Ken Tone

WHAT?! Surely they passed the fit and proper person stuff weeks ago? This is very worrying ...not another new money man? K.

Since it was my speculation that appears to have started the leveraged buyout speculation, perhaps I should say that MY speculation was not that pinnacle had to borrow lots to buy us, more that maybe their business plan involved borrowing to invest *after* they'd taken over, and that the FL was restricting this so as to ensure a club that had overspent its means once didn't do so again. Think how it would look for the credibilty of the league, and of all other clubs seeking finance/credit in the future, if we went into administration again within say 2 years. K.

Perhaps they're not allowed to build up fresh debts for a couple of years? I recall that Fry implied at one stage that the pinnacle bid gave the creditors less intially than some others, but had bigger eventual payments if we were promoted, right up to additional payments if we make it back to the premiership. That implies that there isn't a huge amount of cash sloshing around up front. Maybe the business plan invovles heavy borrowing to invest after the takeover and the FL won't allow that? Comlete speculation on my part I hasten to add. Am not (and I suspect never will be) ITK. K.

Becasue Matt's statement had a weasel phrase, something along the lines of 'there are still a few ambibguities to be clarifed in the contract' Pinnacle seem to have been convinced that they could and would appeal the -10 on the technicality of the SFC/SLH split. (Even though most of us knew full well that the FL would not back down.) I'm worried that even now pinnacle are hoping for a phrasing of the contract that leaves them a legal loophole to go to court later and challenge the waiver clause. If so the FL's lawyers will be checking to make sure there isn't such a loophole and we could still end up with an impasse. K.

It is an issue when someone misleads. Mr Lynham clearly said in his one of his first posts on here that he started with a consortium but several dropped out when he made clear the level of investment needed, so that there was now only one single investor who was worth several hunded million, and that he and Matt were delighted by that because there'd be no in-fighting in future between members of a consortium. Now it's a consortium again? Hmmm. K.

There never was any danger of a greater deduction; it was always just about the -10 and waiving the right to appeal. I'll be delighted if the deal does go through monday or tuesday, but I'm past blindly believing mr lynam's promises now I'm afraid. K.

I'm sure the 'contract' being fixed doesn't mean the price is, just the conditions of the sale. He'll sell to anyone who gives more than the creditors would get from a fire sale. K.

I bit like me saying I'll be ready to sign as soon as I sort out the problem with my lack of a lottery win! K.

Probably just local TV doing a piece on the bid falling apart, and staff remaining unpaid. K.

Look back at one of Lynam's very first posts on this forum. He said, direct quote (but snipped): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I was originally asked by a group of 4 very wealthy business people to become involved with their proposed takeover of SFC. In the end, the group/consortium changed my mind, and to be honest I am now quite glad that they did. When I projected the sheer cost of this, a couple of the guys were a little less willing to throw cheques at me. Ultimately I have in fact now entered into this "exclusivity agreement" on behalf of ONE client only. And myself, Matt and others involved are very pleased with that. Gone are the days of petty squabbles. Our one client has SUBSTANTIAL wealth - several hundred million." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. That does NOT fit with any sort of consortium or "one of the gentlemen putting his hand in his pocket". So either Fialka is worth several hundred million, or he is not the real backer, or ..... ? K.

People keep saying this, but there has never been any public suggestion from Fry, or even Lynam, that there is any problem with a cva or any risk of another -15. I would think it is very very likely that the contract gives us the licence with no extra problem but insists on our waiving the right of appeal over the -10 in return for waiving the need for any technical cva, thereby avoiding all the possible complications of our SLH v SFC structure. Everything Fry and Lynam has said indicates that. Nor is there any real indication that anything in the FL's contract is 'illegal' apart from Lynam's saying so once. That is clearly nonsense. Why or how would a body like the FL do something illegal? The closest it could be to 'illegal' is to include a clause forcing us to accept their penalty, which our lawyers felt was not according to the rules. Lynam appears to have been forced into a corner where he won't or can't sign without the chance to appeal the -10. That has been the case for about 10 days now, with absolutely nothing changing apart from his increasingly desperate and hollow messages on here. The warning bells started ringing for me when he switched to saying "I" won't accept this contract and "I" won't sign. If he really were acting for a big player financially, it surely wouldn't be Lynam making such decisions, it would be the backer. As far as I can see the last week or so might well be about pinnacle's trying to establish a position whereby they can claim that it was the FL's unreasonable behaviour that forced them to pull out, and/or that the administrator misrepresented the situation by implying they could appeal. If they could show that they would have a good chance of recovering their costs to date. All in my opinion of course. If they meant what they said earlier in this process they surely would have completed by now. The FL wil not back down. We've all known that from day 1. I bet that if we get another buyer in time who has the money, the FL contract will not be a problem. Accept the -10 and all will go through on the nod in a matter of hours once the 'fit and proper person' test is passed. K.

I *trust* matt too, but that is not the same as sayong that I think he knows much about business,or is capable of assessing the worth of poinnacle/fialka. Matt, lynam and fialka all say it is the right to appeal over the 10 points that is the problem. Well we all knew weeks ago the league would not back down,so surely they knew that too? It makes no difference what fialka's lawyers say. Either pinnacle cave in or the deal won't go ahead. It's as simple as that -- and they say they won't cave in. What a waste of a month. . K.

Presumably Mr Lynam wouldn't be posting on here now if the deal was about to be signed today or indeed first thing tomorrow? Presumably therefore nothing has changed and we are still in the same impasse as we've been since wednesday/friday of last week, with him saying black and the FL saying white. Depressing.... even more so for the club employees. Who was it said Lynam had promised to pay this month's wages anyway? K.

