I would love this to be true from a long term club perspective - However,I'm treating the 'news' with caution! Surely Otium haven't passed the fit and proper persons test at present! I hope this isn't just an update on what the current state of play is!
SISU appear to be devious, clever (when it comes to litigation not running a football club) and I'm sure they won't give up. Expect a long winded court wrangle if this is true!
What a bellend!
Right, so this has clearly been misinterpreted to quite an extent.
However, whilst Otium have not been rejected by the Football League yet, that's not to say they won't be.
Guilfoyle's comments this morning were interesting and cast doubt over whether the FL could transfer the Golden Share to them.
The email states the meeting of the FL is in the "next few days". Sorry to sound like a broken record, but it really is worthwhile pressuring them to take this into account when discussing issue of the share. FL contact details are here. Do it.
Hopefully this ain't over yet...
The deafening silence from all parties does seem to give this great news some credibility.
That's it keep criticising people bet it makes you feel great!!!!
People who go on Twitter and mislead people? Bet that is even greater.
That's not to say they will be either...
Strangely he's criticising him in his next post.
I'm critising daft fans that would actually believe it so get ya facts right.......
I'm critising daft fans that would actually believe it so get ya facts right.......
Knowing our lot would'nt be to sure about that...
Lord, talk about someone seeing what they want to see in an email. Otium might fail the FL test, but how he's drawn that they will fail from that email beats me.
As for the exit from Admin, for Otium/SISU to win through they'll have to jump all of these three hurdles:
1) To exit via a CVA, they'll need 75% of votes by value, but 50% have to come from unconnected creditors. That means that ACL have scope to shoot it down, possibly, as they're the only major unconnected creditor. (Of course it may be that 100% payment of debts would mean that you can leave admin without a CVA, but I've not seen any evidence for or against this - any links, anyone?).
If ACL are paid in full I can't see they can block a CVA.
2) Even if SISU get through (1), there's still the potential ACL could challenge the decision via the courts as unfairly prejudicial. Their grounds for this might be related to their expectation of future income, based on the proposal for the lease in the terms of the exit.
If admin ends with a CVA the lease is not broken - no unfairly treatment. But that would mean the club would stay at the Ricoh and pay £1.2m in rent per year, or renegotiate a new lease. Nothing to take to the courts.
More likely admin will end with owners liquidation of limited. That will break the lease and ACL should be up for a compensation. That is suggested to be around three years rent.
3) Whilst all of this is going on, there's the very real possibility that the FL themselves might tell the administrator that they're unable to accept Otium's bid as it doesn't pass their tests either in regard to 'fit & proper' owners, or more likely because they don't have a credible plan for groundshare and/or a new stadium. That's the Brendan Guilfoyle take on things.
So, in a nutshell, I don't think this is done yet by a long way. I think it's why ACL are keeping quiet at the moment - I suspect they're waiting for the FL decision.
Sooo, been busy for much of the last 4 hours and unable to read the rest of this thread...to sum up, Chad was full of shite?
Sooo, been busy for much of the last 4 hours and unable to read the rest of this thread...to sum up, Chad was full of shite?
If admin ends with a CVA the lease is not broken - no unfairly treatment. But that would mean the club would stay at the Ricoh and pay £1.2m in rent per year, or renegotiate a new lease. Nothing to take to the courts.
More likely admin will end with owners liquidation of limited. That will break the lease and ACL should be up for a compensation. That is suggested to be around three years rent.[
/QUOTE]
Interesting to know, I wasn't aware details of the lease were made public. Can SISU just liquidate Ltd once it has only the lease left in it or is there a process that has to be followed or nay objection ACL could raise on the ground of linked companies?
ACl are not keeping quiet - their administration lawyer Brendan Guilfoyle is making a lot of noises to keep confusion at a high and suggest alternative outcomes where ACL will come out winners.
Is he being paid by ACL? That would explain why he keeps popping up but if he is noone is exactly going out of their way to make it clear. How many people who aren't on forums such as this even make the connection between him and ACL, think a lot of people would assume he's speaking independently.
Wasn't he the administrator who ACL nominated to look after it? Whereas SISU nominated Appleton?
ACl are not keeping quiet - their administration lawyer Brendan Guilfoyle is making a lot of noises to keep confusion at a high and suggest alternative outcomes where ACL will come out winners.
duffer;472241 As for the other stuff - no CVA required if paid in full said:If the lease is broken and a compensation is due, then that compensation is based on an assumption on how long it will take to re let the stadium. It will always be difficult to predict that period and re-letting the Ricoh would be very difficult.
There will be a negotiation - possible with Appelton as mediator? If they can't agree, it will end up in court.
It has been suggested a three year re-let period is considered to be within the range of what the court would rule - if it ever gets there.
Below link covers some basics about leases ... see point 9:
http://www.lawdonut.co.uk/law/premises-law/getting-out-of-a-lease/getting-out-of-a-lease-18-faqs#9
Erm... Brendan Guilfoyle would have been ACL's Administrator, iirc, but I don't think he's their lawyer.
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?