On what basis would MM & GR have grounds to reclaim their money back of sisu? Other than because ML said so how are ACL getting paid twice? ACL want the £590k figure that the FL made up as a condition of otium receiving the right to play in the league.
To be honest I wish the FL never put this financial clause in it. All its done is complicate things further and the quickest and simplest way out of it is for the FL to pay ACL in full and we can all move onto the next hurdle of the JR. If it's going to cost sisu £590k regardless of if they pay it all to ACL or £300k to MM/GR and the balance to ACL lets get it all paid to ACL and leave MM/GR to argue the toss with ACL rather than ACL & sisu arguing about it instead of getting the club home. Why would you want anything else?
Once the £590k is sorted we can then move onto this nonsense about not being able to do a deal while the JR is still going on. They were willing to do a deal last season while the JR was going on so why not this year. I think this is something Rob S can lead the way on and something we should all get behind him on.
One bridge (excuse) at a time.
They may well not have any grounds, but that is who they should take it up with.
It isn't hard is it, if the MM and GR payment is for the same thing then the FL take what they paid off and SISU pay the rest, if it is different they pay it all. It is all sat there waiting for the FL to decide so nothing to get knickers in a twist about.
Did the FL say that MM & GR had to make the payment in order for otium to receive the right to play in the league?
So you're suggesting that the FL should hand the £300k that MM and GR have paid ACL back to them by taking it from the £590k in the escrow account? Would that even be legal? Would that not open them up to a world of litigation from ACL?
If it's stopping the club returning home it's worth getting your knickers in a twist, surely.
I might be repeating what's already been said in the thread but I'm guessing that MM and GR were still liable under their guarantees. The £590k only pays a small proportion of what ACL were owed and therefore ACL were within their rights to call on the guarantors to make an additional payment.
If that's the case the guarantor payment has nothing to do with SISU/FL.
No, I am saying if MM and GR want to try and get the money back they should chase SISU for it (if they have any chance of it) IF it is for the same thing that the 590k is then why should ACL get the money twice?? If it is totally different, SISU will and should pay up. That is the FL to decide. Surely ACL should accept it is with the FL and that SISU have complied by putting it all there for now and surely they should be chasing the FL to sort their act out? It seems like it is the FL causing this hold up at the minute as they have said the money is there.
I'll ask you again. Did the FL say that MM & GR had to pay ACL £300k so otium could receive the right to play in the football league?
What authority do the FL have to rule on money that ACL receives from a third party represents? Where do they stop deciding on what payments ACL receive from third parties represents? The hotel rent? The casino rent? Income from the exhibition hall? If they keep digging ACL could be ruled to owe otium thousands and thousands by the FL using your theory. We won't be any closer to a return home, in fact we'd be further away but I'm starting to get the impression that that would please you.
The football league can determine what it likes. The truth is its not legally enforceable and sisu could just say fuck off we are paying nothing. They haven't and so it's perfectly fair for them to point out ACL have recovered earnings from elsewhere and the league can decide if they wish to consider this value or not.
ACL can't claim any money - they have zero entitlement to any.
and by not paying it sisu have
zero entitlement to the golden share
I'll ask you again. Did the FL say that MM & GR had to pay ACL £300k so otium could receive the right to play in the football league?
What authority do the FL have to rule on money that ACL receives from a third party represents? Where do they stop deciding on what payments ACL receive from third parties represents? The hotel rent? The casino rent? Income from the exhibition hall? If they keep digging ACL could be ruled to owe otium thousands and thousands by the FL using your theory. We won't be any closer to a return home, in fact we'd be further away but I'm starting to get the impression that that would please you.
Well no, but if the fl think that what's already been paid is for exactly the same thing as what sisu are paying they could knock it down.
Surely as the fl set the condition they have authority to change the condition based on what they think? Have the fl done anything simple or theoretically???
If it's completely different they will pay the full amount so not sure what casino rent has to do with it as that would come under completely different wouldn't it?
Why would it please me not coming home?
and by not paying it sisu have
zero entitlement to the golden share
Yes but in the eyes of the fl they have paid it?and by not paying it sisu have
zero entitlement to the golden share
Who is defending them and where?Correct but some seem to think leaving SMALL details out helps them in there defense of SISU....
Yes but in the eyes of the fl they have paid it?
Yes that's what i mean, from sisus perspective it is paid so the fl need to decide which amount as it is all sat there waiting.No. In the eyes of the Fl they have placed the money in a Ring fenced account. The fl. know it hasn't been paid to ACL. The fl. Now has to decide whether to move the goal posts in SISU's favour - and thus break their own word to ACL. If they do that, they will have to explain their decision or else lose face, or depending on what they agreed, or how they made an aggreement with ACL, face a possible claim from ACL ( I admit I don't know how watertight any agreement with ACL was ).
Well no, but if the fl think that what's already been paid is for exactly the same thing as what sisu are paying they could knock it down.
Surely as the fl set the condition they have authority to change the condition based on what they think? Have the fl done anything simple or theoretically???
If it's completely different they will pay the full amount so not sure what casino rent has to do with it as that would come under completely different wouldn't it?
Why would it please me not coming home?
Yes that's what i mean, from sisus perspective it is paid so the fl need to decide which amount as it is all sat there waiting.
That's exactly my point Nick.
If the combined income from the hotel and casino was £590k would you be saying that the amount has already been paid and therefore sisu don't have to pay anything because that would mean ACL have been paid twice?
This is a private arrangement between two individuals and ACL. They don't work for sisu, to the best of anyone's knowledge they have no vested interest in sisu, they haven't had an involvement with the club in years and correct me if I'm wrong but when they were involved the club it comprised of CCFC Ltd and SBS & L, two companies that no longer exist so therefore are in no way the club. That very faint connection went when sisu liquidated one and put the other in administration with that company being well on the way to liquidation. So other than because ML said so, how are the two payments linked?
What I really don't get is why CCFC fans give a flying fcuk if ACL get paid twice? I want this paid because it's a very real barrier in stopping us returning to the Ricoh and that's all that matters. If it gets paid we can all move onto the next stumbling block but at least we'll be moving forward.
Why do you and other CCFC fans want anything but? It makes no sense.
I agree with you on SISU's perspective, but the sticking point is ACL's perspective that it hasn't been paid to them.
I think they could drop the payment as a prerequistit of negotiations though, as it is the league who are the problem until 07. August when they have their meeting and decide what to do in this case. Not SISU.
Yes that's what i mean, from sisus perspective it is paid so the fl need to decide which amount as it is all sat there waiting.
I still don't get how an agreement between two parties should impact on an agreement made between two other parties.
It's just Sisu trying it on, hilarious that so many buy it hook line and sinker like everything else that comes out the club. I fully expect the FL to do whatever Sisu tell them is right of course. Members club and all that.
Yes, and wait for the FL to announce "it was too late to do anything else, we had to ensure the fixtures are fulfilled"
Yeah OSB the FL are being played, again.
Of course. Let's not forget the story about the MM/GR money came out on May 31st. Here we are a month and a half later still not knowing if it had any impact.
It'll be at least 5 years at Sixfields before the FL get involved.
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?