Wildgoose Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 I think those with all the clever suggestions about what Pinnacle should do should just let these guys get on with what they have been doing and stop being so melodramatic. Do some of you not honestly think they have not considered every angle and every consequence of each move with the FL???? Of course they have. They obviously believe they have issues they can deal with that in the long term will benefit the club they are purchasing and those benefits will be passed on to the fans if they stand their corner. Let these guys do what they have to and have faith that they are having good advice from their solicitors and those around them. I trust MLT and his body language tells me this takeover will happen. Keep the faith. COYR!!!! Good post.....and you are of course right! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 Still talk about the 'right that is due to us' and having 'a level playing field'. Suggests unresolved obstacles... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildgoose Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 (edited) Pinnacle are the guys who are investing their money, I think we just need to trust them right now based on all they have said and done so far. It's absolutely their right to appeal. I just hope it can be resolved asap like everyone else but am trying to be patient (I'm finding it extremely hard I must admit) We don't know all the ins and outs and it's probably not as simple as just taking the -10 points anyway. It sounds like they are working with the league to come to a resolution and are hoping to come up with a way forward this evening......here's me hoping at any rate!!! Edited 23 June, 2009 by Wildgoose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supersubpuckett Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 MLT sounded positive and confident. If they've received new documents to look at then things must have progressed which is all good. Also if he's back in Guernsey having dinner with Jeff Stelling things can't be that stressful for the chairman in waiting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 Also if he's back in Guernsey having dinner with Jeff Stelling things can't be that stressful for the chairman in waiting!unless hes asking for his job back..only kidding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 "come in number 12, your time is up, let someone else have a go..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Fan CaM Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 Mmm, generally supportive of MLT and his involvement, however I just hope we don't look back and wonder why Fry did not advance the Swiss bid further because it was a better deal. Hoping that tomorrow IS the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 Mmm, generally supportive of MLT and his involvement, however I just hope we don't look back and wonder why Fry did not advance the Swiss bid further because it was a better deal. Hoping that tomorrow IS the day.this is not from my normal routes of info, but I heard that BT are getting 100k a week fees !!!!! Surely not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 this is not from my normal routes of info, but I heard that BT are getting 100k a week fees !!!!! Surely not Can't see that Nick, they would have to have all partners working 10hr days to justify those charges Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 I keep hearing people belittling the importance of the 10 points (3 wins & a draw etc) but when you think about it those points could be crucial next April/May - at either end of the table . Unless we are in some tedious midtable position they are quite likely to be important I'd say so a few days trying to establish a right of appeal (if possible) with the FL could well be time well spent . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plumstead_Saint Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 I keep hearing people belittling the importance of the 10 points (3 wins & a draw etc) but when you think about it those points could be crucial next April/May - at either end of the table . Unless we are in some tedious midtable position they are quite likely to be important I'd say so a few days trying to establish a right of appeal (if possible) with the FL could well be time well spent . Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSS Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 Didn't Pinnacle say they had a 5 year plan to get back in the prem? Even with the minus 10 points that's still completely conceivable. 2 seasons in league 1. 3rd season stabilize in championship, promotion 4th season, Season 5 back where we belong looking down on the bankrupt skates. Come on Tony time to commit and start planning Jeez, you lot (with a few exceptions) are sounding more and more like lemmings, and your expectations of what might be possible "as long as it's done quickly" are sounding less and less realistic. For example, in the above post, the assumption of grammy is that a five-year plan to return to the Premiership would in fact see Saints, even with a 10 point penalty next season, return to "where you belong" in four years. Surely, a five-year plan is a five-year plan, not a four-year plan. Now consider that point and then answer the following, purely hypothetical, question. If, prior to placing a significant non-refundable deposit, you had spent a sizeable amount of money on legal opinion which led you to believe that you stood a VERY good chance of overturning a 10 point penalty, and that the FL had publicly announced that the club had a right to appeal that penalty, and that you then proceeded with