D
Ddccfc
Guest
Perhaps I do.
Is this source the same "lawyer friend" that told you people could end up behind bars as a result of the judicial review? You keep some odd company.
Its pretty clear to me that ACL tried to distress the football club by trying to put it into Admin, believing that the players came under the ltd Company.
It is highly depressing that the fans have never asked questions of ACL, it is a shame upon the football club..
In fairness CJ you were supposed to have one question and you took up 15 mins of the forum..
It is highly depressing that the fans have never asked questions of ACL, it is a shame upon the football club. The sooner we get rid of both ACL & SISU, the club will grow.
Surely you are better positioned to "damn" me by simply stepping forth from the murky camouflage of anonymity?
If you have no such connections, identifying yourself should not be a problem.
The scrutinisers should also be open to scrutiny.
I'm more than happy to be open to scrutiny: but scrutiny of the words I post, which are supported by quoted evidence.
Scrutinise the words I use; if they're wrong, challenge me.
Scrutinise the evidence I use; if it is wrong, challenge me.
Scrutinise the interpretation I apply to the evidence, the law, the rules and regulations; if it is wrong challenge me.
That's what scrutiny is about: you don't need to know who I am to scrutinise the blog and the posts I make.
For what it's worth:
I have no connection with Sisu or any of its associated companies.
I have no connection with Paul Appleton or his company David Rubin & Partners
I have no connection with the administrations' solicitors Stephenson Harwood LLP
I have no connection with Coventry City Football Club (I'm not even a fan)
I have no connection with Arena Coventry Ltd, The Higgs Charity or Coventry City Council
I have no connection with any adviser (solicitor, insolvency professional or otherwise) of ACL, Higgs or CCC
I have no connection with any player, employee, contractor or other person associated with any of the parties
I have no connection with Brendan Guilfoyle* or any other insolvency professional
(*Mr Guilfoyle did leave a comment on my blog at the weekend, I emailed him and he emailed back. This doesn't not mean that I have "links" with him - a number of people have emailed me and commented on the blog. I do not consider that I have links with them either)
Ddccfc says I should be open to scrutiny - I've said above what the limits to that scrutiny should be (ie, the words I use, the evidence I quote and the interpretation I put on them). If that isn't sufficient, what level of scrutiny does Ddccfc feel is required? What would my identity add to the scrutiny that's required?
I haven't demanded Ddccdc's identity and I don't see what he should seek mine.
BUT: he has said that he has it "on good authority" that I have "links with Mr Guilfoyle / ACL."
Everything I have said on my blog has been supported by sourced quotes and evidence
Now it is time for Ddccfc to support his claim: he should name his "authority" and explain what his claimed links are.
In fact, if he does have it on good authority that I have "links with Mr Guilfoyle /ACL" he should already know who I am.
So, I say again: you have made an allegation. The person against whom you make the allegation (me) has completely and unequivocally, denied your allegation.
Please either withdraw your allegation or support it by explaining what your "good authority" is and explaining what the links are that you claim exist.
I'm more than happy to be open to scrutiny: but scrutiny of the words I post, which are supported by quoted evidence.
Scrutinise the words I use; if they're wrong, challenge me.
Scrutinise the evidence I use; if it is wrong, challenge me.
Scrutinise the interpretation I apply to the evidence, the law, the rules and regulations; if it is wrong challenge me.
That's what scrutiny is about: you don't need to know who I am to scrutinise the blog and the posts I make.
For what it's worth:
I have no connection with Sisu or any of its associated companies.
I have no connection with Paul Appleton or his company David Rubin & Partners
I have no connection with the administrations' solicitors Stephenson Harwood LLP
I have no connection with Coventry City Football Club (I'm not even a fan)
I have no connection with Arena Coventry Ltd, The Higgs Charity or Coventry City Council
I have no connection with any adviser (solicitor, insolvency professional or otherwise) of ACL, Higgs or CCC
I have no connection with any player, employee, contractor or other person associated with any of the parties
I have no connection with Brendan Guilfoyle* or any other insolvency professional
(*Mr Guilfoyle did leave a comment on my blog at the weekend, I emailed him and he emailed back. This doesn't not mean that I have "links" with him - a number of people have emailed me and commented on the blog. I do not consider that I have links with them either)
Ddccfc says I should be open to scrutiny - I've said above what the limits to that scrutiny should be (ie, the words I use, the evidence I quote and the interpretation I put on them). If that isn't sufficient, what level of scrutiny does Ddccfc feel is required? What would my identity add to the scrutiny that's required?
I haven't demanded Ddccdc's identity and I don't see what he should seek mine.
BUT: he has said that he has it "on good authority" that I have "links with Mr Guilfoyle / ACL."
Everything I have said on my blog has been supported by sourced quotes and evidence
Now it is time for Ddccfc to support his claim: he should name his "authority" and explain what his claimed links are.
In fact, if he does have it on good authority that I have "links with Mr Guilfoyle /ACL" he should already know who I am.
So, I say again: you have made an allegation. The person against whom you make the allegation (me) has completely and unequivocally, denied your allegation.
Please either withdraw your allegation or support it by explaining what your "good authority" is and explaining what the links are that you claim exist.
I'll show you mine, if you show me yours.
Someone who claims to present an objective legal analysis of a subject loses all credibility if they are not willing to be open and honest themselves.
Bias and subjectivity are implied by the anonymity.
Welcome to the internet.
I have no connection with Coventry City Football Club (I'm not even a fan)
I have no connection with Coventry City Football Club (I'm not even a fan).
Question is: Who do you support?
Do Tell FLB. you will be no less in our esteem.
Its pretty clear to me that ACL tried to distress the football club by trying to put it into Admin, believing that the players came under the ltd Company.
2 points here. You are owed £1.3m what would you do?....This was done to prevent SISU putting CCFC into liquidation.
There is significant evidence that there are "Player Contracts in CCFCltd":blue:
BEFORE ACL pushed for admin they were owed £1.3m NOT £650k.
Are you suggesting sisu paid them £650k before we went into admin?
No sir - they were owed £650K. Never £1.3m.
Read the administrators report where he lists liabillities.
Is that so? I've read that SISU are owed £70m+....is that also right?
Still kissing sisu's arse godiva? Dear oh dear.
Still kissing sisu's arse godiva? Dear oh dear.
Still kissing sisu's arse godiva? Dear oh dear.
So pointing out that ACL are not owed £1.3m and quote the administrators report as evidence is considered 'kissing sisu's arse'?
Dear oh dear!
Is that so? I've read that SISU are owed £70m+....is that also right?
That line about 'we have paid £800k rent this year' from Fisher was one of his juiciest lies to date. He must think we're all stupid.
@BSB...
One thing I'd like to know is...How can Otium buy the "Ltd" when they.....a) Haven't got two pennies to scratch their arse with, and ,have only £1k showing in the business?...... and b) If point "A" is true, can't ACL take SISU to court for the exact same thing that SISU has?
Come off it, he always sticks up for them,i just cant fathom out why.He's made no value judgement about it, just pointed out what the administrator said was owed.
@BSB...
One thing I'd like to know is...How can Otium buy the "Ltd" when they.....a) Haven't got two pennies to scratch their arse with, and ,have only £1k showing in the business?...... and b) If point "A" is true, can't ACL take SISU to court for the exact same thing that SISU has?
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?