So, why DID Mark Fry prefer Pinnacle over Liebherr?

[alpine_saint]

You seemed pretty good at forgetting that while we were in administration.

 

What a load of b*ll*cks. You cant give a single example supporting that comment.

[lancelot link]

You work for Tony Lynham?

 

Not as an employee. his company employs ours sometimes for valuations and consultancy so i meet him regularly. im at his office now but hes gone out somewhere

[Scudamore]

Mark was very firm, very demanding but straight talking.

 

His wife is one lucky lady...

[dune]

Nick

 

I am on my way out - but if you want to compile a list of all questions that you/people want to know, and send them to me or email me, I will sit down and answer them all at once. I am not a regular user of this forum and to be honest I don't often get too much free time so it would be easier to address them in one hit. Or email me a time and I'll make myself available for a chat.

 

Quickly to your question. There were a number of legalities. In fact, from the top of my head I recall the figure of 22 seperate "issues" being identified with contracts - and the small matter of the football league. This I will answer in full.

 

As regards money, if the original set him had remained then there was ample funds. The 'group' changed a number of times, although there were a couple of main people who remained throughout. We became very concerned about funds very late in the day when things seemed to be dragging on - and within 2 days, Matt and I released a statement publicly stepping down from the deal. This was for 2 reasons. Firstly, we knew about Mr Leibherrs reemergance, and another Group - in fact, we knew about them all along as we actually spoke to both groups during the deal. Secondly, in taking this step, it did not prevent our people completing, but it brought about a new sense of urgency. One thought though - very shortly after our client was granted exclusivety, I personally had a phone call from one of the 2 groups mentioned. I was asked whether our client would 'flip' the contract (i.e. sell it for a quick turn)....... I obviously put the question to our client and was told a very firm no. Clearly at that point and for some weeks afterwards myself and colleagues had absolute confidence in their desire to buy the club and trully believed that they would. The rest is history - I lost a load of time and money, but thats business sometimes. I've met some of the new regime since their takeover and passed on several lucrative contracts that myself and colleagues had secured - after all, there is no use leaving them to waste and the new owner and his team were grateful.

 

I hope that answers your question.

 

Regards

Tony

 

Tony just go away and don't come back.

 

You have no relevency to SFC and never did have.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Nick

 

I am on my way out - but if you want to compile a list of all questions that you/people want to know, and send them to me or email me, I will sit down and answer them all at once. I am not a regular user of this forum and to be honest I don't often get too much free time so it would be easier to address them in one hit. Or email me a time and I'll make myself available for a chat.

 

Quickly to your question. There were a number of legalities. In fact, from the top of my head I recall the figure of 22 seperate "issues" being identified with contracts - and the small matter of the football league. This I will answer in full.

 

As regards money, if the original set him had remained then there was ample funds. The 'group' changed a number of times, although there were a couple of main people who remained throughout. We became very concerned about funds very late in the day when things seemed to be dragging on - and within 2 days, Matt and I released a statement publicly stepping down from the deal. This was for 2 reasons. Firstly, we knew about Mr Leibherrs reemergance, and another Group - in fact, we knew about them all along as we actually spoke to both groups during the deal. Secondly, in taking this step, it did not prevent our people completing, but it brought about a new sense of urgency. One thought though - very shortly after our client was granted exclusivety, I personally had a phone call from one of the 2 groups mentioned. I was asked whether our client would 'flip' the contract (i.e. sell it for a quick turn)....... I obviously put the question to our client and was told a very firm no. Clearly at that point and for some weeks afterwards myself and colleagues had absolute confidence in their desire to buy the club and trully believed that they would. The rest is history - I lost a load of time and money, but thats business sometimes. I've met some of the new regime since their takeover and passed on several lucrative contracts that myself and colleagues had secured - after all, there is no use leaving them to waste and the new owner and his team were grateful.

 

I hope that answers your question.

 

Regards

Tony

 

There are more holes in this posting than there are in Portsmouth's defence.

 

TL has changed his story so many times - you only have to look at what he said following Fialka's unveiling, the link being posted today.

 

I also think the present owners will have a long hard look at this and may well want to challenge some of it.

 

2 days before you and Matt eventually called time on the deal, both of you were threatening me on the telephone for daring to question on this forum your authenticity and yet you still have the nerve to come on here and spout "I'm really a good guy" crap.

 

Either tell us the truth or go forth forever.