a bid based on that premise at a figure that satisfied the administrator/creditors and with an allocated operating budget based upon funding the club for a season (or perhaps two) in League 1 (as part of a five-year plan) with revenue streams based upon that status for that period, and then having agreed that price you found at the 11th hour that the goalposts (the right to that appeal) had been moved, and that the potential effect of that change could negatively impact your chance of escaping League 1 in your budgeted timeframe (let's not even consider the impact of such a penalty leading to you dropping another league) and hence add a year to your five-year plan, and that the projected cost of such a potential effect could amount to a reduction in revenue of several million pounds, but having previously reached that agreement on the purchase price there was no opportunity to revise the bid price to reflect that potential reduction in revenue caused by this last minute change, wouldn't you want to explore every possibility of ensuring that the model upon which your bid and business plan was based remained intact, or would you just walk away and forget that you'd already spent several hundred thousand pounds? I know what I'd do, but then I'm a Pompey. So perhaps you should think yourselves lucky that TL and team are not, and that they're still intent on completing the purchase. Apologies for the longest sentence ever, but for ****s sake get real, and get realistic while you're at it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theyin Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 Is this football league nonsense really worth the risk of your consortium losing the opportunity to buy the club Tony? Mark Fry has now stated we are back in a first come first served situation (according to the echo) Or are there other reasons the deal has not yet been completed? We are two days away from pay day and I am led to believe that bonuses are due as well adding up to around 750k total. If as you say this situation is not a deal breaker and that the players will be paid then why not pay the money for wages now. This would do more than anything to reassure the fans. 750K a month for that shower of ****?!?! If BA staff can take a month off from pay then surely the SFC squad - only them - can do the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Katalinic's 'tache Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 Jeez, you lot (with a few exceptions) are sounding more and more like lemmings, and your expectations of what might be possible "as long as it's done quickly" are sounding less and less realistic. For example, in the above post, the assumption of grammy is that a five-year plan to return to the Premiership would in fact see Saints, even with a 10 point penalty next season, return to "where you belong" in four years. Surely, a five-year plan is a five-year plan, not a four-year plan. Now consider that point and then answer the following, purely hypothetical, question. If, prior to placing a significant non-refundable deposit, you had spent a sizeable amount of money on legal opinion which led you to believe that you stood a VERY good chance of overturning a 10 point penalty, and that the FL had publicly announced that the club had a right to appeal that penalty, and that you then proceeded with a bid based on that premise at a figure that satisfied the administrator/creditors and with an allocated operating budget based upon funding the club for a season (or perhaps two) in League 1 (as part of a five-year plan) with revenue streams based upon that status for that period, and then having agreed that price you found at the 11th hour that the goalposts (the right to that appeal) had been moved, and that the potential effect of that change could negatively impact your chance of escaping League 1 in your budgeted timeframe (let's not even consider the impact of such a penalty leading to you dropping another league) and hence add a year to your five-year plan, and that the projected cost of such a potential effect could amount to a reduction in revenue of several million pounds, but having previously reached that agreement on the purchase price there was no opportunity to revise the bid price to reflect that potential reduction in revenue caused by this last minute change, wouldn't you want to explore every possibility of ensuring that the model upon which your bid and business plan was based remained intact, or would you just walk away and forget that you'd already spent several hundred thousand pounds? I know what I'd do, but then I'm a Pompey. So perhaps you should think yourselves lucky that TL and team are not, and that they're still intent on completing the purchase. Apologies for the longest sentence ever, but for ****s sake get real, and get realistic while you're at it! Take your sensible notions back to P*mpey and allow us to continue our delusions of grandure and feelings of being mistreated!!! I know you're P*mpey but, even then, it helps to have perspective from someone from outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noodles34 Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 750K a month for that shower of ****?!?! If BA staff can take a month off from pay then surely the SFC squad - only them - can do the same Bonuses!!?? For what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 If, prior to placing a significant non-refundable deposit, .........you had spent a sizeable amount of money on legal opinion you'd already spent several hundred thousand pounds? Apologies for the longest sentence ever, but for ****s sake get real, and get realistic while you're at it! Thanks for the advice, Neil, but I think it may be worth providing you with some. I'm sure that shortly after Tony Lynam presented you with a cheque for the charity you raise funds for, you believed him when he said that the Pinnacle Group of companies, through which he has managed to build a net asset position of £6, paid Fry over £500K as a non-refundable deposit. You also ignored reports on Radio Solent that Crouch actually paid the deposit and have obviously not asked your mate whether this is true. Why would either of you bother with details like that? You're a Pompey fan and he's a Liverpool fan... Pinnacle paying well over £500K as a non-returnable deposit is looking like it's up there with "The cheques in the post" and "I promise I won't come in your mouth".