Simon Gilbert, has there been an FL response? (1 Viewer)

sky blue john · Jun 18, 2014

Godiva said:
So the club was ordered to pay the rent arrears owed to ACL by the end of last month.
FL also ordered that the amount should be locked up in an escrow account.
The amount is £590K

Then ACL calls in the guarantees they had sitting with McGinnity and Robinson. They ask to receive £500k.

Question 1: Should that be deducted from the what the club is supposed to pay - Should the amount owed by the club now be £90K?

ACL then agree a 'discount' of £200K with McGinnity and Robinson. The pair pay £300K to ACL.

Question 2: Should the club pay the £200K that ACL gave McGinnity/Robinson in discount - should the club pay £290K?

Question 3: Should ACL have abstained from calling in the guaranties and have the club pay the full amount £590K?

Question 4: should the club pay McGinnity/Robinson 300k ?

Question 5: where does it say that the 590k was supposed to be locked in the escrow account and not just paid straight to Acl ?

skybluetony176 · Jun 18, 2014

Still no comment from the only party who's opinion matters, the FL. ML, TF, ACL, GR & MM don't come into this. Only the FL's decision can have an effect on next season either way yet they say FA.

Grendel · Jun 18, 2014

Nick said:
We knew that already?

Perfect timing from the council Evening telegraph.

oldskyblue58 · Jun 18, 2014

Godiva said:
So the club was ordered to pay the rent arrears owed to ACL by the end of last month.
FL also ordered that the amount should be locked up in an escrow account.
The amount is £590K

Then ACL calls in the guarantees they had sitting with McGinnity and Robinson. They ask to receive £500k.

Question 1: Should that be deducted from the what the club is supposed to pay - Should the amount owed by the club now be £90K?

ACL then agree a 'discount' of £200K with McGinnity and Robinson. The pair pay £300K to ACL.

Question 2: Should the club pay the £200K that ACL gave McGinnity/Robinson in discount - should the club pay £290K?

Question 3: Should ACL have abstained from calling in the guaranties and have the club pay the full amount £590K?

Just to confuse things further the G2 of the FL insolvency policy says

"those debts that are required to be paid in full (or payment secured in full) in all circumstances are".................

"G2. 3 such other sums as are required to be paid by the League, FIFA, UEFA or the Football Association from time to time"

Did the FL demand payment of figure of £590k to ACL as a penalty or did they refer to it as rent because as has been discussed before £590k doesn't actually represent rent. It is a calculated figure in a CVA that never existed.

It would seem to me that the FL have got themselves in a mess with things again

fernandopartridge · Jun 18, 2014

shmmeee said:
You seem to get embarrassed easily. Maybe self-confidence issues? Have you considered CBT? It's very good for anxiety.

Seriously, that's older than the hills and was pathetic at the best of times. Are you fucking 14 or something?

On topic: Why does it matter if the guarantor paid out? Surely they need to be paid back if Sisu pay?

More stalling and bollocks from Fisher and friends.

But hey, it's only the league status of the club they're pissing about with. No need to worry. At least Grendel will be happy that we've slightly annoyed a stadium management company. After all that's what running a football club is about, right?

Are you swearing to try and not sound like a nerdy school teacher?

fernandopartridge · Jun 18, 2014

Godiva said:
So the club was ordered to pay the rent arrears owed to ACL by the end of last month.
FL also ordered that the amount should be locked up in an escrow account.
The amount is £590K

Then ACL calls in the guarantees they had sitting with McGinnity and Robinson. They ask to receive £500k.

Question 1: Should that be deducted from the what the club is supposed to pay - Should the amount owed by the club now be £90K?

ACL then agree a 'discount' of £200K with McGinnity and Robinson. The pair pay £300K to ACL.

Question 2: Should the club pay the £200K that ACL gave McGinnity/Robinson in discount - should the club pay £290K?

Question 3: Should ACL have abstained from calling in the guaranties and have the club pay the full amount £590K?

Should they fuck pay the discount

oldskyblue58 · Jun 18, 2014

You can almost see the court case approaching cant you ..............................

Ian1779 · Jun 18, 2014

If ACL chose to call in money from guarantors, then that should be deducted from amount owed. ACL should not be getting the money twice.

Said guarantors may wish to pursue SISU for the monies however.

SkyBlueScottie · Jun 18, 2014

"The £590,000 was the amount ACL would have received for unpaid rent if a company voluntary agreement (CVA) had been accepted when the club was in administration. It was rejected by ACL and HM Revenue and Customs.

