Search results

Why would we be back? Also in pretty much every private business I've worked in you pursue creditors for what you are owed, even if they are your best customer. You don't just let them off with it. If you get a reputation for letting your customers mess you about over debts owed all your...

Why a mistake exactly? Rejecting the CVA will result in ACL receiving the same amount of money back as if they had accepted it.

Well there is an argument for A isn't there? Evidence suggests that assets held by CCFC Ltd in 1995 were transferred to CCFC Holdings at some point. The fact that the timing of the "some point" was never established left questions to be answered about the CVA.

It was on here before, I think by PKWH that a charity is legally required to accept an offer of a CVA by the charity commission.

The fact that Sisu pretty much fail at everything they do would concern me about them owning the Ricoh. Like you say they seriously need to improve their competency before fans will even begin to start forgiving them.

Worth remembering that is a legal requirement for a charity.

Well he did have a choice. He could have come up with a new CVA that was acceptable to creditors.

So now your agreeing that it was Appleton's decision to liquidate the club?

ACL rejected the CVA yes. However at that point onward it was Paul Appleton that initiated liquidation proceedings. There was absolutely nothing stopping Appleton from putting together a different CVA to see if that was acceptable to ACL.

I don't disagree with that, and my criticisms of the council are that for a long time they took the easy options for short term popularity rather than what was the long term good.

Well that's an interesting theory. It is worth remembering however that the first significant "sisu out" protests from the fans was a good 6 months before the rent strike started. Are you saying that John Mutton at this point wasn't chanting "sisu out" along with the rest of the fans?

No they sold our best players for a quick small profit, concerned themselves about an overweight elephant, and installed a piece of fruit as chairman who liked to sit on the bench.

Yes they did. Unfortunately they then changed their business plan.

But "all experts agree" that the club needs to own its stadium. Now what the council are accused of would have given the club that. So how can that be a bad thing?

But if their motives were to get better owners, and unite the club with the stadium, that can only be a good thing.

Most genuine supporters want what is best for the club. For me that means the club playing at the Ricoh, with competent owners, and ideally owning the Ricoh. Now as you claim to "only want what is best for the club", why would you care what happens to sisu? Surely you want them out as much as...

How about rather than name calling you actually put forward your argument as to why I'm wrong?

Similar to my thoughts. Whilst the council might yet be found guilty of breaking state aid rules, surely we should congratulate their motives? We all agree that sisu are unsuitable owners of the club. No fans like sisu apparently. If the council saw an opportunity to oust sisu, bring...

I think it would depend on the next available space, so it just as likely to be much lower. (Teams just promoted into the conference wouldn't be too happy about having to give up their place for us). All hypothetical of course.

The GS is just for the Football League.