latest statement from Mr Appleton (1 Viewer)

cloughie · Apr 27, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
So I tell the bank look, I can't afford to pay it so the choice is you take the money being offered personally, or I move out.

Again, do you think the bank would refuse my Mum's money? Or would they perhaps not care as long as they get paid? They didn't care up to that point after all, they got a cheque each month off a Wisdom, they never bothered to check the first name was Betty Wisdom, they just saw Wisdom.

But now I've lost my job, Betty Wisdom's money is no good to them, despite the fact now more than ever, Betty is more capable of paying than me?

A completely flawed analogy.

You and your mum also have refused to pay any rent for 12 months on another property that I have a share in and haven't said you can't pay you said you won't pay.

Now you claim you can't pay for the second property because you don't have the money but please don't kick me out because my mum will pay.

Sorry I don't believe her , you maybe saying this in good faith but I wouldn't trust your mum to refuse to pay for another year and then say its your problem ,because she hasn't signed any contract , you did!!

She could pay up front though, but I doubt that will happen unless she is genuine

DazzleTommyDazzle · Apr 27, 2013

cloughie said:
A completely flawed analogy.

You and your mum also have refused to pay any rent for 12 months on aother property that I have a share in and haven't said you can't pay you said you won't pay.

Now you claim you can't pay for the second property because you don't have the money but please don't kick me out because my mum will pay.

Sorry I don't believe her , you maybe saying this in good faith but I wouldn't trust your mum to refuse to pay for another year and then say it your problem ,because she hasn't signed any contract , you did!!

True, plus in addition "you" have been declared bankrupt (closest personal analogy to administration).

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 27, 2013

cloughie said:
You and your mum also have refused to pay any rent for 12 months on aother property that I have a share in and haven't said you can't pay you said you won't pay.

PWKH himself has been at pains to point out that the Higgs Trust that owns a share of ACL is not the same as the entity responsible for the academy.

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 27, 2013

Here we go.

PWKH said:
To head off any confusion before it starts: the Alan Higgs Centre Trust and the Higgs Charity are two totally separate registered charities with no trustees in common.

cloughie · Apr 27, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
PWKH himself has been at pains to point out that the Higgs Trust that owns a share of ACL is not the same as the entity responsible for the academy.

But your credit history is public knowledge everybody knows and the parties maybe seperate but just like you and your mum they are very closely linked.

DazzleTommyDazzle · Apr 27, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
PWKH himself has been at pains to point out that the Higgs Trust that owns a share of ACL is not the same as the entity responsible for the academy.

OK, would you accept - refused to pay legally due rent on a property owned by "a close friend" ?

cloughie · Apr 27, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
Here we go.

To head off any confusion before it starts: the Alan Higgs Centre Trust and the Higgs Charity are two totally separate registered charities with no trustees in common

And PWKH himself is that not a common denominator?

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 27, 2013

cloughie said:
And PWKH himself is that not a common denominator?

Are you suggesting that actually these two charities are inextricably linked?

DazzleTommyDazzle · Apr 27, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
Are you suggesting that actually these two charities are inextricably linked?

I'm suggesting that the knowledge of "mum's" habit of not paying her debts is well known.

God this analogy was awful at the start - Ben taken well past breaking point now!

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 27, 2013

And I'm suggesting the bill has always been paid.

Until someone decided, for reasons best known to themselves, to refuse payment.

cloughie · Apr 27, 2013

DazzleTommyDazzle said:
I'm suggesting that the knowledge of "mum's" habit of not paying her debts is well known.

God this analogy was awful at the start - Ben taken well past breaking point now!

Yep desperation now creeping in to justify a flawed position ,

sounds familiar:thinking about:

I'm out

DazzleTommyDazzle · Apr 27, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
And I'm suggesting the bill has always been paid.

Until someone decided, for reasons best known to themselves, to refuse payment.

I think the reasons are known to all of us except (it appears) you.

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 27, 2013

There is no desperation here, stop being so fatuous.

I could just as easily say you're out of here because to progress would mean acknowledging fault on parties other than SISU. I won't stoop to that level however.

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 27, 2013

DazzleTommyDazzle said:
I think the reasons are known to all of us except (it appears) you.

The reasons can only be, surely, that the academy has a wider agenda than merely accepting payment?

A wider agenda that does not, incidentally, tally with the assertion it is separate from the Higgs Charity owning half of ACL.

DazzleTommyDazzle · Apr 27, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
The reasons can only be, surely, that the academy has a wider agenda than merely accepting payment?

A wider agenda that does not, incidentally, tally with the assertion it is separate from the Higgs Charity owning half of ACL.

In the real world, arrangements between entities are made by way of contracts.

There was one of these "contracts" between the Higgs and CCFC Limited. This company was put into administration, so suspending the "contract".

