duffer
Well-Known Member
Yep, would ACL have let them carry on playing on there indefinitely without paying rent?
In fairness ACL let CCFC play there indefinitely without paying rent. As we've seen the sanction for not paying the rent was to go to court for a third party debt order, and then administration, this rather than cancelling the lease and licence to play. Neither of those of necessity forced the club out of the Ricoh; the club chose to leave, and the administrator disclaimed the lease rather than the landlord. In fact, I seem to recall that ACL offered a "rent-free" deal whilst the club remained in administration, for what that's worth.
There was always an option to pay or possibly renegotiate the rent and resolve the dispute, but as we've seen it seems SISU chose not to take that up, and took the club to Northampton. Personally I can't see that ACL forced the club to leave or ever threatened to lock the doors, but clearly they sought to claim through legal process a legal debt.
I'm not quite sure how the damages thing will play out, even if the JR is upheld. That SISU refused to pay the rent is surely indisputable, and it's central to the damage they've done to their own business. No one could force them to take that path.