Pointless 10 point deduction? (1 Viewer)

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
Les Reid ‏@Lesreidpolitics 6m
@skyblueben @seanosmond Agree Ben. Looks like #CCFC lost 10pts for no gain. ACL legal challenge to admin v unlikely - more this week from me
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Les Reid ‏@Lesreidpolitics 6m
@skyblueben @seanosmond Agree Ben. Looks like #CCFC lost 10pts for no gain. ACL legal challenge to admin v unlikely - more this week from me

Excellent -- so they derailed the promotion push last season with a claim they had to put the club into administration to save it from liquidation and then they put us into liquidation which nullifies the fantastic start we have made. What a joke and still idiots on here claim they act in the clubs interests.
 

ohitsaidwalker king power

Well-Known Member
Excellent -- so they derailed the promotion push last season with a claim they had to put the club into administration to save it from liquidation and then they put us into liquidation which nullifies the fantastic start we have made. What a joke and still idiots on here claim they act in the clubs interests.

Lets wait for the outcome before we throw yet more rocks based on a tweet?
 

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
Excellent -- so they derailed the promotion push last season with a claim they had to put the club into administration to save it from liquidation and then they put us into liquidation which nullifies the fantastic start we have made. What a joke and still idiots on here claim they act in the clubs interests.

Never in the promotion chase last year in reality. This season is early days.
Surely the report will explain how players transferred over from Ltd to Holdings?
Only an idiot would make a judgement based on no facts whatsoever. Oh hang on .......
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
And so starts Operation Discredit Les Reed
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
coventry city 2 1 gillingham
 

ohitsaidwalker king power

Well-Known Member
And so starts Operation Discredit Les Reed

Who is discrediting him- cheap shot Torch. Thats not my point at all... which was, lets wait for the data- some facts, aside from it being prudent and just to do so, its what Grendel implores on a more than regular basis.. data.
If the tweet as stated transpires then we can have a debate about what,when and why for- if we must.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Who is discrediting him- cheap shot Torch. Thats not my point at all... which was, lets wait for the data- some facts, aside from it being prudent and just to do so, its what Grendel implores on a more than regular basis.. data.
If the tweet as stated transpires then we can have a debate about what,when and why for- if we must.

Do you really want me to dig out historic tweets by les Reid and show the reverence certain posters treated them with?
 

ohitsaidwalker king power

Well-Known Member
Do you really want me to dig out historic tweets by les Reid and show the reverence certain posters treated them with?

Go on then.... doesnt mean that trend should continue does it... suggest we all keep our powder dry until the FACTS emerge.. then debate thats all?
 

SkyBlueScottie

Well-Known Member
I have always said the councils actions were to try and put in a new owner of the club who they felt would be better to do business with ie on their terms. Or somebody who they could control. As for the transfer to Holdings, it's largely irrelevant as the Football league has said they had down as registered under Holdings..... Something which IMO both sides tried to use to their advantage.
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
Here we go again. ACL is a limited business. It's directors have a legal responsibility to act in its best interests. They may have sympathies for the football club, but this goes out if the window when it comes to them exercising their responsibility.

My guess of one motivation is that they rejected the CVA in the hope of forcing - alongside their representations to the FL, etc - the administration process to be revisited; and perhaps another buyer nominated who might honour their 40-odd year lease.

That would have been a better outcome for their business and therefore the way they would have been bound to follow.

The reality is; once a club sells its ground, or site to a Limited company and is therefore nothing more than a tenant; then it can't complain when the directors of that Limited company vote in favour of its own interests over their tenants. Don't like that reality; then don't sell your interests to third parties.

Don't complain about CCC or ACL; as to do so shows ignorance of where assets, interests and responsibilities lie
 

theferret

Well-Known Member
Here we go again. ACL is a limited business. It's directors have a legal responsibility to act in its best interests. They may have sympathies for the football club, but this goes out if the window when it comes to them exercising their responsibility.

In which case, don't hide behind the "we're doing it for the good of club" line. It is bullshit. The suggestion that they tried to force administration because of an obvious bluff by TF about liquidation and dressed it up as concern for the club was a lie, pure and simple. I'd have a lot more respect for them if they came out and said they were acting in their own interests.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Here we go again. ACL is a limited business. It's directors have a legal responsibility to act in its best interests. They may have sympathies for the football club, but this goes out if the window when it comes to them exercising their responsibility.

My guess of one motivation is that they rejected the CVA in the hope of forcing - alongside their representations to the FL, etc - the administration process to be revisited; and perhaps another buyer nominated who might honour their 40-odd year lease.

That would have been a better outcome for their business and therefore the way they would have been bound to follow.

The reality is; once a club sells its ground, or site to a Limited company and is therefore nothing more than a tenant; then it can't complain when the directors of that Limited company vote in favour of its own interests over their tenants. Don't like that reality; then don't sell your interests to third parties.

Don't complain about CCC or ACL; as to do so shows ignorance of where assets, interests and responsibilities lie

What maniac would sign a £48m lease aside from our idiotic former owners.
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
In which case, don't hide behind the "we're doing it for the good of club" line. It is bullshit. The suggestion that they tried to force administration because of an obvious bluff by TF about liquidation and dressed it up as concern for the club was a lie, pure and simple. I'd have a lot more respect for them if they came out and said they were acting in their own interests.

Wouldn't argue with that
 

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
In which case, don't hide behind the "we're doing it for the good of club" line. It is bullshit. The suggestion that they tried to force administration because of an obvious bluff by TF about liquidation and dressed it up as concern for the club was a lie, pure and simple. I'd have a lot more respect for them if they came out and said they were acting in their own interests.

