Les Reid interviewing Greg Clark today (7 Viewers)

[Johnnythespider]

So, all questions get tweeted to reid, Clarke checks his twitter and gets a heads up on what he will be asked and prepares answers. Here's a question for him. Can he do a fit and proper persons test on himself to be in his job, and when he fails it will he kindly do one.

 

---

[Noggin]

No I never said that. I am saying he offered less to all Creditors. So ACL would get more from Otium than Haskell. Do you accept that?

More cash but a broken lease so very very very very much less from Otium than from haskell.

 

[bigfatronssba]

No I never said that. I am saying he offered less to all Creditors. So ACL would get more from Otium than Haskell. Do you accept that?

Yes I accept that based on the known facts that is the case.

Do you accept that Haskell could have offered anything from 1p up to 25p?

 

[Grendel]

More cash but a broken lease so very very very very much less from Otium than from haskell.

Wrong. Haskell does not have a lease.

 

[Grendel]

Yes I accept that based on the known facts that is the case.

Do you accept that Haskell could have offered anything from 1p up to 25p?

Of course I accept that. The original discussion was created by don. My point is that legally the league had to accept otium a bid as that bid paid all creditors more than Haskell and that included ACL.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

So, all questions get tweeted to reid, Clarke checks his twitter and gets a heads up on what he will be asked and prepares answers. Here's a question for him. Can he do a fit and proper persons test on himself to be in his job, and when he fails it will he kindly do one.

Of course I accept that. The original discussion was created by don. My point is that legally the league had to accept otium a bid as that bid paid all creditors more than Haskell and that included ACL.

Far be it for me to quote the bleeding obvious but otium have the same bloody directors as CCfc ltd

 

[Noggin]

Wrong. Haskell does not have a lease.

if haskell had brought ccfc they would have played at the ricoh and acl would have been massively better off than they are now. You know this. If he had brought limited he would have had the lease, no doubt acl would have been willing to offer a better deal than the 1.2mill though, say something really reasonable like 400k.

 

[mark82]

Wrong. Haskell does not have a lease.

But he would have inherited one if he bought CCFC limited.

 

[Grendel]

Far be it for me to quote the bleeding obvious but otium have the same bloody directors as CCfc ltd

Matters not, that is acting within the law

 

[Grendel]

if haskell had brought ccfc they would have played at the ricoh and acl would have been massively better off than they are now. You know this. If he had brought limited he would have had the lease, no doubt acl would have been willing to offer a better deal than the 1.2mill though, say something really reasonable like 400k.

Not the point - it is not the administrators role to assume the future - again the offer was less - the adminstrator could not agree such terms

 

[dongonzalos]

Several reasons -- the administrator has to satisfy creditors and the bid by Otium was the best. What you seem to actually be suggesting is that the Football League should ignore the rules on liquidation and hand over an entitlement to another party on the basis that they would pay a commercial rent that the preferred bidder will not. So say the council said to Otium its £400,000 to you and to Haskell its £150,000 to you. You believe the FL should say over to you Mr Haskell. Actually on this they have made the correct decision. Landlords are not allowed to dictate who owns a football club. In the same way that the SISU bunch have been trying to force ACL out ACL have blatantly tried to get Haskell in as he satisfied their interests. Both sides are lamentable.

No I said the FL did not have to agree the ground share.

They were advised there was no other options and only agreed on this basis to ensure fixtures were to be fulfilled. They said the decision would be based on this and the provisos of the FFP.

Well it became clear there was other options.
It also became clear that under provisos of the FFP that the Ricoh was the better option.

So they had if they had the stomach for the battle the grounds to refuse the ground share.

They now say they didn't in order to ensure Coventry fulfilled their fixtures.

How would refusing a ground share stop coventry fulfilling their fixtures?

If at this point SISU threatened to stop Coventry fulfilling their fixtures.

