Guy on twitter claims to have a reply from league confirming Otium have been rejected (1 Viewer)

Forums New posts
Jimthor

Jimthor

New Member
Right, so this has clearly been misinterpreted to quite an extent.

However, whilst Otium have not been rejected by the Football League yet, that's not to say they won't be.

Guilfoyle's comments this morning were interesting and cast doubt over whether the FL could transfer the Golden Share to them.

The email states the meeting of the FL is in the "next few days". Sorry to sound like a broken record, but it really is worthwhile pressuring them to take this into account when discussing issue of the share. FL contact details are here. Do it.

Hopefully this ain't over yet...
 
D

Dhinsa's_Millions

Well-Known Member
Dhinsa's_Millions said:
I would love this to be true from a long term club perspective - However,I'm treating the 'news' with caution! Surely Otium haven't passed the fit and proper persons test at present! I hope this isn't just an update on what the current state of play is!

SISU appear to be devious, clever (when it comes to litigation not running a football club) and I'm sure they won't give up. Expect a long winded court wrangle if this is true!
Click to expand...

Chad points out the glaringly obvious that at present they have not passed the fit and proper persons test!
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
There was a young man on Twitter
Who thought he would be a big hitter
So he made up some stuff
But when the going got tough
He had to go hide in the shitter
 
ajsccfc

ajsccfc

Well-Known Member
I don't want to raise hopes again, but Chuck Striker is on Twitter saying that the English Soccer Federation is set to reject the Otium takeover.
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
Jimthor said:
Right, so this has clearly been misinterpreted to quite an extent.

However, whilst Otium have not been rejected by the Football League yet, that's not to say they won't be.

Guilfoyle's comments this morning were interesting and cast doubt over whether the FL could transfer the Golden Share to them.

The email states the meeting of the FL is in the "next few days". Sorry to sound like a broken record, but it really is worthwhile pressuring them to take this into account when discussing issue of the share. FL contact details are here. Do it.

Hopefully this ain't over yet...
Click to expand...

That's not to say they will be either...
 
Gint11

Gint11

Well-Known Member
The whole reply has been mis-read. At no point does the FL say they have rejected the choice of buyer. It may happen but they are yet to make the decision. Waster of 12 pages of comments.
 
T

true sky blue

Guest
This is the funniest post ive seen here for ages!!! Thankyou chad for at least getting some humour out of our tired sky blue fans
 
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
Lord, talk about someone seeing what they want to see in an email. Otium might fail the FL test, but how he's drawn that they will fail from that email beats me.

As for the exit from Admin, for Otium/SISU to win through they'll have to jump all of these three hurdles:

1) To exit via a CVA, they'll need 75% of votes by value, but 50% have to come from unconnected creditors. That means that ACL have scope to shoot it down, possibly, as they're the only major unconnected creditor. (Of course it may be that 100% payment of debts would mean that you can leave admin without a CVA, but I've not seen any evidence for or against this - any links, anyone?).

2) Even if SISU get through (1), there's still the potential ACL could challenge the decision via the courts as unfairly prejudicial. Their grounds for this might be related to their expectation of future income, based on the proposal for the lease in the terms of the exit.

3) Whilst all of this is going on, there's the very real possibility that the FL themselves might tell the administrator that they're unable to accept Otium's bid as it doesn't pass their tests either in regard to 'fit & proper' owners, or more likely because they don't have a credible plan for groundshare and/or a new stadium. That's the Brendan Guilfoyle take on things.

So, in a nutshell, I don't think this is done yet by a long way. I think it's why ACL are keeping quiet at the moment - I suspect they're waiting for the FL decision.
 
Last edited:
S

Sky blue north east

Member
Did no one stop to think that if it was true it would been on news agencies, so why people actually believed it cause it was on someones twitter account defies believe start thinking with your heads....Anyway im off to put some juicy gossip on my account need few more new followers......
 
G

Godiva

Well-Known Member
duffer said:
Lord, talk about someone seeing what they want to see in an email. Otium might fail the FL test, but how he's drawn that they will fail from that email beats me.

As for the exit from Admin, for Otium/SISU to win through they'll have to jump all of these three hurdles:

1) To exit via a CVA, they'll need 75% of votes by value, but 50% have to come from unconnected creditors. That means that ACL have scope to shoot it down, possibly, as they're the only major unconnected creditor. (Of course it may be that 100% payment of debts would mean that you can leave admin without a CVA, but I've not seen any evidence for or against this - any links, anyone?).

If ACL are paid in full I can't see they can block a CVA.