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noodles34 Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 Thanks for the advice, Neil, but I think it may be worth providing you with some. I'm sure that shortly after Tony Lynam presented you with a cheque for the charity you raise funds for, you believed him when he said that the Pinnacle Group of companies, through which he has managed to build a net asset position of £6, paid Fry over £500K as a non-refundable deposit. You also ignored reports on Radio Solent that Crouch actually paid the deposit and have obviously not asked your mate whether this is true. Why would either of you bother with details like that? You're a Pompey fan and he's a Liverpool fan... Pinnacle paying well over £500K as a non-returnable deposit is looking like it's up there with "The cheques in the post" and "I promise I won't come in your mouth".... sorry, but the ITK's really confuse me sometimes, whats does the above actually mean in English? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 think he is saying Fry is lying about receiving a deposit from pinnacle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Strover Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 Imagine this Forum, after all this toing and froing, if the team is utterly ****e next year and we struggle to stay clear of the bottom four (remember it's four in League Division Three that go down to League Division Four). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 Pinnacle paying well over £500K as a non-returnable deposit is looking like it's up there with "I promise I won't come in your mouth".... sorry, but the ITK's really confuse me sometimes, whats does the above actually mean in English? That GM has been taken by suprise a number of times !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noodles34 Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 That GM has been taken by suprise a number of times !! yeah, someone asked me if i would for a million pounds, so i said, sure yeah, but i want the money first this time!1 Ba boom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 think he is saying Fry is lying about receiving a deposit from pinnacleThis is what Fry said: "In order to enter into the exclusivity agreement, the Consortium has paid a non-refundable, undisclosed fee, and as a result the Club is now in a position to pay its staff wages in full for the month of May." It's worth reading again....this time without moving your lips, Nick... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 Thanks for the advice, Neil, but I think it may be worth providing you with some. I'm sure that shortly after Tony Lynam presented you with a cheque for the charity you raise funds for, you believed him when he said that the Pinnacle Group of companies, through which he has managed to build a net asset position of £6, paid Fry over £500K as a non-refundable deposit. You also ignored reports on Radio Solent that Crouch actually paid the deposit and have obviously not asked your mate whether this is true. Why would either of you bother with details like that? You're a Pompey fan and he's a Liverpool fan... Pinnacle paying well over £500K as a non-returnable deposit is looking like it's up there with "The cheques in the post" and "I promise I won't come in your mouth".... are you saying this is a lie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 This is what Fry said: "In order to enter into the exclusivity agreement, the Consortium has paid a non-refundable, undisclosed fee, and as a result the Club is now in a position to pay its staff wages in full for the month of May." It's worth reading again....this time without moving your lips, Nick... sorry, tried reading your post again, without moving my lips, but they couldn't help mouthing "what a f***ing halfwit" as I read your words! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 23 June, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 June, 2009 are you saying this is a lie? If he is, then he is a bigger fool than I previously thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Nice Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 This is what Fry said: "In order to enter into the exclusivity agreement, the Consortium has paid a non-refundable, undisclosed fee, and as a result the Club is now in a position to pay its staff wages in full for the month of May." It's worth reading again....this time without moving your lips, Nick... What does it matter if the 'consortium' paid the money ? What does it matter if crouch paid the money ? (pure unfounded gossip) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfc123 Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 I think it's becoming clear that the five year plan includes getting you back up into the Championship in year 1 of 5. Otherwise why would the Pinnacle bid be stalling over the 10 point deduction issue? As an outsider, there appear to be two questions- 1) Why are Pinnacle so desperate to get rid of the 10 point penalty? See above theory. 