ACL Statement, Saturday 23 March (2 Viewers)

[luwalla]

if I as a mere scientist .

hahahaha :facepalm:

 

---

[Black6Osprey]

Perhaps it's me giving more credit to people than they're due-though if I as a mere scientist can derive what should happen then so should those at the top and with all the info to hand.

Are we all going to put our IQ numbers next to our names now to have a justifiable opinion?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Are we all going to put our IQ numbers next to our names now to have a justifiable opinion?

Didn't come across as intended. I meant that as someone with no detailed knowledge of the business world; which you can extend to any profession you like.

 

[lordsummerisle]

BSB having a bit of a laugh at work!

[video=youtube;TOAPUcxpBOk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOAPUcxpBOk[/video]

 

[procdoc]

Dear PWKH.
You are as much to blame as SISU, the Council and every other shitbag who has stuffed up this club. The bloody cheek of you coming on here as Mr nice guy is frankly galling. Piss off, have your day in court, get paid what you are "owed" and preside over the club being obliterated. Thanks.

Idiot. Most sensible posters appreciate PWKH coming on here to give one side of the argument. He's being as transparent as he can be, unlike our esteemed owners

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

They've got my lab coat all wrong Lord. Why isn't the bloke on the left wearing his goggles?

 

[katzenjammer]

And I put it to you that SISU only care about CCFC fans because you can't run a football club with zero crowds. Moving the club to a groundshare at an unspecified location is a good way of achieving that.

I get that, I just don't think ACL should be saying they're all about the fans, when they're not.

Anyway, I don't want an argument with you, we're all just concerned for CCFC.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I get that, I just don't think ACL should be saying they're all about the fans, when they're not.

Anyway, I don't want an argument with you, we're all just concerned for CCFC.

Well quite-it's probably escaped some of us that we're kicking off at Fratton Park in an hour and a half's time.

 

[olderskyblue]

Are we all going to put our IQ numbers next to our names now to have a justifiable opinion?

Hope not, for your sake.....

 

[duffer]

If you go to court you have to be strong and clear as to what you want and expect as a starting position. So in reality their position hasnt changed much it is just how it has to be portrayed now its gone to court. To protect their legal position in a process they dont control they have to maximise their position. Judgement is different to settlement so that creates room for manoeuver thats all.

Exactly that.

The process started with the Statutory Demand from ACL to CCFC Ltd, which was for all of the debt, and those figures are the ones that are carried on to the court for the Third-Party Debt Order and ultimately application for Administration. The negotiated settlement that SISU eventually walked away from was obviously for less, but once those negotiations had failed ACL were bound (and committed) to apply to the court for the whole debt.

So, no moving of goalposts, standard practice in my experience. Your bank would do the same if you negotiated a partial settlement of a debt, but then decided that you didn't want to sign the agreement.

 

[WFC]

clarification

Originally Posted by Grendel

The scenario you refer to happens all the time. If say you own a small business you would normally run the business and the property as 2 separate entities. Walsall football club pays a whacking great rent to the person who owns Walsall football club - but to another holding company.

If anyone owned the Ricoh and the club the assets would a be split as separate companies to protect if one fell down.



Not important I know but just for clarification as it has been used as an example of normal practise in football/FDP etc the above is not correct.

At WFC the ground is owned by Suffolk Life, it sits as an asset within the club owners pension fund which (a self administered fund) meaning Suffolk life legally own it but he effectively controls it. The point being it is not in any form of holding company, it has no legal connect ion to WFC and could never hold the golden share as there are legal restrictions on what can and can't be put in such a pension scheme.

So completely different to ccfc's structure.


Hope things get sorted out for the best for you guys soon.

 

[AFCCOVENTRY]

The football share was still in ccfc limited in June 12,so it must be since then.

I can almost see it being done this week.

Probably done in July 2012

 

[Jack Griffin]

@AFC, read my latest post http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/28635-Appleton-statement, share remains with CCFC Ltd.