Whatever the outcome, I just hope it won't have horrible repercussions for the football club.
I suspect that is horrendously optimistic, however.
I suspect that is horrendously optimistic, however.
As much as I wish it to be resolved one way or another on Friday, I suspect it will rumble on for some time to come.
Does anyone know anything about what will happen at the hearing?
ACL have applied to have us put in admin. What do they need to prove to the judge for him/her to agree? What can SISU do to block it?
Unless we know the answer to some of these questions, this thread is futile.
ACL have applied to have us put in admin. What do they need to prove to the judge for him/her to agree? What can SISU do to block it?
Unless we know the answer to some of these questions, this thread is futile.
I believe OSB has answered elsewhere; but from what I recall, they must prove either that our liabilities exceed our assets, or that we cannot meet our obligations when they fall due.
Just typical. 9 points off the top and a great chance of reaching the play offs then ACL put us into administration and we lose 10 points ffs. Why don't ACL file for admin at the end if the season ? I would rather we go promoted and have the 10 points next season!!!!!!
Well our position in the league is not their own consideration as a private business - they have been messed around for nearly a year and it is time for them to get tough.
However, as Grendel and others have rightly said, it would appear that the 10 points, if they do indeed come off, will more likely come off next season anyway, so you may get your wish.
From my own point of view, if SISU do anything to block or delay the admin order on Friday, ACL should immediately evict the club from the ground, change the locks and file a winding up petition (if this is compatible with the admin hearing). SISU shouldn't be allowed to cling on any longer - they are zombie owners and we need to prise their fingers from off the club
As a legal concept, administration is a procedure under the insolvency laws of a number of common law jurisdictions. It functions as a rescue mechanism for insolvent entities and allows them to carry on running their business. The process – an alternative to liquidation – is often known as going into administration. A company in administration is operated by the administrator (as interim chief executive) on behalf of the creditors as a going concern while options are sought short of liquidation. These options include recapitalising the business, selling the business to new owners, or demerging it into elements that can be sold and closing the remainder.
That's the top line. I guess that ACL have done this to stop SISU liquidating the club. Whether they have inside information on this we don't know. but SISU have mentioned it informally. Hopefully they have inside information on some new owners as well or we are at risk from liquidation.
Think SISU will prove that they have sufficient funds to pay the rent. and through some clever and complicated accounting, that they are financially viable.
This should be enough to stave off admin. Not paying the rent is not an issue so far as Fridays hearing goes.
ACL's next move could be to kick us out.
This should be enough to stave off admin. Not paying the rent is not an issue so far as Fridays hearing goes.
ACL's next move could be to kick us out.
Of course its a consideration as a private business. Their whole business case resolves around 'The Stadium'. They need to stop SISU threat of liquidating the club and safeguard it there in some capacity. I would also think they needed to do this quickly. They have stopped liquidation in the short term. As i said before they must have inside information on liquidation and hopefully new owners.
Sadly I agree - SISU are past masters of worming their way through loopholes using their complex web of companies. I'd be amazed if they can't at least stave of defeat at the hearing on Friday.
Having said that, you are right - ACL can and should then change the locks and boot SISU out. SISU do not have a leg to stand on, it is just a case of ACL looking them in the eye and continuing to call their bluff, facing them down.
Don't see what kicking us out would gain them. Apart from a massive white elephant and the hatred of CCFC fans. Don't forget fans will lose out financially too if they kick us out:- travelling costs & due to lack of an alternative appropriate ground I suspect season tickets would be void.
Why do you hate CCFC so much? Don't understand why you are willing us to be homeless. I would love a change of ownership but admin is not guaranteed to do that and being booted out of the ground would almost certainly mean expulsion from the football league for failing to fulfil fixtures.
If Sisu win, it will mean CCFC are not insolvant, and in which case are capable of paying its debts, i.e rent
Nobody hates CCFC on here, neither do they want to see CCFC homeless.
