Search results

Limited has according to Fisher been used mainly for holding the lease to play at the Ricoh and is therefor responsible for the rent (although paid by Holdings). So the right company went into administration. He explained that too - although it also partly drowned in shouting from the audience...

You cannot faithfully suggest you are unbiased as you are only seeking answers that you think - or hope - could bring Fisher in trouble. He never said the Robbie Keane details were not recorded properly. He said (to my understanding) that most of the mess came about after they stopped third...

Correct. Fisher explained that limited in 95 was setup to be a vehicle for third party player trading. He mentioned Robbie Keane being a player funded by third parties. At the same time all other football related businesses was done through holdings. But just listen to how difficult it was for...

As she was always the one to come up with the funding I don't find it odd she attended those meetings. It doesn't make her a shadow director though - more a financial backer.

I am a CEO and have signed off many accounts without having the background to know if every item is posted and categorized correctly. That I always leave to the CFO and the auditors. I would guess Fisher is in the darkness as I am when it comes to accounting and I guess if he feels the key...

Isn't the offer only valid while the club is in administration? What then? What about the current lease? Doesn't ACL want to protect that by keeping limited from being liquidated?

Are you suggesting she is a shadow director - that would be illegal I believe. The board have the last word on everything operational. If they oppose the wishes of the shareholders they can be replaced on an extraordinay general assembly. But until they are replaced the board members are in...

But we eat it without reading the declaration. It's from ACL so it must be great for the club and for the fans. They have always expressed nothing but the best interest for the club, so it must be true ... right?

It's really clever tactics by ACL. I bet sisu wanted to exit admin through liquidation of limited (after paying off the debts to ACL). The move from ACL is trying to force sisu to keep limited alive. If limited stay in business, so does the lease with 40 odd years left. It's not for the good...

Being a shareholder doesn't put her in charge - the board and CEO is running the company. Fisher said that she had attended 5-6 games last season.

He has said it before. It's a way to make sure exit of admin is swift and FL will hand the golden share back.

More like snakes in her hair?

He didn't ... he sent it by train. It will turn up eventually ... or not.

He forgot to put his bid in a letter headed paper.

No, it's the other way around .... I believe! Is there a lawyer in the room who can confirm?

Good morning OSB :D

I think it is important to remember that the administrator is not in any way acting in the best interest of the football league. However his first priority is to 'save' limited as company with a future. His next priority is to secure the best deal for the creditors. The only way limited can have...

I think he means - if anyone but sisu wins the bid, they would have to negotiate with sisu to exit administration without point penalties (creditors voluntary agreement) Edit: In addition Holdings sit on the players registrations - most would need to be transferred to the new owner. In effect...

The infrastructure development can/will happen whether the consortium buys the club or not.

With the indicative bid the bidder has to show abillity to pay. The bid from sisu could be £10m to ARVO plus £650k to ACL and finally £600k to the administrators. Holdings don't have that kind of money, so it could be SBS&L, sisu or ARVO that have put in the bid.