Trust Release FL Meeting Notes (1 Viewer)

I think the PA letter needs some forensic interpretation - osb maybe?

My interpretation of it is " Fk off plebs, who are you to question me".

My question to the SBT is, did you take a legal adviser with you to the meeting with the FL? Did you ask for a legal adviser to look at the letter sent to PA? If not, why not?

I read these earlier. The point that interested me was in the FL notes the point about PA ignoring them with regards to the fit & proper test and selling it to Otium before the CVA. Further evidence that the FL have no power what so ever!

It is a bit baffling how the FL couldn't stop anything. They sound like a supply teacher.

Nick said:

It is a bit baffling how the FL couldn't stop anything. They sound like a supply teacher.

Click to expand...

Supply teachers don't get paid that much though do they? Ridiculous

Nick said:

It is a bit baffling how the FL couldn't stop anything. They sound like a supply teacher.

Click to expand...

What a slur on supply teachers, even the very worst are better than the FL

seems we were stitched up in the administration can't say by whom as it could lead to litigation imho

interesting that PA only acknowledges the SBT's previous letter's and this time he has given a full reply/deffence of his position.

is he feeling the heat? :thinking about:

WiganSkyBlue said:

I think the PA letter needs some forensic interpretation - osb maybe?

My interpretation of it is " Fk off plebs, who are you to question me".

My question to the SBT is, did you take a legal adviser with you to the meeting with the FL? Did you ask for a legal adviser to look at the letter sent to PA? If not, why not?

Click to expand...

If I'm honest, the chances of this happening are slim. But I don't know whether they did or didnt

Didn't get beyond the first FL response. It is hard to not blame them, it happened in one previous case...but they just carried on regardless rather than changing/tightening their rules as a matter of urgency.
I work in a self regulatory industry where rules are regularly tightened, companies receive pretty hefty penalties too for breaking the rules. The FL simply adopt this fall-back position of fulfilling fixtures as the priority. Why? They seem ever-so willing to accept any shoddy excuse for breaking the said rules without any come-back.

They have been warned by the politicians...they just seem incapable or unwilling to get their house in order.

For obvious reasons I am going to keep comments factual plus a few questions

Under the Insolvency Act 1986 s235 and s236 the Liquidator or Administrator has the power to demand information/explanation from any officer of the company that has served at any time. And can apply to Court to enforce that right. For this purpose auditors are classed as officers of the company. Shouldnt the Company have retained all this information though? (there may be valid reasons why it has not)

The auditors of CCFC Ltd and CCFC H must have had to have full details of the 1995 Hive down and full access to records since that time in order to complete their annual appointment. Were the auditors in 1995 involved in advising on the hive down?

Changes in constitution, Articles , Group affecting a member club etc have to be approved by FA/FL/PL in writing

The hive down happened in 1995. ACL was formed in 2002 and the Alan Higgs Centre Trust was formed in 2003. Why did/would ACL etc have information relating to 1995?

It is usual for the Club/Company Secretary to sign and present transfers to the League - It may however not always be the case.

Directors minutes, share transfers, mortgage charges, articles & memorandum, shareholder meeting minutes all form part of statutory records and many of these documents are registered at Company House or FA/FL/PL. They should certainly be retained with the Company statutory records

After sale to Otium there was apparently £1.5m plus a rates refund of rates £440k in the pot to pay administrator/liquidator then the creditors. Would ARVO be liable for any short fall on administration fees because they applied for the administration ?

only thought i would offer is ................. I think the Trust letter is asking for clarification and evidence that rebutts the documents that have been made public, nothing more or less

Think it has raised more questions