Yeah, I fully accept they have to act as a business.

Means I don't blame them in the slightest. Unfortunately by acting as a business they don't necessarily act in the best interests of a football club either... and it's a bit hard to take sides for one money making entity over another!

Be a bit like cheering Sainsbury's on v Tesco's.

Down with this sort of thing! Everybody out!
 

theferret

Well-Known Member
Yeah, I fully accept they have to act as a business.

Means I don't blame them in the slightest. Unfortunately by acting as a business they don't necessarily act in the best interests of a football club either... and it's a bit hard to take sides for one money making entity over another!

Be a bit like cheering Sainsbury's on v Tesco's.

Down with this sort of thing! Everybody out!

Indeed, which is why the loyalty some show to ACL is baffling. Some people would be generally horrified if the club got the ricoh on the cheap.

I've never heard of people having their ashes scattered outside a Tesco, or the office of a stadium management company for that matter. Perhaps times are changing. When does the ACL replica shirt come out again?
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Indeed, which is why the loyalty some show to ACL is baffling. Some people would be generally horrified if the club got the ricoh on the cheap.

I've never heard of people having their ashes scattered outside a Tesco, or the office of a stadium management company for that matter. Perhaps times are changing. When does the ACL replica shirt come out again?

i'll say it again

you don't step over a pound to get to a penny.

a lot of people are seeing shitsu hate as acl love, but the biggest monkey on our back is shitsu. lets get rid of them 1st so the club can start to be rebuilt. also getting rid of shitsu has to be the 1st step in getting rid of acl, some of the other prospective buyers (if some press reports are to be believed) have/had agreements in place to buy either a full or part share of the ricoh so getting rid of shitsu and getting new owners in may well prove to be a 6 pointer.
 

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
i'll say it again

you don't step over a pound to get to a penny.

a lot of people are seeing shitsu hate as acl love, but the biggest monkey on our back is shitsu. lets get rid of them 1st so the club can start to be rebuilt. also getting rid of shitsu has to be the 1st step in getting rid of acl, some of the other prospective buyers (if some press reports are to be believed) have/had agreements in place to buy either a full or part share of the ricoh so getting rid of shitsu and getting new owners in may well prove to be a 6 pointer.

If the club's to be rebuilt it needs the foundations in place ASAP.

The whole problem with SISu coming in is they came in without the foundations. Indeed, their offer was straight cash up front, as opposed to another offer which wanted some land for the club while they were at it...

So... want the club successful going forward? The issue of stadium split from club with competing interests *has* to be dealt with now.

Else we'll be in a rather Midlands version of Groundhog Day with rain and Balti Pies.

That means questioning *everybody* now. No stitch ups where preferred owners are parachuted in for the benefit of one side or the other, rather a root and branch stripping down of what's best for *our* club.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Here we go again. ACL is a limited business. It's directors have a legal responsibility to act in its best interests. They may have sympathies for the football club, but this goes out if the window when it comes to them exercising their responsibility.

My guess of one motivation is that they rejected the CVA in the hope of forcing - alongside their representations to the FL, etc - the administration process to be revisited; and perhaps another buyer nominated who might honour their 40-odd year lease.

That would have been a better outcome for their business and therefore the way they would have been bound to follow.

The reality is; once a club sells its ground, or site to a Limited company and is therefore nothing more than a tenant; then it can't complain when the directors of that Limited company vote in favour of its own interests over their tenants. Don't like that reality; then don't sell your interests to third parties.

Don't complain about CCC or ACL; as to do so shows ignorance of where assets, interests and responsibilities lie

So when PWKH said they only rejected it because SISU did not agree two conditions they wanted them to accept you believe this account to be a lie?

Thats a sensational accusation MMM - do you have any evidence?
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
So when PWKH said they only rejected it because SISU did not agree two conditions they wanted them to accept you believe this account to be a lie?

Thats a sensational accusation MMM - do you have any evidence?

He still owes me one for predicting that Thorn would have found employment by now.
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Never in the promotion chase last year in reality. This season is early days.
Surely the report will explain how players transferred over from Ltd to Holdings?
Only an idiot would make a judgement based on no facts whatsoever. Oh hang on .......

I thought playoffs were possible before the start of the season, that was before our form! -10 points is in danger of ruining our season, we'd be 5th without the deduction.
 

Skyblueweeman

Well-Known Member
Here we go again. ACL is a limited business. It's directors have a legal responsibility to act in its best interests. They may have sympathies for the football club, but this goes out if the window when it comes to them exercising their responsibility.

My guess of one motivation is that they rejected the CVA in the hope of forcing - alongside their representations to the FL, etc - the administration process to be revisited; and perhaps another buyer nominated who might honour their 40-odd year lease.

That would have been a better outcome for their business and therefore the way they would have been bound to follow.

The reality is; once a club sells its ground, or site to a Limited company and is therefore nothing more than a tenant; then it can't complain when the directors of that Limited company vote in favour of its own interests over their tenants. Don't like that reality; then don't sell your interests to third parties.

Don't complain about CCC or ACL; as to do so shows ignorance of where assets, interests and responsibilities lie

And when Otium/SISU directors do they same, they're publically castigated on here? Not saying they're right at all, but it's a totally level playing field.

ACL are as complicit in our issues as SISU, Otium, Fisher, Seppalla, CCC, Richardson, Ranson, Simon Cowell, Ant and Dec, The Tweenies, The bloke who cried on CWR and Spot the Dog.

It can't be one rule for one and one rule for another.

WM
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top