Football club officials insist the full amount has been paid into an escrow set up at the request of the Football League. But now the club is challenging the amount the Football League said it must pay.
Mark Labovitch, CCFC non-executive director, said: “We have heard nothing from ACL regarding the money they received from third parties. In order to settle this matter, we have now offered to pay ACL the net amount they are owed."

Interesting....

Godiva · Jun 18, 2014

oldskyblue58 said:
You can almost see the court case approaching cant you ..............................

Ian1779 said:
If ACL chose to call in money from guarantors, then that should be deducted from amount owed. ACL should not be getting the money twice.

Said guarantors may wish to pursue SISU for the monies however.

McGinnity/Robinson vs SISU/Otium/Arvo coming to a courtroom near you.

Nick · Jun 18, 2014

Surely now the FL need to pull their fingers out and have a look in the Escrow or take a look and say "this has been paid, this is now owed".

fernandopartridge · Jun 18, 2014

Godiva said:
McGinnity/Robinson vs SISU/Otium/Arvo coming to a courtroom near you.

I'd like to see that as some of the workings behind the terrible dealings to set up ACL might be exposed.

chiefdave · Jun 18, 2014

SkyBlueScottie said:
Mark Labovitch, CCFC non-executive director, said: “We have heard nothing from ACL regarding the money they received from third parties. In order to settle this matter, we have now offered to pay ACL the net amount they are owed."

Wouldn't the net amount owed be on the full rent arrears rather than a figure from a rejected CVA? I was under the impression the £590K was a payment ordered by the FL as a condition of receiving the golden share rather than the payment of an actual debt owed to ACL, so is ML just cherry picking figures that lead to a lower payment or have I misinterpreted it?

The Prefect · Jun 18, 2014

Ian1779 said:
If ACL chose to call in money from guarantors, then that should be deducted from amount owed. ACL should not be getting the money twice.

We're not party to the agreement between Robinson, McGinity and ACL and we don't know GR and MM actually 'guaranteed'. If it was specifically 'rent' then there is a case that it could be deducted - I would be very surprised if that were the case because it is too specific. If the guarantee was for 'loss of income' - which is more likely then there would seem to be no case to answer.

In my opinion SISU are fishing for a discount - and you can't blame them. If the decision goes against them I'm sure they'll challenge it under Joy's 'litigation' threat.

The Gentleman · Jun 18, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
I'd like to see that as some of the workings behind the terrible dealings to set up ACL might be exposed.

To be honest mate, I would rather see some of the workings behind why we are in so much debt and a look at our accounts rather than a company that at present has nothing to do with us.

Godiva · Jun 18, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
I'd like to see that as some of the workings behind the terrible dealings to set up ACL might be exposed.

I am actually amazed that McGinnity/Robinson didn't insist on a short time limit of the personal guarantees. Three years maximum.

Skyblueweeman · Jun 18, 2014

So, let me get this straight....£590k is owed to ACL.
MM and GR have already paid ACL £300k...correct?
Are ACL still then claiming £590k?
If they are, why? Surely they're only owed £290k??

Yours confused,

WM

Grendel · Jun 18, 2014

Skyblueweeman said:
So, let me get this straight....£590k is owed to ACL.
MM and GR have already paid ACL £300k...correct?
Are ACL still then claiming £590k?
If they are, why? Surely they're only owed £290k??

Yours confused,

WM

They are claiming it as they are greedy bastards. I genuinely hope sisu hold firm on this and get the fuckers in court again.

fernandopartridge · Jun 18, 2014

Godiva said:
I am actually amazed that McGinnity/Robinson didn't insist on a short time limit of the personal guarantees. Three years maximum.

Nothing to say they didn't ask for a limit as you'd think it not unreasonable to do so. ..

sky blue john · Jun 18, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
I'd like to see that as some of the workings behind the terrible dealings to set up ACL might be exposed.

I heard voodoo was used and also stonehenge was involved !!

Lorksalordy · Jun 18, 2014

Would just be nice if one thing in this utter bollocks of a mess was concluded in time, on plan with no complications

Rusty Trombone · Jun 18, 2014

Skyblueweeman said:
So, let me get this straight....£590k is owed to ACL.
MM and GR have already paid ACL £300k...correct?
Are ACL still then claiming £590k?
If they are, why? Surely they're only owed £290k??

Yours confused,

WM

The FL have said £590k needs to be paid for one thing.

MM & GR have paid £300k for something.

