Guided Missile Posted 19 June, 2009 Posted 19 June, 2009 Excuse me for starting a separate thread on this, but this is an important and distinct point, IMO. It appears that the deal has collapsed because Pinnacle assumed all along that by buying an asset of Southampton Leisure Holdings plc, ie shares in Southampton Football Club, Pinnacle was assuming that as the Football Club is a separate and legal entity from the Holding company and was solvent, they would be able to appeal the 10 point deduction. This seems to have been an afterthought, however, as this is what Tony Lynam posted on this forum after being given preferred bidder status: I have been contacted by a large number of people that use this forum given our entering into an exclusivity period for the purchase of Southampton Leisure Holdings (which to the man on the street and pretty much all supporters relates the Club itself). It just shows the danger of posting bull sh!t on forums before you have run it past your lawyers....
saintstr1 Posted 19 June, 2009 Posted 19 June, 2009 I really dont think that GM is stirring or rocking boats, he is simply pointing out a previous statement made by TL. Rightly or wrongly it looks to me like someone did not do the homework properly.
RobM Posted 19 June, 2009 Posted 19 June, 2009 GM, you're an attention seeking, desperate little man.
Guided Missile Posted 19 June, 2009 Author Posted 19 June, 2009 Are you going to retract your apology now? I'm still hoping to use it, TBF...
70's Mike Posted 19 June, 2009 Posted 19 June, 2009 GM is right to raise the question exactly what have pinnacle tried to buy
Guided Missile Posted 19 June, 2009 Author Posted 19 June, 2009 GM, you're an attention seeking, desperate little man.Stop replying to my posts then, Rob and put me on ignore. You're only encouraging me....
saint_mears Posted 19 June, 2009 Posted 19 June, 2009 Unless you know the full facts Guided Missile i fail how you can make such statement. As for Lynam posting 'bull****' where exactly ? Do any of your posts ever have anything positive as they read as doom and gloom and anti-Saints.
gonzo Posted 19 June, 2009 Posted 19 June, 2009 I think GM has a valid point, personally. Surely with a transaction of this size, this kind of detail would have been clarified early on in the process? Maybe he could have worded it a little less confrontationally, but still the point is a valid one.
4737_carlin Posted 19 June, 2009 Posted 19 June, 2009 I think GM has a valid point, personally. Surely with a transaction of this size, this kind of detail would have been clarified early on in the process? Maybe he could have worded it a little less confrontationally, but still the point is a valid one. Surely all these details are private between the buyer and administator.
Saint in Paradise Posted 19 June, 2009 Posted 19 June, 2009 Call me stupid but whenever I log on and I see a post by GM I always see what he has written before I read anything else. I don't always agree with what he writes ( like GM cares ) but he always seems to make well thought out points to invite sensible discussions. IMHO
NSS Posted 19 June, 2009 Posted 19 June, 2009 I think GM has a valid point, personally. Surely with a transaction of this size, this kind of detail would have been clarified early on in the process? Maybe he could have worded it a little less confrontationally, but still the point is a valid one. What! GM? Confrontational? Surely not :smt046 Oh yes, and if GM does sincerely hope to be able to use that apology, then surely the thread title should be "What exactly IS Pinnacle buying?"
Guided Missile Posted 19 June, 2009 Author Posted 19 June, 2009 What! GM? Confrontational? Surely not :smt046 Oh yes, and if GM does sincerely hope to be able to use that apology, then surely the thread title should be "What exactly IS Pinnacle buying?" Neil, you have exactly two more posts to convince me Tony is still going to do the deal, as I will be in bed before midnight, with something hot beside me...
Johnny Bognor Posted 19 June, 2009 Posted 19 June, 2009 Neil, you have exactly two more posts to convince me Tony is still going to do the deal, as I will be in bed before midnight, with something hot beside me... Cup of Horlicks?
Give it to Ron Posted 19 June, 2009 Posted 19 June, 2009 Neil, you have exactly two more posts to convince me Tony is still going to do the deal, as I will be in bed before midnight, with something hot beside me... Russian mail order bride?
Guided Missile Posted 19 June, 2009 Author Posted 19 June, 2009 Cup of Horlicks?Unfortunately, you're bang on....the missus is at Ascot....