[The Rover]

There are more holes in this posting than there are in Portsmouth's defence.

 

TL has changed his story so many times - you only have to look at what he said following Fialka's unveiling, the link being posted today.

 

I also think the present owners will have a long hard look at this and may well want to challenge some of it.

 

2 days before you and Matt eventually called time on the deal, both of you were threatening me on the telephone for daring to question on this forum your authenticity and yet you still have the nerve to come on here and spout "I'm really a good guy" crap.

 

Either tell us the truth or go forth forever.

 

You missed out the 'and multiply' Duncan.

 

Seems to me he's a time waster whose delays have cost us all chances of promotion this season.

 

Good guy? Not in my book.

[doughnutman]

Nick

 

I am on my way out - but if you want to compile a list of all questions that you/people want to know, and send them to me or email me, I will sit down and answer them all at once. I am not a regular user of this forum and to be honest I don't often get too much free time so it would be easier to address them in one hit. Or email me a time and I'll make myself available for a chat.

 

Quickly to your question. There were a number of legalities. In fact, from the top of my head I recall the figure of 22 seperate "issues" being identified with contracts - and the small matter of the football league. This I will answer in full.

 

As regards money, if the original set him had remained then there was ample funds. The 'group' changed a number of times, although there were a couple of main people who remained throughout. We became very concerned about funds very late in the day when things seemed to be dragging on - and within 2 days, Matt and I released a statement publicly stepping down from the deal. This was for 2 reasons. Firstly, we knew about Mr Leibherrs reemergance, and another Group - in fact, we knew about them all along as we actually spoke to both groups during the deal. Secondly, in taking this step, it did not prevent our people completing, but it brought about a new sense of urgency. One thought though - very shortly after our client was granted exclusivety, I personally had a phone call from one of the 2 groups mentioned. I was asked whether our client would 'flip' the contract (i.e. sell it for a quick turn)....... I obviously put the question to our client and was told a very firm no. Clearly at that point and for some weeks afterwards myself and colleagues had absolute confidence in their desire to buy the club and trully believed that they would. The rest is history - I lost a load of time and money, but thats business sometimes. I've met some of the new regime since their takeover and passed on several lucrative contracts that myself and colleagues had secured - after all, there is no use leaving them to waste and the new owner and his team were grateful.

 

I hope that answers your question.

 

Regards

Tony

 

It was reported in the press and I believe you commented on that you rejected advances from the swiss group to merge when you gained exsclusivity. Why did you not attempt to merge with them if you knew who was behind the bid (one of the richest men in the world) and if you had problems with other members of pinnacle not being commited or dropping out.

Thanks

[Legod Third Coming]

I am a modest businessman. I sold my last business (with a turnover of £2.5m) and am now running a much, much smaller one and aiming to grow it signficantly of course!

 

But even I would never, ever discuss any aspects of any deal my company was involved in on an internet chat forum. Ever.

[Draino76]

I am a modest businessman. I sold my last business (with a turnover of £2.5m) and am now running a much, much smaller one and aiming to grow it signficantly of course!

 

But even I would never, ever discuss any aspects of any deal my company was involved in on an internet chat forum. Ever.

 

What business were you in?

[Thedelldays]

What business were you in?

woman trafficking

[INFLUENCED.COM]

yet you still have the nerve to come on here and spout "I'm really a good guy" crap.

Either tell us the truth or go forth forever.

 

FF, I for one would have liked a formatted Q & A whereby posters such as yourself were able to highlight contradictions etc...alas I do not believe we will witness it because I am sure he will suggest he will not come on to be subject to abuse, TL, prove me wrong and don't behave like one of those utility operators who put the phone down if you raise your voice a decibel

[Fitzhugh Fella]

FF, I for one would have liked a formatted Q & A whereby posters such as yourself were able to highlight contradictions etc...alas I do not believe we will witness it because I am sure he will suggest he will not come on to be subject to abuse, TL, prove me wrong and don't behave like one of those utility operators who put the phone down if you raise your voice a decibel

 

Understand where you are coming from IC but you have to realise TL is a glib shamen.

Formatted Q and As are what he wants - he wallows in contradictions, the more smoke the better - because, in the cold light of day, his side of the story reeks. I am also afraid to say the more TL spouts garbage the more he drags the once good name of Le Tissier into the cess pit. Perhaps if Lynam has any decency he would retire gracefully, let Marcus Lebherr and Co get on with the real job, and leave MLT alone to rebuild what unfortunately has become a bit of a tatty legacy thanks to becoming involved in the farce now known as Pinnacle.

[INFLUENCED.COM]

Lynam has any decency he would retire gracefully, let Marcus Lebherr and Co get on with the real job, and leave MLT alone to rebuild what unfortunately has become a bit of a tatty legacy thanks to becoming involved in the farce now known as Pinnacle.

 

Fair comment, to be fair MLT is the only person that I am interested in regarding the whole affair, would have welcomed an opportunity to have all the facts laid out in order, for some, to allow reputations to be restored.

[John B]

There are more holes in this posting than there are in Portsmouth's defence.

 

TL has changed his story so many times - you only have to look at what he said following Fialka's unveiling, the link being posted today.

 

I also think the present owners will have a long hard look at this and may well want to challenge some of it.

 

2 days before you and Matt eventually called time on the deal, both of you were threatening me on the telephone for daring to question on this forum your authenticity and yet you still have the nerve to come on here and spout "I'm really a good guy" crap.

 

Either tell us the truth or go forth forever.

 

 

The spelling and grammar is not very good either like all his posts which always worried me even in the summer.

[Nineteen Canteen]

Over the past few years one thing I have learned is not to trust businessmen who are happy to conduct 'some' of their business on internet forums where you have no idea who you are dealing with and in theory could even be divulging information to a competitor and thereby loosing your advantage.

 

As TL is a friend of MLT then I would like to think he is doing this for all the right reasons but any answers he gives will have to be taken at face value and with the NDA's and third party disclosure agreements the things we really need to know are unlikely to be released, ever, let alone on an internet forum.

 

This may even be attempt to help MLT restore his damaged reputation, who knows? If it is I would rather MLT give a full and frank admission with regard the issues arising from Pinnacle and his book but his silence at the moment speaks volumes unfortunately.

 

I have to agree with Fitzhugh Fella on this and ask the question what is stopping Tony Lynam form telling you all anything you want to hear and what does he gain from doing so given he is so busy? The answers could be as unaccountable as the questions IMO and whilst I would like to know the answers to so many questions why give those involved with Pinnacle the time of day when we have a far better solution hitting the ground running at SMS now.

 

OK just the one question for fun...Why did MLT say that Pinnacle had not considered Alan Pardew or any other manager other than those who were ex-Saints? His answer was Pinnacle wanted to go for a box office draw to immediately get in the crowds, why did you expect this to happen and what did you expect the crowds figures to be? Given the narrow band of people you could approach vs all the other managers did this blinkered approach to recruitment mirror the way the bid was put together and progressed through exclusivity and reflect your business plans post purchase? If not, convince us why not?

[Wes Tender]

*Yawn*

[Nineteen Canteen]

*Yawn*

 

Don't worry, a new copy of your favourite paper will land on your door step tomorrow and you can start cut and pasting some new 'arguments'. Night night sleep tight.

[Wes Tender]

Don't worry, a new copy of your favourite paper will land on your door step tomorrow and you can start cut and pasting some new 'arguments'. Night night sleep tight.

 

Somebody's going to post a free copy of the Telegraph through my letterbox? Why would they indulge in such an act of kindness and how would they know my address?

[Wade Garrett]

Nick

 

I am on my way out - but if you want to compile a list of all questions that you/people want to know, and send them to me or email me, I will sit down and answer them all at once. I am not a regular user of this forum and to be honest I don't often get too much free time so it would be easier to address them in one hit. Or email me a time and I'll make myself available for a chat.

 

Quickly to your question. There were a number of legalities. In fact, from the top of my head I recall the figure of 22 seperate "issues" being identified with contracts - and the small matter of the football league. This I will answer in full.

 

As regards money, if the original set him had remained then there was ample funds. The 'group' changed a number of times, although there were a couple of main people who remained throughout. We became very concerned about funds very late in the day when things seemed to be dragging on - and within 2 days, Matt and I released a statement publicly stepping down from the deal. This was for 2 reasons. Firstly, we knew about Mr Leibherrs reemergance, and another Group - in fact, we knew about them all along as we actually spoke to both groups during the deal. Secondly, in taking this step, it did not prevent our people completing, but it brought about a new sense of urgency. One thought though - very shortly after our client was granted exclusivety, I personally had a phone call from one of the 2 groups mentioned. I was asked whether our client would 'flip' the contract (i.e. sell it for a quick turn)....... I obviously put the question to our client and was told a very firm no. Clearly at that point and for some weeks afterwards myself and colleagues had absolute confidence in their desire to buy the club and trully believed that they would. The rest is history - I lost a load of time and money, but thats business sometimes. I've met some of the new regime since their takeover and passed on several lucrative contracts that myself and colleagues had secured - after all, there is no use leaving them to waste and the new owner and his team were grateful.

