So basically: PA- Lies. PWKH - Truth.
Does that about sum it up?
So basically: PA- Lies. PWKH - Truth.
Does that about sum it up?
this is getting beyond a joke :slap:now this adminstartor needs to be kicked into touch and one be appointed that plays on an even playing field not one tilted well and truly to one side !!!!
If the contract has always been with CCFC Ltd and paid by CCFCH why doesnt the administrator ask CCFC H to give him funds specifically and only earmarked so that CCFC Ltd can meet its contractual liabilities to pay for the academy at the AEH. That way CCFC Ltd retains the academy but the debt to CCFCH increases. Clearly he thinks he can get CCFCH to pay accumulated debt of CCFC to AEH so must have some influence or instruction. If the share is in CCFC Ltd then so too is the academy
who actually pays is a complete red herring...... it is who has the contract and therfore the legal liability that is the crux of it
What he appears to be saying though is that the contract between CCFCLtd and AEH is finished and he is accepting no further liability. Then saying a new contract is necessary between CCFCH and AEH to use the facilities. Except CCFCH can not enter in to a contract as academy provider as at the moment CCFCH can not prove ownership of club or academy
Don't think anyone has called Appleton a liar-just that the tone of his statements appear a little beyond the impartiality expected of someone in his position.
Somehow I thought that would be the response. If he said "good morning" it would be the same. Hysteria would follow.
I'll just leave them to slug it out with each other without further comment, I think.
Extrapolating things to an extreme I think Torch.
I would look at my watch to check it was not the afternoon though
Of course he is asking them to do business with Holdings - that is his point, the arrangement has always worked like that. The company he is running has no money - zilch, it is essentially non-trading. Tell me, would you rather the conversation went like this:
PA: Can our academy please play at the Higgs Centre?
HT: Can you pay for it?
PA: No, I run a company with no income streams whatsoever.
HT: OK, bye then.
He is calling for Higgs to accept money direct from Holdings, because that is all he can do.
Of course he is asking them to do business with Holdings - that is his point, the arrangement has always worked like that. The company he is running has no money - zilch, it is essentially non-trading. Tell me, would you rather the conversation went like this:
PA: Can our academy please play at the Higgs Centre?
HT: Can you pay for it?
PA: No, I run a company with no income streams whatsoever.
HT: OK, bye then.
He is calling for Higgs to accept money direct from Holdings, because that is all he can do.
Why would Holdings pay? its not there acadamy is it and they (Holdings) are nothing to do with CCFC Ltd
So Higgs have wanted to close the Academy down since ACL first mooted Administration then?
I think just becuase you do not agree with what is said, doesnt mean its not impartial- it's just not what you agree with!
The Acadamy as in young players belongs to CCFC Ltd.
The building belongs to Higgs trust who have not been paid .
What I'm saying Appleton/ Holdings can't have it both ways, they can't claim to be running part of CCFC Ltd and not another part either one and the same company or they are seperate, in which case Holdings would have no right to play in the league
What I'm saying Appleton/ Holdings can't have it both ways, they can't claim to be running part of CCFC Ltd and not another part either one and the same company or they are seperate, in which case Holdings would have no right to play in the league
all that the higgs are doing is proving that ltd and holdings are one company nothing to do with the academy !!!
They are playing by Sisu rules now !!
Of course he is asking them to do business with Holdings - that is his point, the arrangement has always worked like that. The company he is running has no money - zilch, it is essentially non-trading. Tell me, would you rather the conversation went like this:
PA: Can our academy please play at the Higgs Centre?
HT: Can you pay for it?
PA: No, I run a company with no income streams whatsoever.
HT: OK, bye then.
He is calling for Higgs to accept money direct from Holdings, because that is all he can do.
The academy grant is £480,000.. accordring to the FL that goes to CCFC Ltd.
One could read into the statement by Mr Appleton that Limited & Holdings are inextricably linked and that it is impossible for other parties to do business with and for administration of Limited be effective while Holdings are not in administration.
Perhaps that was the real intent of this statement.
Hi!
I am new here and have been reading this forum for a couple of months now.
I just want to make a point. I do not understand why Mr Appleton is involved in issues regarding CCFCH and AHT? This is not part of his domain therefore making
statement regarding these two third parties seem to baffle me.
I myself have three LTD companies which are running along well. I know for fact that if one of my LTD companies goes into administration, the administrator is the one responsible and has a duty for that company that is in administation and not any issues outside the administrators jurisdiction. Therefore he/she cannot get involved in any issues involving any of my remaining two companies and its third party unless the third party is the one he/she is representing.
Mr Appletons duty is with CCFC ltd and them only. CCFCH's issue with AHT are classed as separate entities and I fail to understand how he is in a position to publish such statements.
The statements he makes should be regarding issues between CCFCLTD and any direct third parties invovled and not squables between two other third party outside his jurisdiction
The following is an analogy of what he is doing.
1. We have Curry/PC world. which works as a partnership but two LTD companies.
2. PC-world ltd go into administion before that, they have tranfered all there new electrical stocks and contracts to Curry's ltd.
3. An administartor is appointed to PC-World.
4. In the meantime, the PC-worlds ex wholesale suppliers who's contract had been tranfered to Curry's have stopped supplying to Curry's Ltd due to outstanding bills that are owed to them. Causing heated exchanges between the two organistions.
5. PC-World's administator makes a public statement regarding the conflict between Curry's and there suppliers and how the supplyers were happy dealing with them when Curry's was Curry's/PCworld.
The obvious response from retail business world media and the retail suppliers lawyers would be why is the Administartor of PC world getting involved in other peoples business when he should be concentrating on getting all the facts and figures ready for a quick impartial resolution for PCworld who he was appointed by.
Mr Appleton please stick to the road and stay within your boundaries. You are assigned as an administrator and spokesman for CCFCLTD. Please refrain from getting involved in other peoples problems.
Thankyou.
Its quite simple how I see it.
If the academy belongs to ccfc ltd then the administrator needs to pay. If it belongs to holdings then sisu needs to pay.
Why is the administrator expecting sisu to pay for something he is responsible for?
He is limiting himself to looking after Ltd. That's why he's saying as Ltd have never paid the bill, he's not going to start now!
I would have thought items paid by CCFC H for CCFC form part of the management charges and inter company transactions for each year. So that items contracted for by CCFC Ltd and paid for by CCFCH appear on the correct set of accounts...... that is the set of accounts relating to which company has the liability to pay not who actually paid
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?