Powell explains why ACL are suing NTFC (1 Viewer)

Forums New posts
I'mARealWizard

I'mARealWizard

New Member
Powell Explains Why ACL Are Suing Northampton
By Covsupport News Service

ACL Appointed Lawyer Expalins

The solicitor acting for Arena Coventry Limited has explained why they are suing Northampton Town.
Speaking to the Coventry Telegraph's Les Reid,*James Powell, of Walker Morris, said:

“This is a straightforward and bog-standard area of contract law. There is a contract between ACL and the football club.“ACL entered into that contract on the basis it was doing a deal with the organisation that owns Coventry City Football Club.“The contract is still in place, even though the club is in administration. There is no doubt in anybody’s mind the football club is based on the League ‘golden share’ (suspended while in administration).
“We understand it appears a ‘deal’ has been done between Northampton Town Football Club and an organisation purporting to act on behalf of Coventry City Football Club.
There are question marks that Otium are not the football club at this stage.
“Northampton Town are doing it because they are going to have financial gain and are effectively complicit in procuring that Coventry City Football Club break and breach the deal it currently has with ACL.
“Our contract is still running. The obligation to Coventry City Football Club at this stage is to play at the Ricoh Arena.“The term of the lease is 25 years, and the term of the licence is 48 years and six months. Any damages are potentially substantial.”

More on this;*http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/ricoh-arena-sue-northampton-town-5074046
 
Last edited:
RegTheDonk

RegTheDonk

Well-Known Member
Thanks for posting this up Wizard.

You'd better let true sky blue know too - think he's contacted Northampton Town to see if they want him to defend them in court.
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Fair enough.
 
mattylad

mattylad

Member
I did think complicity although I would add they still need to prove it. It is not for NTFC to defend it.
 
I'mARealWizard

I'mARealWizard

New Member
mattylad said:
I did think complicity although I would add they still need to prove it. It is not for NTFC to defend it.
Click to expand...

Their chairman publicly stated that CCFC have the funds to pay their rent at the Ricoh buy chose not to.

What does that statement say for his complicity?
 
idris65

idris65

Member
Northampton will wish that they never heard of sisu let alone get into bed with them and snuggle up to the bastards. sisu now out to destroy two clubs. Everything they touch turns to shit.
 
T

true sky blue

Guest
are you sure thats a solicitor that has written the above ? and is it quoted word for word, as a high court judge would laugh that out of court. when he states contract he means 'lease' a commercial lease. a commercial lease is not a bog standard contract at all, and it certainly would not have lawful obligations to the golden share, unless the landlord is a part owner of the club and the lease specifically states.

There is a contract between ACL and the football club.“ACL entered into that contract on the basis it was doing a deal with the organisation that owns Coventry City Football Club.“The contract is still in place, even though the club is in administration. There is no doubt in anybody’s mind the football club is based on the League ‘golden share’ (suspended while in administration).

the problem with that is the lease was breached before the club owners agreed a deal with Northampton, so the breach precedes the grounds that are now being stated. That breach being non payment of rent, the actions of ACL then being to place the club into admin. A judge will consider when the lease was breached as a paramount part of any claim. the fact is any business can 'walk away' from a lease, yes they leave themselves open to civil claim for the rest of the lease to be paid up, but the ACL have no lawful right to force a company to continue in their premises once they have walked, it is simply a breach of lease money claim. Dont be fooled, the lease is still in place there is no denying that but it is still simply a money claim. This action or threatened action is pre action notice to Northampton FC and is not court action.

“Northampton Town are doing it because they are going to have financial gain and are effectively complicit in procuring that Coventry City Football Club break and breach the deal it currently has with ACL.
“Our contract is still running. The obligation to Coventry City Football Club at this stage is to play at the Ricoh Arena.“The term of the lease is 25 years, and the term of the licence is 48 years and six months. Any damages are potentially substantial.”

again this can not seriously be a solicitor, this quote must have been doctored.
Northampton FC can not be accused of procuring that city have breached the lease, the lease is based on rental of property only - there can not be any caveat within the lease that would tie the club to play in the ground. there may be conditions that sisu only use the premises for football matches but further than that would enter into a new kind of commercial law.
in no way can Northampton be held to account though as the new owners can be in any premises they want.

