That was because apparently they were insured as players from CCFC Ltd and not CCFC Holdings Ltd.. now CCFC Ltd is in administration they are apparently under contract to Holdings. So they say.....
Where have you pulled this insurance issue from???
I don't believe insurance has anything to do with it.That was because apparently they were insured as players from CCFC Ltd and not CCFC Holdings Ltd.. now CCFC Ltd is in administration they are apparently under contract to Holdings. So they say.....
Edgy
Im not knocking the SBT and I ve not joined as Im not convinced they give true support to the Club, still concerned thats its just anti Sisu and again blinded by everything else.
I appreciate they are trying to do something but I think they need to be more open minded. I can nt get my head arounf people thinking we (ccfc) do nt need to own the ground,
which appears to be the SBT view,
The £12,000 is what was quoted by the company (Farols') that the Club use to maintain the equipment owned by the Trustees, but used exclusively by the Club for the maintenance of the grass pitches at the Centre. What is needed is a mixture of repair and maintenance. One of the consequences of failing to maintain equipment properly is that it breaks down and then needs repair. That is the situation faced by the Trustees. The equipment is needed for the pitches: the damage and lack of maintenance are CCFC/Sisu's responsibility and just because the names of the companies switch around it should not mean that they don't pay.
The c£2,000 is for the period January to March and they have agreed to pay that.
So he was right then; no invoice has been received? Thanks for clearing that up.
So he was right then; no invoice has been received? Thanks for clearing that up.
You missed: Where has the £500,000 grant gone?This is simple
The clubs finances are unknown.
Some part of the club owes Higgs some money and the administrator is trying to sort.
While it is being sorted CCFC needs to continue and have offered to pay the ongoing costs until its sorted.
Higgs say no and the charity loses rent.
The facilities remain unused.
Higgs (and ACL) would sooner finish the club off than just keep the status quo.
Simple and to the point as usual, will those knocking PWKH, hiding behind your keyboards recognise the honest and precise detail above and get off his case. We are lucky IMO to have someone at the heart of these issues prepared to come on here and explain things as fully as he possibly can.The Agreements are with CCFC Ltd. If the Academy is now in CCFC Holdings it should be a simple matter to change the Agreements to reflect that change. The amounts to be paid for the period to 30 June 2013 have been agreed between CSF and CCFC (?) and the Trustees of the AHCT. The amount to be paid for the over-use between January and March has been agreed. The arrangements for the repair and maintenance of the groundskeeping equipment has not been agreed. Gregor Rioch has offered to pay it himself. CCFC H have yet to reply to our solicitors. We have written again today. We have heard from the Administrator, we have read the Statement posted here and elsewhere, we have not heard from CCFC/Sisu. The invoices will follow the Agreements which will follow replies to our letters to CCFC/Sisu. We are waiting.
If I were looking at this from the outside I would be saying many of the things that have been said on this and the other thread. I know Gregor Rioch has only the best interests of the Academy at heart, it is what he has put so much effort into.
This isn't some kind of blackmail it is just trying to do things in a business like and orderly way.
Simple and to the point as usual, will those knocking PWKH, hiding behind your keyboards recognise the honest and precise detail above and get off his case. We are lucky IMO to have someone at the heart of these issues prepared to come on here and explain things as fully as he possibly can.
PWKH...Do yourself a favour mate, don't bother to let us know any more, it's not that I and loads of others on here don't want to know, just that there are a handful on here seem to know a lot more than you do.
So he was right then; no invoice has been received? Thanks for clearing that up.
Absolutely CrystalI think PWKH's post explains that. The invoice can only follow an agreement with CCFC Holdings. Higgs centre has written to SISU asking to sort those agreements out, via a solicitor, twice, and are yet to have a reply.
Seems clear enough to me.
I think PWKH's post explains that. The invoice can only follow an agreement with CCFC Holdings. Higgs centre has written to SISU asking to sort those agreements out, via a solicitor, twice, and are yet to have a reply.
Seems clear enough to me.
Maybe if I went to Nando's on Saturday afternoon instead of Crawley I could meet up with them?
Joke, yes?
So we all have to have the same view on each topic now do we? Fantastic because that really strings for debate :facepalm::facepalm::claping hands::claping hands:
I was actually "Having a go" at some posters who can't take the word of "IMO" an honourable man(Yourself)
It is refreshing to hear truth being spoken(Written) on this forum, and to you PWKH, thank you for your input.
Speaking about yourself again SBK?
It's not that. Example as above. An invoice can't be raised without agreement. That agreement hasn't been signed - the delay coming from the SISU side. So the invoice can't follow.
Torchy seems to feel some vindication and evidence some smugness in the confirmation that an invoice hasn't been raised; whilst ignoring the fact that the mechanism that gives rise to the invoice having any legal credibility hasn't been returned and therefore no culpibility can reside anywhere other than at SISU's door.
An opinion needs to have a basis in reality. An opinion is an interpretation of facts. When it's a case of ignoring facts - it doesn't constitute a true opinion.
It's simply words typed out to serve Machiavellian intent. There's a big difference
I was talking about some self opinionated pricks...Feel free to add yourself to that list if you wish!
It is that. As you can elude to with 5 previous posters before you all eluding to previous posters who are not allowed a differing opinion without mockery..
I was actually "Having a go" at some posters who can't take the word of "IMO" an honourable man(Yourself)
It is refreshing to hear truth being spoken(Written) on this forum, and to you PWKH, thank you for your input.
It's not that. Example as above. An invoice can't be raised without agreement. That agreement hasn't been signed - the delay coming from the SISU side. So the invoice can't follow.
As much as it hurts me to see you sat in that column all alone, I am not a prick, so I'll pass this time, but Thanks
I think PWKH's post explains that. The invoice can only follow an agreement with CCFC Holdings. Higgs centre has written to SISU asking to sort those agreements out, via a solicitor, twice, and are yet to have a reply.
Seems clear enough to me.
It's not that. Example as above. An invoice can't be raised without agreement. That agreement hasn't been signed - the delay coming from the SISU side. So the invoice can't follow.
Torchy seems to feel some vindication and evidence some smugness in the confirmation that an invoice hasn't been raised; whilst ignoring the fact that the mechanism that gives rise to the invoice having any legal credibility hasn't been returned and therefore no culpibility can reside anywhere other than at SISU's door.
An opinion needs to have a basis in reality. An opinion is an interpretation of facts. When it's a case of ignoring facts - it doesn't constitute a true opinion.
It's simply words typed out to serve Machiavellian intent. There's a big difference
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?