 

I hope that answers your question.

 

Regards

Tony

 

Tony,

 

you were taking the p*ss. You didn't have the money and turned out to be no more than another Spencer Trethewy/Michael Knighton. You wanted your 5 minutes of fame and you got it. The Fialka thing towards the end was a joke and summed up your bid.

 

All you achieved was losing Saints a valuable pre-season. But being a Pompey supporter I suppose you had a good laugh at that one too.

 

Don't take this the wrong way Tony, I don't believe a word you say. I would imagine the people running the club now (you know, the professionals) need nothing from you.

 

I have no questions to ask you. To be honest I wouldn't ask you the time because you'd probably only wheel Mickey out to tell me.

 

Thanks for nearly ruining our club once and for all.

 

Regards

 

Wade

[Foxstone]

Tony,

 

you were taking the p*ss. You didn't have the money and turned out to be no more than another Spencer Trethewy/Michael Knighton. You wanted your 5 minutes of fame and you got it. The Fialka thing towards the end was a joke and summed up your bid.

 

All you achieved was losing Saints a valuable pre-season. But being a Pompey supporter I suppose you had a good laugh at that one too.

 

Don't take this the wrong way Tony, I don't believe a word you say. I would imagine the people running the club now (you know, the professionals) need nothing from you.

 

I have no questions to ask you. To be honest I wouldn't ask you the time because you'd probably only wheel Mickey out to tell me.

 

Thanks for nearly ruining our club once and for all.

 

Regards

 

Wade

 

Well said !

 

TL = Mike Wilde ( Populist spinners with no substance).

[sussexsaint]

Tony just go away and don't come back.

 

You have no relevency to SFC and never did have.

 

 

There is much sense in this , why dwell on a period in SFC's history that is best forgotten.

 

Markus owns the club now and would have much ealier if it wasn't for a ragtag bunch of people trying to scramble about to find funding, again I realise that this was ( on some peoples part ie MLT's) due to a desire to get the club up and running rather than make money, but the simple fact remains that we are much better off with what we have now than anything Pinnacle could have provided, if they couldn't stay united in their cause during a period of exclusivity god help the club over a period of 5 years.

 

Again I lament the time wasted with tyre kickers when we could have had a decent pre season and be out of negative points by now with any luck , but again that is pointless as what has happened has happened.

 

It is a shame that it made us yet another laughing stock - that bit right at the end with the businessman on skysports was shameful and smacked of desparation.

 

Move on

[John B]

Well said !

 

TL = Mike Wilde ( Populist spinners with no substance).

 

I hope the current lot are not like that as there is a lot of positive spin coming out of St Mary's at the moment which is making the fans feel good.

 

 

We just need a few good results which I am sure will happen in the next week to put the icing on the cake.

[Foxstone]

I hope the current lot are not like that as there is a lot of positive spin coming out of St Mary's at the moment which is making the fans feel good.

 

 

We just need a few good results which I am sure will happen in the next week to put the icing on the cake.

 

 

But plenty of action too....

 

The strong coaching and scouting team put in place by ML/NC is a cracking good start. For the first time in a long time, I am seeing words backed up by delivery and it goes a long way to engender trust and regard towards an apparantly very competent board !

[John B]

But plenty of action too....

 

The strong coaching and scouting team put in place by ML/NC is a cracking good start. For the first time in a long time, I am seeing words backed up by delivery and it goes a long way to engender trust and regard towards an apparantly very competent board !

 

Yes I agree but it is results on the pitch which matter in the long run but what you are saying does help.

 

 

I dont think what they are doing is much different to what happened prior to 2005 the only difference is that Mr Lowe is not involved

Edited 25 September, 2009 by John B

[Paul Chuckle]

Tony, just one question here and would really like you to answer it?

 

Why was Michael Fialka put on Sky Sports News as the money man behind the bid when you have since said that ceratin people dropped out towards the end so were they the money men? It has been shown since that 'Micky' did not have 100s of millions to spend so why did you put him on TV as the money man behind the deal?

