dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Technicality delays created by SISU till the end if the season.
If we go up they will cough u something and agree a deal. Then try and discover who the investors are and try and do business with them.
I am going for SISU win and ACL to be left with egg all over their face.
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
I don't know, and I guess nobody does, but one thing is for sure, at the minute SISU, in theory, owe ACL over £1m and, from sisu's perspective, throwing £100k at solicitors, if it saves £150k is money well spent.
And, as that is the case, I think ACL have a battle on their hands.
Well I agree sort of, but CCFC have paid 300k over the period in direct matchday costs normaly paid by ACL. Bear in mind this is nearly double the much discussed average rent for L1.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><img src="images/smilies/hat.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Pimp" smilieid="48" class="inlineimg" />
I'm going for admin with lots of people throwing a party in celebration.
Why? All the best players will be gone and we will have 10 points deducted !!!
SISU could still be with us as well.
Why? All the best players will be gone and we will have 10 points deducted !!!
SISU could still be with us as well.
God knows why. But some will be celebrating. Not me, I hasten to add.
I think they believe admin will get rid of SISU.
<p>
Matchday costs have nothing to do with rent.
Thank ob,
I see wnere you are on this and don't disagree, although the original contractors had authority for themselves at that time, and there could be arguments of acceptance over a period of time by the current owners. Maybe there could be an arguement that CCFC had no real alternative except acceptance over the original agreement.
Can you see any of this being within the remit of the application for administration? Perhaps if they wanted to, SISU could force it to be considered if they wished not to demonstrate that they could pay the full amount? But that would seem too risky and therefore very unlikely to me?
imp:
The judge will have to consider it in his initial evaluation of solvency because it is a tipping point. ACL will argue it is a valid debt previously uncontested and in line with the terms of the lease/licence, to counter that I would guess SISU will need to argue that it is not a valid debt and the basis for those assertions. I would also think that SISU wil argue they have paid most of it by matchday fees and the Escrow. I would have thought that will all lead to legal argument as to what has been done or not done. Once the debt has been valued then the judge can begin his assessment of solvency. So the lease/licence will have to be considered even if it is just to adjourn everything to a later date. Friday is only the start of the process in my opinion.
Could SISU force it to be considered, well if my guess is correct then they have to. The proving of a debt is different to settling a debt so there is room for discussion there. If SISU come across as concilliatory on the day then the judge might be sympathetic to their claims - the judge is there to decide on the evidence placed before him on the day, he is not there to delve into the situation and history.
Is this court day set in stone? On the basis that SISU is insolvent now will there be a court hearing if they pay up beforehand?
The judge will see sisu have the money to pay if they wish and therefore will not grant acl the administration they want. If it was a court case for the debt itself ,it would be a different matter.
I personally think sisu will show the judge adequate funds to be trading.
The judge will have to consider it in his initial evaluation of solvency because it is a tipping point. ACL will argue it is a valid debt previously uncontested and in line with the terms of the lease/licence, to counter that I would guess SISU will need to argue that it is not a valid debt and the basis for those assertions. I would also think that SISU wil argue they have paid most of it by matchday fees and the Escrow. I would have thought that will all lead to legal argument as to what has been done or not done. Once the debt has been valued then the judge can begin his assessment of solvency. So the lease/licence will have to be considered even if it is just to adjourn everything to a later date. Friday is only the start of the process in my opinion.
Could SISU force it to be considered, well if my guess is correct then they have to. The proving of a debt is different to settling a debt so there is room for discussion there. If SISU come across as concilliatory on the day then the judge might be sympathetic to their claims - the judge is there to decide on the evidence placed before him on the day, he is not there to delve into the situation and history.
All that points to a long process in my opinion
Just a minute everybody...........
People keep on talking on here that SISU can easily prove they are solvent, but it is not SISU in the dock here, it is CCFC, and that puts a totally different light on things.
CCFC - if we are to believe Fisher and pals - have been, are and will be trading at a very significant loss.
The resaon that the accounts of CCFC are for the third year in a row past due is that CCFC is not capable of continuing without a third party guaranteeing to finance its operations. To date, SISU have belatedly agreed to guarantee that financing and the accounts have ultimately been filed. They have not yet guaranteed to finance CCFC for a third time, so the accounts of CCFC cannot be filed.
The judge will see that CCFC - the defendent in this case - is in fact insolvent (as has been stated publically by both Fisher and Labovic), and if SISU do not want the judge to put CCFC into admin, then surely they are immediately going to have to give substantial financial gurantees to the judge to prove CCFC is not insolvent.
Is this the case, or am I misunderstanding something here?
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?