Likliehood is we are gonna miss out on playoffs by less than 10pts
What did council gain from it?
I hate council and sisu so no zealot answers please
After this year we might not have finances to challenge again. So frustrating
Likliehood is we are gonna miss out on playoffs by less than 10pts
What did council gain from it?
I hate council and sisu so no zealot answers please
After this year we might not have finances to challenge again. So frustrating
So they decided to make things worse?
They had no faith in the administration process, which has been shown to be flawed.
Wrong that was just the spin they put out to justify the decision.
So they decided to make things worse?
Gentleman-your response is not one anyone would expect from a cov fan, or football fan actually
Or do ccfc just not mean that much to you?
The directors of ACL have no responsibility to CCFC. The only people who do are the CCFC board and owners.
ACL have a responsibly to their own business, no one else.
The directors of ACL have no responsibility to CCFC. The only people who do are the CCFC board and owners.
ACL have a responsibly to their own business, no one else.
And you know this how?
The directors of ACL have no responsibility to CCFC. The only people who do are the CCFC board and owners.
ACL have a responsibly to their own business, no one else.
They wanted to enforce 2 decisions and would have signed if they'd been agreed as confirmed by PWKH.
To summarise, they haven't achieved anything at all other than create an even more difficult challenge for the team to reach the play offs. I thought that was the whole point of them rejecting the offer from SISU in order to begin an investigation into the administration process. However, that doesn't mean I disagree with what they did entirely but the problem is that they have simply rejected it based on the principle of not agreeing with the administration process. The problem is that they haven't acted on this with anything tangible? I totally get having principles and sticking to what you believe in but we are no further forward in getting the club back to the Ricoh and have a ten points deduction as a result. That's where I struggle with the choice they made. Basically the toss up was between - stick to principle (without acting on it or achieving anything tangible) vs. a ten points deduction and the team risking relegation. I'm unsure on this one.
Likliehood is we are gonna miss out on playoffs by less than 10pts
What did council gain from it?
So they decided to make things worse?
Gentleman-your response is not one anyone would expect from a cov fan, or football fan actually
Or do ccfc just not mean that much to you?
The - 10 pts was probably what Pressley used to help motivate the players to where we are now, not sure we would have had the same start without the pts deduction.
Wrong that was just the spin they put out to justify the decision.
I wouldn't take to much notice of him,hes still pissed with the council at the lack of cab ranks and the amount of licence's they issue.
O' Thanks valiant hadn't realised he was a rank outsider.
Likliehood is we are gonna miss out on playoffs by less than 10pts
What did council gain from it?
I hate council and sisu so no zealot answers please
After this year we might not have finances to challenge again. So frustrating
The process could have continued but the administrator decided not too, probably from Sisu pressure. After all the goal of breaking the lease was achieved. You don't have to accept the first offer otherwise why did HMRC object as well ?
The HMRC always reject football related CVA's as a stand against Football Creditors First rule.
The HMRC always reject football related CVA's as a stand against Football Creditors First rule.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
My understanding, from speaking about this to an HMRC officer when one of my companies was being audited, is that the policy is HMRC reject automatically when the football creditors rule is involved to give others preference over HMRC which wasn't the case with our CVA.
Interesting, but doesn't mean that HMRC didn't automatically reject ours because of the lack of football creditors. Are there any recent examples of where they have accepted a football related CVA?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Interesting, but doesn't mean that HMRC didn't automatically reject ours because of the lack of football creditors. Are there any recent examples of where they have accepted a football related CVA?
So what you are saying is that an organisation must put its investors first and if that included a plan to increase the asset base with a five year plan you'd support it?
So they would have agreed a different deal that incorporated other things that they couldn't get out of the "unusual" administration process.
Doesn't sound that odd and I can't see it as proof of your assertion.
The HMRC always reject football related CVA's as a stand against Football Creditors First rule.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
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?