I did think complicity although I would add they still need to prove it. It is not for NTFC to defend it.
plus the fact we are now dealing with new owners not tied to the lease
Not yet oy're not.
plus the fact we are now dealing with new owners not tied to the lease
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.
"
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.
Didn't fisher say compo would be due if they went back to the rioch now? so a deal must have been donejust 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.
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!"
It's an evocative image.
Wouldn't really work if you did it at your desk...
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!"
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?
I just tried it. All I got was "ssshhhh!!"
"Sssssh, actually", surely?
I'm a cruel man
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?