What now Mr Appleton ? (1 Viewer)

[Voice_of_Reason]

You now have the perfect opportunity to salvage your reputation by re-starting the administration process all over again. I hardly think SISU is likely to sue an Officer of the Court !

 

---

[RegTheDonk]

He'll have to ask Fisher first :jerkit:

 

[SIR ERNIE]

You now have the perfect opportunity to salvage your reputation by re-starting the administration process all over again. I hardly think SISU is likely to sue an Officer of the Court !

Nicely put VOR. Grasp the nettle now and be seen to be independent or run the risk of seeing your reputation go down the toilet in the High Court.

 

[dadgad]

Well today's revelation proves that the Admin process was flawed.
I cannot see any alternative but a re-run.
And, if it can be shown that PA knew about where the assets lay surely his position is questionable?

 

[chiefdave]

is it not the case that we are still in administration and therefore if one of the creditors (ACL) think the administrator is not doing his job properly can they not go back to the court and asked for him to be replaced?

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

Agreed, Mr.Appleton needs to make a statement and that should be the administration process needs to be reinstated via a court.
He should stand down and a new administrator be appointed.

 

[dadgad]

Agreed, Mr.Appleton needs to make a statement and that should be the administration process needs to be reinstated via a court.
He should stand down and a new administrator be appointed.

We'd all like this to happen. Morally it probably SHOULD happen?
But, realistically, what chance is there?
Wont it simply be a rerun of the stooge's charter?

 

[Paxman II]

Not a chance of that happening.

 

[blueflint]

should but won't due to SISU threats about court action seems everyone is scared of them

 

[dadgad]

should but won't due to SISU threats about court action seems everyone is scared of them

Not sure this is true anymore. This was bandied about before the FL (today) admitted the mistake.
It was suggested for instance that the FL gave Otium the GS because of FL wanting to cover up irregularities/mistakes on their part re player registrations.

Clearly today blows that out of the water.

 

[Johnnythespider]

If he makes a statement at all it will most likely be along the lines of the clubs.

 

[Tonylinc]

Why would he feel the need to make any statement. His job is done and he has walked away very handsomely. Thank you Shitzu.

 

[Oz Howie]

Done the job SISU needed him to do. He has maintained the long standing business relationship and ensured his company will continue to get more very well paid work from SISU in the future.

 

[jesus-wept]

Don't forget HMRC refused to sign the CVA also so have an interest in this and it is they who may complain to any court and ask for a re-run. That's the way i would like to see it go. Keep the anti-ACL/CCC group on here quiet.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

Appleton is an Officer of the Court with a legal obligation to ensure fairness and equality. Surely, there has to be a restart of the administration process ?

 

[CarpyCov84]

Appleton is an Officer of the Court with a legal obligation to ensure fairness and equality. Surely, there has to be a restart of the administration process ?

My thoughts exactly !!!

I'm hoping Monday will be the start...

 

[Philosoraptor]

As clerk of the Court, Appleton can only now change his decision, if he wishes, if ACL requests that he re-looks into the administration procedure. The clerk of the Court has already made a decision. and this is to be put forward at a future court date. I would suspect if one of the parties wishes to remove Appleton as clerk then this would be the way, at a future date and not give him a chance to re-open anything. :slap:

Also the 10 point deduction can be argued against now. If the FL made this omission earlier then there could of been a chance that CCFC could of came out of administration earlier, and avoided the loss in points this season.

I find it interesting that this was not touched upon in the SISU related companies response.

 

[chiefdave]

he doesn't really need to change his decision as the administration process isn't over. he can invite new bids based on new evidence and select a preferred bidder from those. the bigger issue is that he has allowed SISU to move assets out of Ltd whilst in administration. does he have the power to demand those are returned?