. Any damages are potentially substantial.”[/COLOR] that is the crux of it, so if anyone out there thinks this will end with Northampton pulling out or sisu rolling over and returning to the ricoh - sadly your wrong
 
E

ericagradus

New Member
The lease cannot be 'tied' to the golden share as such. The lease is only tied to the tenant and the guarantor (if there is one). As has been discussed, just because the tenant is in administration, does not mean that the Landlord (ACL) would have exercised their right to forfiet the lease. The fact that they have publlicly stated things such as, we did not ask the club to leave the ground, suggests that the lease has not been forfeited.

The information available on the net, appears to state that this is more of a contract/competition law point. And the point that NTFC are making is that, they are not responsible for 'poaching' any clients. The burden of proof would be on ACL to prove that NTFC approached the club and in all honesty, I cannot see there being any weight at all to this arguement.

The laese may even exclude third party claims, depending on the drafting. Either way there will be no indemnity from a third party, so the burden of proof would be on ACL for any claim and associated costs.
 
T

true sky blue

Guest
plus the fact we are now dealing with new owners not tied to the lease
 
Nonleagueherewecome

Nonleagueherewecome

Well-Known Member
lordsummerisle

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
Smacks a bit of desperation doesn't it?

ACL were going to put the club that had the contract with The Ricoh Arena in administration because they weren't paying rent and owed them rent monies.

Surely they don't want a tenant who doesn't pay them rent do they? You'd almost think that they aren't as confident as many on here are that they can cope without the club.

One of the tiresome house rental analogies that are so popular on here was "if you can't afford the rent, then you move somewhere else cheaper", that has now happened, however if you moved somewhere cheaper and the previous landlord tried to sue the new landlord I really don't see how it can work.

Seem to be flailing around in all directions now.
 
E

ericagradus

New Member
This is my favourite bit... "“Our contract is still running. The obligation to Coventry City Football Club at this stage is to play at the Ricoh Arena.“The term of the lease is 25 years, and the term of the licence is 48 years and six months. Any damages are potentially substantial.”

This is not classed as 'damages'
and more importantly ACL have a duty to mitigate. So they need to proactively be marketing the Ricoh!!

These guy at Walker Morris is not a property lawyer and calling a lease a contract is poor!
 
T

true sky blue

Guest
fair enough but the deal is done, so in law acl are going after a company that is in adminsitration for breach of lease. no chance. all posture and no real grounds.

Appleton offering to mediate between all sides now, so in my opinion we will back at the ricoh soon enough and all this posturing will lay way to champagne and lots of back patting between the whole sorry bunch of them. bezzy friends by xmas
 
E

ericagradus

New Member
RPH Hunt has got to the bottom of this in the other thread.

"I think the approach of ACL's lawyer is that a deal has been agreed between NTFC and Otium for the club, who are ACL's tenant, to break the lease and play at Sixfields. Since neither NTFC nor Otium have any rights, at the moment, to decide where the club play, then this could be construed as enticement for the club to break its lease with ACL.

Seems a sensible argument to me.
"
 
I'mARealWizard

I'mARealWizard

New Member
Sisu/opium are quite happy to destroy the club by ripping it from its 130 year heritage and relocating for the end game of further destruction and removal from our hands.

I'm very glad that acl now appear to say
"You know what? Fuvk you. You've already destroyed any chance of building a team this season. Left to your own devices you'll wreck this club without a care for the fans or the actual club. So we now have nothing to lose.
You have your auto pilot set for destruct, bring it on. Let's play you at your own game"

The most dangerous opponent is the one who has nothing left to lose...
 
T

true sky blue

Guest
ericagradus said:
RPH Hunt has got to the bottom of this in the other thread.

"I think the approach of ACL's lawyer is that a deal has been agreed between NTFC and Otium for the club, who are ACL's tenant, to break the lease and play at Sixfields. Since neither NTFC nor Otium have any rights, at the moment, to decide where the club play, then this could be construed as enticement for the club to break its lease with ACL.