2) If the theory above holds any water, why bother continuing talking to the league anyway? Leon Crouch blew the whole 'SLH isn't SFC' argument apart by openly admitting on Five Live that the company was set up that way deliberately to try to avoid any future Football League points penalties. To continue the FL lobbying is surely at best naive, or at worst they could be just postioning themselves for a pullout on the basis that the five year plan won't stack up on the 10 point penalty issue? This was just the sort of manouvering and posturing that we had back in the late 90's when we into admin. It's an absolute nightmare of rumour, counter rumour and false hope. We were damned lucky to come out of it with Mandaric at the helm, but it was a close run thing. We nearly ended up with a potless local consortium type fudge that would have got us nowhere...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 23 June, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 June, 2009 Leon Crouch blew the whole 'SLH isn't SFC' argument apart by openly admitting on Five Live that the company was set up that way deliberately to try to avoid any future Football League points penalties. No he didn't. SLH Plc was set up 7 years before the points deduction rules were created. Leon Crouch was just wrong. You can't deliberately set up to avoid penalty of a rule that won't exist for 7 years. All Southampton did was set up a Plc in the normal way, nothing dodgy about it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 this is not from my normal routes of info, but I heard that BT are getting 100k a week fees !!!!! Surely not From whom? Of course they aren't. Fry / BT will only make any money if he sells the businesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 Jeez, you lot (with a few exceptions) are sounding more and more like lemmings, and your expectations of what might be possible "as long as it's done quickly" are sounding less and less realistic. For example, in the above post, the assumption of grammy is that a five-year plan to return to the Premiership would in fact see Saints, even with a 10 point penalty next season, return to "where you belong" in four years. Surely, a five-year plan is a five-year plan, not a four-year plan. Now consider that point and then answer the following, purely hypothetical, question. If, prior to placing a significant non-refundable deposit, you had spent a sizeable amount of money on legal opinion which led you to believe that you stood a VERY good chance of overturning a 10 point penalty, and that the FL had publicly announced that the club had a right to appeal that penalty, and that you then proceeded with a bid based on that premise at a figure that satisfied the administrator/creditors and with an allocated operating budget based upon funding the club for a season (or perhaps two) in League 1 (as part of a five-year plan) with revenue streams based upon that status for that period, and then having agreed that price you found at the 11th hour that the goalposts (the right to that appeal) had been moved, and that the potential effect of that change could negatively impact your chance of escaping League 1 in your budgeted timeframe (let's not even consider the impact of such a penalty leading to you dropping another league) and hence add a year to your five-year plan, and that the projected cost of such a potential effect could amount to a reduction in revenue of several million pounds, but having previously reached that agreement on the purchase price there was no opportunity to revise the bid price to reflect that potential reduction in revenue caused by this last minute change, wouldn't you want to explore every possibility of ensuring that the model upon which your bid and business plan was based remained intact, or would you just walk away and forget that you'd already spent several hundred thousand pounds? I know what I'd do, but then I'm a Pompey. So perhaps you should think yourselves lucky that TL and team are not, and that they're still intent on completing the purchase. Apologies for the longest sentence ever, but for ****s sake get real, and get realistic while you're at it! Good post, but unfortunately a lot of people on here are too borish to bother reading and considering it as it's more than three lines long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stardustonmyfeet Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 2) If the theory above holds any water, why bother continuing talking to the league anyway? Leon Crouch blew the whole 'SLH isn't SFC' argument apart by openly admitting on Five Live that the company was set up that way deliberately to try to avoid any future Football League points penalties. Evidently, Leon Crouch is just not very good at dealing with the media. SLH was set up in the 90s by Rupert Lowe as a cheap way of making money for himself and his shareholders. It also provided a possible loophole in case of suffering administration, but I very much doubt that was taken in consideration when it was formed. I haven't heard Crouch's interview in its entireity, but from what I've read, it looks as though he was attempting to shoot himself in the foot, and upon finding the gun was unloaded, chose to bludgeon his appendage to a bloody pulp instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stardustonmyfeet Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 P.S. I'm sorry NSS, your post looks vaguely interesting, but I was too boorish to read the 300-word sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speculator Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 