shurlock

Fair enough

Im feeling one of those "Where's the money, lebowski" moments. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0t_fAddwDk

A firesale will be disastrous for the creditors - see how Swansea bullied and screwed us over Dyer while people are too credit-constrained to buy our nonfootballing assets, even if they can find use for a football stadium. Its in the creditors interests for Fry to be as accomodating as possible to bids like the Swiss if such bids are serious.

If they want to get acquainted with the set-up, talking to somebody like Salz would be useful and reassuring. Salz could really earn his due in this regard. On footballing matters, Le Tiss isnt a bad bet - at least, up until recently, he hasnt been involved in the politics of the club and so unlike many of the football people around Saints, comes with a fresh slate.

At least, the media is talking about the real issue, not some face-saving red herring concocted to deflect criticsm. Please let the Swiss bid have legs and the administrator do everything he can to make it easier for them.

Story from Saturday's Times Online- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article6587064.ece Basically nothing that we didnt already know but found this para revealing: "...Tony Lynam, the Pinnacle bid leader, had suggested that a single backer was funding the deal and named Michael Fialka, a North London businessman, on Thursday. Doubts were expressed about Fialka's access to sufficient funds yesterday, which Fry dismissed as based on “cursory” investigations, but Lynam still changed his story, saying that Fialka “has prominent people supporting his efforts” and “important connections in his [North London Jewish] community”..."

Hardly, check reactions after Pinnacle got exclusivity at the end of May, even though the issue had already been dragging and we barely managed to muster together player wages. We were bloody ecstatic and could not have been more united. Is it unreasonable that a month later, with the exclusivity period now over and time running out, pointed questions should be asked out of concern to save the club?

Great, an infinite regress. And on this interpretation TL genuinely thought that getting the prospective owner out in public who in fact is being bankrolled by another mystery individual or group would calm things? Incredible.

There are inconsistencies. TL is basically implying that his one client is a single individual - after all, you cant logically have 'petty squabbles' with yourself -you do the hell you want- but you can fall out if you are accompanied by several colleagues (look no further than our own sordid history reminds us) REad the rest of that infamous first post and TL talked about 'four individuals' -again they would constitute a single client- but they dropped out, leaving one individual -MF presumably- as the client.

So its Michael and colleagues, now. Is TL still willing to stand by his earlier claim that his client is worth hundred million pounds? The strength (or lack) of finances is playing on fans minds; yet, the post does not address the issue (the BBC havent said anything either to allay doubts). Time has moved on since Monday - yet we are being given the same updates with a bit of garnish. I want Pinnacle's bid to succeed but this is increasingly in hope than expectation. Nobody can deny the importance of unity but as someone said, unity comes only with clarity.

If its all true, no wonder he wanted to remain a mystery. And for a while, I was assuming/hoping he was in the eccentric Howard Hughes mould, intent on reverse engineering MLT and fielding a team of le gods, more money than sense. What can you say other than he comes across as a good jewish boy. If the Echo and its Watergate powers of investigative journalism can dig all this up in less 12hrs, what the f**k was fry doing in the weeks he had to check proof of funds? The only consolation is that the mismatch is so great that it defies even unprofessionalism and that there might be something else going on.

A property flipper and possibly a tyre kicker. Several hundred million = I hope Lynham wasnt being creative with the truth. Can imagine alot of this guy's wealth is very, very illiquid, tied up in properties in a falling market that is still predicted to go down another 10-15%. Am happy to wait and give him the benefit but I now want to hear alot more about this 5 year plan - the assumptions that are being made and the sums of money anticipated to bring it about - as others said, being rich doesn't imply you will spend generously and realistically on building the team and club. There is little competitive disadvantage to Pinnacle discussing this.

Looks like paul wotton.

His company is looking to flog its struggling refinery in Scotland (loaded with over £6bn in debt) and is in preliminary talks with various parties. Allegations of asset-stripping follow him everywhere - seems a shrewd but tetchy character. Extremely doubtful its him. But at this stage, would be happy to be proven wrong.

Anyone read Tim Parks "A Season with Verona"? A great book - the best football book I've read- with some great insights, amongst other things, into what its like to be a smaller club at the mercy of the powers that be.

living on a thin line - the kinks

just fancy talk for whether we start in division 1 on -10, 0 or something else - but still league 1. and like the rest of the statement, its extremely general as if they're trotting out their well-established (!) policy for all three leagues - hence the ambiguity. I assume competition refers to the terms and conditions, the penalties and constraints, we have to sign up to and abide by before we can compete - like the 'nature of the competition'. Now if league was switched for competition, i would be worried.

Still talk about the 'right that is due to us' and having 'a level playing field'. Suggests unresolved obstacles...

Still talk from MLT about the 'right that is due to us' and having 'a level playing field'. Suggests ongoing obstacles.

Exactly...on the whole, I think we've been an incredibly patient lot. TL has been cheerfully vague at best. Cant blame people for having a few concerns and fears. Still trust that Pinnacle will come good but the longer things go on, the harder it could be to manage expectations. For many of us, this is a new start after years of disappointment - keeping this in check won't be easy.

But we never exploited the rules and flashed the cash to the extent that we were sure to go into admin. Playing the whole of last season with kids, selling our best players suggests a genuine willingness to try and live within our means - and the accounts suggest we were slowly going in the right direction (barclays overreacted). Again any deal will see the creditors paid - who knows how much. its not as if we've gone bust, the creditors are getting nothing and are in effect underwriting/subsidising our ability to start with a clean slate.

absurd by the FL, esp if they are so confident. but pinnacle must have factored in the possibility of losing any appeal. the most they lose is the option of appealing. playing hardball apart, can't see how this would scupper the whole bid.

FL not allowing us to appeal - deal in jeopardy according to SSN

If the creditors are paid off by Pinnacle and the slates are truly wiped clean, will we have benefited in any way from going into admin? This, after all, was the rationale for the deduction. Some clubs do benefit from admin -hence its right unfair advantage is punished; some dont, undermining the 'spirit' of the law. Given that the FL never had a strong legal foundation to challenge us (coz of the split of the club and holding company) but relied on the spirit of law, its arguable that the Pinnacle deal is not violating that. The FL have neither a legal case nor a moral one, based on the spirit of the law. That's what happens when you make things up on the fly.

If the creditors are paid off by Pinnacle and the slates are truly wiped clean, will we have benefited in any way from going into admin? This, after all, was the rationale for the deduction. Some clubs do benefit from admin -hence its right unfair advantage is punished; some dont, undermining the 'spirit' of the law. Given that the FL never had a strong legal foundation to challenge us (coz of the split of the club and holding company) but relied on the spirit of law, its arguable that the Pinnacle deal is not violating that. The FL have neither a legal case nor a moral one, based on the spirit of the law. That's what happens when you make things up on the fly.