2) Even if SISU get through (1), there's still the potential ACL could challenge the decision via the courts as unfairly prejudicial. Their grounds for this might be related to their expectation of future income, based on the proposal for the lease in the terms of the exit.

If admin ends with a CVA the lease is not broken - no unfairly treatment. But that would mean the club would stay at the Ricoh and pay £1.2m in rent per year, or renegotiate a new lease. Nothing to take to the courts.
More likely admin will end with owners liquidation of limited. That will break the lease and ACL should be up for a compensation. That is suggested to be around three years rent.


3) Whilst all of this is going on, there's the very real possibility that the FL themselves might tell the administrator that they're unable to accept Otium's bid as it doesn't pass their tests either in regard to 'fit & proper' owners, or more likely because they don't have a credible plan for groundshare and/or a new stadium. That's the Brendan Guilfoyle take on things.

So, in a nutshell, I don't think this is done yet by a long way. I think it's why ACL are keeping quiet at the moment - I suspect they're waiting for the FL decision.
Click to expand...

ACl are not keeping quiet - their administration lawyer Brendan Guilfoyle is making a lot of noises to keep confusion at a high and suggest alternative outcomes where ACL will come out winners.
 
Nonleagueherewecome

Nonleagueherewecome

Well-Known Member
Sooo, been busy for much of the last 4 hours and unable to read the rest of this thread...to sum up, Chad was full of shite?
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Godiva said:
If admin ends with a CVA the lease is not broken - no unfairly treatment. But that would mean the club would stay at the Ricoh and pay £1.2m in rent per year, or renegotiate a new lease. Nothing to take to the courts.
More likely admin will end with owners liquidation of limited. That will break the lease and ACL should be up for a compensation. That is suggested to be around three years rent.[
Click to expand...
Godiva said:
/QUOTE]

Interesting to know, I wasn't aware details of the lease were made public. Can SISU just liquidate Ltd once it has only the lease left in it or is there a process that has to be followed or nay objection ACL could raise on the ground of linked companies?

Godiva said:
ACl are not keeping quiet - their administration lawyer Brendan Guilfoyle is making a lot of noises to keep confusion at a high and suggest alternative outcomes where ACL will come out winners.
Click to expand...

Is he being paid by ACL? That would explain why he keeps popping up but if he is noone is exactly going out of their way to make it clear. How many people who aren't on forums such as this even make the connection between him and ACL, think a lot of people would assume he's speaking independently.
Click to expand...
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
Wasn't he the administrator who ACL nominated to look after it? Whereas SISU nominated Appleton?
 
G

Godiva

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
Wasn't he the administrator who ACL nominated to look after it? Whereas SISU nominated Appleton?
Click to expand...

Had ACL had their way, it would be Brendan Guilfoyle who would have been appointed administrator.

Many on this board ridiculed sisu for putting the company in administration themself, but it should be crystal clear now why it made a huge difference.
Both Appelton and Guilfoyle would have run the process by the book, both would be responsible to the court, but still it does make a difference who pays the bill.
 
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
Godiva said:
ACl are not keeping quiet - their administration lawyer Brendan Guilfoyle is making a lot of noises to keep confusion at a high and suggest alternative outcomes where ACL will come out winners.
Click to expand...

Erm... Brendan Guilfoyle would have been ACL's Administrator, iirc, but I don't think he's their lawyer.

As for the other stuff - no CVA required if paid in full, only three years rent required if lease broken etc. etc., politely, where are your sources?

I've shared my research where I can, and I'm always happy to plough through things in detail to get clarity. Point me in the right direction and I'll cheerfully go hunting, or is this just your opinion?
 
G

Godiva

Well-Known Member
duffer;472241 As for the other stuff - no CVA required if paid in full said:
If the lease is broken and a compensation is due, then that compensation is based on an assumption on how long it will take to re let the stadium. It will always be difficult to predict that period and re-letting the Ricoh would be very difficult.

There will be a negotiation - possible with Appelton as mediator? If they can't agree, it will end up in court.
It has been suggested a three year re-let period is considered to be within the range of what the court would rule - if it ever gets there.


Below link covers some basics about leases ... see point 9:

http://www.lawdonut.co.uk/law/premises-law/getting-out-of-a-lease/getting-out-of-a-lease-18-faqs#9
Click to expand...
 
G

Godiva

Well-Known Member
duffer said:
Erm... Brendan Guilfoyle would have been ACL's Administrator, iirc, but I don't think he's their lawyer.
Click to expand...

Well he may not be their in-house lawyer, but surely he is acting as consultant and paid by ACL for his advices? They do need a specialist at the table and who better than the very man they preferred as administrator?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top