lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Conversely the logic that ACL really want the football club at the ground not borne out by a winding-up petition.
That logic doesn't follow, does it? If you're claiming the winding up order was served with intent, then there would be nothing to move.
Either the winding up order was an escalation in the stand off, in which case threatening to move wasn't appropriate response; or it was served with evil intent, in which case the club ceases to exist and nothing remains to be moved.
But it can't serve both purposes, surely?
Conversely the logic that ACL really want the football club at the ground not borne out by a winding-up petition.
You just outed him!!
Actually, thinking it through now I've woken properly, did they ever run with a winding up order?
To be honest with you I'm not sure if they actually went ahead with the threat.
Posturing maybe?
Was it their threat? All the reports I can find say it's a possible outcome of the statutory demand, but not that it was threatened. Always seemed to be a route to admin rather than winding up to me, after all the stated rationale at the time was that it was to stop the threatened liquidation when the Ricoh deal fell through.
The Board feels that all other avenues to resolve this issue have been exhausted and is astonished that the club's owners have allowed matters to come to this sorry pass. Responsibility for this situation lies completely with Sisu, a Mayfair hedge fund which has let CCFC fail under its direction.
"If they don't meet this deadline, Sisu must either declare CCFC insolvent or face a winding up order for the club."
This looks a bit like a threat!
To be honest with you I'm not sure if they actually went ahead with the threat.
Posturing maybe?
Depends which way you look at it. SISU had already been threatening to liquidate our club well before then. They admitted it in court IIRC. They strangely never let us fans know and CCC have kept quiet all the way through this debacle.
I was asked if they had actually threatened a winding-up order, and showed evidence that they did.
Can't really say that CCC(through ACL), or even directly, have quiet throughout this whole debacle really can you?
I was asked if they had actually threatened a winding-up order, and showed evidence that they did.
Can't really say that CCC(through ACL), or even directly, have quiet throughout this whole debacle really can you?
In December 2012 ACL threatened the club they could face a winding up petition if the rent arrears wasn't paid by Boxing day.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...iven-21-days-pay-rent-face-winding-order.html
In February 2013 ACL went to court and had the clubs bank account frozen.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/21475743.app
In between - in January 2013 - the council voted to bail out ACL.
So was the original threat a tool to 'help' YB to accept a discount on the buy out of the loan?
And further - was it a tool to 'convince' the members of council who were not involved in the ACL/CCFC negotiations they had to vote in favour of CCC taking over the loan?
The actual bail out of ACL was the game changer that stopped all negotiations between CCFC and ACL. The original threats then became real actions from ACL ...
Wasn't it revealed in court last week that SISU started threatening liquidation of our club at the start of 2012.....nearly a year before ACL did? And as we have only had the SISU side of it so far I would consider it to be foolish to already have determined who is at fault for what before the truth finally comes out.
Again, dear chap; I don't think ACL did. They won a court case over rent unpaid since April 2012, then used a Statuary Demand, followed by a Third Part Debt Order; then - almost a year into this dispute, pushed to an administration order only when liquidation was mentioned in public; this following on from what appears to have been it's private use in 2012 by Ms Seppela.
They didn't push for winding up order when clearly they could, and haven't at any point, tried to liquidate the club. At least not in any documents I've seen so far. But I will stand corrected if anyone can point me in the right direction
Still don't see it. Not being pedantic (quelle surprise). The links Godiva kindly provides from The Mail cites the statuary demand - which 'could' - result in a winding up order if unpaid.
However, you'll recall that - when this wasn't paid; ACL - instead of moving to winding up order - enforced a Third Party Debt Order on the club's accounts, as Godiva mentions; again this being in February 2013.
So, I don't think they threatened winding up order at all. They issued a statuary demand following the successful court case, and then moved to a Third Party Debt Order. They didn't enforce the winding up order they could have actioned after Boxing Day; and therefore I see no proof they threatened it either.
The Mail reports a potential outcome of the statuary demand which wasn't the case. That's all, surely?
"If they don't meet this deadline, Sisu must either declare CCFC insolvent or face a winding up order for the club."
As I posted earlier, direct quote from ACl statement on the 5th December 2012:
Looks a teensy,weesy bit like a threatened winding up order to me.
Yes. I would agree, that does. There is a flip-side though; that being that SISU's actions in ignoring all legal routes is going to give rise to an escalation in rhetoric in order to get some changing in stance.
Godiva's line above:
'The actual bail out of ACL was the game changer that stopped all negotiations between CCFC and ACL. The original threats then became real actions from ACL' seems a touch extravagant when you bear in mind SISU's stance in the months that preceded the decision. By that time - if they'd have wished - they could have issued the winding up order and be done with it. Now, that would have been a 'game changer'...
They could have issued the winding-up order, but if it was the case as Godiva suggests, it could be that it was a tactic used to apply pressure on the Yorkshire Bank to reduce what they would accept for paying off the mortgage, agreed early January I believe?
They could have issued the winding-up order, but if it was the case as Godiva suggests, it could be that it was a tactic used to apply pressure on the Yorkshire Bank to reduce what they would accept for paying off the mortgage, agreed early January I believe?
And this the problem that we have. Trying to work out the truth on what has happened. And there is a chance that we are all wrong.
It's a hard call to make without knowing all of the thoughts of all of the players; not just those contained in the SISU bundle. When we have all of the facts - or even a more representative selection of the facts - a better call on motives can be made
They could have issued the winding-up order, but if it was the case as Godiva suggests, it could be that it was a tactic used to apply pressure on the Yorkshire Bank to reduce what they would accept for paying off the mortgage, agreed early January I believe?
Correct. One of the reasons I've held back from commenting in recent days. Grendy heralding some of the comments in SISU's bundle as 'explosive' and 'sensational', without having any idea of the context or motivation that ley behind them; or making reference to the prevailing relationships at the time is frankly astonishing.
In the coming weeks and months, further evidence will present itself which could make one or all of us on here look like an absolute fool. That could well be me! As such, I'm not readily going to add to my potential embarrassment by wading in with a view, or series of views that could prove foolhardy when the cold light of facts are shone upon them
law.
when people say that there was a plot to distress the YB mortgage so SISU could pay it off on the cheap as part of a deal to purchase ACL my moral compass tells me that the word should be defraud not distress. still, what do i know.
It's a hard call to make without knowing all of the thoughts of all of the players; not just those contained in the SISU bundle. When we have all of the facts - or even a more representative selection of the facts - a better call on motives can be made
A fair point, as Astute makes also, however it hasn't stopped people making judgements over that past couple of years that it is all down to Sisu, and wanting evidence and proof that it is not so.
Something that has not been required from the other side of things.
Bit of a straw man that.
I don't think anyone's been asking for proof of a negative, more that the weight of evidence comes down against Sisu, what have you got the other way? And to be fair, this email is the first thing in over a year that anyone on the "balance" side has been able to point to other that "what if"s.
For me, there is literally nothing that could come out that would justify the move to Sixfields. Even if the big bad council were whipping up a PR storm and going behind their back and trying to out them, a better strategy would've been to stay put and shine a light on it.
A fair point, as Astute makes also, however it hasn't stopped people making judgements over that past couple of years that it is all down to Sisu, and wanting evidence and proof that it is not so.
Something that has not been required from the other side of things.
A fair point, as Astute makes also, however it hasn't stopped people making judgements over that past couple of years that it is all down to Sisu, and wanting evidence and proof that it is not so.
Something that has not been required from the other side of things.
It was a statement from a meeting by Tim Fisher, at the very beginning of this thread, that said some things that directly relate to the emails and minutes revealed last week.
Most responses along the lines of "bullshit", "and where's your proof?"
When proof is furnished, it isn't enough then!
Of course, CCC are always given the "Can't say anything until after the JR" get out of jail free card.
To be met
The same would apply of course if CCC used the same tactics to try and reduce the size of the mortgage.
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?