In the last week or so (1 Viewer)

[dongonzalos]

We have the FA confirming the golden share is in administration
We have no update from the administrator
SISU are apparently going to sponsor the shirts next season as genius way to get round the FFP rules.
We have SISU meeting with players to discuss their future
SISU accept they would lose an appeal against a points deduction, which alludes to the golden share is in administration.
High court papers are leaked that say the golden share has been in LTD since 2001.
The administrator initially said he needs to establish where the golden share is.
Gary Hoffman is to meet with the administrator.

Lots of things pointing towards the club been in admin, hence should be available for sale.
Yet SISU seem to be carrying on regardless.

Either they know the administrator will not sell the club or they are certain they will bid for it clearing their own debt.

However even with this they will have no home

“The problem is that the people with the most ridiculous ideas are always the people who are most certain of them."

 

---

[Big_Ben]

“The problem is that the people with the most ridiculous ideas are always the people who are most certain of them."

Are you sure about that?

 

[wingy]

Full steam ahead ,surface like a millpool,underneath the surface legs kicking at a frenzied pace .Whats that ahead through this fog of Confusion,ICEBERG:thinking about:

 

[Otis]

I thought we hadn't had the FL confirming where the golden share was.

We've only had the word of Bob Ainsworth haven't we?

 

[psgm1]

Whilst the paperwork says the share was signed over to Ltd in 2001, what sisu are trying to say is that in terms of the FL, holdings and ltd are in effect one and the same. This raises the ridiculous situation whereby sisu on one hand are saying holdings and ltd are different entities ( to try and get around points deduction ), whilst on the other hand they are saying they are the same so the share is in their hands.

Its a blatant flim flam job, but a judge must act on legality not common sense.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Common Sense this is SISU your talking about:thinking about:

Whilst the paperwork says the share was signed over to Ltd in 2001, what sisu are trying to say is that in terms of the FL, holdings and ltd are in effect one and the same. This raises the ridiculous situation whereby sisu on one hand are saying holdings and ltd are different entities ( to try and get around points deduction ), whilst on the other hand they are saying they are the same so the share is in their hands.

Its a blatant flim flam job, but a judge must act on legality not common sense.