Search results

How exactly do you come to that conclusion??

I fail to see any point that could remotely justify it's rejection. If they were unhappy with the process, they should have reported Appleton to the appropriate authorities.

Things might be a lot clearer of Appleton came out and explained exactly why the original admin/liquidation is not finished yet.

But surely the 'value' of the golden share is obsolete as once the club goes into admin/liquidation it is in essence revoked and returned to FL? That's certainly how I understood it.

So why and how would they benefit from a liquidation? There would be no purpose unless there was a benefit surely?

There is not to this day a single justification for ACL rejecting the CVA.

So if you didn't say it - why are you taking me to task about my comments? I think the idea SISU will liquidate the club is nonsense, and if you think similar picking me up on it makes no sense.

You don't believe him when he says he's going to build a new stadium - but you do believe when he says he's going to liquidate the club. I guess it depends which one suits your argument.

How is it a false argument? I agree with you that the argument for a new stadium doesn't really stand up - but I would apply the same logic to the idea that they will consciously liquidate a club. They have virtually no assets. The golden share would not be counted in the calculations, so it is...

So you don't believe a single word Fisher says normally - but this one, you're all into it to the letter. My point is that there was no direct statement - saying 'we will liquidate club' - it was said foolishly in my opinion, in some way to provoke a reaction from the other parties involved...

I'm sorry but describing something that could occur as a result of the club's poor financial health is not the same as saying you will do it yourself.

It's not ignoring it is it? Notice how you conveniently ignore ACL rejecting CVA in first place, now what exactly have they done about their supposed 'concerns at the admin process' Fuck all.... but that's fine for you.

So how is that a threat of 'we are going to liquidate the club'? Describing the possible consequences is very different to threatening to do it yourself.

As for it being mentioned in meetings, I wouldn't know, I wasn't present. It's funny how people put absolute faith in comments made in meetings ( were these coments actually minuted?) and then don't seem that bothered that no one thought to minute a meeting where £14m was spent bailing out ACL.

I have - i can see it mentioned, but no actual direct quote that says - 'we are going to liquidate club'

So where is the quote that says ' we are threatening to liquidate the club'?

They are accountable for plenty of this mess as I have said previously. The difference is I don't hold them to blame exclusively.

Don't think you can make quite as direct a comparison - but I get the point. Am I right in saying that the FL refused a groundshare at the Butts? What was the reasoning behind that, as that's in Cov? Might have made this all a bit easier.

I don't think it was a direct threat as such. Poorly advised phrase given the context of the problem here, but there is no logic financially or otherwise for SISU to liquidate a business with no assets. The golden share would be irrelevant.

I can't for the life of me understand why the liquidation comment keeps coming up. The club is not going to get liquidated.