Search results

Can't remember the exact date, but it's fairly soon. However, as I understand it, the creditors can apply for a 28 day extension.

That will rather depend on the legal advice that ACL have been given. With all the "accounts in a mess", with all the movements of assets, this is far from a standard clear cut exercise. We will see. As an aside, if all that you wrote above were true and it is a given that the CVA will be...

When I spoke to the FL, I asked them on what basis they had formed their view that it was impossible for City to play in Coventry. Their response was "Otium told us so". You really have to think that they're feeling just a little bit silly, just a little bit exposed now - aren't they?

You'd think that they'd at least offer a reduction - say 50%, why not go for 66.7%?

Acceptance with one condition that you're pretty sure will be refused is pretty close to a refusal though. Don't you think?

Yes, the FL's position that they OK'd the move to Northampton because it was "impossible" for City to play at the Ricoh, looks less and less defensible as each day goes by.

Read the first line of your post. Now read the third line.

I think it would have been much easier without a rent strike, threat of liquidation by the CEO etc, but we are where we are. It seems pretty clear that both the club and ACL would be better off in the short term with an agreement to play at the Ricoh, for at least the coming year. Logic...

So you think that SISU should only pay the same rent at the Ricoh, as they're paying at Sixfields (a stadium less than a quarter of the size), despite the fact that average attendances at the Ricoh would be between 4k and 8k higher per match? Very strange way to run a business.

So why not try to arrange to play at the Ricoh during the "three years" of stadium building, so taking avoiding the financial hit?

"Support the team, not the regime" is possible - it just means away games only.

It's not stalemate, it's avoidance. ACL have agreed to a meeting with no pre-conditions. Joy is avoiding having a meeting by demanding that the CVA be signed before she will consider attending. If it wasn't the CVA, I'm afraid there'd just be another excuse.

I thought that ACL had agreed to a meeting with no preconditions.

Other clubs have been in administration (which our club may or may not be - Ltd, Holdings, Otium etc) at this stage of a season, but I wonder if there has ever been one that has not even announced arrangements for its season tickets this close to the start of a season.

The "ball is in ACL's corner" only because that's the way that Joy wants to play it. There is nothing stopping her going to a meeting.

So you don't see it as a refusal? Would you have seen it as a refusal if ACL had said that their pre-condition was payment of all rent arrears?

Hopefully even the Football League will now start to get a picture of what's going on.

Remember two superstars of the Championship days? Juan Sara Brian Kerr

Don't you mean Brian Sara?

I suppose it depends whether you consider us to be a football club or a financial/legal soap opera. Which is a tough one to answer.....