Never said the quantum of the rent to be unlawful i said they would seek to prove the contract was unlawful when it was signed....... i will leave you to figure out the implications of that in respect of what has been paid, who would be liable to repay, and the effect on that company, but i have explained them before. SISU need to break the current lease.
The balance sheet test has been a standard test indicating insolvency but is not sufficient on its own. Suggest you google tests of insolvency. CCFC do not have a rent debtor they have a creditor and on the basis that SISU have top up funds monthly how are CCFC putting anything aside? It seems that ACL are prepared to call a halt to the pain and accept no income at all and no recovery of back rent...... administration is potentially one step from liquidation
Again I suggest you use google for the duties of directors. Not interested in Man City to be honest but yes they are exposed to the owner wanting his money back. So long as SISU directors have pumped their clients money in on the instructions of those clients having made the clients fully aware of all the circumstances then i don't see that you have a point
The cost of staging the British Speedway GP is huge,with hundreds of tons of shale having to be shipped in,and it takes nearly a whole week to prepare the track,and I believe they have about 24 hours after the meeting to put it all back including the pitch which comes in pallet forms.The closed roof guarantees the meeting will go ahead,something that is essential,therefore the Ricoh would be a non starter.
The Millenium Stadium because of its closed roof is much more of an attractive venue then the Ricoh.
I don't profess to be an expert in insolvency law but there are a lot of statements made in here that I don't believe to be correct.
Firstly, why would SISU bring an action to demonstrate the level of rent is unlawful? At the moment they are paying nothing - undoubtedly a court would rule it should be something so SISU have no interest in litigating. The longer this goes on the fatter SISU get, off the unpaid rent, and the more pain ACL feel.
Since when has proving assets exceed liabilities been a test of insolvency? A test of administration will be an ability to pay. I imagine ccfc have been setting aside the rent as a debtor so it should be available. Unless they are setting aside a lower provision but they will be including something for back rent in their calculations.
A duty to protect the rights of their company is so wide in scope to be almost meaningless. I could argue the man city directors aren't acting in the best interests of the club by overexposing the club - but that's just a matter of opinion. Equally, surely if that is a test SISU directors have failed in their duty to SISU by pumping cash into ccfc.
On what grounds do you consider SISU could argue the rent to be unlawful? This is civil law - parties can agree what they like (even the parameters of the judges discretion) subject to certain safeguards put in place by Acts of parliament/case law. If it was unlawful I am sure SISU would have moved to have it set aside by now. As it is it will be for ACL to seek to enforce the agreement.
The point I was making about directors responsibilities, whilst attempting to be polite, was that your observation was, somewhat, irrelevant.
Both OSB and Spencer are getting at key issues here tbf.
I've been in a few court rooms myself over the last 30 years in business and nothing is certain when in front of a judge.
Both sides will think they are right. Both sides will make valid points and provide evidence.
The judge will make the ruling and that is unlikely to come quickly.
Both these sides have reached an impasse and that's why they are in the court room next week. Frankly they have both acted as bad as each other for a number of reasons that I won't explain here now but strangely it can be resolved at the stroke of a pen on a chequebook if so desired.
I'm begining to wonder just how much bad feeling, ego and feeling sorry for themselves is clouding the vision of both sides to think straight anymore. :facepalm:
You'd do well to find a more conniving, underhand, selfish and counter-productive owner! The ultimate waste product of the capitalist system-scavengers.
When was the last time they closed the roof at Brandon Speedway then?
The Millenium Stadium has hosted quite a few World and British Speedway events, along with other types of Moto GP events...and guess what?....They've never once failed to convert back to the Palletised grass for Rugby/Football tournaments:wave:
My prediction is no result on Friday.
If you look at all the other clubs involved in insolvency cases they are normally given a stay of execution, so with SISU's ability for avoiding the truth very likely there legal teams will win a delay for one reason or another.
Hopefully that will mean that we will get to the end of the season before this is sorted giving us a chance at going for the play offs.
I'm not sure what your point is?
It was mentioned earlier that ACL could compensate for the loss of the football club by simply staging more concerts, and I pointed out that even class A venues like Wembley and the Millenium Stadium stage only 2 or 3 concerts a year, because there simply aren't many acts out there doing stadium tours.
You seemed to take it as an attack on the Millennium Stadium which is odd. Of course it stages other events, but as others have said it is more suited to them because of the retractable roof.
You have missed the point that was raised about the Speedway GP - the cost to convert the venue is huge but this is justifiable because the event is guaranteed to go ahead. With an open roof you could not guarantee fine weather, so the point about Brandon (which is a permanent Speedway venue) is a mute one, because it is the cost of converting a non-speedway venue which is the issue and why the MS is unique in that sense.
The point stands, there aren't an awful lot more main stadium events the Ricoh could attract if the club were evicted.
That would put you in a minority of one then.
