware that your default position is to snipe. That's your choice. I had thought that you were against the move to Northampton. This is, in my view, potentially very helpful to the fight to stop that move. Can you honestly only find negative things to say about it?

Interesting isn't it! I wonder if this means that ACL are not accepting the "split" between Ltd and Holdings, i.e. that only the Ricoh contract is in Ltd and the "football club" is in Holdings. I can't say I've thought this through from a legal perspective, but perhaps their argument will be...

OK - let's spell it out then. The FL "reluctantly" agreed the move to Northampton because "there was no possibility of Coventry playing in Coventry". When I spoke to them earlier this week, I asked them how they had reached this conclusion. They said that SISU (well, Otium to be precise) had...

Do you really want yet another explanation of how this administration was loaded in SISU's favour with the supposed £70m of inter-group debt? There are bacterial life forms on the Planet Zog that have grasped that one by now!

I agree that we can't be absolutely sure without the written evidence, although in my view we can be sure in a "beyond reasonable doubt way". Whilst I can't claim total recall, I don't think that the history of the first three years contradicts the plans set out by SISU when they arrived.

Sorry - I have to disagree with you on all points. In this scenario it's nonsense to count SISU and Ranson as one and the same. PE houses often work with "entrepreneurs" that they think understand a market/industry - the fact that they make a joint approach to then purchase a company, would...