Fridays outcome? (7 Viewers)

[SkyBlueSwiss]

Never said the quantum of the rent to be unlawful i said they would seek to prove the contract was unlawful when it was signed....... i will leave you to figure out the implications of that in respect of what has been paid, who would be liable to repay, and the effect on that company, but i have explained them before. SISU need to break the current lease.

The balance sheet test has been a standard test indicating insolvency but is not sufficient on its own. Suggest you google tests of insolvency. CCFC do not have a rent debtor they have a creditor and on the basis that SISU have top up funds monthly how are CCFC putting anything aside? It seems that ACL are prepared to call a halt to the pain and accept no income at all and no recovery of back rent...... administration is potentially one step from liquidation

Again I suggest you use google for the duties of directors. Not interested in Man City to be honest but yes they are exposed to the owner wanting his money back. So long as SISU directors have pumped their clients money in on the instructions of those clients having made the clients fully aware of all the circumstances then i don't see that you have a point

@OSB:
How much "Discovery" is/could be involved in this procedure?
Can the judge demand financial records of CCFC and other group companies, could he break the disclosure agreements that have shrouded so much of our past financial dealings in a cloud of darkness?
How far can the judge go fo purposes of Discovery, if at all?

Thanks

 

---

[oldskyblue58]

My understanding is that the judge will require proof of CCFC's financial state now, assets available, all liabilities, timing of payments to be made, sources of immediate finance etc. He can not make an assessment if he doesn't know CCFC's liabilities, how and when those liabilities will be paid. He will need to know any liabilities are valid and whether there is ownership of assets. If monies are to be put in then he may well need proof of funds. He can not simply go on verbal assurances

The action is against CCFC so information is limited to that company. However Friday is a preliminary meeting at a guess, either side might ask for more time to provide information or widen the assessment to say include CCFCH. This is not a far reaching enquiry into the financial history it is a judgement as to whether CCFC is solvent or not now

 

[Ashdown1]

SISU will ensure CCFC is solvent or insolvent according to their strategy of the moment, its what happens when you are part of a lot of companies, things can be switched around in a jiffy to suit !

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

The cost of staging the British Speedway GP is huge,with hundreds of tons of shale having to be shipped in,and it takes nearly a whole week to prepare the track,and I believe they have about 24 hours after the meeting to put it all back including the pitch which comes in pallet forms.The closed roof guarantees the meeting will go ahead,something that is essential,therefore the Ricoh would be a non starter.
The Millenium Stadium because of its closed roof is much more of an attractive venue then the Ricoh.

When was the last time they closed the roof at Brandon Speedway then?
The Millenium Stadium has hosted quite a few World and British Speedway events, along with other types of Moto GP events...and guess what?....They've never once failed to convert back to the Palletised grass for Rugby/Football tournaments:wave:

 

[Spencer]

I don't profess to be an expert in insolvency law but there are a lot of statements made in here that I don't believe to be correct.

Firstly, why would SISU bring an action to demonstrate the level of rent is unlawful? At the moment they are paying nothing - undoubtedly a court would rule it should be something so SISU have no interest in litigating. The longer this goes on the fatter SISU get, off the unpaid rent, and the more pain ACL feel.

Since when has proving assets exceed liabilities been a test of insolvency? A test of administration will be an ability to pay. I imagine ccfc have been setting aside the rent as a debtor so it should be available. Unless they are setting aside a lower provision but they will be including something for back rent in their calculations.

A duty to protect the rights of their company is so wide in scope to be almost meaningless. I could argue the man city directors aren't acting in the best interests of the club by overexposing the club - but that's just a matter of opinion. Equally, surely if that is a test SISU directors have failed in their duty to SISU by pumping cash into ccfc.

On what grounds do you consider SISU could argue the rent to be unlawful? This is civil law - parties can agree what they like (even the parameters of the judges discretion) subject to certain safeguards put in place by Acts of parliament/case law. If it was unlawful I am sure SISU would have moved to have it set aside by now. As it is it will be for ACL to seek to enforce the agreement.

The point I was making about directors responsibilities, whilst attempting to be polite, was that your observation was, somewhat, irrelevant.

 

[grego_gee]

On what grounds do you consider SISU could argue the rent to be unlawful? This is civil law - parties can agree what they like (even the parameters of the judges discretion) subject to certain safeguards put in place by Acts of parliament/case law. If it was unlawful I am sure SISU would have moved to have it set aside by now. As it is it will be for ACL to seek to enforce the agreement.

