ACL will have enough votes to reject deal at creditors meeting (1 Viewer)

[wingy]

Yeah *if* they were liable for all 40+ years (unlikely) and *if* that debt were applied to the company, the only valid course of action would be to wind the company up.

I guess until we see the next moves in court none of us will know .However if its established In law that they are indeed liable ,has Appleton not done his best for the Company going forward?:thinking about:

 

---

[duffer]

It would be tricky to justify rejecting a proposal to settle the arrears and then chuck in some more to cover their lost business in the immediate future.

It's not lost business though - the lease is an absolute contractual obligation.

The CVA should propose how the business will move forward, and if that doesn't suit the creditors I think they can either block it, or challenge the Administrator's decision in court if they feel it's unfairly prejudicial to their interests.

I think the most likely outcome is that whatever Appleton says, this ends up in court.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

It's not lost business though - the lease is an absolute contractual obligation.

The CVA should propose how the business will move forward, and if that doesn't suit the creditors I think they can either block it, or challenge the Administrator's decision in court if they feel it's unfairly prejudicial to their interests.

I think the most likely outcome is that whatever Appleton says, this ends up in court.

Then we will come out of admin without a CVA and start on -15 with no squad.

 

[duffer]

Then we will come out of admin without a CVA and start on -15 with no squad.

I don't think it's even that cut & dried.

There's all of the legal and voting stuff surrounding the Administration, and the FL who are yet to approve the preferred bidder. Who can really know how this ends... but it'll be messy I suspect!

 

[wingy]

It's not lost business though - the lease is an absolute contractual obligation.

The CVA should propose how the business will move forward, and if that doesn't suit the creditors I think they can either block it, or challenge the Administrator's decision in court if they feel it's unfairly prejudicial to their interests.

I think the most likely outcome is that whatever Appleton says, this ends up in court.

I concur. If him not evaluating the effect on the overall business when selecting preferred Status ,he clearly hasn't taken the course for the best survival of the Business, but the course most beneficial to the current custodians .. It was no coincidence that he also referred to the Position on Beneficial ownership in yesterdays statement. Definitely an attempt to bounce the FL position, take away some wiggle room.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Yes but surely if SISU put ccfc ltd into administration we would automatically get a points deduction anyway as it would be classed as a bad takeover?

Then we will come out of admin without a CVA and start on -15 with no squad.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Yes but surely if SISU put ccfc ltd into administration we would automatically get a points deduction anyway as it would be classed as a bad takeover?

We will only avoid a deduction if a CVA is agreed. If it's not then our slim chances of avoiding relegation are gone.

 

[Noggin]

starting on -15 would have a massive effect on attendances too especially if it happens before season tickets go on sale which I assume it would do.

 

[hill83]

-15 doesn't seem that bad to me. Until I think that by the time we've got 30 points we'll only be on 15. Stupid I know.
If this happens we are relegated. No doubt in my mind.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

starting on -15 would have a massive effect on attendances too especially if it happens before season tickets go on sale which I assume it would do.

You're making a radical assumption that season tickets will be going on sale at all!