It might, I haven't denied that.
But then if they then say negotiations are at an end, and the club won't or can't accept that deal, that still doesn't mean it's a surprise that the club won't contact ACL to negotiate something that's not negotiable, even more so if there's nowhere else for ACL to move!
I see your point but Fisher has openly stated that £400k rent isn't a problem, and the proposed deal significantly enhances the club's turnover. Bear in mind we have been rent free for a year and will likely still post a loss.
no it didn't.. according to ACL they can survive without anything from the club, so whatever they request in rent is what the desire.. not what they need!
nice spin though!
And as said above, ACL have also said the rent from CCFC isn't vital to their business.
So who's making it up? Everybody? Nobody? I'd go for everybody myself, and a healthy dose of attempted manipulation by media.
And as said above, ACL have also said the rent from CCFC isn't vital to their business.
So who's making it up? Everybody? Nobody? I'd go for everybody myself, and a healthy dose of attempted manipulation by media.
Not vital doesn't mean it's not needed.
Its the usual problem isnt it
Timmy claims ACL wont talk to the company he is running which claims ownership of the share CCFCH and CCFC (the club) but doesnt own the lease at the Ricoh. He is in a situation where legally he has no rights at the stadium, no one is locking him out he simply has no legal right to trade from there. If CCFC Ltd only held the lease there is no reason why it would not have been liquidated day 1 of Mr Appletons appointment and TF would be in a much stronger position to do a deal at the Ricoh, so you would have to conclude CCFC Ltd has more than the lease to it.
The lease itself is in CCFC Ltd and until that company is wound up remains active, it is if you like suspended but still in force. What that means is that there is an existing lease that blocks a new one until it is resolved. Of course CCFC Ltd can not be liquidated as yet because there is good evidence that the golden share in that company which is the key to CCFC having any existence at all. ACL for good reasons of their own do not want CCFC Ltd lliquidated. This leaves Mr Appleton in a quandry, he should arguably liquidate CCFC Ltd but that could leave CCFC H in a position of no longer being a member of the League
ACL say they want the Club at the stadium. Certainly that would be the best solution for all if there were a new better deal for the club that is acceptable to all parties. There is still a current lease with CCFC Ltd and the ACL relationship is with that company. Under the terms of the lease, which is still valid, ACL are owed a substantial amount of money. No one has disputed that the lease is in CCFC Ltd. Currently CCFC Ltd is not run by TF it is run by the administrator. When it comes to administration which is a process governed by a court the basis of what goes on is the contracts that exist, anyone stepping away from that puts themselves at risk. It suits ACL to rely on the law yes because it leaves the CCFC owners in a difficult position, and of course they will use that "advantage" who wouldnt? But they have to deal with things on the basis of their contract. Legally the ACL relationship is now with the administrator of CCFC Ltd - might not like it but thats the reality.
All sides have contributed to this, all sides have made mistakes, all sides spin events their way..... but only one side runs CCFC..... in my eyes a company has to take the lions share of responsibility for its own actions be it CCFC Ltd, CCFC H, SBS&L ACL or SISU
the actions of a third party are secondary to the actions/decisions that the company or its directors/owners take or do not take for themselves
direct question put to ACL by the sky blue trust..
"Can ACL and the Ricoh survive without CCFC?"
ACL: yes we can. We have detailed business plans supporting this.
direct question put to ACL by the sky blue trust..
"Can ACL and the Ricoh survive without CCFC?"
ACL: yes we can. We have detailed business plans supporting this.
One from South Park, queef.
For horrible words, 'moist' is a contender.
I hate poppycock, simply because Thatcher liked using it when patronising people who didn't agree with her (eg anyone with a soul..)
Not the same thing. I'm sure they could manage without 20% of their business but that doesn't mean they don't want it.
What do you suggest? Cutting brake pipes?
I've always liked the word 'trumpet'. For horrible words, 'moist' is a contender.
I've got exams in 2 weeks, I'm quite stressed.
Factor in the past where people have insinuated I'm Fisher or one of them, and text being quite difficult to judge I think you would understand my reaction.
I'm sorry if it was a joke.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?