Search results

What don't you understand? All SISU need to demonstrate in order to avoid admin is that they have an ability to pay their debts as they fall due. SISU are saying the rent isn't due as they have a dispute. This is easily evidenced by the behaviour of ACL and their willingness to offer...

Exactly - SISU are arguing the rent isn't due as they have a dispute. They can easily demonstrate that point as ACL have offered concessions - so they clearly agree that there is an issue. It will be for a different court/hearing to decide who is right on the dispute.

I don't think ACL have many other options but to play on the claim of SISU to be facing insolvency and try and force administration. Let's face it we wouldn't best pleased if ACL (or rather the council) spent thousands suing the club for the rent to have an award made in their favour but...

Agreed. The hearing on Friday isn't about whether SISU should pay the rent, it is about whether they can pay the rent. All they need to do is show that the holding company has they money ready to pay, if so ordered at a future date, and admin is avoided. I suspect ACL will end up with...

We are a long way from game over - unless SISU really are broke.

SISU don't have to show that it's a viable business - it hasn't been for years (nor are many other football clubs). They have to show they are willing to support it to keep it financially solvent. If they can't do that admin looms, if they can ACL cannot force admin.

It was an interim third party debt order which is awarded by a judge without hearing the parties. A full hearing will be required before SISU are ordered to pay - it is the basis of English law that each party has the right to present their case in the full facts of the case made against...

I didn't believe so - a court asset order (or whatever it is called) is an interim order protecting a party that is "likely in the view of the court" to win a pending court case. In this regard we haven't been to court yet, more pre-court directions.

Spot on! They have to show they have the means to pay, otherwise, they are trading insolvently. They don't actually have to pay - at least not until ordered to but that would take an entirely different court case.

A court debt order is, I believe, entirely different. It is similar, I think, to a security of cost order that would be granted if a party was in danger of insolvency and looking to sue someone (what it does is make sure the party bringing the action has the funds to pay the others parties cost...

I'm pretty certain it hasn't.

But that doesn't mean a court has decided a debt is due? As it happens I think a court would but ACL run the risk of suing a straw man.

Agreed. And why would the council want to sell it with the ground? Surely, a property developer would realise a better profit (and, therefore, pay a better price) than an owner of a football club (who could be from any background).

Did it? I've just had a quick look on the telegraph website and negotiations were still on-going in February. There are debt orders in place but, again, these don't mean the debt is due - that has to be either agreed by some means or decided by a court.

Thank you. Unless I've missed something (which I may have - it wouldn't be the first time) I understood negotiations had broken down. I don't believe the dispute has gone to court. I guess we'll find out in time.

Do they? I don't believe so. An application for administration is a mile away from a court order. I have advised clients who have had winding up petitions made against them. Generally, these are issued as the "debtor", incorrectly, believes an unwillingness to pay means an inability to pay...

I'm not sure that ACL hold the hand that people believe. In order to force administration ACL will have to demonstrate that SISU cannot pay debts as they fall properly due. All SISU have to demonstrate is that they have the means to pay and that the reason that they aren't paying is because...