Therefore unless the administrator confirms the "contract", the arrangement is void.

It may be that CCFC Holdings (a separate entity, that is not in administration - or at least, so we think at the moment) will want to arrange a new "contract" with the Higgs. The Higgs can then decide whether or not to agree to that.

An issue there appears to be that there is doubt as to whether Holdings has the legal ability to run the academy, as the famous golden share is required for this. I imagine that another issue is whether the Higgs believe that Holdings is a business partner that can be trusted given their recent behaviour regarding other rental agreements.

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 27, 2013

So how does the administrator not paying something he cannot pay make him a cunit?

Where the contract is, is not the issue! nobody is arguing that! He himself has said Ltd hold the license for the premises!

DazzleTommyDazzle · Apr 27, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
So how does the administrator not paying something he cannot pay make him a cunit?

I assume you're asking someone else, as I've never commented on the administrator.

Nonleagueherewecome · Apr 27, 2013

torchomatic said:
Mmm...it seems to me that CCFC were an animal being poked by a stick by ACL. Now SISU are biting back. Yes, SISU should pay the rent. Yes, SISU agreed to the rent. But, ACL were laughing all the way to the bank for six years raking in £8M. That was never sustainable.

SISU must be the "animal" rather than CCFC, then? Semantics perhaps but there is a significant difference between CCFC and SISU! If SISU are an animal they must be a crocodile: don't believe their tears and look out for their sharp teeth. It does seem that they've broken quite a lot of them trying to chew on an elephant, though.

DazzleTommyDazzle · Apr 27, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
Which is where you missed my point earlier

No, I saw that, but you then departed from that point to try to make some conspiracy case against the Higgs.

Jack Griffin · Apr 27, 2013

Grendel said:
No you don't pay on its amenities at all. Doncaster pay £10,000 a year currently on rent and get all revenues. With that knowledge please now justify.

Walsall pay £400K pa for their crappy stadium, are higher than us in the table and have less than half the crowd, justify that!

Your arguments are simplistic & fail to account for the real issue here, the fans.. football is all about entertaining the fans.. without that it is nothing.

James Smith · Apr 27, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
The reasons can only be, surely, that the academy has a wider agenda than merely accepting payment?

A wider agenda that does not, incidentally, tally with the assertion it is separate from the Higgs Charity owning half of ACL.

Sorry I'm lost now who is supposed to be paying the Academy, they got a £480k grant that no one has located to the best of my knowledge, is that what you mean?

I would have thought that the grant should be in Ltd if the Golden Share is still there.

lordsummerisle · Apr 27, 2013

James Smith said:
Wasn't the Davis Cup stuff in the Jaguar Exhibition Halls which would limit the numbers of tickets they could sell anyway, given occupancy limits?

Are you saying that the Jaguar Exhibition Halls aren't suitable for high-profile events?

You're possibly right, but don't think that a minor round of the Davis Cup against Russia without any tennis players that anybody had heard of in it would attract 10's of thousands anyway.

God knows how much the council would have given the LTA if it did.

Grendel · Apr 27, 2013

Jack Griffin said:
Wasall pay £400K pa for their crappy stadium, are higher than us in the table and have less than half the crowd, justify that!

Your arguments are simplistic & fail to account for the real issue here, the fans.. football is all about entertaining the fans.. without that it is nothing.

I can't justify it. It's an outrage. It goes to the owners pension fund. Two wrongs hardly make a right do they?

lordsummerisle · Apr 27, 2013

Nonleagueherewecome said:
SISU must be the "animal" rather than CCFC, then? Semantics perhaps but there is a significant difference between CCFC and SISU! If SISU are an animal they must be a crocodile: don't believe their tears and look out for their sharp teeth. It does seem that they've broken quite a lot of them trying to chew on an elephant, though.

I think a blanket ban on analogies needs to be applied immediately now!

lordsummerisle · Apr 27, 2013

DazzleTommyDazzle said:
No, I saw that, but you then departed from that point to try to make some conspiracy case against the Higgs.

Have to say reading through the thread, most conspiracy theories appear to be the other way really.

DazzleTommyDazzle · Apr 27, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
I think a blanket ban on analogies needs to be applied immediately now!

I'll vote for that.

James Smith · Apr 27, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
Are you saying that the Jaguar Exhibition Halls aren't suitable for high-profile events?

You're possibly right, but don't think that a minor round of the Davis Cup against Russia without any tennis players that anybody had heard of in it would attract 10's of thousands anyway.

God knows how much the council would have given the LTA if it did.

Nope just saying that there will have been a maximum number of tickets they could have sold.

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 27, 2013

DazzleTommyDazzle said:
No, I saw that, but you then departed from that point to try to make some conspiracy case against the Higgs.

Is it a conspiracy theory to say that the academy are refusing to take payment when it is offered? Nobody seems to want to answer my question as to whether John Cleese making payment would be accepted by them. Shall we assume that we all tacitly acknowledge it would be? If we assume payment by AN Other would be accepted, then we have to ask why payment is not being accepted when it is offered, no?

I've already said they're more than welcome to ask the question about who actually they're dealing with, given they assumed CCFC was CCFC, be it Ltd or Holdings, but it appears a balanced view and making an argument for a balanced view that does not condemn the administrator as a corrupt cunit means I must be desperately engaging in conspiracy theories.

Personally I would ask the question, and also take the payment, wouldn't you?

Could it not be argued that calling the administrator corrupt is far more of a conspiracy theory? He, after all, has yet to show he has personal animosity towards some of the parties.

lordsummerisle · Apr 27, 2013

James Smith said:
Nope just saying that there will have been a maximum number of tickets they could have sold.

Yes, so £50,000 quite an amount to pay from council funds to bring them here then.

Noggin · Apr 27, 2013

Grendel said:
No you don't pay on its amenities at all. Doncaster pay £10,000 a year currently on rent and get all revenues. With that knowledge please now justify.

you know full well it's impossible to compete with that, we own a 1 bedroom flat above a shop and get 9k a year rent. After paying mortgage and maintenence the profit is about 2k a year. How do you expect someone with a mortgage 2 orders of magnitude greater to survive renting out a 30k+ seater stadium for that money?

James Smith · Apr 27, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
Is it a conspiracy theory to say that the academy are refusing to take payment when it is offered? Nobody seems to want to answer my question as to whether John Cleese making payment would be accepted by them. Shall we assume that we all tacitly acknowledge it would be? If we assume payment by AN Other would be accepted, then we have to ask why payment is not being accepted when it is offered, no?

I've already said they're more than welcome to ask the question about who actually they're dealing with, given they assumed CCFC was CCFC, be it Ltd or Holdings, but it appears a balanced view and making an argument for a balanced view that does not condemn the administrator as a corrupt cunit means I must be desperately engaging in conspiracy theories.

Personally I would ask the question, and also take the payment, wouldn't you?

Could it not be argued that calling the administrator corrupt is far more of a conspiracy theory? He, after all, has yet to show he has personal animosity towards some of the parties.

Still lost, who is supposed to be paying the Academy, they got a £480k grant that no one has located to the best of my knowledge, is that what you mean?

I would have thought that the grant should be in Ltd if the Golden Share is still there.

DazzleTommyDazzle · Apr 27, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
Is it a conspiracy theory to say that the academy are refusing to take payment when it is offered? Nobody seems to want to answer my question as to whether John Cleese making payment would be accepted by them. Shall we assume that we all tacitly acknowledge it would be? If we assume payment by AN Other would be accepted, then we have to ask why payment is not being accepted when it is offered, no?

I've already said they're more than welcome to ask the question about who actually they're dealing with, given they assumed CCFC was CCFC, be it Ltd or Holdings, but it appears a balanced view and making an argument for a balanced view that does not condemn the administrator as a corrupt cunit means I must be desperately engaging in conspiracy theories.

Personally I would ask the question, and also take the payment, wouldn't you?

Could it not be argued that calling the administrator corrupt is far more of a conspiracy theory? He, after all, has yet to show he has personal animosity towards some of the parties.

As I tried to explain earlier - where is the contract that the payment is being made in respect of?

That's what I would ask in this position. Is there still a long term contract in place or has it become a day to day arrangement depending on whether or not Holdings (who appear not to be involved) pay?

I presume you're asking if payment by John Cleese would be accepted because you think the club is being run like Fawlty Towers - there, I knew we'd find something we could agree on

P.S. for the final time, I haven't made any such accusations about the administrator.

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 27, 2013

James Smith said:
Still lost, who is supposed to be paying the Academy, they got a £480k grant that no one has located to the best of my knowledge, is that what you mean?

I would have thought that the grant should be in Ltd if the Golden Share is still there.

One would assume the grant has been used to make payment, and Holdings have matched that payment.

That's not really relevant to the academy refusing to take payment from holdings, as they have done until this point however.

DazzleTommyDazzle · Apr 27, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
Have to say reading through the thread, most conspiracy theories appear to be the other way really.

Don't disagree Lord. However, that doesn't produce any validity for an alternative conspiracy theory.

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 27, 2013

DazzleTommyDazzle said:
P.S. for the final time, I haven't made any such accusations about the administrator.

I haven't said you have, I said some had.

However in such a debate it's wise to emphasise that a perfectly reasonable argument can be made that the administrator is doing his job, is not corrupt, and probably isn't a rent boy as far as I know.

I don;t think that's a conspiracy theory.

latest statement from Mr Appleton (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency