Jump to content

Tony on Fialka

Webby

By Webby
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted

 

Basically Matt has backed the bid because he has been assured by his friend Lynham that the funds are in place. Lynham has backed the bid because he has been assured by his business contact Fialka that he knows someone who has the means. Now it comes to pulling the funds in, surprise surprise the string doesnt appear to be attached to anything.

SaintBobby

SaintBobby

Posted
Posted

Any chance we can block some of these threads and merge them?

 

I'm hitting F5 and then having to look on 6-10 threads which are all about the same thing...

John B

John B

Posted
Posted (edited)
just adds more confusion? is it one man, two, three, fifty? TL claims to be transparent, but right not he's about as clear as mud

 

I agree the only thing he has said which makes sense is MLT's involvement.

 

TL keeps using the word professional which makes thinks he is floundering and trying to justify his actions

 

 

But like another poster I am not sure whether MLT has the attributes for a football chairman.

 

 

If Pinnacle do go through with the deal I will be surprised but delighted and give them my full support

Edited by John B
Window Cleaner

Window Cleaner

Posted
Posted
just adds more confusion? is it one man, two, three, fifty? TL claims to be transparent, but right not he's about as clear as mud

 

I'd say the bloke doesn't have a clue what he's saying.

One extremely rich owner or a bunch of London Barra boys, make up your mind Tony. I'd say it's just a band of Spurs supporting pranksters trying to sh*t all over us.

saint_stevo

saint_stevo

Posted
Posted
Maybe the process isnt that rigorous. Its pretty easy to fake documents.

 

Seems a bit mental.

 

If person A tells the adminsitrator he has 100million 'and here is my statement' surely the administrator would check that with the bank?

buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
Seems a bit mental.

 

If person A tells the adminsitrator he has 100million 'and here is my statement' surely the administrator would check that with the bank?

 

Dunno. Something has gone wrong and Fialka doesnt look like he has ever had access to £15m.

Window Cleaner

Window Cleaner

Posted
Posted
Seems a bit mental.

 

If person A tells the adminsitrator he has 100million 'and here is my statement' surely the administrator would check that with the bank?

 

It's amazing what a Spurs/Skate coalition might be able to produce.

But then again who's fronting that 7 figure sum that Lynam was talking about yesterday?

strummer

strummer

Posted
Posted

They did pay last month's wages, though, didn't they. That's a substantial amount of funds in itself, as is the deposit for the period of exclusivity. It would be a very expensive joke.

maxi_sopez

maxi_sopez

Posted
Posted

living in north london for the last few years i have always walked past the JC first time ever i have seen a story saints related on the cover! this does seem to be such a huge windup i dont get it....is ashton kutcher gonna come out soon and say we have been punk'd

Badvoc

Badvoc

Posted
Posted

Yeh, the funds issue is what is bugging me. Surely Fry saw that Mr Fialka and co had the money to satisfy the creditors? So, if he has seen it and been assured that it is available, then this in its own must prove that Mr F (and or his mob) are the real deal. Surely? Semi in Barnet or not!

 

The confusing bit for me is what people have dug up info about the NW8 Holdings (or whatever it's called) and what looks to be a tin pot outfit. If I can get the address I'll take a 5 minute drive across to Barnet/Southgate/Oakwood and check out this semi detached place and report back!!

 

I trust Tony will give of this his very best. He is a 110% genuine bloke and since I initially spoke to him about this whole issue on one of the Monday 5th May, his message has been consistent throughout. Since day 1 he has assured me that this chap (and I was always told it was one single person) had the means to buy the club and take us forward. Whether it was Mr Fialka I know not, but had been assured that the person had been involved in massive purchases of properties in the past; hence how Tony came to know him (through his job). A specific other name was mentioned as part of the party, but I don't know now whether he is still part of the 'team'. All I can say is that this other chap had a definite connection to Soton and may have been teh conduite for Mr Fialka approaching Tony initially; I just don't know.

trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted

 

Tony Lynam on Fialka: "His own financial affairs, and that of those who surround him are nobodys business but his own."

 

What a load of nonsense...perhaps I should keep my "financial affairs" to myself and not buy any tickets for next season?

 

Of course it's our business. We're going to be the ones feeding 'his' investment next season.

 

One word: patronising

 

FFS

Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
lets be honest..we would be full of horror after reading up on him of MLT was not connected..

