Nobody is squeaky clean ... not even you, or me for that matter.
Question is if they are stupid and have conducted illegal actions punishable by law.
With all the lawyers they emply I think the odds are agianst.
Are you telling me you think SISU have nothing to answer for & they're squeaky clean?
And here we come to the crux of the matter,
Appleton said his job is on going whilst the cva remains unsigned and when signed he is no longer obliged to carry on his so called searching into the truth of 11/12
Nobody is squeaky clean ... not even you, or me for that matter.
Question is if they are stupid and have conducted illegal actions punishable by law.
With all the lawyers they emply I think the odds are agianst.
Not how I read it:
“Where Mr Ainsworth seems most confused is between the sale of the business and assets and my ongoing investigation. The investigation is a totally separate issue and could still take some time to finalise.
“However, I’m happy to report that our thorough and deep-rooted investigation – as demanded by the main creditors, which would, in any event, be carried out – is now making excellent progress.
No link between the investigation and the CVA.
So again - no matter what ACL decide, the sale will go through.
Edit - note these words: as demanded by the main creditors.
Now who would that be?
Not only their shareholders, but they also have a duty to the other stakeholders - like Compass, the casino and all the emplyees who very much depend on the customers the club brings around.
Refusing the CVA will make certain that the club goes to sixfields while signing the CVA will open the door for negotiation.
Refusing the CVA will allow for investigations of directors actions, but it will mainly be those preceding Fisher - i.e. fans hero Gary Hoffman!
I fail to see how any investigation will lead to sisu going away or the club being sold to another party.
Not how I read it:
“Where Mr Ainsworth seems most confused is between the sale of the business and assets and my ongoing investigation. The investigation is a totally separate issue and could still take some time to finalise.
“However, I’m happy to report that our thorough and deep-rooted investigation – as demanded by the main creditors, which would, in any event, be carried out – is now making excellent progress.
No link between the investigation and the CVA.
So again - no matter what ACL decide, the sale will go through.
Edit - note these words: as demanded by the main creditors.
Now who would that be?
I want to see it all the way back to 1995. That's where all this mess stems from.
Knowing what happened before 2007 would be nice, but having that information would do nothing to stop the current destruction of the club.
So let's focus on what should be practicable and reject the CVA, particularly as SISU seem desperate for it to be signed.
I wrote this in another thread but it was clearly the wrong place trying to discuss it with Grendel.
"People are talking like the deal goes through if ACL reject the CVA, I don't see how thats true, Appleton and Fisher have both said ACL get 0.5p in the pound if they reject the CVA, for that to be true there can't be the money coming in from Otium and so it follows that means Otium have then not purchased anything. I don't see how it can be true that the deal goes through and ACL get 0.5p.
The 28 day cooling off period is if the deal goes through, I dont see that there is a 28 day period if the CVA is rejected, surely it's then either liquidation or resale attempt."
Where am I going wrong with that? If the sale goes through whatever ACL decide then they don't get 0.5p in the pound. I see no way that could happen.
So can ACL sign it and then have the FL mediated meeting with Joy.
Then if it becomes apparent Joy has no intention of doing a deal and only agreed to a meeting to get the CVA signed. Can ACL change their minds re the CVA?
Discuss all you like but I would suggest you learn the rules of football administration.
Your assumptions are wide of the mark. CVA rejected does not mean change of ownership. Most in here accept this, what don't you understand?
It's all well & good saying reject it. How many of you would take the moral high ground if you were owed a lot of money??
It's all well & good saying reject it. How many of you would take the moral high ground if you were owed a lot of money??
Again you aren't reading what I wrote. Both Appleton and fisher say ACL will and should sign the CVA because if they don't they will only get 0.5p in the pound. For ACL to get only 0.5p that means there has to be significantly less money in limited to give them than if they are getting 25.9p, I accept that perhaps not signing the cva would mean the loss of the compensation for breaking the lease but that doesn't even come close to explaining the 50 times drop in the amount they receive. So if there is less money in limited it follows that means the money that should have come from Otium hasn't come in and if that money hasn't come in then surely Otium have no longer purchased what they had done.
Now I accept I don't fully understand what happens with administration and CVA's (though you clearly also don't) and that is why I asked where I'm going wrong with my logic. There has to be a good reason for the drop from 25.9p to 0.5p and I only see that one option of Otiums purchase not going through.
I considered that perhaps it was something to do with the secured creditor getting all their money first but that doesn't work either because then ACL would get nothing not 0.5p and hasn't the secured creditor ARVO already written off their debt?
Then there is the duty of the ACL directors. If they gamble and refuse the CVA and the golden share still goes to Otium and they refuse to play again at the Ricoh as a consequence of the refused CVA, then the directors have failed their duty to maximize the success of the Arena and its stakeholders.
That's a very myopic and narrow interpretation of ACL's directors discharging their responsibility, dear chap. What about if they don't sign it and it brings about a change of stance - combined with other pressures - from the Football League?
I understand your logic.
And while I am no CVA or insolvency expert too and mostly go with what is said by the various stakeholders and what I can find on the internet I can see only come up with this:
Signing the CVA will value the remaining of the lease at the compensation offered - £1.2m, while refusing the lease it will be valued at the total length of the lease - 40 something years or $45m.
Does that add up?
Refusal of the CVA will mean liquidation of Limited as there really are no assets in Limited ... the Golden Share has no real value, has it? ... so a liquidator will have nothing much to sell.
The liquidator would also have to look after the main creditors ... Otium, ccfc Holdings and SBS&L. This mean a potential buyer would have to at least match Otium's bid, and still there's no guarantee the bidder will be granted the Golden Share ... he may be able to play a the Ricoh, but he does not have any players, no manager, no training facilities etc. and the FL may decide (at their discretion) a new owner is unlikely to fullfil the fixtures.
Does that make sense?
Then there is the duty of the ACL directors. If they gamble and refuse the CVA and the golden share still goes to Otium and they refuse to play again at the Ricoh as a consequence of the refused CVA, then the directors have failed their duty to maximize the success of the Arena and its stakeholders.
Don't expect any pressures from the FL - it's not their job. They have been asked to facillitate a meeting - not be a mediator or arbitrator. They would only serve the tea and coffee.
In any case, the directors duty is not something to take lightly, and making the wrong decision is often only revealed when the revenue and/or profit suddenly takes a dive that needs explaining to the shareholders and stakeholders.
If ACL reject the CVA, Otium still get the Golden Share and refuse to negotiate a new deal for staying at the Ricoh, then ACL's turnover and profit will make a sudden drop. Other stakeholders will feel the impact too - Compass and the casino will suffer also and quite a few employees from all the businesses at the Ricoh will likely become redundant. That will raise questions if the ACL directors fulfilled their duties.
Wow if your first paragraph is correct that would make me very unhappy with Appleton, that would be misleading on an absolutely unbelievable scale. You should sign the CVA because if you don't you'll only get 0.5p in the pound. Oh sorry did I forget to tell you thats the exact same amount of money. I'm not completely sure it adds up but it's close, I get that to be more like 1p in the pound but we don't have the figures so you could be right.
Then there is the duty of the ACL directors. If they gamble and refuse the CVA and the golden share still goes to Otium and they refuse to play again at the Ricoh as a consequence of the refused CVA, then the directors have failed their duty to maximize the success of the Arena and its stakeholders.
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?