I just think that even IF SISU lose next Friday and a judgement is passed down (I find unlikely) they will have what is it 4 weeks to appeal that? Then another hearing date.
All this simply means ACL's attempts at getting admin and a 10 point hit now so not to hurt the club is a red hearing. makes me wonder if they can't see that in the first place what the hell are they doing?
I don't condone SISU's actions to date but ACL are not exactly doing much better.
On what grounds do you consider SISU could argue the rent to be unlawful? This is civil law - parties can agree what they like (even the parameters of the judges discretion) subject to certain safeguards put in place by Acts of parliament/case law. If it was unlawful I am sure SISU would have moved to have it set aside by now. As it is it will be for ACL to seek to enforce the agreement.
The point I was making about directors responsibilities, whilst attempting to be polite, was that your observation was, somewhat, irrelevant.
I suggest you try harder to be polite, you are not quite getting there yet!
Never-the-less your first point is an interesting one and I was thinking of politely asking OSB's opinion on this too. Personally I think the rent level is above what could be justified but I'm not sure how it could be viewed as unlawful. And perhaps "unlawful" is the wrong term maybe "unenforceable" was more the term OSB was looking for?
imp:
Agreed.
The only thing that is certain in a courtroom is that the lawyers are getting richer, whilst the parties are getting poorer!
It's also worthwhile making the point that an average barrister earns £1k a day. Makes you think if they could compromise we could get a decent player for that.
Are you really telling me that all assets at Sisu HO ie chairs, computers etc. are owned by Avro rather than Sisu themselves? Just think that ACL are taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut that is all.nothing for the bailiffs to collect though Tony it is all charged to ARVO (a sisu backed fund). Options are being exhausted one by one
Are you really telling me that all assets at Sisu HO ie chairs, computers etc. are owned by Avro rather than Sisu themselves? Just think that ACL are taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut that is all.
If that is true (and I have reason to doubt you) then it shows just how slimy this Sisu lot are!Not a chance of that happening. There aren't any assets. Baliffs were on site several months ago chasing SISU over other debts and it was realised that there were no assets to recover the debt.
Not to my knowledge have they.They stage the British GP once a year and have done for about 12 years,but that is the only speedway events,ever held there. The British Final is held at Wolverhampton,and World Team Cup events have been held recently at the Norfolk arena.The difference is Brandon is already speedway stadium,with a track already there.In the past at Cardiff,shale has been shipped in from Denmark,at enormous cost.It takes them a whole week,with round the clock work to get the stadium ready for the event,as soon as the meeting is over work starts immediately overnight to put the stadium back to its original state.Without the closed roof,the costs and risks of a rain off,or indeed several rain offs would make it too risky/costly to stage it there.When was the last time they closed the roof at Brandon Speedway then?
The Millenium Stadium has hosted quite a few World and British Speedway events, along with other types of Moto GP events...and guess what?....They've never once failed to convert back to the Palletised grass for Rugby/Football tournaments:wave:
OK point taken. I have made the mistake of thinking that everyone else lives their lives as I do HONESTLY.but the action and dispute is with CCFC......... the assets of SISU office etc are not at risk....... there is no claim ACL can make against SISU because SISU dont owe ACL anything
but the action and dispute is with CCFC......... the assets of SISU office etc are not at risk....... there is no claim ACL can make against SISU because SISU dont owe ACL anything
Exactly.
The only assets ccfc have are the players - and the bailiffs have realised they won't get anything for them!!
Although, maybe now that horse is off the menu in beef burgers, we could find a buyer for the players!
My guess is, and it is only guess, is that they will seek to prove that those who originally signed the lease didn't have the knowledge, authority or power to do so and therefore the club have been wrongly or over charged from the beginning. That is a basis they could dispute that the current arrears are not due, which if accepted means the debt isnt taken in to account when assessing solvency and would lead to a large claim against ACL for repayment, interest possibly compensation at a later date. That breaks the lease, would probably break ACL too. Is it possible yes is it likely I dont know, but SISU need to do something because otherwise they prove solvency now and are still locked into a contract they say the club cant afford, the debt going up and no prospect of getting the other income sources (ACL simply wont let them have them). The ruling of solvency is in reality a sham if that happens. Otherwise the whole situation makes no sense at all. What other grounds are there to break the lease because it doesnt fail on value no matter how much we think it is expensive. SISU need control of the Ricoh or to move the club away both options require breaking the lease
The comments about directors is there because members of this forum keep saying ACL should act in the best interests of the club. It simply isnt the case. The directors of ACL act in the best interests of ACL - they take in to account the interest of all trading partners but they dont have to if there are good reasons not to, and they will prioritise their duties to best affect ACL. I believe the statement from ACL also refers to looking after the interests of ACL before looking after the club, but we focus understandably on what they said about protecting the club. That means the actions of ACL indeed the actions of SISU should be looked at slightly differently to always looking at it from a Club point of view. Was just explaining that to other members, and that is why i think it is relevant
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?