The point I was making about directors responsibilities, whilst attempting to be polite, was that your observation was, somewhat, irrelevant.

I suggest you try harder to be polite, you are not quite getting there yet!
Never-the-less your first point is an interesting one and I was thinking of politely asking OSB's opinion on this too. Personally I think the rent level is above what could be justified but I'm not sure how it could be viewed as unlawful. And perhaps "unlawful" is the wrong term maybe "unenforceable" was more the term OSB was looking for?



imp:

 

[Paxman II]

Both OSB and Spencer are getting at key issues here tbf.

I've been in a few court rooms myself over the last 30 years in business and nothing is certain when in front of a judge.

Both sides will think they are right. Both sides will make valid points and provide evidence.

The judge will make the ruling and that is unlikely to come quickly.

Both these sides have reached an impasse and that's why they are in the court room next week. Frankly they have both acted as bad as each other for a number of reasons that I won't explain here now but strangely it can be resolved at the stroke of a pen on a chequebook if so desired.

I'm begining to wonder just how much bad feeling, ego and feeling sorry for themselves is clouding the vision of both sides to think straight anymore. :facepalm:

 

[Spencer]

Both OSB and Spencer are getting at key issues here tbf.

I've been in a few court rooms myself over the last 30 years in business and nothing is certain when in front of a judge.

Both sides will think they are right. Both sides will make valid points and provide evidence.

The judge will make the ruling and that is unlikely to come quickly.

Both these sides have reached an impasse and that's why they are in the court room next week. Frankly they have both acted as bad as each other for a number of reasons that I won't explain here now but strangely it can be resolved at the stroke of a pen on a chequebook if so desired.

I'm begining to wonder just how much bad feeling, ego and feeling sorry for themselves is clouding the vision of both sides to think straight anymore. :facepalm:

Agreed.

The only thing that is certain in a courtroom is that the lawyers are getting richer, whilst the parties are getting poorer!

It's also worthwhile making the point that an average barrister earns £1k a day. Makes you think if they could compromise we could get a decent player for that.

 

[grego_gee]

tbh
I think the judge is likely to throw them out with a flea in their ears!....
CCFC are not likely to be insolvent with SISU behind them, unless they choose to be!

The judge may refer to the recent questions in parliament where the Secretary of State for Sport effectively said "don't bring it to me".
The judge might say,
"This is a rent dispute! not an administration issue at all! Don't bring it to me either!"

imp:

 

[Paxman II]

I just think that even IF SISU lose next Friday and a judgement is passed down (I find unlikely) they will have what is it 4 weeks to appeal that? Then another hearing date.
All this simply means ACL's attempts at getting admin and a 10 point hit now so not to hurt the club is a red hearing. makes me wonder if they can't see that in the first place what the hell are they doing?

I don't condone SISU's actions to date but ACL are not exactly doing much better.

 

[SkyBlueBlood]

My prediction is no result on Friday.

If you look at all the other clubs involved in insolvency cases they are normally given a stay of execution, so with SISU's ability for avoiding the truth very likely there legal teams will win a delay for one reason or another.

Hopefully that will mean that we will get to the end of the season before this is sorted giving us a chance at going for the play offs.

 

[blueflint]

You'd do well to find a more conniving, underhand, selfish and counter-productive owner! The ultimate waste product of the capitalist system-scavengers.

not my decision as to who owns us just want the best for the club and that isn't SISU

 

[theferret]

When was the last time they closed the roof at Brandon Speedway then?
The Millenium Stadium has hosted quite a few World and British Speedway events, along with other types of Moto GP events...and guess what?....They've never once failed to convert back to the Palletised grass for Rugby/Football tournaments:wave:

I'm not sure what your point is?

It was mentioned earlier that ACL could compensate for the loss of the football club by simply staging more concerts, and I pointed out that even class A venues like Wembley and the Millenium Stadium stage only 2 or 3 concerts a year, because there simply aren't many acts out there doing stadium tours.

You seemed to take it as an attack on the Millennium Stadium which is odd. Of course it stages other events, but as others have said it is more suited to them because of the retractable roof.

You have missed the point that was raised about the Speedway GP - the cost to convert the venue is huge but this is justifiable because the event is guaranteed to go ahead. With an open roof you could not guarantee fine weather, so the point about Brandon (which is a permanent Speedway venue) is a mute one, because it is the cost of converting a non-speedway venue which is the issue and why the MS is unique in that sense.

