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.
Your Choice, Take 15 Point Deduction or ACL Sign CVA? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter SkyBlueDubai
- Start date
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?
ohitsaidwalker king power
Well-Known Member
i before a except after g... like due diligence before purchase? Withholding rent is punishable by law..no?
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.
Covkid1968#
Well-Known Member
Accept it and then hold the the peice of paper aloft and declare peace in our time!!!!!......Sorry, I do not believe a word that SISU spout about signing it and negotiation starting. We need to deal with this now, not when they have an even stronger grip on the club
cloughie
Well-Known Member
Yet again we see another of your transparent broadcasts You pretend to be objective.
So sisu want a thorough and deep-rooted investigation you suggest
You really do become laughable
swanageskyblue
New Member
Reject the CVA. There is a bigger picture in which pressure is coming to bear on SISU from different directions. By forcing the continuation of administration, that pressure increases.
The greater the resistance to SISU's plans, the greater the scrutiny that will be focused on them. I live in the hope that - at some point - they will reach breaking point and will be exposed as the shambolic, devious, cheating shysters that I feel they are!
Nor should we take Appleton's words about the consequence of rejecting the CVA being liquidation of Ltd as gospel - his duty, surely, is to continue seeking acceptable solutions, so he should be re-visiting other offers and/or entering into further negotiations between parties.
The greater the resistance to SISU's plans, the greater the scrutiny that will be focused on them. I live in the hope that - at some point - they will reach breaking point and will be exposed as the shambolic, devious, cheating shysters that I feel they are!
Nor should we take Appleton's words about the consequence of rejecting the CVA being liquidation of Ltd as gospel - his duty, surely, is to continue seeking acceptable solutions, so he should be re-visiting other offers and/or entering into further negotiations between parties.
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.
cloughie
Well-Known Member
There maybe 1 or 2 unfortunate/deliberate oversights from before 2007 or even going right back to 1995
There may be one or two unfortunate/deliberate oversights from more recent,put there to be taken advantage of at a later date.
Who are we or anybody to guess?
Someone somewhere must know the truth,the whole truth and nothing but the truth....
There may be one or two unfortunate/deliberate oversights from more recent,put there to be taken advantage of at a later date.
Who are we or anybody to guess?
Someone somewhere must know the truth,the whole truth and nothing but the truth....
Grendel
Well-Known Member
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?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
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?
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?
I believe so .... but then ACL have a time limit on what they can and can't do (28 days). Once it's agreed, then Otium are essentially going to move forward as owners with the blessing of the FL .... if ACL change their mind, I can't see the FL reversing their ground decision, voiding results etc., and I'd imagine any legal challenges would have a lower chance of success. Not really worth it for a chance of a chat!
Personally I'd reject it and let the FL deal with all the fallout if they still give Otium the golden share and let them play at Sixfield - but it's not my money at stake.
Flying Fokker
Well-Known Member
You mean it could be Gaol?
TasmanSeaSkyBlue
Member
Seems from reading these posts that no matter what happens - sign or don't sign - the clubs shafted. The accounts need to be forensically examined by the F.A. who appear to be totally incompetent & only interested in getting a good free seat for international matches. The administrator has ties to SiSu, everywhere you look, it's a vicious circle with the fans getting royally shafted & even they are on different sides with different points of view. No agreement anywhere. Will Boothroyd help out on game days at Sixfields?
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?
Brendan Guilfoyle on CWR just a minute ago. Seemed to swing from saying ACL might reject CVA then towards saying they might accept but insist on 'some form of liquidation.' Not sure that would work (if I could understand that line of thought).
To stress, he did keep saying the all important FL share is still in LTD. Sisu need to have the CVA agreed to get the share. To be honest I don't think, with all respect, he had any idea which way they would vote. Thought they might want to avoid the club being saddled with a 15 point deduction. To be honest, that is a minor consideration in our long term future.
To stress, he did keep saying the all important FL share is still in LTD. Sisu need to have the CVA agreed to get the share. To be honest I don't think, with all respect, he had any idea which way they would vote. Thought they might want to avoid the club being saddled with a 15 point deduction. To be honest, that is a minor consideration in our long term future.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Do you mean owed a lot of money and not getting most of it back as they are getting ripped off.....and that is if they accept.
