Administrator report found nothing?
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
How will Weber Shandwick spin this one?
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.
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.
Their usernames will be along shortly...
coventry city 2 1 gillingham
And so starts Operation Discredit Les Reed
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.
Do you really want me to dig out historic tweets by les Reid and show the reverence certain posters treated them with?
If only you practised what you preach. A quick scan through your latest posts shows you being scathing towards SISU.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?
If only you practised what you preach. A quick scan through your latest posts shows you being scathing towards SISU.
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.
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
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.
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!
Do you really want me to dig out historic tweets by les Reid and show the reverence certain posters treated them with?
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.
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?
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 .......
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?