 

this is a joke

 

Most of us are full of horror :shock:

 

The only redeeming feature I've found so far is that his interview live on SSN was much better than Jacko's :rolleyes:

Killers Knee

Killers Knee

Posted
Posted

We have been the victims of an impressive ruse, admit it. If you had pulled off the same thing at Pompey you'd be laughing. They'll be drinking and dining out on this one for years.

 

As for SFC, someone better get the Blue Square registration papers in order, as if we are in the same position this time next week it is all over.

 

We'll walk that league (might actually dust my boots off, how much are the match subs?)

steadyeddie

steadyeddie

Posted
Posted
Maybe the process isnt that rigorous. Its pretty easy to fake documents.

 

Are you for real, making comments like that ?

Do you really think Begbies Traynor, would just look at any old piece of paper and go - "OK, that looks fine to me. You can buy this business."

Killers Knee

Killers Knee

Posted
Posted
Are you for real, making comments like that ?

Do you really think Begbies Traynor, would just look at any old piece of paper and go - "OK, that looks fine to me. You can buy this business."

 

If you claim a swiss bank account, thats all you have. for a member of staff from a swiss bank to divulge account details they'd risk 10 years porridge.

SaintRichmond

SaintRichmond

Posted
Posted
Are you for real, making comments like that ?

Do you really think Begbies Traynor, would just look at any old piece of paper and go - "OK, that looks fine to me. You can buy this business."

 

 

Well it certainly looks as if they did not do much more than that !!!!!!!!!!

Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
If you claim a swiss bank account, thats all you have. for a member of staff from a swiss bank to divulge account details they'd risk 10 years porridge.

 

Do they not send statements to the account holder, or make them available on request - requested by the account holder???

NickG

NickG

Posted
Posted
Tony Lynam on Fialka: "His own financial affairs, and that of those who surround him are nobodys business but his own."

 

What a load of nonsense...perhaps I should keep my "financial affairs" to myself and not buy any tickets for next season?

 

Of course it's our business. We're going to be the ones feeding 'his' investment next season.

 

One word: patronising

 

FFS

 

 

why is his financial background yours, or any fans business?

Scudamore

Scudamore

Posted
Posted
why is his financial background yours, or any fans business?

 

Trousers would probably like to have a good snoop round his girlfriends knicker drawer...it's his business as someone who pays to watch a form of entertainment after all...

NickG

NickG

Posted
Posted
wouldnt you be interested if he is worth alot, whether he is worth "several hundred million"..?

 

of course it would interest me - doesn't mean I have a right to know.

 

if someone has enough to buy the club - wherever they source it (friends/business etc) then that is enough.

 

Woud love someone who could afford and want to throw in £10m p.a. but we haven't ever had that.

 

If he can complete and its not bull then I don't have a problem with where he lives etc

trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
why is his financial background yours, or any fans business?

 

Because he's buying the football club that I help finance, thus, in my opinion I'm entitled to know what his credentials are, financial or otherwise.

 

Other people may have a different opinion. Doesn't make my opinion any less valid.

trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
Trousers would probably like to have a good snoop round his girlfriends knicker drawer...it's his business as someone who pays to watch a form of entertainment after all...

 

I have my own supply of lady's pants, thank you very much. I'm wearing a rather fetching pair as we speak.

 

Just need somewhere to stick my Toblerone now and we're laughing.

NickG

NickG

Posted
Posted

just totally without logic!

 

you pay to watch a team - decide whether you want to support saints or not, not whether you think the owner is rich enough to deserve your support!

 

How much did Lowe, Crouch or Wilde put in when running the club? £0!

So as long as he has got a paper round he can beat that!

jonah

jonah

Posted
Posted
Are you for real, making comments like that ?

Do you really think Begbies Traynor, would just look at any old piece of paper and go - "OK, that looks fine to me. You can buy this business."

 

There is box ticking due dilligence, and then there is proper due dilligence.

 

Example number 1 - the Pinnacle Group's original backers provided proof of funds, Fry accepted this and gave them exclusivity; original backers run a mile when they go to the trouble of typing up a spreadsheet; mate-of-a-mate-of-a-mate Fialka steps into the frame. Does any of that trigger Fry into re-checking finances? He's already granted the group exclusivity based on the original backers.