I thought the idea of administration and liquidation was if there was no way of paying your debts. But SISU have taken a single company and made separate ones within the same company. They are putting one of these into admin whilst planning a stadium build and moving which will lose them money whilst not being able to pay their debts. Does this not sound dodgy? And this is without all of the dodgy moving of assets from the section being put into admin and into new sections they have made. Shouldn't they have moved the assets and debts at the same time?
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
At the End of the day Sisu just threaten everyone say things out of turn and the lawyers are at your door don,t sign and we give you fuck all.
Scare mongering is how they work Just hope the City Council have the bollocks to stand up to them as all others have not....
No Don't sign anything,
:blue:
Scare mongering is how they work Just hope the City Council have the bollocks to stand up to them as all others have not....
No Don't sign anything,
:blue:
I would actually, If you lend your friend £100 and he says he can't afford to ever pay you back even though you see him continue to spend money, but he says don't worry Buddy, I'll buy you a couple of pints and then we are even. Do you take the pints or not? I wouldn't.
On the face of it ACL are getting £25 not a couple of pints but I don't think that is really true. They are getting 25% of what Appleton thinks they are owed, they arn't getting 25% of what anyone else would think is fair and ACL have probably spent most of the £25 trying to get their money back.
However though ACL by law have to do what is best for the company and share holders so that might mean they have to take the money, however I'm not convinced it's as simple as that because you can make a strong arguement that there is more chance of ccfc playing at the ricoh and more chance of the lease remaining by rejecting the cva, that would be financially beneficial and thus the choice they should take. It's a gamble though, do you take the safe £600k which may well leave you struggling in the future, or take nothing and gamble that it will actually secure your future?
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.
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
I'll be surprised if ACL sign it.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
It's easy
SISU want ACL to sign the CVA
I don't like SISU
Don't sign
SISU want ACL to sign the CVA
I don't like SISU
Don't sign
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
The problem is that SISU can hold & use NON EXISTENT debts on the balance sheets of the CCFC group of companies, which allows them to retain control even though they are running the club into the ground.
A great percentage of the debt is written off, written off debt should be struck from balance sheets after a few years.
It is a legalised form of corruption practiced by accountants & should be prohibited in law.
A great percentage of the debt is written off, written off debt should be struck from balance sheets after a few years.
It is a legalised form of corruption practiced by accountants & should be prohibited in law.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
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?
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.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
But equally, those same revenues drop even if they agree. Or are you saying that if they sign, SISU will stay? That's not on the cards.
You can't claim that's in any way shaping their thinking
Not quite.
It's all about the lease. Buying it out or let sit with a company being liquidated.
If bought out it must be with some compensation - thus the 1 year rent on top of the outstanding £630K.
You could argue that the compensation should be higher - three years or more, but in ANY case, I think sisu have made a total offer that will see ACL get their £630k minus a part of the administration fee. The offer would not be effected by the compensation, it would remain the same no matter what. They don't want to give ACL more.
So forget the 50 pence in the pound or whatever - sisu decided they would only pay ACL what was owed before the administration (minus a part of the administration cost).
You can call it 'smart' or 'shrewed' or 'immoral' or 'unfair', but it's not illegal. It's their choice.
While if they do sign it I think this will be the reason I don't really agree with you. They wouldn't have failed in their duty as long as they were doing what they thought was right, As long as they can argue why they made the decision and why they thought it was right for the success of the arena surely that is fine. Companies are constantly taking decisions that are gambles but they feel that the gamble is worth it.
You can also make just as strong an argument for us being more likely to play at the ricoh by rejecting the cva as you could for signing it. If your other paragraph was correct there isn't a 600k reason to sign the cva and that makes it much easier not too.
I think they will stay.
1) While they build their own stadium if offered terms that are better overall to what they have to pay at Northampton.
2) Permanently if they are offered all the shares in ACL at terms that will overall make a better business case for the club compared with building their own stadium.
1) While they build their own stadium if offered terms that are better overall to what they have to pay at Northampton.
2) Permanently if they are offered all the shares in ACL at terms that will overall make a better business case for the club compared with building their own stadium.
