oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
just a few thoughts (guesses)
Firstly how do we know that the old licence and lease are terminated? It doesnt just happen because TF says so. In deed the administrator of CCFC Ltd referred to it at the weekend as an asset of that company...... had it been terminated on his appointment then I do not see that he could have made that statemment. Administration is a period where a third party runs the company with a view to satisfying creditors, selling on as a going concern or liquidating ...... none of that has happened as yet. A lease/licence can be settled by paying it up, a contractual break, by order of court, by agreement of landlord or tenant, or by liquidation...... none of that has happened. Simple administration and walking out doesnt terminate a lease
ACL are happy to maintain that CCFC can use the stadium. As far as they are concerned the lease and licence are unbroken. In addition it is good PR for ACL. An administrator has to not run at a loss because he would be liable for those losses, so you might find that ACL lets CCFC Ltd use the stadium rent free for three games. Stops the administrator saying cant use it cant afford it....... then it is up to CCFC Ltd if they let CCFCH use it. The contract with CCFCH is then between the administrator and CCFC H not ACL and CCFCH. But ACL's argument would be that CCFC Ltd and CCFCH are inextricably linked (as was the case at Southampton) and that any separation is purely artificial , bearing no relation to commercial reality- you can not operate in FL without a football team and a football team must have a ground where its main source of income (the fans) can sit. I wonder when signing up for season tickets was payment made to CCFC ltd or CCFC H? So if ACL are right it doesnt actually matter which company TF says is using it - it is as one anyway.
Also we keep hearing "put part of the company in to administration" .... doesnt part form part of one whole?
The mechanics of what could happen match day is say no rent or licence fee but all F&B's paid in cash only on the day to IEC (who do the day to day operations of the stadium now) That gets ACL round receiving any rent or licence fee from CCFC H so scuppers TF's attempt of getting the change through by implied acceptance from ACL. ACL's contract in their eyes still with CCFC Ltd. It would also be great PR with the fans to be able to say "we put the fans first and made no charge". Of course it makes it difficult for CCFC in that the packages/posh seats/boardroom they have sold include F&B's. My guess if any invoicing is done it will be to CCFC not CCFC ltd or CCFC H..... but personally i would only accept cash up front or over a till operated by IEC, I wouldnt accept that there is a right to provide food etc on ACL's side of things. The contract for package tickets are with CCFC Ltd I would guess
TF wont like the above but he is in a cleft stick really. If he rejects it he can spin it as ACL's fault (a) a lot of fans wont now believe him (b) he has to prove ACL unreasonable - so does the above sound unreasonable to you? (c) depending on what results from today he could find both CCFC Ltd and CCFCH in administration and deep problems with the League. BUT he cant accept it because it seemingly goes against the plan/gamble he has embarked on, it indicates that CCFC ltd and CCFCH are inextricably linked..... the one thing that SISU need to prove is not the case.
So if in the next couple of days it turns out the game is postponed and the club issue a statement saying it is all ACL's fault you might want to consider the above and ask was it?
Also CCFC Ltd - has it no assets ? Well the administrator says the lease/licence for starters, we seem to believe the League share is there, what about the league prize money from the cup run, have they received the FA cup money yet, the compensation from Huddersfield for MR, the monies due from cardnet etc. If the compensation for MR is due to CCFC LTd does that indicate that up till what 6 weeks ago all players/staff were part of CCFC Ltd ? If thats the case are these actions by TF/SISU just a scheme to prejudice the rights of a creditor and therefore will be unravelled by the court & FL? (members of a class of creditors have to be treated all the same you cant just pick and choose because it suits you)
Not over yet ............ I hope a deal on using the stadium can be done simply because the fans deserve far better than this, but if it isnt I know where I will think most of the blame will lay.
like I said a few thoughts
Firstly how do we know that the old licence and lease are terminated? It doesnt just happen because TF says so. In deed the administrator of CCFC Ltd referred to it at the weekend as an asset of that company...... had it been terminated on his appointment then I do not see that he could have made that statemment. Administration is a period where a third party runs the company with a view to satisfying creditors, selling on as a going concern or liquidating ...... none of that has happened as yet. A lease/licence can be settled by paying it up, a contractual break, by order of court, by agreement of landlord or tenant, or by liquidation...... none of that has happened. Simple administration and walking out doesnt terminate a lease
ACL are happy to maintain that CCFC can use the stadium. As far as they are concerned the lease and licence are unbroken. In addition it is good PR for ACL. An administrator has to not run at a loss because he would be liable for those losses, so you might find that ACL lets CCFC Ltd use the stadium rent free for three games. Stops the administrator saying cant use it cant afford it....... then it is up to CCFC Ltd if they let CCFCH use it. The contract with CCFCH is then between the administrator and CCFC H not ACL and CCFCH. But ACL's argument would be that CCFC Ltd and CCFCH are inextricably linked (as was the case at Southampton) and that any separation is purely artificial , bearing no relation to commercial reality- you can not operate in FL without a football team and a football team must have a ground where its main source of income (the fans) can sit. I wonder when signing up for season tickets was payment made to CCFC ltd or CCFC H? So if ACL are right it doesnt actually matter which company TF says is using it - it is as one anyway.
Also we keep hearing "put part of the company in to administration" .... doesnt part form part of one whole?
The mechanics of what could happen match day is say no rent or licence fee but all F&B's paid in cash only on the day to IEC (who do the day to day operations of the stadium now) That gets ACL round receiving any rent or licence fee from CCFC H so scuppers TF's attempt of getting the change through by implied acceptance from ACL. ACL's contract in their eyes still with CCFC Ltd. It would also be great PR with the fans to be able to say "we put the fans first and made no charge". Of course it makes it difficult for CCFC in that the packages/posh seats/boardroom they have sold include F&B's. My guess if any invoicing is done it will be to CCFC not CCFC ltd or CCFC H..... but personally i would only accept cash up front or over a till operated by IEC, I wouldnt accept that there is a right to provide food etc on ACL's side of things. The contract for package tickets are with CCFC Ltd I would guess
TF wont like the above but he is in a cleft stick really. If he rejects it he can spin it as ACL's fault (a) a lot of fans wont now believe him (b) he has to prove ACL unreasonable - so does the above sound unreasonable to you? (c) depending on what results from today he could find both CCFC Ltd and CCFCH in administration and deep problems with the League. BUT he cant accept it because it seemingly goes against the plan/gamble he has embarked on, it indicates that CCFC ltd and CCFCH are inextricably linked..... the one thing that SISU need to prove is not the case.
So if in the next couple of days it turns out the game is postponed and the club issue a statement saying it is all ACL's fault you might want to consider the above and ask was it?
Also CCFC Ltd - has it no assets ? Well the administrator says the lease/licence for starters, we seem to believe the League share is there, what about the league prize money from the cup run, have they received the FA cup money yet, the compensation from Huddersfield for MR, the monies due from cardnet etc. If the compensation for MR is due to CCFC LTd does that indicate that up till what 6 weeks ago all players/staff were part of CCFC Ltd ? If thats the case are these actions by TF/SISU just a scheme to prejudice the rights of a creditor and therefore will be unravelled by the court & FL? (members of a class of creditors have to be treated all the same you cant just pick and choose because it suits you)
Not over yet ............ I hope a deal on using the stadium can be done simply because the fans deserve far better than this, but if it isnt I know where I will think most of the blame will lay.
like I said a few thoughts
Last edited: