As ccfc and acl have come to an agreement over the last 3 matches. What is stopping them having the same agreement for next season?. It's obviously a deal that's works for both parties, snd they both claim they want the best for ccfc. Well nows the time to prove it.
Because CCFC are in administration, therefore it would have to be the administrator. The administrator is not here to tie the club up to long term commitments.
Was this agreement actually between ACL and Sisu or was it done between ACL and the appointed administrator? Considering the company that holds the lease agreement is the one in admin I'd have thought talks would have been between the latter two, or at the very least would be influenced by the administrator?
If I'm wrong someone correct me though as it is now becoming a bit of struggle keeping up with all of this!
the statement released is from the administrator and ACL so you would assume that those are the two parties to this particular agreement. The administrator has no authority as far as we know to act for CCFCH or any other party. He acts for CCFC Limited
the statement released is from the administrator and ACL so you would assume that those are the two parties to this particular agreement. The administrator has no authority as far as we know to act for CCFCH or any other party. He acts for CCFC Limited
Doesn't quite tally with the statement on the official website
"Coventry City Football Club Holdings Ltd are pleased that an agreement has been reached with ACL and the Administrator that enables us to play our last three remaining home matches at the Ricoh Arena."
Surely if CCFCH aren't party to the agreement then it would use the word 'between' instead.
Doesn't quite tally with the statement on the official website
"Coventry City Football Club Holdings Ltd are pleased that an agreement has been reached with ACL and the Administrator that enables us to play our last three remaining home matches at the Ricoh Arena."
Surely if CCFCH aren't party to the agreement then it would use the word 'between' instead.
i think the key is with both acl and administrator
I would guess that ACL let it to administrator who let it to CCFCH ...... CCFCH guarantees to pay administrator the amount that ACL are charging the administrator to use the stadium. So in a sense then CCFCH is party to it but i bet ACL's contract is with the administrator
It sounds like what I posted yesterday has probably been done.
ACL & CCFC Ltd have an agreement to allow the club to play, CCFC(H) Ltd and CCFC Ltd have a seperate agreement for CCFC(H) Ltd to fund CCFC Ltd for this.
I'd imagine they've had some money up front, they are hardly going to tag it onto the outstanding debt that they have refused to pay. I think more than anything they are just trying to fulfil the fixtures to keep onside with the Football League ! Maybe we'll only get a 25 point deduction that way !
i think the key is with both acl and administrator
I would guess that ACL let it to administrator who let it to CCFCH ...... CCFCH guarantees to pay administrator the amount that ACL are charging the administrator to use the stadium. So in a sense then CCFCH is party to it but i bet ACL's contract is with the administrator
And it's not beyond the wit of man to see a situation where the entity that entered administration could suddenly find itself solvent again with an injection of funds from an associated source - provided of course that an amicable arrangement can be reached with other parties.