DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
Now, I don't disagree with any of that.
I haven't said you have, I said some had.
However in such a debate it's wise to emphasise that a perfectly reasonable argument can be made that the administrator is doing his job, is not corrupt, and probably isn't a rent boy as far as I know.
I don;t think that's a conspiracy theory.
One would assume the grant has been used to make payment, and Holdings have matched that payment.
That's not really relevant to the academy refusing to take payment from holdings, as they have done until this point however.
Aah I've got it now you keep referring to the Academy but you don't mean the Academy Where you say Academy I think you mean the Higgs Centre?
What I want is to know where the grant went, where the golden share is (and thus the Academy) and for holdings or whoever has the golden share to sort out a new contract for the Academy to use the Higgs CentreAm I missing something, fans want the administrator to take control of the academy and pay for the facilities and all the wages of the staff but ltd have no money to do this?
Will this not liquidate the academy the life blood of our club?
Am I missing something, fans want the administrator to take control of the academy and pay for the facilities and all the wages of the staff but ltd have no money to do this?
Will this not liquidate the academy the life blood of our club?
What I want is to know where the grant went, where the golden share is (and thus the Academy) and for holdings or whoever has the golden share to sort out a new contract for the Academy to use the Higgs Centre
I think a blanket ban on analogies needs to be applied immediately now!
It's perfectly simple. ALL assets were with Ltd but Sisu, expecting an admin (whether by them or some else) have transferred these assets without League permission. Thus the transfer will be declared null and void and we will be saddled with a further points deduction going in to next season. This whole mess has come about by Sisu playing "hard ball", how anyone can defend them is utterly beyond me.
One would assume the grant has been used to make payment, and Holdings have matched that payment.
That's not really relevant to the academy refusing to take payment from holdings, as they have done until this point however.
CCFC H was paying the contract held by CCFC Ltd for use of the AEH Trust facilities. What that means in accounting terms is that for every amount paid to AEH Trust then the debt owed by CCFCLtd to CCFCH is increased in equal amount.
CCFC H are paying on behalf of CCFC Ltd not instead of.
The administrator can not accept more debt and has no income with which to pay the bill. Therefore CCFC Ltd is in breach of the contract for facilities at AEH.
CCFC H has no contract what so ever with AEH. The fact that it made payments on behalf of CCFC Ltd does not create, indicate or prove any contract at all. What it has done over the years is to increase the amount that CCFC Ltd owe CCFC H
Unless there is a new contract acceptable to both sides then CCFC H can not use the AEH facilities
The thing about administrations is that the administrators and the company creditors revert to the legal basis of contract law, for their own protection..... it doesnt matter what might seem practical, or who in the past has paid the money over. The academy contract is between CCFC Ltd and AEH ...... there is no other academy contract
This all true.
But could it have been an acceptable short term solution if a new 3 months contract had been written and signed between CCFC(H) and AEH?
Wouldn't that have indicated a desire to leave the acadamy out of the equation while the administration proces finds its course?
Is it a conspiracy theory to say that the academy are refusing to take payment when it is offered? Nobody seems to want to answer my question as to whether John Cleese making payment would be accepted by them. Shall we assume that we all tacitly acknowledge it would be? If we assume payment by AN Other would be accepted, then we have to ask why payment is not being accepted when it is offered, no?
I've already said they're more than welcome to ask the question about who actually they're dealing with, given they assumed CCFC was CCFC, be it Ltd or Holdings, but it appears a balanced view and making an argument for a balanced view that does not condemn the administrator as a corrupt cunit means I must be desperately engaging in conspiracy theories.
Personally I would ask the question, and also take the payment, wouldn't you?
Could it not be argued that calling the administrator corrupt is far more of a conspiracy theory? He, after all, has yet to show he has personal animosity towards some of the parties.
No one is stupid enough to to weaken their position in the courts before next month's sitting.. it would also be possible for SISU to fund it via the administrator like they did for the rent pid to ACL for the last 3 matches of this season.
Well, in that case we can forget all the concerned voices about the young players - it's all about money and power.
But I don't think it would weaken ACL's position in court.
The administrator was able and willing to pay for the last three games as they were necessary to keep the club alive until a solution is found. I am not sure that is the case with the acadamy as it does not produce a short term income.
Maybe he should look for a source of income?
Anyone out there offering one, who may walk away if a better opportunity comes along whilst the administrator dithers?
How can he produce an income?
If you mean sell the company, then I believe that is what he is 'employed' to do, but then he needs to be presented with an offer.
I don't think the administrator even knows exactly what he is going to sell, and so a buyer wouldn't know exactly what he pays for and what amount he can/should offer.
Well, in that case we can forget all the concerned voices about the young players - it's all about money and power.
But I don't think it would weaken ACL's position in court.
The administrator was able and willing to pay for the last three games as they were necessary to keep the club alive until a solution is found. I am not sure that is the case with the acadamy as it does not produce a short term income.
How can he produce an income?
If you mean sell the company, then I believe that is what he is 'employed' to do, but then he needs to be presented with an offer.
I don't think the administrator even knows exactly what he is going to sell, and so a buyer wouldn't know exactly what he pays for and what amount he can/should offer.
We'll all know in around 4 weeks.
When he asks for more time. That date is just for an update.
I hope the judge asks for specifics when he asks for more time.
Details of where he is at what is remaining what are the time frames for each of the remaining areas
You seem to think clubs can just come out of administration in a few weeks. On average it takes at least 6 months even when there are interested parties.
I would be amazed if we are out before Christmas.
How many have took that long when a multi million there is say there saying. Is it in admin? If it is I will buy it it.
Just tell me is it or not?
This is a unique scenario where the owners are claiming that the club is not in administration.
The football association say it is.
This is the matter that I am confused as to why it is taking so long.
It really should not take so long to confirm if we are in administration or not.
How long it takes from that point for someone to buy us or SUSU re buy us is anybody's guess.
But this first step. I do not think he will provide the answer at the next hearing and I don't think it really has to take that long.
You seem to think clubs can just come out of administration in a few weeks. On average it takes at least 6 months even when there are interested parties.
I would be amazed if we are out before Christmas.
Then we really should expect some intervention through the FA/FL ,who regardless of Linnels continued sceptisism of where that share lies have to
sort out who and where we play next season ,would have thought there should be some legalese activity afoot here .:thinking about:
This all true.
But could it have been an acceptable short term solution if a new 3 months contract had been written and signed between CCFC(H) and AEH?
Wouldn't that have indicated a desire to leave the acadamy out of the equation while the administration proces finds its course?
How many have took that long when a multi million there is say there saying. Is it in admin? If it is I will buy it it.
You don't want any owner to do due diligence then?
You also don't want anybody to do due diligence on any possible owner?
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?