What does it matter if the 'consortium' paid the money ? What does it matter if crouch paid the money ? (pure unfounded gossip) I may be thick but if the consortium did not pay the fee or had someone else pay on their behalf they are unlikely to be motivated by their potential loss of a £500k deposit. My opinion why the football league do not want to budge is because they are confident in their decision and do not want to grant a right to appeal not because of a weakness in their position but they don't want to drag the league through the courts and the ensuing hassle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ITKSaint Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 P.S. I'm sorry NSS, your post looks vaguely interesting, but I was too boorish to read the 300-word sentence. Paragraphs always welcomed and bullet points FTW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevvy Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 Thanks for the update Tony, Good luck today with your endeavours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorpie the sinner Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 Just have a feeling today may be the day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 Jeez, you lot (with a few exceptions) are sounding more and more like lemmings, and your expectations of what might be possible "as long as it's done quickly" are sounding less and less realistic. For example, in the above post, the assumption of grammy is that a five-year plan to return to the Premiership would in fact see Saints, even with a 10 point penalty next season, return to "where you belong" in four years. Surely, a five-year plan is a five-year plan, not a four-year plan. Now consider that point and then answer the following, purely hypothetical, question. If, prior to placing a significant non-refundable deposit, you had spent a sizeable amount of money on legal opinion which led you to believe that you stood a VERY good chance of overturning a 10 point penalty, and that the FL had publicly announced that the club had a right to appeal that penalty, and that you then proceeded with a bid based on that premise at a figure that satisfied the administrator/creditors and with an allocated operating budget based upon funding the club for a season (or perhaps two) in League 1 (as part of a five-year plan) with revenue streams based upon that status for that period, and then having agreed that price you found at the 11th hour that the goalposts (the right to that appeal) had been moved, and that the potential effect of that change could negatively impact your chance of escaping League 1 in your budgeted timeframe (let's not even consider the impact of such a penalty leading to you dropping another league) and hence add a year to your five-year plan, and that the projected cost of such a potential effect could amount to a reduction in revenue of several million pounds, but having previously reached that agreement on the purchase price there was no opportunity to revise the bid price to reflect that potential reduction in revenue caused by this last minute change, wouldn't you want to explore every possibility of ensuring that the model upon which your bid and business plan was based remained intact, or would you just walk away and forget that you'd already spent several hundred thousand pounds? I know what I'd do, but then I'm a Pompey. So perhaps you should think yourselves lucky that TL and team are not, and that they're still intent on completing the purchase. Apologies for the longest sentence ever, but for ****s sake get real, and get realistic while you're at it! All good points and good to hear an alternative (potentially accurate given your proximity to TL) viewpoint. But can you clear something up for me? (In your opinion obviously) Are you saying that the Pinnacle consortium is attempting to appeal the -10 to make its business plan work and if that fails it will fall back to plan B which may involve funding the club for longer to get the Premiership? Or are you saying that Pinnacle's bid was contingent on getting the -10 rescinded and that there is no plan B? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSS Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 Thanks for the advice, Neil, but I think it may be worth providing you with some. I'm sure that shortly after Tony Lynam presented you with a cheque for the charity you raise funds for, you believed him when he said that the Pinnacle Group of companies, through which he has managed to build a net asset position of £6, paid Fry over £500K as a non-refundable deposit. You also ignored reports on Radio Solent that Crouch actually paid the deposit and have obviously not asked your mate whether this is true. Why would either of you bother with details like that? You're a Pompey fan and he's a Liverpool fan... Pinnacle paying well over £500K as a non-returnable deposit is looking like it's up there with "The cheques in the post" and "I promise I won't come in your mouth".... Typical reply John, twisting what was said to suit your own agenda. Nowhere have I suggested that Tony Lynam in person, nor a Pinnacle business run by him, has stomped up £500k plus. As for a report on Radio Solent claiming that it was paid by Crouch, why exactly should what one media organisation said be any more believable than any other? As has been suggested by others on this forum, your repeated attempts at character assasination of a man who is trying to save the club you claim to love come across as those of someone who is desperate for the bid to fail, just so that you can say, "I told you so". Well if you turn out to be right, and it does fail, I just