All that is being discussed is the outcome of Fridays hearing. If we are homeless it will only be because ACL lock the gates and kick us out. If you were a land lord and your tenant blatantly refused to pay rent, you would evict them.
SISU are in my opinion, morally wrong to not pay the rent. ACL, on the other hand are ripping CCFC off with rent which is excessive, and starving us of income streams, paid by CCFC supporters. ACL/Council are both refusing to sell a share in their "Cash Cow".
I won't celebrate that, but if SISU leave it will be time to crack open the champers!!:claping hands:
I don't hate CCFC mate - I hate SISU. That's like accusing Blackburn fans of hating their club because they oppose Venkys.
As for the doomsday scenario, I doubt it would happen. SISU would cave in, leave and allow the administrator or a new owner to come in and continue the club's fixtures.
Anyone applauding that we go into Admin needs there heads testing..
Also CJ you are really willing too see SISU leave at any cost, you should be ashamed..
And who says that are next owners will be better or possibly worse? Who says that ACL/CCC will deem the next owners responsible with the Arena? What's says that opinions like your is based on hate and is clouded by such? What happens if CCFC's new owners are priced out the Arena? What if the court rules against ACL?
Except CJ has just said he wants ACL to evict the club from the ground if the club win the case on Friday
Some of our 'fans' are unbelievable
Likely outcome on Friday is it is adjourned. Suits SISU to string it out, it is highly likely that there will be detailed legal argument for the judge to go away and study, If SISU stump up money by depositing it with the court then ACL will argue that it doesn't prove solvency. I just do not see resolution Friday
ACL have to prove two tests. 1) that assets exceed liabilities 2) that the company is unable to pay all its debts as they fall due to be paid. The argument will be over the second. CCFC will have to provide details to the court of all assets and all known/potential liabilities as well as how those liabilities are to be met. The original lease will have to be considered and the basis of why it is challenged as a legal debt and should be excluded. The judge will need to have details of the lease and debt because he can not make an assessment of solvency or the amount SISU need to put in with out those details.
The judges decision will be based on what is ........ not what might be achieved or discussions that may have taken place or agreements made then rejected or media announcements. All contracts currently in force will stand unless proven unlawful, details of the clubs actual provable financial position will be required for the judge to decide
As for whether ACL should have taken action ........ well what else are they supposed to do when faced with a delinquent tenant? They havent rushed in to this, it isnt a knee jerk action. They have taken each step one at a time. Equally there is a deliberate plan embarked on by SISU - that hasnt just happened. I suspect that the 3rd party debtor orders led SISU to think no action would be taken by ACL before 02/05/13. But they are entitled to protect their company also
Should SISU succeed on the day then it would suggest that the business is solvent. The problem with that is that they then continue to operate without settling the rent issue but equally says that the company is capable of being solvent without the additional sources going forward simply because SISU continue to throw money at it. Is that really viable / is that a future?
SISU's out in this is to prove over time (not friday) that the lease etc at the Ricoh is unlawful (that is different to illegal btw). That could take a lot of time, expense and court time - and is far from certain. In the meantime unless SISU put in additional funds we have to cut our cloth accordingly cutting back on all costs.
ACL if they lose in their petition, will continue as is, will accept the match day contributions to costs (have to be paid up front btw) and the original lease stands. The club will still be providing footfall. They (ACL) do not have to go back to the negotiating table, they certainly do not have to let CCFC have or purchase the income streams. They have clearly said they want SISU gone ...... if thats the case why would they negotiate further. In the mean time they may have to defend the basis of the lease against claims of being unlawful.