Colinjb Posted 19 June, 2009 Posted 19 June, 2009 Guided Missile, You truly are a tactless idiot arn't you.
Guided Missile Posted 19 June, 2009 Author Posted 19 June, 2009 Guided Missile, You truly are a tactless idiot arn't you.Thanks for that lesson in tact, Colin....
Colinjb Posted 19 June, 2009 Posted 19 June, 2009 Thanks for that lesson in tact, Colin.... I suspect you are the type of man who prefers fire to be fought with fire. Correct me if i'm wrong.
Guided Missile Posted 19 June, 2009 Author Posted 19 June, 2009 I suspect you are the type of man who prefers fire to be fought with fire. Correct me if i'm wrong.Colin, I much prefer an argument, i.e. a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. You're simply contradicting me.
westofshannonsaint Posted 19 June, 2009 Posted 19 June, 2009 I think it is important to remember that the "man on the street" and a high court judge/whoever decides the outcome of an appeal are 2 different entities. a judge is obliged to decide if legally SLH = SFC the man on the street is not concerned with legal mumbo jumbo (back off Brussels & all that) from what has been discussed elsewhere I understand it could be important if Pinnacle are buying only certain assets belonging to SLH & the FL agree to this it strengthens Saints argument against the 10 point deduction. it may also be the case that SFC (& SMS) are the only assets that Pinnacle are buying, if so, what happens to staplewood, Jacksons Farm, Employees of Catering company and whatever subsections of SLH that remain.
Colinjb Posted 19 June, 2009 Posted 19 June, 2009 Colin, I much prefer an argument, i.e. a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. You're simply contradicting me. I was commenting, not contradicting. And my initial comment was based on my not unfounded opinion that this is in no way the time to try disecting something that: a) Isn't dead yet and b) Will be something extremely emotive right now. The time for dispasionate debate will come, but bloody hell, that time is NOT now.
NSS Posted 19 June, 2009 Posted 19 June, 2009 Neil, you have exactly two more posts to convince me Tony is still going to do the deal, as I will be in bed before midnight, with something hot beside me... John, nothing short of the deal being completed will convince you. Whether that will happen remains to be seen and nothing I can say on here will make a jot of difference as to whether it will or not. Frankly, none of the discussion and speculation on this board today/tonight is going to change the outcome, and none of you (nor indeed I) know the full details of what exactly is at the root of the delay. Of course, we all have our opinions and, for what it's worth, mine would be that, as is often the case in such circumstances, some sort of compromise will be found that will permit both parties to claim a moral victory, and to save face. But there again, perhaps you have been right all along. Indeed, perhaps Pinnacle's client is a Pompey fan who has never intended to buy the club, but simply saw this whole process as an opportunity to spend a few bob hurrying Saints toward oblivion. But don't spend too much time mulling that last idea, or your Horlicks may be cold before you remember to drink it
Guided Missile Posted 19 June, 2009 Author Posted 19 June, 2009 The time for dispasionate debate will come, but bloody hell, that time is NOT now.I'll bear that in mind Colin and start to panic and post meaningless insults. That should help....
Colinjb Posted 19 June, 2009 Posted 19 June, 2009 I'll bear that in mind Colin and start to panic and post meaningless insults. That should help.... When you are the minority sitting on the logical pedestall feeling smug it is all too easy to be belittling. It must be nice being in that small 5% that doesn't find football an emotional business yet still has a reason to follow it. I envy you in that way...... still think your timing is terrible mind.
Guided Missile Posted 19 June, 2009 Author Posted 19 June, 2009 Frankly, none of the discussion and speculation on this board today/tonight is going to change the outcome, and none of you (nor indeed I) know the full details of what exactly is at the root of the delay.You could have lied a little bit. Ah well, off to bed. This bantering has tired me out and if I read another insult from Colin, I'll have nightmares... All the best, Neil. We must have that pint one night....
