Search results

Does he? I saw him at the Swindon game and it was gone. Maybe it's back.

I would have thought that we at least find out which two and then we can start speculating....... and if a deal suddenly appears we may be able to even deduce what happened... but as you say, we will never know for sure.

A draw. My prediction as well.

so a double agent then?

No. It would be nice if the verdict went so: Yes, CCC didn't follow correct procedure, but the deal was sound. Bollockings all round and a strongly worded summing up that this case should never have been brought in the first place and that the parties should sort out their differences through...

That is a sweeping statement not based on any known facts - largely because it is set in the future. You don't know the goals of future owners - it's hard enough trying to work out what SISU hope to gain from this crap. You don't know whether the council may change their attitude towards the...

What is "it"?

They are obliged to make a profit otherwise someone could start a JR about state aid.... Any info. from your mates in the canteen?

I don't think the club is even being considered here - apart from as an asset or rent paying tenant. Acheiving sporting success as originally planned by the founders is the least important factor in this court room.

The value goes up and down according to who you believe. The figure was considerably more though if CCFC paid rent, hence the pie in the sky stadium to make the value of ACL go down. It will go up as soon as CCFC return as a paying customer ( if they do ).

you've been very quiet too..... strange

Yes. Still take the opinion and interpretation with a pinch of salt. "ridiculous" was not a quote from the judge and he is not obliged to accept SISU's QC's opinion.

SISU QC may say these things, but it doesn't mean it is true. Don't forget the judge will hear both sides and come to his own conclusion which may well mean disagreeing with SISU and their lawyer. I think you have an agenda and are bending the facts to push your agenda.

Yes, but if it did not pass and there was no remedy ( no corrections ) suggested by the judge - everything stays the same anyway, then I'd call that a draw.

Not quite, but whatever the result ( my tip is a draw ), there will be bollockings all round from the judge.

So what you're saying is that for ACL to make a good profit, they were obliged to take the cheapest form of restructuring? Did CCC provide the loan or arrange the loan?

Utter drivel.

Better still....... They have it on paper then that they have earned interest, but have never seen it? I fell for one of these in 1996. My statement showed a plus and everything was rosy....until the police called to ask if would help them in a fraud case..... I never saw my money again .... it...

If the investors put more money in every year than 1,8m, and then get 1,8m back, they are effectively paying themselves 1,8m out of their investment. That seems to be a Ponzi scheme. The debts are huge and I doubt whether the Investors will ever get their money back as CCFC is not worth enough...

Exactly. That's why CCC arranged a loan at better conditions than YB. Well done CCC. Is a conspiracy to distress ACL between SISU, CCFC, and maybe unnamed cayman Isle investors, legal? According to M.L. it is not. Don't know whether he's right, but it is pretty nasty.