Football League deadline update (1 Viewer)

[Astute]

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?

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?

 

---

[shmmeee]

What part of the statement then isn't true?

The rejection of the CVA prevented the club from exiting administration voluntarily so caused the company to be liquidated.

That bit.

 

[chiefdave]

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.

 

[Grendel]

That bit.

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?

 

[Grendel]

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?

Appleton made the decision to liquidate didn't he?

 

[bigfatronssba]

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?

 

[Grendel]

So now your agreeing that it was Appleton's decision to liquidate the club?

He had no choice - he's the legal expert not you me or astute.

 

[chiefdave]

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?

Not at all, although I would not object to further scrutiny of the administration process carried out by Appleton. Your statement made it sound as if the rejection of the CVA gave no option than to liquidate which is incorrect, it is one available option and it was Appleton who chose that course of action not ACL. You can of course place blame with ACL for rejecting the CVA, you can also place blame with Appleton for not pursing other options, SISU for not agreeing to the two clauses ACL proposed or Appleton / SISU for not putting forward a revised CVA after the initial one was rejected.

 

[bigfatronssba]

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.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Well he did have a choice. He could have come up with a new CVA that was acceptable to creditors.

He couldn't, because he did try, and ACL were choosing not to come back with anything that allowed him to conclude a deal.

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.

 

[chiefdave]

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.

 

[Astute]

He couldn't, because he did try, and ACL were choosing not to come back with anything that allowed him to conclude a deal.

So are you saying that Appleton/SISU couldn't have come back with a better offer? This was open to both sides.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

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?

 

[Monners]

Couldn't the Administrator put forward a revised CVA to creditors? or is it down to the creditors to come back with modifications? Common sense says the former- but I am an evironemntal planner not a lawyer.

 

[Astute]

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?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

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?

 

[Astute]

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.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Did SISU/Appleton submit a revised offer that was acceptable to all sides?

If not then ACL couldn't accept it.

Were ACL invited to submit a revised offer that complied with the law?

Did they?

Therefore, could it be accepted?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I'll give you a helping hand.

Yes.

No.

No.

 

[chiefdave]

Were they 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. From what we have been told ACL said they would agree to the CVA proposed by Appleton (with no changes to it) as long as 2 conditions were agreed to, those conditions are widely believed to be no longer pursuing the JR and agreeing to a 10 year rolling lease at the lower rate. Those 2 conditions didn't have to be part of the CVA they just had to be agreed to.

If you recall we then started to get things like ML saying he couldn't hear the rent offer as he wasn't working for CCFC that day.

 

[Monners]

Were ACL invited to submit a revised offer that complied with the law?

Did they?

Therefore, could it be accepted?

Why didn't, if allowed, the Administrator not approach creditors witha revised CVA? Is this possible?

 

[_brian_]

Were ACL invited to submit a revised offer that complied with the law?

Did they?

Therefore, could it be accepted?

Don't you hate it when you end up triple posting!!! LOL!

 

[Deleted member 5849]

The same ACL, incidentally, who said negotiations were at an end, and who refused to entertain the idea of a three year break clause.

SISU may be evil incarnate, but let's not go down the road of suggesting the purity and interest in the club of a stadium management company. Otherwise it just becomes a RAWRRRRR SISUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

 

[Astute]

Were ACL invited to submit a revised offer that complied with the law?

Did they?

Therefore, could it be accepted?

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?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Think you're making it more complicated than it is

I'm really not...

 

[Deleted member 5849]

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?

Were ACL invited to submit a revised offer that complied with the law?

Did they?

Therefore, could it be accepted?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Even Michael Howard was never this bad.

 

[Astute]

The same ACL, incidentally, who said negotiations were at an end, and who refused to entertain the idea of a three year break clause.

Are you forgetting or are you choosing to forget that in a long term rental agreement a ten year rolling contract was needed to fit in with FL rules?

 

[chiefdave]

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.

 

[Astute]

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.

Just a bit similar to what SISU are doing now. They ask for what can't be given if the other side is to stay within the law/governing rules and then blame the other side when it isn't given. A 3 year contract on a long term rental wasn't allowed just the same as unencumbered freehold wouldn't be allowed.

When the 3 year agreement wasn't allowed they used it as an excuse to blame ACL, but when it came to give a reason to the FL it was that trust had been lost and not down to the FL rules. Was this in case the rules had been bent for them by the FL again which would have made the 3 year rule acceptable and stopping them from distressing ACL?

 

[Ian1779]

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.

 

[chiefdave]

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.

The initial offer was based on p in the £ (can't remember the exact amount, sure someone will know), a revised CVA could be made that increased the p in the £.

The second question would need to be answered by ACL however PWKH has stated that it was rejected as SISU / Otium wouldn't agree to 2 pre-conditions. It is worth remembering that when responding to the CVA offer ACL have a legal framework they need to adhere to, they can't simply reject it because they don't like SISU.

 

[Astute]

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?

 

[Ian1779]

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.

 

[Astute]

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.

Who said illegal reasons? Love trying to twist words at times don't you. The legal reasons was the request to drop the JR. How can two sides work things out when litigation is threatened and used all the time.

FL rules? They want to see a ten year rolling contract on a long term rental agreement to secure the immediate future of each football club. ACL have no jurisdiction. This is why they have to stick to the FL rules. SISU got round the 10 year rolling contract at Northampton as it is a short term rental agreement.

You are the one that is trying to make out that ACL did everything wrong. You are trying to make out that SISU have been wronged. This thread has already covered all of this. Yet you choose to ignore this and try and make out I have said something I have not.