 

Example number 2 - theoretically speaking, suppose somebody was a letting agent with turnover of £100k between 2 companies he part owns - in the current housing market he's probably achieving around 4% yield in which case that income comes from property loosely valued at around £2-3m. He might even have a couple of more properties he's doing up, so in his opinion he might have say £5m of property. Now of course he might be highly geared and have over £4m in mortgages, but he is in a position to self-declare himself as a High Net Worth Individual - or even get his accountant to do it. So somebody in that position can easily tout themselves as being a "multi-millionaire property investor who is a HNWI". In reality they could be in negative equity and not worth a penny, it's funny how assets are priced differently when you have to sell them...

 

Of course there is a third option, which is that this guy just won the lottery and has £35m squirreled away at his parent's house.

the stain

the stain

Posted
Posted
wouldnt you be interested if he is worth alot, whether he is worth "several hundred million"..?

 

But that's the difference isn't it. We're all interested but it's none of our business. That's why everyone's getting frustrated, claiming knowledge, spreading b0ll0cks, pointing fingers. We've got no say in this or right to know anything. We're not even customers at the moment. If a potential bidder chooses to keep us sweet, that's their decision.

trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted

How much did Lowe, Crouch or Wilde put in when running the club? £0!

 

Exactly...even more reason for greater transparency and accountability this time around. I knew we'd find common ground eventually.

 

Your go.

trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted

Example number 1 - the Pinnacle Group's original backers provided proof of funds, Fry accepted this and gave them exclusivity; original backers run a mile when they go to the trouble of typing up a spreadsheet; mate-of-a-mate-of-a-mate Fialka steps into the frame. Does any of that trigger Fry into re-checking finances? He's already granted the group exclusivity based on the original backers.

 

Wouldn't Begbies have included a condition in the exclusivity contract that obliged Pinnacle to declare a material change in the original 'proof of funds' criteria?

RonManager

RonManager

Posted
Posted
Wouldn't Begbies have included a condition in the exclusivity contract that obliged Pinnacle to declare a material change in the original 'proof of funds' criteria?

 

hmmm yeessss

 

Delivered in a very wise, sagely way, slowly nodding the head to the affirmative, whilst slowly sucking on a pipe and swilling a brandy.

SaintRichmond

SaintRichmond

Posted
Posted

I really cannot understand WHY Pinnacle/Lynam/Fry wheeled out Fialka yesterday ........... ?????

 

With just a LITTLE delving (by anyone) it soon became obvious that he would IMHO, have a job to get anywhere near £100 - £200M ............ even on a Monopoly Board ...

 

I mean, it was SO laughable, it wasn't even funny ..... and STILL Tony L kept on assuring us that "we will close the deal soon", or words to that effect

 

COMPLET BOLL*CKS

 

WHY WERE PINNACLE TAKING THE P*SS ?????

jonah

jonah

Posted
Posted
Wouldn't Begbies have included a condition in the exclusivity contract that obliged Pinnacle to declare a material change in the original 'proof of funds' criteria?

 

That would indeed be sensible, but I'm sure most people purchasing companies from administrators don't "change their minds" part way through exclusivity only to carry on regardless by bringing in someone completely different.

trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted (edited)
hmmm yeessss

 

Delivered in a very wise, sagely way, slowly nodding the head to the affirmative, whilst slowly sucking on a pipe and swilling a brandy.

 

So, on which of the 21 days of exclusivity did Begbies become aware of the change in Pinnacle's financial backers and thus the need to cancel the exclusivity period and re-assess the 'proof-of-funds' situation (for all still interested parties)?

 

Given the exclusivity period was never 'canceled' the only logical conclusion one can come to is that Pinnacle didn't advise Begbies that their situation had changed. Or they did and Begbies glossed over the 'revisit proof-of-funds' clause.

 

I could be talking out of my hat of course

Edited by trousers
Evo

Evo

Posted
Posted

I think the point is, if the buyer isn't adequately financed or their wealth is illiquid there won't be a club for us to chose to go and watch (or not). This is not about rights, it's about responsibilities.

 

We are all, collectively, stewards of Southampton Football Club. We all collectively have a responsibility to protect and preserve our club, in whatever way we can and whatever way we feel we should, while upholding the principles that we collectively subscribe to as supporters of the Club.

 

The Club and its supporters are in a state of symbiosis - one cannot survive without the other.

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...