The FL would have the grounds to refuse at 'their own discretion' to hand over the GS to someone trying to make a decision not in the interests of FFP.
Someone attempting to stop the club from fulfilling its fixtures.

If they refuse to hand over the GS.

Then what happens next......

 

[pugwash]

My point is that legally the league had to accept otium a bid as that bid paid all creditors more than Haskell and that included ACL.

I don't believe this is true. The administrator sold the assets of Ltd to Otium, but this did not include the GS (as it is not an asset that is owned by any club). The FL transferred the share at their own discretion (much like everything else they do it seems).

 

[Grendel]

No I said the FL did not have to agree the ground share.

They were advised there was no other options and only agreed on this basis to ensure fixtures were to be fulfilled. They said the decision would be based on this and the provisos of the FFP.

Well it became clear there was other options.
It also became clear that under provisos of the FFP that the Ricoh was the better option.

So they had if they had the stomach for the battle the grounds to refuse the ground share.

They now say they didn't in order to ensure Coventry fulfilled their fixtures.

How would refusing a ground share stop coventry fulfilling their fixtures?

If at this point SISU threatened to stop Coventry fulfilling their fixtures.

The FL would have the grounds to refuse at 'their own discretion' to hand over the GS to someone trying to make a decision not in the interests of FFP.
Someone attempting to stop the club from fulfilling its fixtures.

If they refuse to hand over the GS.

Then what happens next......

You are not listening - that would be illegal. Say ACL offered the rent at £10 million and then they said no and then offered to a new owner the same deal for 5 pence. The point is they cannot get involved with third party arrangements. They have to accept that the club was homeless. It really is that simple.

 

[chiefdave]

Several reasons -- the administrator has to satisfy creditors and the bid by Otium was the best. What you seem to actually be suggesting is that the Football League should ignore the rules on liquidation and hand over an entitlement to another party on the basis that they would pay a commercial rent that the preferred bidder will not. So say the council said to Otium its £400,000 to you and to Haskell its £150,000 to you. You believe the FL should say over to you Mr Haskell. Actually on this they have made the correct decision. Landlords are not allowed to dictate who owns a football club. In the same way that the SISU bunch have been trying to force ACL out ACL have blatantly tried to get Haskell in as he satisfied their interests. Both sides are lamentable.

you're making the assumption that the Golden Share has to be tied to the administration process. It doesn't the FL can issue the golden share to whoever they feel like. In the Portsmouth administration Harris was the preferred bidder for a period of time, he withdrew when the FL stated they would not consider issuing him with the golden share, why could the FL have not done exactly the same thing to us and said we will not issue the share to Otium? they also have the power to issue the share with conditions so they could for example say they would only issue the golden share to Otium once they have come to an agreement to play at the Ricoh or both side have agreed to binding arbitration. there were methods at the leagues disposal to ensure Coventry stayed in Coventry, the question is why did they not chose to implement any of those methods.

 

[dongonzalos]

You are not listening - that would be illegal. Say ACL offered the rent at £10 million and then they said no and then offered to a new owner the same deal for 5 pence. The point is they cannot get involved with third party arrangements. They have to accept that the club was homeless. It really is that simple.

You are not listening.

They can refuse a ground share if by their own words it is not the best for FFP or that their are other options.

That is not illegal

If SISU then refuse to fulfil their fixtures.

They then have justification not to issue the GS to SISU

Again not illegal

It would lead to SISU suing ( the real reason the FL) did not take such action.

However it is not illegal

The FL were aware there was an option that was better under FFP for the club. That did not require a ground share.
They had their grounds to refuse a ground share.

 

[Noggin]

Not the point - it is not the administrators role to assume the future - again the offer was less - the adminstrator could not agree such terms

The administrator didn't need to assume the future, sisu offer included compensation money for breaking the lease, appleton would know that the offer he accepted was not the best one financially for ACL. Of course his job wasn't to do what was best for ACL, but as usual makes you wrong.