Colinjb Posted 19 June, 2009 Posted 19 June, 2009 This bantering has tired me out and if I read another insult from Colin, I'll have nightmares... Sweet dreams darling. x
RinNY Posted 19 June, 2009 Posted 19 June, 2009 Excuse me for starting a separate thread on this, but this is an important and distinct point, IMO. It appears that the deal has collapsed because Pinnacle assumed all along that by buying an asset of Southampton Leisure Holdings plc, ie shares in Southampton Football Club, Pinnacle was assuming that as the Football Club is a separate and legal entity from the Holding company and was solvent, they would be able to appeal the 10 point deduction. This seems to have been an afterthought, however, as this is what Tony Lynam posted on this forum after being given preferred bidder status: It just shows the danger of posting bull sh!t on forums before you have run it past your lawyers.... How exactly, in your estimation, does it "appear that the deal has collapsed"? You see you start with that assumption which you take, without argument, to be true, and draw conslusions from there. This is a well known logical fallacy: the straw man argument. Because, you see, according to the evidence that is out there (and by this I don't mean the rumourings and agonizings on fan fora like this one), the deal has merely been held up by an issue that requires resolving, and that it is hoped will be resolved on Monday. Apparently (and by this I mean there is actuall published evidence to suggest this) the FL governing body will be holding an emergency meeting on Monday to clear up the precise status of the new owners of SFC and the club's membership of the FL, plus (possibly) the right to appeal the 10 point deduction. They would not likely be bothering to do so if the deal had collapsed. They are doing so because the deal is very much still on the table and for it to either go forward or be rejected the issue or issues that have arisen need to be settled. You seem to be a person who in general is sensible and thoughtful, and on certain topics well informeed. In this instance, however, you are talking nonsense!
Windmill Arm 2 Posted 19 June, 2009 Posted 19 June, 2009 Excuse me for starting a separate thread on this, but this is an important and distinct point, IMO. It appears that the deal has collapsed because Pinnacle assumed all along that by buying an asset of Southampton Leisure Holdings plc, ie shares in Southampton Football Club, Pinnacle was assuming that as the Football Club is a separate and legal entity from the Holding company and was solvent, they would be able to appeal the 10 point deduction. This seems to have been an afterthought, however, as this is what Tony Lynam posted on this forum after being given preferred bidder status: It just shows the danger of posting bull sh!t on forums before you have run it past your lawyers.... So the deal has collapsed then?.............source? More GM bullsiht.
ooohTerryHurlock Posted 19 June, 2009 Posted 19 June, 2009 Neil, you have exactly two more posts to convince me Tony is still going to do the deal, as I will be in bed before midnight, with something hot beside me... ..... a hot water bottle????...
SaintBobby Posted 19 June, 2009 Posted 19 June, 2009 Excuse me for starting a separate thread on this, but this is an important and distinct point, IMO. It appears that the deal has collapsed because Pinnacle assumed all along that by buying an asset of Southampton Leisure Holdings plc, ie shares in Southampton Football Club, Pinnacle was assuming that as the Football Club is a separate and legal entity from the Holding company and was solvent, they would be able to appeal the 10 point deduction. This seems to have been an afterthought, however, as this is what Tony Lynam posted on this forum after being given preferred bidder status: It just shows the danger of posting bull sh!t on forums before you have run it past your lawyers.... Cretin. It doesn't show the danger of anything. That post has had nothing to do with the problems the takeover bid has hit. You are also completely wrong re: your abject misunderstanding of the Football League rules. I'm glad that people can post new threads so easily. It continuely reminds me of how utterly f**kwitted some people are, and makes me feel more secure about my own relatively high IQ. What a moron.
SW5 SAINT Posted 20 June, 2009 Posted 20 June, 2009 Surely if the deal collapses and Saints go out of business, Norwich Union and Barclays could sue the FL for £30mill!