hope you enjoy the moment - and remember to swallow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSS Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 All good points and good to hear an alternative (potentially accurate given your proximity to TL) viewpoint. But can you clear something up for me? (In your opinion obviously) Are you saying that the Pinnacle consortium is attempting to appeal the -10 to make its business plan work and if that fails it will fall back to plan B which may involve funding the club for longer to get the Premiership? Or are you saying that Pinnacle's bid was contingent on getting the -10 rescinded and that there is no plan B? I'm not saying either, and I wouldn't profess to know the answer to your question. However, I'll attempt to draw a more everyday comparison. Say you were buying a house with an adjacent plot of land on which you would expect to be able to build a second property. Following extensive research and receipt of information from the seller you are led to believe that, subject to local council approval you could submit an application to build a five-bedroomed detached house on that plot, with a reasonable expectation of gaining the necessary approval. You then agree a price with the seller that leaves you sufficient budget from which to build (and hopefully make a profit on) that second property. You even go so far as to pay a hefty deposit. However, the day before you're due to complete the purchase, the local council write to you and state that they've decided to place a covenant on that piece of land that will only ever permit you to build a two-bedroomed bungalow on it. Are you then going to sit back and say "okay, that's fine, we won't make a profit on the deal now but we'll still go ahead at the agreed price", or are you going to consult your solicitor to see if the new condition being imposed by a third party is lawful before handing over the cash? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintalan Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 TL Video on Echo web site http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 Typical reply John, twisting what was said to suit your own agenda. Nowhere have I suggested that Tony Lynam in person, nor a Pinnacle business run by him, has stomped up £500k plus. As for a report on Radio Solent claiming that it was paid by Crouch, why exactly should what one media organisation said be any more believable than any other? As has been suggested by others on this forum, your repeated attempts at character assasination of a man who is trying to save the club you claim to love come across as those of someone who is desperate for the bid to fail, just so that you can say, "I told you so". Well if you turn out to be right, and it does fail, I just hope you enjoy the moment - and remember to swallow. NSS it is more worrying for me where you say that Pinnacle offer was in the understanding that the -10 would be waived. I assume that now it wont be they are going to make a different offer as the original offer was based on doing so. that could mean that we will not be guarenteed a CVA as the creditors may now not agree and so TL is trying to get the FL not to impose the extra penalties, but perhaps still accept the -10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 I'm not saying either, and I wouldn't profess to know the answer to your question. However, I'll attempt to draw a more everyday comparison. Say you were buying a house with an adjacent plot of land on which you would expect to be able to build a second property. Following extensive research and receipt of information from the seller you are led to believe that, subject to local council approval you could submit an application to build a five-bedroomed detached house on that plot, with a reasonable expectation of gaining the necessary approval. You then agree a price with the seller that leaves you sufficient budget from which to build (and hopefully make a profit on) that second property. You even go so far as to pay a hefty deposit. However, the day before you're due to complete the purchase, the local council write to you and state that they've decided to place a covenant on that piece of land that will only ever permit you to build a two-bedroomed bungalow on it. Are you then going to sit back and say "okay, that's fine, we won't make a profit on the deal now but we'll still go ahead at the agreed price", or are you going to consult your solicitor to see if the new condition being imposed by a third party is lawful before handing over the cash? Thanks NSS and a good analogy and I'll respond in kind. If my wife was smitten with the location of the plot of land I would have to make it happen despite any covenants or restrictions. If however it was a business transaction and I was simply looking to turn a profit on the land I'd do my sums and decide if I could still make it work and if not I'd find another location to try to turn a quid. Heart or head - hence why I will sleep better once I know who the money man is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 NSS it is more worrying for me where you say that Pinnacle offer was in the understanding that the -10 would be waived. I assume that now it wont be they are going to make a different offer as the original offer was based on doing so. that could mean that we will not be guarenteed a CVA as the creditors may now not agree and so TL is trying to get the FL not to impose the extra penalties, but perhaps still accept the -10.Nick, NSS has used up his 3 posts for the day but has emailed me a reply to post up for you. Nick, you are reading me wrong. My post was in any case hypothetical, but I was not