@richh87
Member
...which is?...
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
I read that 3 times expecting it to rhyme..
S
skyblue2k
Guest
Was laughing all along, can you really see City playing away from the Ricoh, this is all posturing as it suddenly dawned on them that if we played anywhere else they would have to pay rent and matchday costs!
Ps No body is talking until they meet in court tomorrow, The only person that may have got them to contact each other is the administrator.
As i said all along, nothing will happen until a decision is made tomorrow. Just praying the court hearing is not postponed again and Tim i hope you cleared your desk out at the training ground so we do not have to see you or hear from you (sisu) again.
Ps No body is talking until they meet in court tomorrow, The only person that may have got them to contact each other is the administrator.
As i said all along, nothing will happen until a decision is made tomorrow. Just praying the court hearing is not postponed again and Tim i hope you cleared your desk out at the training ground so we do not have to see you or hear from you (sisu) again.
Last edited by a moderator:
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Which two groups? Can't have been getting ACL to talk to anyone as they've already said that the games could be played at the RICOH. CCFC ltd in admin and CCFC Holdings maybe?
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Have the fl said no? Not sure
Have other clubs said no because they don't believe they will get paid? Probably
Have the rozzers said it's too dangerous and asking for trouble? Possibly
Have SISU run out of ideas? Definitely!
Exactly;( "cue the Sisu lovers")
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
Blimey, that's a bit cultured for here!
I've just read it here: http://www.online-literature.com/walter_scott/marmion/
I like the line "Of the fair dame that rules the land"
But I guess you were hinting at:
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!"
RegTheDonk
Well-Known Member
Point 2 I would guess. Daft sod has shot his load but hasn't been able to secure another venue. :jerkit:
Can you really see CCFC playing at another venue? NO; is the answer to that. What Tim Fishface did was nothing other than posturing in the hope that ACL would climb down.
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
If that trout is his wife, I'm impressed that he can ever spunk again at all.
I thought that she looked OK. Is it just me?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Fisher and his employers should be begging the Yank to take the club off their hands.
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
No, I think others have expressed amorous sentiments towards her on here today. Maybe it's just me?!?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
The important thing in this continual saga of this excessive lease is broken.
Both need each other so negotiate a settlement.
Once we are on a sound footing with reduced costs the club can be sold.
Obviously your too choosy.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
The lease is broken so 'sensible' negotiations can start.
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
So CCFC Ltd which held the lease to play at the Ricoh were taken to court by ACL in order to facilitate a decision to appoint an administrator as they claim the club insolvent having had debt orders twice ignored? Fair enough.
The day before CCFC Ltd have a hearing they get CCFC Ltd placed into admin themselves so they now control the administrator appointee. Plus in doing so avoid the debt and the lease has therefore been broken and so terminated. CCFC Ltd are no longer tenants and must leave the Ricoh. They have no rights to be there.
So they look for alternate venues to complete these fixtures as a football club under CCFC Holdings with the FL consent. This they are doing. It also proves the Golden Share is with the Holding company with FL approval.
They operate the football club (everything Sky Blue to you and I) as CCFC Holdings and they do not have any arrangement with ACL.
I said in a previous post this would be exactly how it would go down. The legal position or posturing is relative here. Fisher has followed the correct line. yes it's all avoidance and smoky mirrors but correct. I said it would force ACL to negotiate as they have little other option. They need to do that with a new company CCFC Holdings which Fisher mentions.
In other words a new lease agreement. I sense ACL would not be keen on this but a temporary one would suit both sides. Remember I said before the footfall is important to all other ACL tenants provided by supporters of the football club.
ACL brought this on themselves to a certain degree. Many chances for negotiating a deal with the football club have been spurned (by both sides) and personal feelings have got in the way of business. For that they are BOTH equally responsible.
CCFC Holdings need ACL to confirm they wish the football club to finish their fixtures there as CCFC Holdings so not to invalidate any revocable argument to Tuesdays action in court regarding CCFC Ltd. (already in Admin)
From the statement it also appears unclear where the Arena buy back option is? OSB says it was with CCFC Ltd but that is not mentioned in that statement as being so? Could be with CCFC Holdings after all. (not sure how it was transferred but maybe it was possible)
The day before CCFC Ltd have a hearing they get CCFC Ltd placed into admin themselves so they now control the administrator appointee. Plus in doing so avoid the debt and the lease has therefore been broken and so terminated. CCFC Ltd are no longer tenants and must leave the Ricoh. They have no rights to be there.
So they look for alternate venues to complete these fixtures as a football club under CCFC Holdings with the FL consent. This they are doing. It also proves the Golden Share is with the Holding company with FL approval.