Lets be very clear the directors of each company have a duty to protect above all the rights of the company they represent. That is followed by the rights of its shareholders and the rights of the creditors of the company. Somewhere down the list is the rights of people/entities that owe it money. To do anything other than that in that order is to leave themselves open to legal action and financial penalty. So when folk go on about ACL wanting to take CCFC down or opportunism in terms of timing then they are incorrect in terms of the legality of it. When others slate SISU for the actions they have taken over the rent then again it is incorrect in Company Law because it is relatively easy to make a case that the directors were fighting for the benefit of the company (my own opinion is there was more to it but thats by the by). That applies to both companies and of course timing matters because that impacts on the duty of each director to act in the best interests of the company they represent....... so why expect ACL's first duty to be to protect CCFC? or vice versa
There is a thought that SISU wanted this process but thats speculation ..... but it may be true
So my own best guess is it will be adjourned and it wont be settled until after 28/03/13
ACL have to prove two tests. 1) that assets exceed liabilities 2) that the company is unable to pay all its debts as they fall due to be paid. The argument will be over the second. CCFC will have to provide details to the court of all assets and all known/potential liabilities as well as how those liabilities are to be met. The original lease will have to be considered and the basis of why it is challenged as a legal debt and should be excluded. The judge will need to have details of the lease and debt because he can not make an assessment of solvency or the amount SISU need to put in with out those details.
The judges decision will be based on what is ........ not what might be achieved or discussions that may have taken place or agreements made then rejected or media announcements. All contracts currently in force will stand unless proven unlawful, details of the clubs actual provable financial position will be required for the judge to decide
As for whether ACL should have taken action ........ well what else are they supposed to do when faced with a delinquent tenant? They havent rushed in to this, it isnt a knee jerk action. They have taken each step one at a time. Equally there is a deliberate plan embarked on by SISU - that hasnt just happened. I suspect that the 3rd party debtor orders led SISU to think no action would be taken by ACL before 02/05/13. But they are entitled to protect their company also
Should SISU succeed on the day then it would suggest that the business is solvent. The problem with that is that they then continue to operate without settling the rent issue but equally says that the company is capable of being solvent without the additional sources going forward simply because SISU continue to throw money at it. Is that really viable / is that a future?
SISU's out in this is to prove over time (not friday) that the lease etc at the Ricoh is unlawful (that is different to illegal btw). That could take a lot of time, expense and court time - and is far from certain. In the meantime unless SISU put in additional funds we have to cut our cloth accordingly cutting back on all costs.
ACL if they lose in their petition, will continue as is, will accept the match day contributions to costs (have to be paid up front btw) and the original lease stands. The club will still be providing footfall. They (ACL) do not have to go back to the negotiating table, they certainly do not have to let CCFC have or purchase the income streams. They have clearly said they want SISU gone ...... if thats the case why would they negotiate further. In the mean time they may have to defend the basis of the lease against claims of being unlawful.
Lets be very clear the directors of each company have a duty to protect above all the rights of the company they represent. That is followed by the rights of its shareholders and the rights of the creditors of the company. Somewhere down the list is the rights of people/entities that owe it money. To do anything other than that in that order is to leave themselves open to legal action and financial penalty. So when folk go on about ACL wanting to take CCFC down or opportunism in terms of timing then they are incorrect in terms of the legality of it. When others slate SISU for the actions they have taken over the rent then again it is incorrect in Company Law because it is relatively easy to make a case that the directors were fighting for the benefit of the company (my own opinion is there was more to it but thats by the by). That applies to both companies and of course timing matters because that impacts on the duty of each director to act in the best interests of the company they represent....... so why expect ACL's first duty to be to protect CCFC? or vice versa
There is a thought that SISU wanted this process but thats speculation ..... but it may be true
So my own best guess is it will be adjourned and it wont be settled until after 28/03/13
Last edited:
It is an odd position to have I must admit. I doubt many that support the ACL position would support eviction of the club should ACL lose in court. People who support ACL's actions take the view they are working ultimately in the best interests of the club by trying to prevent liquidation. 'Changing the locks' would result in exactly that scenario, so it won't happen. Should they lose I don't expect a knee-jerk reaction from ACL, it would be self-defeating.
The landlord/house tenant analogy doesn't really work either because in that instance, the landlord could move in a new tenant. ACL do not have that option.
I just hope ACL know what they are doing, because this could all end very badly. As this point, I'm not altogether sure what I want the outcome to be. Still trying to figure out what the least worst case is.