Search results

We will need to see minutes of the board meeting where the decision was taken to make limited a non-trading company so have evidence if anything legal may or may not have taken place.

I don't have the program at hand. Can you post a link please?

I am sorry - I have to do some work sometimes. Or eat. Or sleep. Not very useful excuses, but there you have it.

But is it a smoking gun? Or is the headline of the article a little mis-leading. The statement from Fisher is almost word-for-word the same he used at the fans forums - at least as I recall it.

I never suggested players were transferred - on the contrary. I suggest NEW players were in 2011-> registered in Holdings, and the residual value of player contracts left in Limited was for the players who have been on clubs books before 2011. Like Bell and McSheffrey. But I may be totally wrong...

The leaked documents were all pre-Fisher I think.

FL said they had the players registered in Holdings. So the natural way to sort the mess was to register new player contracts in Holdings. But still, doing so helped the club to isolate the lease in Limited, paving the way to escape the high rent and create the only real sustainable future for...

This is true - but you need to add: ... and its stakeholders. But by rejecting the CVA they made certain the club will never again play at the Ricoh. Is that in the best interest of the business and its stakeholders? Ask Compass or the Casino if their business is improved by the outlook of not...

And let me add this: Every legal and financial expert attached to ACL in this battle would most likely - if asked by sisu two years ago - have advised them to do exactly what they have.

As I just said in another post - isolating the lease in Limited was probably the main driver, and I would likely do the same. It is very common to have property assets/liabillities isolated from the main operations. It's not a sisu invention.

1: All assets were bought by Otium ... I believe that included the players still registered in Limited. 2: That's the question I have asked many times. As to why ... well the majority on this board believe it was done to create a situation where the club could escape the lease at the Ricoh. I...

But was that decision made before or after the accounts were signed off? Surely that is a board decision and minutes of the board meetings will show the date of the decision? Any minutes of board meetings will be accessible to Mr Appelton, and he is obliged to report his findings to the court.

But there are NO evidence that any player were moved from Limited to Holdings. I haven't seen any, have you? I assume new players were registered in Holdings from some point in time, and players who left the club were simply written off in Limited. At least before the last accounts were signed...

Really? So you have the proof that everybody is looking for! Excellent ... please upload what you have.

I don't know ... but if at that time the majority of players (or the greatest player asset value) were still registered in Limited, then I suppose it is in line with company law? Do we have a list of players at that time?

Exactly what does the documents show other than players were registered in Limited post the current management? We all knew that ... hence the small player asset value in Limited at point of administration. It was explained at the fans forums ... still available on youtube. The documents does...

No inverstors are more evil than sisu ... or so I am told.

I can fully understand that - I even managed to baffle myself! Don't know really what happened. I was trying to reply to letsingtogether on this:

Not true. Sometimes it is actually worth listening to osb. Use search function.

I thought it was dead ceartain sisu would sell every player for a bag of chips. That is one bag per player I think, or was it 1 bag for all? Damn you sisu - you're letting the fans down ... again!