No I never said that. I am saying he offered less to all Creditors. So ACL would get more from Otium than Haskell. Do you accept that?
No I never said that. I am saying he offered less to all Creditors. So ACL would get more from Otium than Haskell. Do you accept that?
More cash but a broken lease so very very very very much less from Otium than from haskell.
Yes I accept that based on the known facts that is the case.
Do you accept that Haskell could have offered anything from 1p up to 25p?
So, all questions get tweeted to reid, Clarke checks his twitter and gets a heads up on what he will be asked and prepares answers. Here's a question for him. Can he do a fit and proper persons test on himself to be in his job, and when he fails it will he kindly do one.
Far be it for me to quote the bleeding obvious but otium have the same bloody directors as CCfc ltdOf course I accept that. The original discussion was created by don. My point is that legally the league had to accept otium a bid as that bid paid all creditors more than Haskell and that included ACL.
Wrong. Haskell does not have a lease.
Wrong. Haskell does not have a lease.
Far be it for me to quote the bleeding obvious but otium have the same bloody directors as CCfc ltd
if haskell had brought ccfc they would have played at the ricoh and acl would have been massively better off than they are now. You know this. If he had brought limited he would have had the lease, no doubt acl would have been willing to offer a better deal than the 1.2mill though, say something really reasonable like 400k.
Several reasons -- the administrator has to satisfy creditors and the bid by Otium was the best. What you seem to actually be suggesting is that the Football League should ignore the rules on liquidation and hand over an entitlement to another party on the basis that they would pay a commercial rent that the preferred bidder will not. So say the council said to Otium its £400,000 to you and to Haskell its £150,000 to you. You believe the FL should say over to you Mr Haskell. Actually on this they have made the correct decision. Landlords are not allowed to dictate who owns a football club. In the same way that the SISU bunch have been trying to force ACL out ACL have blatantly tried to get Haskell in as he satisfied their interests. Both sides are lamentable.
My point is that legally the league had to accept otium a bid as that bid paid all creditors more than Haskell and that included ACL.
No I said the FL did not have to agree the ground share.
They were advised there was no other options and only agreed on this basis to ensure fixtures were to be fulfilled. They said the decision would be based on this and the provisos of the FFP.
Well it became clear there was other options.
It also became clear that under provisos of the FFP that the Ricoh was the better option.
So they had if they had the stomach for the battle the grounds to refuse the ground share.
They now say they didn't in order to ensure Coventry fulfilled their fixtures.
How would refusing a ground share stop coventry fulfilling their fixtures?
If at this point SISU threatened to stop Coventry fulfilling their fixtures.
The FL would have the grounds to refuse at 'their own discretion' to hand over the GS to someone trying to make a decision not in the interests of FFP.
Someone attempting to stop the club from fulfilling its fixtures.
If they refuse to hand over the GS.
Then what happens next......
Several reasons -- the administrator has to satisfy creditors and the bid by Otium was the best. What you seem to actually be suggesting is that the Football League should ignore the rules on liquidation and hand over an entitlement to another party on the basis that they would pay a commercial rent that the preferred bidder will not. So say the council said to Otium its £400,000 to you and to Haskell its £150,000 to you. You believe the FL should say over to you Mr Haskell. Actually on this they have made the correct decision. Landlords are not allowed to dictate who owns a football club. In the same way that the SISU bunch have been trying to force ACL out ACL have blatantly tried to get Haskell in as he satisfied their interests. Both sides are lamentable.
You are not listening - that would be illegal. Say ACL offered the rent at £10 million and then they said no and then offered to a new owner the same deal for 5 pence. The point is they cannot get involved with third party arrangements. They have to accept that the club was homeless. It really is that simple.
Not the point - it is not the administrators role to assume the future - again the offer was less - the adminstrator could not agree such terms
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?