suggesting that the original bid may have been made on an assumption that the penalty would be waived, merely that the bidders may have received expensive legal advise to suggest that that an appeal stood a very good chance of succeeding and that this may have been taken into account when negotiating a price with the seller. All the signs seem to be that the group intend to proceed with the purchase come what may, but understandably they are keen to do so on the most favourable terms for the club and themselves. I would have thought that would be what every Saints fan would want and expect them to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 Nick, NSS has used up his 3 posts for the day but has emailed me a reply to post up for you. Nick, you are reading me wrong. My post was in any case hypothetical, but I was not suggesting that the original bid may have been made on an assumption that the penalty would be waived, merely that the bidders may have received expensive legal advise to suggest that that an appeal stood a very good chance of succeeding and that this may have been taken into account when negotiating a price with the seller. All the signs seem to be that the group intend to proceed with the purchase come what may, but understandably they are keen to do so on the most favourable terms for the club and themselves. I would have thought that would be what every Saints fan would want and expect them to do. Thanks NSS and Ron for that. When the payment for the wages etc are made tomorrow then i will be able not to read such things into posts.I do hope you understand from your post where i got my assumption from Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 (edited) I'm not saying either, and I wouldn't profess to know the answer to your question. However, I'll attempt to draw a more everyday comparison. Say you were buying a house with an adjacent plot of land on which you would expect to be able to build a second property. Following extensive research and receipt of information from the seller you are led to believe that, subject to local council approval you could submit an application to build a five-bedroomed detached house on that plot, with a reasonable expectation of gaining the necessary approval. You then agree a price with the seller that leaves you sufficient budget from which to build (and hopefully make a profit on) that second property. You even go so far as to pay a hefty deposit. However, the day before you're due to complete the purchase, the local council write to you and state that they've decided to place a covenant on that piece of land that will only ever permit you to build a two-bedroomed bungalow on it. Are you then going to sit back and say "okay, that's fine, we won't make a profit on the deal now but we'll still go ahead at the agreed price", or are you going to consult your solicitor to see if the new condition being imposed by a third party is lawful before handing over the cash? Sounds like the 'estate agent' didn't get the planning permission from the council in writing then? As such, and to extend the analogy, why would someone get so far down the line to buying the house and land without seeing a written guarantee, much earlier in the process, that the adjacent land could be used for the purposes mentioned in the estate agent's original sales patter? Caveat emptor? Edited 24 June, 2009 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonist Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 In the case of planning permission the buyer could have applied for planning permission on the property in question and gotten a definitive answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 Sounds like the 'estate agent' didn't get the planning permission from the council in writing then? As such, and to extend the analogy, why would someone get so far down the line to buying the house and land without seeing a written guarantee, much earlier in the process, that the adjacent land could be used for the purposes mentioned in the estate agent's original sales patter? Caveat emptor? or caveat venditor perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 As has been suggested by others on this forum, your repeated attempts at character assasination of a man who is trying to save the club you claim to love come across as those of someone who is desperate for the bid to fail, just so that you can say, "I told you so". Well if you turn out to be right, and it does fail, I just hope you enjoy the moment - and remember to swallow. If "character assasination" is labelling Tony Lynam as an Irish Liverpool supporter, then I suggest he develops a thicker skin. He'll need it if he takes over at Southampton... The rest of what you say is not worth commenting on, because it's a poor attempt at "character assasination", doesn't bother me and I'm sure won't affect our friendship... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint_mears Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 If "character assasination" is labelling Tony Lynam as an Irish Liverpool supporter, then I suggest he develops a thicker skin. He'll need it if he takes over at Southampton... The rest of what you say is not worth commenting on, because it's a poor attempt at "character assasination", doesn't bother me and I'm sure won't affect our friendship... Your total stance seems to be based on rumour and gossip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 Your total stance seems to be based on rumour and gossip. Well there is only one way this will be proved isn't there? It's time to put up or move aside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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