Search results

Just bear in mind when he is talking that he was a signatory on the lease ............ he signed it on behalf of ACL

So if CCFC Limited own the League share still then they held it when that company was put in to administration and therefore 10 points deduction is automatic isnt it? Also if the players are now contracted to CCFCH ........ and the share is with CCFC Limited ........... who is actually playing...

Trouble I have is that it is implied by the CCFC statements that CCFCH has been the employer for some time..... if that has always been the case then the directors and auditors could have made false statements on the accounts to Company House, HMRC and anyone who has used the accounts...

Got to assume that up until Thursday that ACL didnt have a claim against CCFCH ...... however the SISU actions may have changed that by tying CCFCH into a scheme of avoidance (no legal beagle so not sure). Administration however does not guarantee new owners but does give possibilities that...

Thats my understanding and is very worrying because there is no income whatsoever to pay it and no prospect of paying it. Therefore the only action the administrator can take is to apply to the court to liquidate the company. Thats a real big problem if the League share turns out to never have...

I dont know Grendel ....... makes no sense to me. If they stayed then they pay £10k per game in matchday expenses and get the possibility of more than enough income to cover it ..... they go elsewhere and they have to rent a ground, lose matchday incomes they do have and have additional costs...

Its held with CCFC Ltd

I think one problem is that the whole thing centres on the avoidance of paying a legal contractual debt. If the FL are party to that they could also be held liable if it all went wrong. That is not be held liable to £1.4 but to 42 years x 1.3m (...... the club hasnt assets to pay it). Would they...

If you go to court you have to be strong and clear as to what you want and expect as a starting position. So in reality their position hasnt changed much it is just how it has to be portrayed now its gone to court. To protect their legal position in a process they dont control they have to...

Think that is a secondary consideration Senior Vick ....... They cant use the losses until they crystallise (ie the investment sold or the club ceases to exist). They bought in on the potential to get hold of the site and the possibility of some success on the pitch (in that order) in my opinion

option is not with ACL Jack its with the Charity

Think you could identify the owners as doing the most distressing of the club mattylad ......... we just seem to be locked in a cycle of shrinking and mounting debts. Can see your frustration and share it....... just seems no end to it. No one is covering themselves in glory here ....... still...

they could but i would guess they would want to know all the reasons why they need to before agreeing to it if indeed they ever did. If it formed some part of a scheme for insolvency i doubt league rules would permit it and would set aside such transfers. It is clearly part of such a scheme if...

Thanks to PWKH for this and trying to keep us all in the loop as best he can - much appreciated That statement seems clear to me. The important part is the reference to the annual return that clearly states the member of the Football League is CCFC Ltd not CCFC H Ltd dated 23/06/12 It is a...