The point stands, there aren't an awful lot more main stadium events the Ricoh could attract if the club were evicted.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

My prediction is no result on Friday.

If you look at all the other clubs involved in insolvency cases they are normally given a stay of execution, so with SISU's ability for avoiding the truth very likely there legal teams will win a delay for one reason or another.

Hopefully that will mean that we will get to the end of the season before this is sorted giving us a chance at going for the play offs.

So if we manage to get to play offs and even get promotion, do you seriously think we can compete with the team we've got now, and overcome a 15+ points deficit?
The only way forward in that respect is to take the 10 points hit this season.

 

[Flying Fokker]

Maybe if we come out of admin quickly..

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

I'm not sure what your point is?

It was mentioned earlier that ACL could compensate for the loss of the football club by simply staging more concerts, and I pointed out that even class A venues like Wembley and the Millenium Stadium stage only 2 or 3 concerts a year, because there simply aren't many acts out there doing stadium tours.

You seemed to take it as an attack on the Millennium Stadium which is odd. Of course it stages other events, but as others have said it is more suited to them because of the retractable roof.

You have missed the point that was raised about the Speedway GP - the cost to convert the venue is huge but this is justifiable because the event is guaranteed to go ahead. With an open roof you could not guarantee fine weather, so the point about Brandon (which is a permanent Speedway venue) is a mute one, because it is the cost of converting a non-speedway venue which is the issue and why the MS is unique in that sense.

The point stands, there aren't an awful lot more main stadium events the Ricoh could attract if the club were evicted.

Of course I'm not taking it as an attack on the Millenium Stadium. I'm merely pointing out that they hold lots of world class motor sport events without having to close the roof.
Why should this make the Millenium Stadium unique...A bit of Business nous and the Ricoh could do the same. I went to the Millenium last year for the Monster Truck extravaganza......It pissed down! but the roof stayed open. and 30k people absolutely loved it!....

Saturday 16th July 2011, 18:28
The FIM British Speedway Grand Prix is set to return to Cardiff’s Millennium Stadium in 2012 after a new five-year deal was agreed with both the stadium and the Welsh Government.
Next year’s spectacular is set to take place on Saturday, August 25 2012 and early-bird tickets are now on sale with savings of up to 15% for those who take advantage of the offer before August 31, 2011.
It will be the twelfth British SGP to be hosted at the Millennium Stadium, with this year’s flagship World Championship event attracting in excess of 43,000 fans – putting it right up there with the biggest on the British motorsport calendar.






Wouldn't SISU like to get a grip on that then???

 

[Big_Ben]

That would put you in a minority of one then.

Make that two (at least)

 

[grego_gee]

I just think that even IF SISU lose next Friday and a judgement is passed down (I find unlikely) they will have what is it 4 weeks to appeal that? Then another hearing date.
All this simply means ACL's attempts at getting admin and a 10 point hit now so not to hurt the club is a red hearing. makes me wonder if they can't see that in the first place what the hell are they doing?

I don't condone SISU's actions to date but ACL are not exactly doing much better.

I am not a SISU sycophant, but I really fail to see why they get so much ill feeling, but perhaps I am getting forgetful? Remind me what have they done wrong apart from the rent issue and maybe being a bit naive in football matters?

Going back to your first point, I think it is very unlikely we will get any ruling at all from next Friday.
But I am virtually certain any ruling coming from the court of administration will have no bearing whatsoever on the rent dispute. It will only look at ability to pay, not the requirement to pay.
I agree with your comments on ACL, they are spurious at best! "Loose cannon" comes to mind! They might even think Administration might solve the rent issue!

What they seem to fail to understand is that any rent agreement is meaningless unless both parties are content with it! Maybe they can press for enforcement of an agreement (even though it has been disputed for the last 12 months at least), but if they do so how can they expect that tenant to go on willingly paying?

imp:

 

[oldskyblue58]

On what grounds do you consider SISU could argue the rent to be unlawful? This is civil law - parties can agree what they like (even the parameters of the judges discretion) subject to certain safeguards put in place by Acts of parliament/case law. If it was unlawful I am sure SISU would have moved to have it set aside by now. As it is it will be for ACL to seek to enforce the agreement.

The point I was making about directors responsibilities, whilst attempting to be polite, was that your observation was, somewhat, irrelevant.

