Still unsure about the 150K offer. (1 Viewer)

stupot07 · Sep 16, 2013

italiahorse said:
Did the CVA need to be signed that day ?

They had already adjourned once. ACL were advised that they couldn't include the 2 clauses in the CVA. They returned from the adjournment and hadn't withdrawn them. They had an opportunity.

stupot07 · Sep 16, 2013

italiahorse said:
But Ltd if the CVA had been signed would still be in business and passed to Otium.
On the second point the rent was reduced drastically to 150K in a move towards (perhaps better) what SISU wanted. Hardly ACL terms.

But the rent agreement was subject to sisu dropping the JR.....ignoring that it was thrown out, sisu obviously feel they have a case.

As far as we are aware, ACL have not subsequently offered the same deal to Otium and holdings. If they had of, ACL would be shouting it from the rooftops.

skybluefred · Sep 16, 2013

RoboCCFC90 said:
Passed on to SISU? Why? ACL have already said they didn't recognise SISU as owners of the club. CCFC Ltd was offered the deal, but PA had no players or team, there was no way he could have accepted it.

With half of the players registered to CCFC Ltd and half to Holdings Ltd it occurs to me that neither side could field a team.
Oh but I forgot Appleton couldn't FIND the players registered to CCFC Ltd. Ha Ha HA Ha Ha.

ohitsaidwalker king power · Sep 16, 2013

In my opinion the denial that the £150 k offer was made is a technical point those "aligned" to SISU empathy use to deflect the fundamentals of the argument in an effort to win favour more so than a disingenuous publicity “stunt” by ACL. In a legal sense it might be correct - the offer was made through the administrator perhaps is a complexity in need of a legal resolution- but surely this is a technicality that IS surmountable with a little will- I'm afraid for me it is clear- the will just wasn't there primarily wrapped around personality distress more so than an inability from a legal protocol- and so the way was blocked with futile non progressive arguments and multiple trips to Northampton the consequence.

I really think the only way forward is to remove the primary protagonist on both sides, de-personalise this whole sorry affair and start again at the negotiating table.

Sky Blues · Sep 16, 2013

Paxman II said:
Legally ACL did not offer the deal to the company that could accept it. Frankly as I have said before, both these sides SISU and ACL are complicit to our current position with ACL acting just as underhandedly as SISU.

Legally they offered the deal to the company they had the lease arrangement with. Was it their fault if another company was claiming ownership of the team, even though 2012 accounts and league rules seemed to suggest the company with which they had the lease owned/should own the team?

It seems to me that argument is a bit like blaming a penalty taker for missing the goal when someone has moved the goalposts to a different pitch.

I don't know why I'm debating this, what's done is done.

Paxman II · Sep 16, 2013

ohitsaidwalker king power said:
In my opinion the denial that the £150 k offer was made is a technical point those "aligned" to SISU empathy use to deflect the fundamentals of the argument in an effort to win favour more so than a disingenuous publicity “stunt” by ACL. In a legal sense it might be correct - the offer was made through the administrator perhaps is a complexity in need of a legal resolution- but surely this is a technicality that IS surmountable with a little will- I'm afraid for me it is clear- the will just wasn't there primarily wrapped around personality distress more so than an inability from a legal protocol- and so the way was blocked with futile non progressive arguments and multiple trips to Northampton the consequence.

Yes what's done is done and what you can't do is ignore legal process. Common sense may stare you in the face but there is a lot at stake here.

I really think the only way forward is to remove the primary protagonist on both sides, de-personalise this whole and start again at the negotiating table.

ohitsaidwalker king power · Sep 16, 2013

yes exactly Pax.. a common sense approach- why is that so bloody difficult for some do you think?

Skybluesquirrel · Sep 16, 2013

PA said he couldn't accept the offer of £150K rent due to the conditions attached to it.

To my knowledge, he has never explained which conditions he objected to. Please correct me if anyone knows any different, as some posts on here appear very confident that they know the reasons. Links would be helpful.

Any offer by ACL had to be for a 10 year lease to fit with FL regulations.

Did he object to the request to stop the JR? Possibly.

Did he object due to conditions in the lease. Again, quite possible.

However, had the offer been made with an additional clause which gave SISU/Otium or whoever the option to buy the freehold for a peppercorn fee in a weeks time, I think we all know that all parties would have managed somehow to come to an agreement, regardless of the legality of that condition in terms of a CVA.

There are always ways round things, as SISU regular show. They appear to be able to push to the limits of the law when it suits. It just didn't suit them at this point.

Paxman II · Sep 16, 2013

Skybluesquirrel said:
PA said he couldn't accept the offer of £150K rent due to the conditions attached to it.

To my knowledge, he has never explained which conditions he objected to. Please correct me if anyone knows any different, as some posts on here appear very confident that they know the reasons. Links would be helpful.

Any offer by ACL had to be for a 10 year lease to fit with FL regulations.

Did he object to the request to stop the JR? Possibly.

Did he object due to conditions in the lease. Again, quite possible.

However, had the offer been made with an additional clause which gave SISU/Otium or whoever the option to buy the freehold for a peppercorn fee in a weeks time, I think we all know that all parties would have managed somehow to come to an agreement, regardless of the legality of that condition in terms of a CVA.

There are always ways round things, as SISU regular show. They appear to be able to push to the limits of the law when it suits. It just didn't suit them at this point.

I don't disagree here but you kind of answer the point yourself. If the freehold was miraculously involved as you say then they would soon sit up and take note. Yes agree but to answer your own point, sadly it wasn't was it?

ohitsaidwalker king power · Sep 16, 2013

Paxman II said:
I don't disagree here but you kind of answer the point yourself. If the freehold was miraculously involved as you say then they would soon sit up and take note. Yes agree but to answer your own point, sadly it wasn't was it?

Why should it be....? genuine question.

shropshirecov · Sep 17, 2013

How much do ACL charge Cov ladies?

Still unsure about the 150K offer. (1 Viewer)

stupot07

Well-Known Member

stupot07

Well-Known Member

skybluefred

New Member

ohitsaidwalker king power

Well-Known Member

Sky Blues

Active Member

Paxman II

Well-Known Member

ohitsaidwalker king power

Well-Known Member

Skybluesquirrel

New Member

Paxman II

Well-Known Member

ohitsaidwalker king power

Well-Known Member

shropshirecov

New Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Still unsure about the 150K offer. (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency