Search results

See where you are coming from mattylad but agree with you Torch - not really......... yes there will be disappoinment if we lose the 10 points(they are not lost yet) can understand that ................ but given the squad, the finance, the set up, the ground (up until the grass was removed!)...

Dont have a problem with that SBC ..... never have claimed to be right all the time, except with my kids when they were smaller :laugh: But we seem to assume that ACL have been only reactive in this ........... it seems to me they have a recent history of being proactive. They had to be getting...

ACL had to have had detailed discussions concerning what to do next well before that game, they are not ones to act in a knee jerk fashion. It might have been the final straw but I would guess they were going to go down that course of action any way. The "threats" or "realities" expressed just...

Think the key parts are that BR had gone when the deal was actually done "I had left when the final deal was done" followed by "It is understood that Richardson bought an option to buy the Foleshill gas works site but when that option ran out and he couldn’t raise the money to pay British Gas...

What ACL said months ago is that winding up "is an option"................ it always has been .............. doesnt mean they would take it Yes ACL have judgement for a statutory demand ............ the remedy for non payment of such is winding up........ that isnt what ACL have gone for...

Question why did Sepalla stop being "involved" in direct talks from 9th January ? Clearly she has the say as to what goes on at CCFC. Is she now classed as a shadow director ? and if she controlled any decision why should ACL talk to the monkeys when it is the organ grinder they need to address?

Just some thoughts on the above. ACL have given their version of the facts. Some can not be disputed however hard you try to. I would perhaps have not used some words but that might be something lost in translation or understandable frustration. Not going to dwell on it, it is the detail that...

2012 accounts did not include income from olympics ...... that income will be in the 2013 accounts The directors report details that ACL benefited from infrastructure improvements of £1m ( the work done on the A444 for example), it didnt cost them and they get any income from it

I thought it was the co op bank that were calling their money in that had the say so as to who took over in 2007/08 ? The directors of the club of course could have rejected the deal as the club wasnt in administration at the time. The councils influence was some what further away and they didnt...

Assuming they are all limited companies then you can find out by doing a search at Companies House for each team....... the summary page tells you what date accounts filed to and if overdue. If overdue at Co. House then overdue at League its the same deadline. Some might be under embargo for...

I think you are right Grendel that is certainly a possibility............ SISU will not go without a fight so I can not see this being settled quickly, possibly even not until next season

all evidence that ACL's Barristers can put before the court SBS ............ SISU may of course feel that they can rebutt it with very good explanations

I know TF has said CCFC owe no one else but I wonder if there are any of the other creditors that will join in the action against the club ? If that happened it takes it away from from an action just about the rent I would guess

Council own the freehold ACL own the long leasehold which now has about 42 years left to run Council and Charity own ACL 50:50 a limited company is classed as a completely seperate legal entity in law - "veil of incorporation"

I am sure they will provide evidence of having money ........ but how does the judge know if that is sufficient if he isnt given details of all valid debts that CCFC owe?. If SISU have the money, the debt is valid just wont pay it then is CCFC trading fraudulently by contracting for on going...

fair points there is no guarantee that new owners will be better, but the whole set up has to move forward. The relationships have totally broken down and i think most fans want resolution (thats not the same as wanting administration) I think what SISU have learnt is that they shouldnt make...

The judge will have to consider it in his initial evaluation of solvency because it is a tipping point. ACL will argue it is a valid debt previously uncontested and in line with the terms of the lease/licence, to counter that I would guess SISU will need to argue that it is not a valid debt and...

but the action and dispute is with CCFC......... the assets of SISU office etc are not at risk....... there is no claim ACL can make against SISU because SISU dont owe ACL anything

nothing for the bailiffs to collect though Tony it is all charged to ARVO (a sisu backed fund). Options are being exhausted one by one

can totally agree with that !