My guess is, and it is only guess, is that they will seek to prove that those who originally signed the lease didn't have the knowledge, authority or power to do so and therefore the club have been wrongly or over charged from the beginning. That is a basis they could dispute that the current arrears are not due, which if accepted means the debt isnt taken in to account when assessing solvency and would lead to a large claim against ACL for repayment, interest possibly compensation at a later date. That breaks the lease, would probably break ACL too. Is it possible yes is it likely I dont know, but SISU need to do something because otherwise they prove solvency now and are still locked into a contract they say the club cant afford, the debt going up and no prospect of getting the other income sources (ACL simply wont let them have them). The ruling of solvency is in reality a sham if that happens. Otherwise the whole situation makes no sense at all. What other grounds are there to break the lease because it doesnt fail on value no matter how much we think it is expensive. SISU need control of the Ricoh or to move the club away both options require breaking the lease

The comments about directors is there because members of this forum keep saying ACL should act in the best interests of the club. It simply isnt the case. The directors of ACL act in the best interests of ACL - they take in to account the interest of all trading partners but they dont have to if there are good reasons not to, and they will prioritise their duties to best affect ACL. I believe the statement from ACL also refers to looking after the interests of ACL before looking after the club, but we focus understandably on what they said about protecting the club. That means the actions of ACL indeed the actions of SISU should be looked at slightly differently to always looking at it from a Club point of view. Was just explaining that to other members, and that is why i think it is relevant

 

[oldskyblue58]

I suggest you try harder to be polite, you are not quite getting there yet!
Never-the-less your first point is an interesting one and I was thinking of politely asking OSB's opinion on this too. Personally I think the rent level is above what could be justified but I'm not sure how it could be viewed as unlawful. And perhaps "unlawful" is the wrong term maybe "unenforceable" was more the term OSB was looking for?



imp:

Can accept unenforceable gregor_gee but it isnt about how much it is about imo was there a contract in the first place, so in the context of contract law then it breaches that law in sisu's eyes

 

[oldskyblue58]

Agreed.

The only thing that is certain in a courtroom is that the lawyers are getting richer, whilst the parties are getting poorer!

It's also worthwhile making the point that an average barrister earns £1k a day. Makes you think if they could compromise we could get a decent player for that.

can totally agree with that !

 

[Tonylinc]

From my understanding of the situation; ACL have a judgement against CCFC for the rent arrears. This being the case, why not simply send in the bailiffs to enforce the judgement? Why have ACL instead taken this course of action? Am I being too simplistic?

 

[oldskyblue58]

nothing for the bailiffs to collect though Tony it is all charged to ARVO (a sisu backed fund). Options are being exhausted one by one

 

[Tonylinc]

nothing for the bailiffs to collect though Tony it is all charged to ARVO (a sisu backed fund). Options are being exhausted one by one

Are you really telling me that all assets at Sisu HO ie chairs, computers etc. are owned by Avro rather than Sisu themselves? Just think that ACL are taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut that is all.

 

[Flying Fokker]

Not a chance of that happening. There aren't any assets. Baliffs were on site several months ago chasing SISU over other debts and it was realised that there were no assets to recover the debt.

 

[Flying Fokker]

Are you really telling me that all assets at Sisu HO ie chairs, computers etc. are owned by Avro rather than Sisu themselves? Just think that ACL are taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut that is all.

SISU didn't own much. A lot of the goods were leased.

 

[Tonylinc]

Not a chance of that happening. There aren't any assets. Baliffs were on site several months ago chasing SISU over other debts and it was realised that there were no assets to recover the debt.

If that is true (and I have reason to doubt you) then it shows just how slimy this Sisu lot are!

 

[Houdi]

When was the last time they closed the roof at Brandon Speedway then?
The Millenium Stadium has hosted quite a few World and British Speedway events, along with other types of Moto GP events...and guess what?....They've never once failed to convert back to the Palletised grass for Rugby/Football tournaments:wave:

Not to my knowledge have they.They stage the British GP once a year and have done for about 12 years,but that is the only speedway events,ever held there. The British Final is held at Wolverhampton,and World Team Cup events have been held recently at the Norfolk arena.The difference is Brandon is already speedway stadium,with a track already there.In the past at Cardiff,shale has been shipped in from Denmark,at enormous cost.It takes them a whole week,with round the clock work to get the stadium ready for the event,as soon as the meeting is over work starts immediately overnight to put the stadium back to its original state.Without the closed roof,the costs and risks of a rain off,or indeed several rain offs would make it too risky/costly to stage it there.

