Astute
Well-Known Member
Read it again for yourself. So you are saying that there was no choice but liquidation? But didn't SISU go for admin before liquidation? If so why did they bother with admin and not go straight for liquidation?
What are you on about? The rejection of the CVA prevented the club from exiting administration voluntarily so caused the company to be liquidated.
What part of the statement then isn't true?
What part of the statement then isn't true?
Grendel said:The rejection of the CVA prevented the club from exiting administration voluntarily so caused the company to be liquidated.
The original CVA included an offer to pay the 590 k to ACL, I believe this was the full amount owed, is that correct?
If so what other CVA could have been offered?
In the CVA proposal there was a figure of £590k proposed. This was made up of a repayment of 24.63p in the £ owed to creditors. 24.63% of the rent liability in the administration report £636 k being £156k. The balance of the £590 proposed was compensation for termination of the lease £434K based on an arbitrary figure of £1.762m x 24.63% decided by Appleton - ie not rent at all.
That bit.
Read it again for yourself. So you are saying that there was no choice but liquidation? But didn't SISU go for admin before liquidation? If so why did they bother with admin and not go straight for liquidation?
Why is that not true? Appleton followed correct legal process and decided liquidation was the I Lydia course available. Unless you and astute and chief Dave are putting it out on a forum that Appleton lied and didn't follow due process.
Are you?
So now your agreeing that it was Appleton's decision to liquidate the club?
Why is that not true? Appleton followed correct legal process and decided liquidation was the I Lydia course available. Unless you and astute and chief Dave are putting it out on a forum that Appleton lied and didn't follow due process.
Are you?
He had no choice - he's the legal expert not you me or astute.
Well he did have a choice. He could have come up with a new CVA that was acceptable to creditors.
Paul Appleton said:At the meeting held on Tuesday, ACL had put forward modifications that were not compliant with the terms of the Insolvency Act and Rules. This was explained to both them and their legal representatives at the time. The adjournment provided them with an opportunity to put forward modifications that were compliant with the law in order to make use of the time made available by the adjournment that they themselves proposed. However, despite being given this further opportunity, they declined. Accordingly, when asked whether they were in favour or not of the Proposals, ACL confirmed their rejection. Therefore, the CVA has been rejected.
...
I have noted ACL's statement released today with some interest. Put simply, we do not understand the comments being made by ACL with regard to the ability to put forward new proposals. As I said in my earlier statement, the proposals ACL required simply did not comply with the law. They were offered the chance to submit modifications, which DID comply with the law, yet for reasons best known to themselves, they chose not to do so.
He couldn't, because he did try, and ACL were choosing not to come back with anything that allowed him to conclude a deal.
He couldn't, because he did try, and ACL were choosing not to come back with anything that allowed him to conclude a deal.
I think that's a touch misleading. The two modifications couldn't be included in the CVA but they could have been agreed to by SISU / Otium as a side deal concluded prior to the signing of the CVA. Its generally believed the two modifications were dropping the JR and agreeing to a 10 year rolling deal at the Ricoh, clearly the 10 year deal could have been agreed whilst in administration as a deal with Northampton was agreed in the same period.
Were they invited to submit a revised offer that complied with the law?
Did they?
Therefore, could it be accepted?
Wasn't it Timothy that did the deal to go to Northampton when Appleton should have been in charge of our club? If so why couldn't a better offer have been made?
Were ACL invited to submit a revised offer that complied with the law?
Did they?
Therefore, could it be accepted?
Did SISU/Appleton submit a revised offer that was acceptable to all sides?
If not then ACL couldn't accept it.
Were they invited to submit a revised offer that complied with the law?
Did they?
Therefore, could it be accepted?
Were ACL invited to submit a revised offer that complied with the law?
Did they?
Therefore, could it be accepted?
Were ACL invited to submit a revised offer that complied with the law?
Did they?
Therefore, could it be accepted?
Were ACL invited to submit a revised offer that complied with the law?
Did they?
Therefore, could it be accepted?
Think you're making it more complicated than it is
So what was wrong with it in the eyes of the law? Was it on a technicality as usual? Like where we played last season? Whereas they could have agreed but didn't want to?
Yes?
Yes?
Yes?
The same ACL, incidentally, who said negotiations were at an end, and who refused to entertain the idea of a three year break clause.
Were ACL invited to submit a revised offer that complied with the law?
Did they?
Therefore, could it be accepted?
Why would ACL prepare a revised CVA (the job of the administrator not those owed money) when, from what we are told, they stated they would accept the CVA proposed by Appleton if SISU / Otium agreed to 2 pre-conditions? The contents of the CVA don't appear to be the issue here, the real issue seems to be that SISU / Otium refused to drop the JR and agree the rolling 10 year Ricoh deal. Had they been prepared to do that ACL would have agreed the CVA there would have been no points deduction and we would be playing at the Ricoh.
If ACL rejected an offer from the administrator that gave them the maximum amount payable to them, then how would a revised offer be any better?
If they has already been offered the best financial deal in first place, then what reasons did they have to reject it? After all their primary responsibility would be to recoup the maximum monies possible.
If ACL rejected an offer from the administrator that gave them the maximum amount payable to them, then how would a revised offer be any better?
If they has already been offered the best financial deal in first place, then what reasons did they have to reject it? After all their primary responsibility would be to recoup the maximum monies possible.
So you don't understand that it wasn't financial reasons but legal and the FL rules that it was turned down for?
Legal reasons?? As I have said before... If they believed that something illegal happened in the admin process they should have reported Appleton to the appropriate authorities.
FL Rules? Firstly what jurisdiction do ACL have in the football world? Secondly by going into admin the club was punished by losing 10 points, and again in the rejection of the CVA. If there were further FL rules being breached, then they wouldn't have awarded the GS. What other rules have supposedly been broken, and what have ACL the right to make judgement?
To suggest ACL rejected the CVA for these is nonsense.
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?