Where have you read anything about further penalties except in third party speculation, mostly on here? Read Lynam's own statements on here and listen to what he says on SSN and the Echo web site. He says it is about the removal of the right to appeal the 10 point penalty, and that this appeared in the FL contract last wednesday ..and that resolving this is the only problem. Nothing has changed since as far as I can see. All we've had is a stand off between pinnacle and the FL. K.

Everything I've seen, read or heard suggests that this is exactly what has been available since wednesday of last week, but that pinnacle won't accept that. Unless someone definite happens very soon, I'd conclude that the money man doesn't want to buy us with the -10 and all the fuss at the moment is designed either to railroad the FL into removing the penalty or give him a good chance to recoup his non-returnable deposit if he backs out, via the courts. K.

Not reallly. You can only really sue to re-gain what you have lost. So if Pinnacle back out now they *may* have a case against the FL or Fry, but only to attempt to regain their deposit and other expenses. The reality is that if it went to law there'd probably be an out of court settlement if anything, with an agreed part payment. The FL could afford a few hundred thousand without too much trouble. Not much of a position of strength for Pinnacle is it? The players won't have case because if someone else takes over, no loss,and if we go bust their registration goes to the league and they'll find other clubs on free transfers. Pinnacle are in 'cutting off nose to spite face' territory here IMO. K.

It's just as likely that the FL's contract recognises that our circumstances do not fit their standard pattern, and gives us the licence without a cva, against their rules by letter of law, which further weakens their legal position over the 10 penalty, so that they will only do this on the condition that we do not appeal the -10, which was also against the letter of the law. Fact is, we all know diddly squat! Going slowly nuts personally. :-( K.

According to Solent and Lynam's own statements on Solent, FL were taking legal advice *yesterday* on what he sent them and were expected to get back to Pinnacle this morning. Even allowing for "lawyers' slippage", I can't think it will be much later than now that Tony Lynam hears from the league. How long can it take to write: Dear Tony, Sod off. love, Brian Either pinnacle sign this pm after capitulating, or the swiss or whoever will enter a period of exclusivity very soon IMO. K.

Nothing Lynam has ever said indicates that there is any danger of more than the -10. Where do you and adriansfc get this from? Every public statement from Lynam has been about the right to appeal the -10. The -25 conspiracy theory has only appeared on this forum as far as I know. K.

Quite . It might get them their deposit back. But even then they'd probably have more chance of getting that from Fry, on the basis that he misrepresented what was being sold. K.

Exactly, that is what is in the Leeds agreement isn't it? And IMO Pinnacle's lawyers are saying that is an unreasonable requirement. Don't sign it. Meanwhile the FL will not budge. Surely even Lynam must be beginning to realise this by now. For god's sake even if we appealled there'd be no guarantee we'd win. Once again I suspect Pinnacle's lawyers are saying we'd win on the technicality of SFC v SLH, but I bet the FL's lawyers are saying the opposite. We do not have the time to waste on this. The FL always win. Look what they did to Luton. Does Lynam really think that was fair or even watertight legal? The trouble is he has now gone so public on this that positions have become entrenched. It's going to take one hell of a linguistics expert to find a mutually face-saving form of words to get us out of this impasse. Meanwhile the staff go without wages and the club falls apart. K.

We talk as if the FL is an entity in its own right. It is actually a members' club. What happens is that nearly every other club votes to put the weak one in the ****, so as to improve its own position relatively. Why would any L1 club want us NOT to have a -10 start? It's like a pack of hungry wolves turning on one of their own when it is injured. K.

Hardly a surprise is it? The FL won't even have got back to Pinnacle yet to say they won't agree to Pinnacle's modifcations to the contract. This is getting us nowhere. What possible contingency plan can Lynam have, other than to sign regardless? K.

Don't know when you heard that. What I heard at 7.50ish was that Pinnacle expected to hear back from the FL this morning (nothing about a meeting or a conclusion), after they've had their lawyers look at what Pinnacle sent them yesterday, and yes that Pinnacle had a contingency plan. What will have happened IMO is that Pinnacle's lawyers are telling them that they could win an argument in court . Pinnacle have thus sent the FL a modified contract with their lawyers 'threats' of court action if it's not accepted. During yesterday the FL's lawyers will have been looking at the detail of that modification so that the FL can reply today. Again, solely IMO, they will say 'sod off'. The league's lawyers will tell them, 'no we think we would win in court'. That's what lawyers do. That's how they earn their money. If you didn't get opposite opinions from 2 sets of lawyers there'd be hardly any court cases and they'd all be out of work. I can't imagine what Lynam's contingency plan can be apart from to cave in. We have no time to play hardball with the league. They hold all the aces in this game. Surely he doesn't expect to do some fresh holding deal with Fry in return for paying the wages? This can't go on much longer. K.

Not knocking you personally Farmer, but ..... My interpretation.. What I've heard him say in person in the media, plus the report on solent this morning, imply to me that yes it is a VERY important day, not because he will sign today, but because he this morning sent his side's modifed version of the contract back to the FL for them to consider, I suspect along with his lawyers views/threats that we should not be forced into signing the no appeal clause. Assuming he is not a two-faced liar, he seems genuinely to believe that this will make the FL change their mind. They won't. The FL will look at it. Their lawyers will say: No, we're right. It's our club. We can make whatever rules we like ..cf Leeds. Eventually, either late today or some time tomorrow, the FL will say: No Tony, we won't accept your modifications So what then? Meanwhile Fry is obliged to take other offers very seriously, and if anyone is prepared to match Pinnacle's bid, and pay this month's wages in return for exclusivity, Pinnacle will be history. The best we fans can hope for is that the FL is prepared to find some face-saving, but largely empty, form of words to enable Lynam to sign very soon without looking a complete idiot. Mawhinney is not known for such a cooperative approach! K.