I cannot for the life of me fathom why you want SISU to retain control of the club at any cost. So many things which happened in the past which you're forgetting on top:
1. SISU are the ones who initiated a rent boycott without bothering to negotiate first. At the same time, the ARVO charge was filed-strongly hints that the only aim was to bust ACL.
2. Where exactly do you think we can find the money to build a new ground? Even if we can, it will take years to build and leaves us having to groundshare in the meantime-a guaranteed crowd killer if ever there was one.
3. SISU have only themselves to blame for their terrible running of the club for the last 6 years. There are interested parties, contrary to some on here, and so they are capable of recouping some of their losses through a takeover.
4. ACL was formed specifically to include the club-McGinnity not only sold our 50% share in it but also demanded that we have the fixed rental price of £1.3m which shouldn't fluctuate with league status.
There's only one guilty party here and it's not the council.
Don't think it would make any difference what he said Don, he won't be bothered if he's confronted by a "well, previously you said..." etc, he'll just say the situation has changed so now we're going down another route.
Now, IF he'd shook hands on it.....
Just had an interesting chat with a corporate lawyer with one of the international firms in the City. In the absence of any detail and as the lawyer's experience does not cover local government, this is informed opinion rather than legal opinion.
The main point to come out of this opinion was the the complainant must be able to demonstrate that the actions of the other party have adversely effected the complainant. In other words, CCFC Holdings must be able to demonstrate that the actions of the council have harmed Holdings.
So, are Holdings prepared to stand up in court and say they were attempting to distress the landlord of their subsidiary company by withholding rent so that they could step in and buy the assets of the landlord at a knockdown price and that the actions of the council prevented this?
Do they have another reason why they were adversely effected?
Or is this whole thing just more SISU bluster?
Hence the relevance of statement from SISU saying that the decision by the council did not affected them at all.
If there are interested parties - then where are they and where were they? If you are so sure name them!
ACL was not formed to specifically include the club. This is false.
Have you gone mental Paxman? Erm Preston Haskell??
Just had an interesting chat with a corporate lawyer with one of the international firms in the City. In the absence of any detail and as the lawyer's experience does not cover local government, this is informed opinion rather than legal opinion.
The main point to come out of this opinion was the the complainant must be able to demonstrate that the actions of the other party have adversely effected the complainant. In other words, CCFC Holdings must be able to demonstrate that the actions of the council have harmed Holdings.
So, are Holdings prepared to stand up in court and say they were attempting to distress the landlord of their subsidiary company by withholding rent so that they could step in and buy the assets of the landlord at a knockdown price and that the actions of the council prevented this?
Do they have another reason why they were adversely effected?
Or is this whole thing just more SISU bluster?
here we go again...more sentiment and accusation instead of looking at facts or what was actually said. When faced with a legal situation you just can't be throwing out your own sentiments as though they were fact.
I didn't imply I want SISU in control?
SISU's rent boycott is a matter for them and how they wish to do business is for them. many companies will deal underhandedly to get what they are after, so long as it's legal.
I never talked about finding money to build a new stadium? You are reading what you want to hear!
If there are interested parties - then where are they and where were they? If you are so sure name them!
ACL was not formed to specifically include the club. This is false.
That would be the case where someone is claiming against another, ie one party suing another but that's not quite what's happening here. I know there have been headlines/titles like CCFC sue CCC but theybare actually inaccurate.
What has been set in motion is a judicial review which is different. Where public money is involved any one could file for such, e.g if I think that funding provided for something from the public purse was provide outside of what regulations allow I could seek a judicial review to get a legally binding judgement on whether it is legal or not regardless of whether I have personally lost out in anyway. They will not have to prove they have incurred any losses, they will not at this point be seeking any damages just a judgement that suits their purposes.
Although it's a court case as such it really should be referred to as a judicial review as it's not really like most court case most of us would be familiar with like in the case your lawyer friend is referring to.
Just to be clear here, my informant was well aware that this was a request for a judicial review and was quite specific that any party requesting one must be able to prove that they have been directly effected. This point was specifically made and hence why I highlighted it.
Haskell has not to my knowledge made any formal offer or otherwise? We have been down this road plenty of times including Hoffman who ultimately seems to talk the talk and never make the walk? Now we have the same protagonist including uncle Joe trying again in some sort of way? Nothing on the table and looking extremely unlikely too if I was to take a stab. Are their more?
QUOTE]
It was reported that the "Hoffman camp" had formally registered their interest with the administrator.
Not sure what more you'd expect at this stage, particularly given the uncertainty of what exactly sits in each of the legal entities.
I've no doubt you'd be the first to (rightly) criticise, if they made a "formal offer" of £x million without being aware of what they were bidding for.
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?