The argument is whether the one thing is the same as the something, or whether the something is for something else.

oldskyblue58 · Jun 18, 2014

Surely the first thing that needs to be established is in the contract between Otium and FL what was the £590k described as.

If it is "rent" then how do Otium legally have an obligation to pay a debt that is not theirs in law and they did not acquire from the administrator? What was the basis of the calculation? Did the FL understand the calculation in the failed CVA? Do Otium actually have any legal right of set off against a guarantee given to CCFC Ltd? The accepted debt now filed in court by the administrator is £636k is this now a challenge to his findings? Did the guarantee relate to rent or debts in total or expenses? Did the guarantee run in parallel so was in law never anything to do with CCFC Ltd as such?

If it was a figure picked as a penalty for not completing CVA then it is not rent at all and surely the guarantee is irrelevant to it.

ACL of course have no legal or contractual right to demand any payment.

same old story isn't it ....... nothing is ever what it seems.......... confusion reigns !

Timing is interesting of the todays comments ........ same day as fixtures list ............ and we all know that integrity of the competition is important above all to FL. Btw to be clear am not wishing CCFC and fans to be punished further but I think it just points to how the FL will deal with it.

sky blue john · Jun 18, 2014

Grendel said:
They are claiming it as they are greedy bastards. I genuinely hope sisu hold firm on this and get the fuckers in court again.

Lol !!
If they do or don't that's up to them but your views are obviously against us getting back to the Ricoh !!

Grendel · Jun 18, 2014

sky blue john said:
Lol !!
If they do or don't that's up to them but your views are obviously against us getting back to the Ricoh !!

We never will get back until ACL are bankrupt. The sooner the better.

Skyblueweeman · Jun 18, 2014

Grendel said:
They are claiming it as they are greedy bastards. I genuinely hope sisu hold firm on this and get the fuckers in court again.

If that's the case Grendel, then that's ridiculous. So potentially owed £290k but seeking double that?! Unreal.

That said, no different I'm sure to what SISU might have sought before. They were unsuccessful so I hope ACL have the same result.

Alls fair in love and war and all that...

sky blue john · Jun 18, 2014

Grendel said:
We never will get back until ACL are bankrupt. The sooner the better.

Lmfao !!
I am once lost for words !

No future with SISU · Jun 18, 2014

Grendel said:
Perfect timing from the council Evening telegraph.

You got the name wrong, only a 33.3% right which is good for you.

Rusty Trombone · Jun 18, 2014

Grendel said:
We never will get back until ACL are bankrupt. The sooner the better.

To come back after ACL are bankrupt would presumably involve the club, or the clubs owners, buying a lease off the Council. I'd have thought it would be cheaper to buy the shares in ACL.

Skyblueweeman · Jun 18, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
To come back after ACL are bankrupt would presumably involve the club, or the clubs owners, buying a lease off the Council. I'd have thought it would be cheaper to buy the shares in ACL.

Good point but probably more complicated?

Grendel · Jun 18, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
To come back after ACL are bankrupt would presumably involve the club, or the clubs owners, buying a lease off the Council. I'd have thought it would be cheaper to buy the shares in ACL.

The shares are worthless so I doubt that.

SimonGilbert · Jun 18, 2014

Grendel said:
What's the fuss about now? I thought it had been accepted the club have placed the money in an Independant account (probably the football league) and are waiting to see what the leagues view is on the £300,000 already received from Robinson and mcginnity.

I fail to see the point of the thread other than to laugh at Tony for his toe curling adulation for Alan Pooles tea boy.

I'd just like to point out I have never made tea for Alan Poole.

We have a hot drink vending machine

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sky blue john · Jun 18, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
To come back after ACL are bankrupt would presumably involve the club, or the clubs owners, buying a lease off the Council. I'd have thought it would be cheaper to buy the shares in ACL.

I hardly think that CCC would sell a lease to Sisu even if Acl go under. This is where Grendels plan comes unstuck !!
Grendel should be supporting to get new owners for the club !!!

Rusty Trombone · Jun 18, 2014

Grendel said:
The shares are worthless so I doubt that.

I'd have thought buying something worthless would be cheaper than buying something valuable.

The Gentleman · Jun 18, 2014

SimonGilbert said:
I'd just like to point out I have never made tea for Alan Poole.

We have a hot drink vending machine

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

However, if you ever did feel like making tea then Grendel was looking for an assistant for £50k a year

Simon Gilbert, has there been an FL response? (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Telegraph Tea Boy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency