SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
it is not always clever to report confidentual talks in the newspapers.
Unless it's a meeting between Joy and AL in which Joy requests it to be confidential but it's leaked to the papers? I get it. Hypocrisy.
it is not always clever to report confidentual talks in the newspapers.
The CCFC lease didn't revert back to ACL until it was disclaimed by the liquidator. Administration is an insolvency event yes but the courts wont enact any related reclaim clause if there is a possibility of selling the company. Once there is no such possibility or reason to keep the company then a liquidator gets appointed and the lease disclaimed. At that point there is no lease and the freeholder is open to offers for a new leaseIf the council issued the original lease to ACL without a clause that any insolvency event reverts ownership back to the council some very serious questions need to be asked about their incompetence.
Same shit, different bucket you mean.Unless it's a meeting between Joy and AL in which Joy requests it to be confidential but it's leaked to the papers? I get it. Hypocrisy.
Why has there never been serious questions why a 50 year lease was originally granted? Which effectively hamstrung both ACL and the football club.
The CCFC lease didn't revert back to ACL until it was disclaimed by the liquidator. Administration is an insolvency event yes but the courts wont enact any related reclaim clause if there is a possibility of selling the company. Once there is no such possibility or reason to keep the company then a liquidator gets appointed and the lease disclaimed. At that point there is no lease and the freeholder is open to offers for a new lease
Good point. The best time would have been at the take over by SISU. They could have 250 year lease or your tenant dies ( figuratively speaking ).
Good point. The best time would have been at the take over by SISU. They could have 250 year lease or your tenant dies ( figuratively speaking ).
The CCFC lease didn't revert back to ACL until it was disclaimed by the liquidator. Administration is an insolvency event yes but the courts wont enact any related reclaim clause if there is a possibility of selling the company. Once there is no such possibility or reason to keep the company then a liquidator gets appointed and the lease disclaimed. At that point there is no lease and the freeholder is open to offers for a new lease
So as I have mentioned before there would have been an open bidding process for ACL in administration. The only people to lose anything being YB. I acknowledge the charity losing their share. Can someone tell me why this was such a devastating option? Other than SISU might have bought it. It seems to be the only logical explanation. I for one don't care if a bank loses a few quid.
I haven't seen the actual lease so I don't know what was in it but as we are repeatedly told it is an asset of the city I would expect a clause to force forfeiture should any insolvency event occur.
I would guess plenty of other parties would have been interested in acquiring
And this is exactly the reason the way CCC conducted the sale was wrong. To maximise return for the taxpayer, and the charity, it should have been properly marketed by a specialist agency.
According to the CT the deadline for an appeal on the JR1 is 4pm today
but its not a Thursday!! how dare they mess with the order of things :jawdrop:Would be too quiet without an Exclusive today surely?
but its not a Thursday!! how dare they mess with the order of things :jawdrop:
sadly it is not unexpected is it
This quite literally will go on for years.
Hardly engenders a positive relationship with CCC when the club need it to be. Yes I know you could say CCC should make a positive move towards the club but very hard to see that happening when the clubs owners are so set on court action at every turn
Both as stubborn as each other but the SISU insistence on taking everything to court has got to the level beyond ridiculous now
They can't think they're going to just pressure the council out so why keep going?
Unless they think they can win it what do they stand to gain?
Why just give away your money
This high legal bills could be spent on the team in a piss poor league.
Wonder if they are actually spending much. If they have an in-house legal team or counsel on retainer it might not be costing them all that much.
Personally think there's zero chance that the playing budget would increase without legal action.
I doubt that they're on a no win no fee deal. Can't imagine anyone would take that risk. Didn't someone say before that the legal action was being bankrolled by Sisu and not the Club?
Maybe that's the problem if it was funded by the club it was Would be easier to justify to stop.
No way is this cheap legal action. No such thing and sisu are paying ccc costs as well so it's a double cost. Why? It's beyond me
I would guess that the costs are funded by investment funds. In truth this would be a tiny tiny percentage of the total portfolio - its like someone buying a lottery ticket and hoping to win millions but better (arguably) in that Sisu will say they have experience in this. Think about it - if you are an investment manager in a Billion pound fund and were approached to put 0.001% in for an opportunity to quadruple the investment would you?
All speculation but I suspect these actions cost the actual owners of Sisu and the club nothing
All speculation but I suspect these actions cost the actual owners of Sisu and the club nothing