They operate the football club (everything Sky Blue to you and I) as CCFC Holdings and they do not have any arrangement with ACL.
I said in a previous post this would be exactly how it would go down. The legal position or posturing is relative here. Fisher has followed the correct line. yes it's all avoidance and smoky mirrors but correct. I said it would force ACL to negotiate as they have little other option. They need to do that with a new company CCFC Holdings which Fisher mentions.
In other words a new lease agreement. I sense ACL would not be keen on this but a temporary one would suit both sides. Remember I said before the footfall is important to all other ACL tenants provided by supporters of the football club.
ACL brought this on themselves to a certain degree. Many chances for negotiating a deal with the football club have been spurned (by both sides) and personal feelings have got in the way of business. For that they are BOTH equally responsible.
CCFC Holdings need ACL to confirm they wish the football club to finish their fixtures there as CCFC Holdings so not to invalidate any revocable argument to Tuesdays action in court regarding CCFC Ltd. (already in Admin)
From the statement it also appears unclear where the Arena buy back option is? OSB says it was with CCFC Ltd but that is not mentioned in that statement as being so? Could be with CCFC Holdings after all. (not sure how it was transferred but maybe it was possible)
Last edited:
Why is the Lease "broken"? It is on,ly broken insofar as Sisu have refused to pay the agreed amount (or indeed any at all) rent.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
ACL have made enormous concessions to try and keep the club on board-Fisher should resign as soon as this debacle is concluded.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Perhaps it's the single SBTers only?
The final point you raise is the crux of the matter. When and how have the assets been transferred ? Assets cannot be moved beyond reach of creditors (especially for no consideration) which appears to have happened in this instance.
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
No it's the fault of both sides. Frankly both are as culpable as each other. SISU as we know them as have been bloody minded and arrogant, failed to be forthcoming enough and played it like a card game when they were not getting what they wanted. Should they expect to be given the Ricoh? Of course not. Can they expect a better deal going forwards into the future which does include some participation in the Ricoh? Yes. I say Yes because that's no different to any new investor will want or the football club is unsustainable. Period.
ACL have squeezed the club along the way while reaping the benefits of a high rent and keeping other revenue streams controlled away from the club. When they were set up by the Council this must have been known? The rent debate simply brought it to a head.
We can all agree the football club simply has to play there. ACL therefore have to find a more suitable set of terms to offer whoever owns the football club. It must be more realistic. ACL like all of us have been slow on realising this while reaping the benefits but ultimately they will lose benefit if they don't recognise they must make a deal that is fairer to the occupying tenant (the football club).
I don't think ACL should ever had existed in the first place. I would prefer a consortium to have the opportunity to own the stadium on say a 99 year lease with land investment shares in place with others. ACL can continue as is and the football club should exercise it's golden share and have access to those specific revenues they create and yet do not profit from. Then SISU have something to move forward on and to realise a return on investment on by selling up and leaving. A deal as such could have a cap placed on that so the scummy bags that SISU can be are not unreasonable when getting out.
ACL have squeezed the club along the way while reaping the benefits of a high rent and keeping other revenue streams controlled away from the club. When they were set up by the Council this must have been known? The rent debate simply brought it to a head.
We can all agree the football club simply has to play there. ACL therefore have to find a more suitable set of terms to offer whoever owns the football club. It must be more realistic. ACL like all of us have been slow on realising this while reaping the benefits but ultimately they will lose benefit if they don't recognise they must make a deal that is fairer to the occupying tenant (the football club).
I don't think ACL should ever had existed in the first place. I would prefer a consortium to have the opportunity to own the stadium on say a 99 year lease with land investment shares in place with others. ACL can continue as is and the football club should exercise it's golden share and have access to those specific revenues they create and yet do not profit from. Then SISU have something to move forward on and to realise a return on investment on by selling up and leaving. A deal as such could have a cap placed on that so the scummy bags that SISU can be are not unreasonable when getting out.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
You are being silly, it couldn't possibly be transferred without the agreement of the the other party to the option, i.e. The Higgs Charity.
Johnnythespider
Well-Known Member
Well you don't look at the mantlepiece when your'e poking the fire do you.
coundonskyblue
New Member
I'm glad we will see out the remaining games at the Ricoh this season.
There would though have been one good thing to come out of playing a home game somewhere else. It would have made those Ricoh doubters realise just how much the Ricoh does feel like home.
There would though have been one good thing to come out of playing a home game somewhere else. It would have made those Ricoh doubters realise just how much the Ricoh does feel like home.