Seems a sensible argument to me.
"
Click to expand...



just a reminder: there is an 'agreement' that is not even a pre-contract. you and i can agree to buy a car ... we are not in contract by agreeing, we are only in contract if we stipulate we will do it, are doing it or have done it and these are are terms. until the first game takes place the contract does not start.
 
The Penguin

The Penguin

Well-Known Member
true sky blue said:
just a reminder: there is an 'agreement' that is not even a pre-contract. you and i can agree to buy a car ... we are not in contract by agreeing, we are only in contract if we stipulate we will do it, are doing it or have done it and these are are terms. until the first game takes place the contract does not start.
Click to expand...

Yep, and we all know SISU's form for backing out of 'agreements'.
 
blueflint

blueflint

Well-Known Member
the problem appears to be who owns the football club holdings didn't otium don't yet so ltd which is still in admin do they still have a contract to play at ricoh for another 25 yrs comp could be quite high
 
W

wince

Well-Known Member
just a reminder: there is an 'agreement' that is not even a pre-contract. you and i can agree to buy a car ... we are not in contract by agreeing, we are only in contract if we stipulate we will do it, are doing it or have done it and these are are terms. until the first game takes place the contract does not start.
Click to expand...
Didn't fisher say compo would be due if they went back to the rioch now? so a deal must have been done
 
mark82

mark82

Moderator
Surely if ACL believe the contract is with the football club and not just limited (ie Holdings) then they should be suing holdings.
 
Astute

Astute

Well-Known Member
The contract is still valid. SISU have offered 25% of 2 years rent to break the contract. ..or 0.5% if they refused.
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
If I was PWKH I'd slam my fist on the desk - preferably when there's a cup of tea on it and a secretary in the room - and scream down the phone to my lawyers "Sue anyone that moves or speaks!"
 
Nonleagueherewecome

Nonleagueherewecome

Well-Known Member
torchomatic said:
If I was PWKH I'd slam my fist on the desk - preferably when there's a cup of tea on it and a secretary in the room - and scream down the phone to my lawyers "Sue anyone that moves or speaks!"
Click to expand...


It's an evocative image.


Wouldn't really work if you did it at your desk...
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
S

Steve_75

New Member
The way I see this is (and I'm sure I'll probably be corrected on this), based on the assumption that ACL are correct when they previously said that they will only deal with Appleton at the present time as the club is in admin and therefore he is the one who should be negotiating where the club plays.

If this stance is correct, and if Fisher is the one who has negotiated the deal with NTFC on behalf of Otium, surely that means that while the club is in admin, the deal with NTFC doesn't apply as Otium doesn't yet own the club. I would assume they are ok to go ahead and negotiate a ground share on the basis that it will apply once Otium actually own the club but while the club remains in admin (potentially for another few months as ACL expect), then the ground share with NTFC cannot apply as it's not been set up by Appleton.

In this case, the offer is there (to Appleton) for us to play at the Ricoh while the club is still in admin.

This could maybe give ACL the right to bring legal action if the games are played at NTFC while the club is still in admin?
 
Astute

Astute

Well-Known Member
Steve_75 said:
The way I see this is (and I'm sure I'll probably be corrected on this), based on the assumption that ACL are correct when they previously said that they will only deal with Appleton at the present time as the club is in admin and therefore he is the one who should be negotiating where the club plays.

If this stance is correct, and if Fisher is the one who has negotiated the deal with NTFC on behalf of Otium, surely that means that while the club is in admin, the deal with NTFC doesn't apply as Otium doesn't yet own the club. I would assume they are ok to go ahead and negotiate a ground share on the basis that it will apply once Otium actually own the club but while the club remains in admin (potentially for another few months as ACL expect), then the ground share with NTFC cannot apply as it's not been set up by Appleton.

In this case, the offer is there (to Appleton) for us to play at the Ricoh while the club is still in admin.

This could maybe give ACL the right to bring legal action if the games are played at NTFC while the club is still in admin?
Click to expand...

That is more or less what I am thinking. The letter they have received points this out, so they can't say they didn't know.

Maybe the NTFC chairman has listened to Timmy too much. He might get shafted if he isn't careful.
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top