Well it's vague at best. I can't help thinking though the football club merely had a lease to play at the Ricoh, they did not have agreements to provide a 5,10 or 20,000 foot fall of revenue producing punters for ACL.
ACL of course claim consistently they don't need the football club so any legal action of this kind assuming loss of earnings will be a mute point if I sat in the judges chair.
Also as people have said on other threads, if acl are looking to get a new tenant in the courts will probably judge that ccfc can be replaced so they dont have an argument.
Surely SISU not paying rent since january breached the lease.
that just caused them to be in arrears. If you remember ACL took SISU to court and were awarded the arrears. ACL probably could have terminated the lease for non payment but just not paying it doesn't mean you're not liable anymore of the lease no longer exists.
my lawyer thinks there's some mileage in this. according to him when doing commercial deals of this sort there is a need for the person who is making the deal (in our case Northampton) to ensure they are not assisting a breach of an existing contract. ACLs argument will be at the time the deal was made their agreement was still valid and therefore Northampton have assisted SISU in breaching the lease.
the sticking point could be that the FL have transferred the share while Ltd is still in administration.
ACL taking legal action against NTFC is just the latest in a long line of ludicrous developments in this sorry mess. It will be laughed out of court. Embarrassing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?