SaintBobby Posted 20 June, 2009 Posted 20 June, 2009 Surely if the deal collapses and Saints go out of business, Norwich Union and Barclays could sue the FL for £30mill! I doubt that. They'd need to show what their losses actually were. Given they ahd no chance of recouping the £30m, the FL would only have cost them whatever the Pinnacle settlement would have been (say, £8m to Norwich Union, £2m to Barclays?) Anyway, am still hoping it doesn't come to that!
alpine_saint Posted 20 June, 2009 Posted 20 June, 2009 Misslebrook shows once-and-for-all he is not a Saints fan, just an attention-seeking member of the prawn sandwich brigade (copyright Mr. Royston Keane)
NickG Posted 20 June, 2009 Posted 20 June, 2009 Excuse me for starting a separate thread on this, but this is an important and distinct point, IMO. It appears that the deal has collapsed because Pinnacle assumed all along that by buying an asset of Southampton Leisure Holdings plc, ie shares in Southampton Football Club, Pinnacle was assuming that as the Football Club is a separate and legal entity from the Holding company and was solvent, they would be able to appeal the 10 point deduction. This seems to have been an afterthought, however, as this is what Tony Lynam posted on this forum after being given preferred bidder status: It just shows the danger of posting bull sh!t on forums before you have run it past your lawyers.... did you run this sh1t past your lawyers? suggest this is closed as not true. Not a single report says it has collapsed.
wessex saint Posted 20 June, 2009 Posted 20 June, 2009 GM - I don't really understand why you post on here. You're obviously not a Saints fan as the majority of your posts are provocative if not bloody minded to most Saints fans. Were you bullied at school? Is that the reason for your attention seeking stance on pretty much every topic I've seen you comment on? I rarely post but Christ you know how to wind people up
Thedelldays Posted 20 June, 2009 Posted 20 June, 2009 lol look at some of you having a go at GM...basically you dont want to think what he is "quoting" to have been said.. either way, it was said and not by GM..so what is the problem..?
Mr Nice Posted 20 June, 2009 Posted 20 June, 2009 lol look at some of you having a go at GM...basically you dont want to think what he is "quoting" to have been said.. either way, it was said and not by GM..so what is the problem..? Well there is no 'bull****' for a start and nobody knows the actual details of sale ! Then add on the fact he has been slagging this deal off since day 1.
Fowllyd Posted 20 June, 2009 Posted 20 June, 2009 What was posted by Tony Lynam on here means nothing. What has been agreed between the various parties and their lawyers, and which will therefore be in the contracts, is what matters. HTH.
Saint Billy Posted 20 June, 2009 Posted 20 June, 2009 GM, I really hope you will have to apologies soon, I will love, love it!
Weston Saint Posted 20 June, 2009 Posted 20 June, 2009 Well there is no 'bull****' for a start and nobody knows the actual details of sale ! Then add on the fact he has been slagging this deal off since day 1. He was the first to slag off Wilde, he was the first to slag off Dan Williams so he has a good track record MP. On this case he was repeating a quote from Tony Lynam which has some relevance to the reported issues yesterday.
Mr Nice Posted 20 June, 2009 Posted 20 June, 2009 (edited) He was the first to slag off Wilde, he was the first to slag off Dan Williams so he has a good track record MP. On this case he was repeating a quote from Tony Lynam which has some relevance to the reported issues yesterday. good track record >> LOL I dont know anything about the other two just purely going on what he has said to date on here. NOBODY can make such quotes without actually knowing what is being bought. GM clearly is merely stirring because thats what he does and has no other interest. Edited 20 June, 2009 by Mr Nice
Weston Saint Posted 20 June, 2009 Posted 20 June, 2009 good track record >> LOL I dont know anything about the other two just purely going on what he has said to date on here. NOBODY can make such quotes without actually knowing what is being bought. GM clearly is merely stirring because thats what he does and has no other interest.Of course you know about the other two. But let's leave it there.
Leslie Charteris Posted 20 June, 2009 Posted 20 June, 2009 ...I much prefer an argument, i.e. a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition... Now, where have I heard this before? Ah yes, is this the five minute argument or the full half-hour? Personal insults are much more fun than rational thought. GM does have a point, even if he is a bit in your face at times. The deal could be scuppered by the FL, it might fail because of the legal subtleties of two entities that are either inextricably linked or entirely separate. Then again, the FL might just back down and everything gets finalised on Monday. I live in hope.
Mr Nice Posted 20 June, 2009 Posted 20 June, 2009 Of course you know about the other two. But let's leave it there. Never EVER here him comment on the real disaster rupert Lowe eh Strange that ! :smt080
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now