 

[oldskyblue58]

but the action and dispute is with CCFC......... the assets of SISU office etc are not at risk....... there is no claim ACL can make against SISU because SISU dont owe ACL anything

 

[Tonylinc]

but the action and dispute is with CCFC......... the assets of SISU office etc are not at risk....... there is no claim ACL can make against SISU because SISU dont owe ACL anything

OK point taken. I have made the mistake of thinking that everyone else lives their lives as I do HONESTLY.

 

[Spencer]

but the action and dispute is with CCFC......... the assets of SISU office etc are not at risk....... there is no claim ACL can make against SISU because SISU dont owe ACL anything

Exactly.

The only assets ccfc have are the players - and the bailiffs have realised they won't get anything for them!!

Although, maybe now that horse is off the menu in beef burgers, we could find a buyer for the players!

 

[grego_gee]

Exactly.

The only assets ccfc have are the players - and the bailiffs have realised they won't get anything for them!!

Although, maybe now that horse is off the menu in beef burgers, we could find a buyer for the players!

Thats a bit harsh Spence!
But you made me laugh!

imp:

 

[covcity4life]

Would we get deduction straight away or after we come out of admin...if indeed we do

 

[grego_gee]

My guess is, and it is only guess, is that they will seek to prove that those who originally signed the lease didn't have the knowledge, authority or power to do so and therefore the club have been wrongly or over charged from the beginning. That is a basis they could dispute that the current arrears are not due, which if accepted means the debt isnt taken in to account when assessing solvency and would lead to a large claim against ACL for repayment, interest possibly compensation at a later date. That breaks the lease, would probably break ACL too. Is it possible yes is it likely I dont know, but SISU need to do something because otherwise they prove solvency now and are still locked into a contract they say the club cant afford, the debt going up and no prospect of getting the other income sources (ACL simply wont let them have them). The ruling of solvency is in reality a sham if that happens. Otherwise the whole situation makes no sense at all. What other grounds are there to break the lease because it doesnt fail on value no matter how much we think it is expensive. SISU need control of the Ricoh or to move the club away both options require breaking the lease

The comments about directors is there because members of this forum keep saying ACL should act in the best interests of the club. It simply isnt the case. The directors of ACL act in the best interests of ACL - they take in to account the interest of all trading partners but they dont have to if there are good reasons not to, and they will prioritise their duties to best affect ACL. I believe the statement from ACL also refers to looking after the interests of ACL before looking after the club, but we focus understandably on what they said about protecting the club. That means the actions of ACL indeed the actions of SISU should be looked at slightly differently to always looking at it from a Club point of view. Was just explaining that to other members, and that is why i think it is relevant

Thank ob,
I see wnere you are on this and don't disagree, although the original contractors had authority for themselves at that time, and there could be arguments of acceptance over a period of time by the current owners. Maybe there could be an arguement that CCFC had no real alternative except acceptance over the original agreement.
Can you see any of this being within the remit of the application for administration? Perhaps if they wanted to, SISU could force it to be considered if they wished not to demonstrate that they could pay the full amount? But that would seem too risky and therefore very unlikely to me?

imp:

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

@ Houdi......Please take note of the second part of my response to the ..Ferret.

Of course I'm not taking it as an attack on the Millenium Stadium. I'm merely pointing out that they hold lots of world class motor sport events without having to close the roof.
Why should this make the Millenium Stadium unique...A bit of Business nous and the Ricoh could do the same. I went to the Millenium last year for the Monster Truck extravaganza......It pissed down! but the roof stayed open. and 30k people absolutely loved it!....

Saturday 16th July 2011, 18:28
The FIM British Speedway Grand Prix is set to return to Cardiff’s Millennium Stadium in 2012 after a new five-year deal was agreed with both the stadium and the Welsh Government.
Next year’s spectacular is set to take place on Saturday, August 25 2012 and early-bird tickets are now on sale with savings of up to 15% for those who take advantage of the offer before August 31, 2011.
It will be the twelfth British SGP to be hosted at the Millennium Stadium, with this year’s flagship World Championship event attracting in excess of 43,000 fans – putting it right up there with the biggest on the British motorsport calendar.






Wouldn't SISU like to get a grip on that then???