Where we're at (1 Viewer)

A good article. This guy has written well before.

A well written piece.

That was a good summary up to the point he started explaining the views of the BBC and other summations and he got into that trap of assumption again.

I won't pick it apart but the Leeds case was very, very different. The Southampton case similar but not the same scenario.

Also one thing to consider. If I had two companies I had ownership of or even 10, 12 or like Richard Branson in excess of 100 companies they would not be inextricably linked to each other so as to cause harm to one another. They may share a commonly known recognition as Virgin do on all it's companies but they can't be held liable for each other. That's the law as it stands.

The only difficulty I see is if CCFC Ltd held the lease to use the facilities within certain 'parameters' at the Ricoh then allow the Holding company to use it then that's their right if it falls in those parameters or clauses of the lease agreement.
If I owned a shop lease but told my neighbour they could use it for their flower show that's my right. So long as it falls within the scope of the terms of the lease. Just because my neighbour uses it for their flower show does not mean my company is connected even though I normally sell flowers out of that shop.

These are the sorts of things the lawyers will be pouring over. SISU think they are right. ACL thought they were right and are hoping they still are while SISU believe they are.
If the FL are not careful because they have already said to both ACL and CCFC Holdings Ltd they each have the golden share (and it can't be both - unless you totally think SISU's lawyers have lost the plot and and have acted like they did for no reason) they could be finding themselves in court.

I'm just saying...when you get to this level of legal argument you can't be certain of anything from either side.

The analogy isn't quite right though is it? It's more like you owning the lease to a shop and then you not your neighbour running the business from it. In that case it may be said that they are link because the one exists to facilitate the business of the other. The same applies to the Virgin example, common branding etc doesn't mean they are linked if they are carrying out different business but if one existed solely to facilitate another they may.

...but you're absolutely right these are the fine points of law and the situation can revolve around a single word somewhere on a piece of paper. The example you've given with your interpretation and the alternative I've offered apply demonstrates how you can have two parties look at the same situation, for them to have different views and for both to be absolutely sure that they are right. That's exactly why it takes a judge to resolve such things and why it can be so unclear and take so long with all documentation, legal arguments ect to be examined.

Simply means non of us can say anything for certain until there,s a judgement and even then it's usual open to appeal.

In terms of your example the argument going on at the moment is "is the you who owes the lease legally different to the you running the business or are they really one in the same?", it's enough to give you an identify crisis which in effect is exactly what this is!

AFAIK there is quite a significant difference from Leeds and Portsmouth. That is that the club only owes money to two organisations, SISU and ACL. It doesn't owe any money to the tax authorities or to companies like Harry Shaw coaches, as is usually the case. In fact, the amount owed to ACL is very small by these standards.

So it all looks like a commercial dispute gone bad and not like a classic administration and my guess is that the Football League will hold back for a bit to see if the two parties can come to an agreement.