 

Thanks

 

P.S does anyone have video footage of Fialkas Sky Sports News interview? Would like to see it again and here what his promises were...

[John B]

Tony, just one question here and would really like you to answer it?

 

Why was Michael Fialka put on Sky Sports News as the money man behind the bid when you have since said that ceratin people dropped out towards the end so were they the money men? It has been shown since that 'Micky' did not have 100s of millions to spend so why did you put him on TV as the money man behind the deal?

 

Thanks

 

P.S does anyone have video footage of Fialkas Sky Sports News interview? Would like to see it again and here what his promises were...

 

It was a very amateur performance if I remember

[OldNick]

Nick

 

I am on my way out - but if you want to compile a list of all questions that you/people want to know, and send them to me or email me, I will sit down and answer them all at once. I am not a regular user of this forum and to be honest I don't often get too much free time so it would be easier to address them in one hit. Or email me a time and I'll make myself available for a chat.

 

Quickly to your question. There were a number of legalities. In fact, from the top of my head I recall the figure of 22 seperate "issues" being identified with contracts - and the small matter of the football league. This I will answer in full.

 

As regards money, if the original set him had remained then there was ample funds. The 'group' changed a number of times, although there were a couple of main people who remained throughout. We became very concerned about funds very late in the day when things seemed to be dragging on - and within 2 days, Matt and I released a statement publicly stepping down from the deal. This was for 2 reasons. Firstly, we knew about Mr Leibherrs reemergance, and another Group - in fact, we knew about them all along as we actually spoke to both groups during the deal. Secondly, in taking this step, it did not prevent our people completing, but it brought about a new sense of urgency. One thought though - very shortly after our client was granted exclusivety, I personally had a phone call from one of the 2 groups mentioned. I was asked whether our client would 'flip' the contract (i.e. sell it for a quick turn)....... I obviously put the question to our client and was told a very firm no. Clearly at that point and for some weeks afterwards myself and colleagues had absolute confidence in their desire to buy the club and trully believed that they would. The rest is history - I lost a load of time and money, but thats business sometimes. I've met some of the new regime since their takeover and passed on several lucrative contracts that myself and colleagues had secured - after all, there is no use leaving them to waste and the new owner and his team were grateful.

 

I hope that answers your question.

 

Regards

Tony

Tony thanks for that.It would be good to read the full story and I understand how demanding it must have been. I admire that you are not afraid to put your head above the parapet.

I suggest the mods set up a sticky for questions to be asked and then you may respond to them.

Mods how about setting that up?

On second thoughts forget that. I just have remembered the hashed up web page

Edited 25 September, 2009 by OldNick

[Andyb1]

Are we really STILL talking about this?

[alpine_saint]

Are we really STILL talking about this?

 

Bizarre, isnt it ?

[John B]

Are we really STILL talking about this?

 

Why dont you start an interesting thread then instead of being irratating

 

It is easy being negative but posters are geuinely interested in the Pinnacle bid I know FF is

[Wes Tender]

I dont think what they are doing is much different to what happened prior to 2005 the only difference is that Mr Lowe is not involved

 

Carry on deluding yourself about this is you wish. Most can see vast improvements in the professionalism shown by the current incumbents over those charlatans that presided over club affairs pre-2005.

[John B]

Carry on deluding yourself about this is you wish. Most can see vast improvements in the professionalism shown by the current incumbents over those charlatans that presided over club affairs pre-2005.

 

You are a complete waste of time when it comes to reality and other peoples opinions.

 

 

When in the Premiership prior to 2005 most independantly motivated people would agree that SFC was a well run club you might not agree but there is absolutely no need to be agressive to other peoples points of view.

[up and away]

Oh, just one point. At no point did I ever have the impression that Mark Fry preferred our clients bid - if anyone has dealt with administrators before, you'll know its like doing battle with an enemy. On a professional level, Mark was very firm, very demanding but straight talking.

 

 

 

You can dress it up as you like, I even hear it is possible to polish it nowadays. But this had more pantomime than business to those watching on, culminating with widow T****y emerging from the London suburbs.

 

Your assertion that you withdrew soon after things did not appear right is naive to the extreme. What you are omitting is that prior to this you spent weeks arguing the point with the Football League regarding their rules. Now as all precedents regarding this matter had already been set, any half intelligent with access to the web could have given you a definitive answer. Someone here was severely lacking or being pointed in the wrong direction. If you had put your hands up then and not continued with the charade with the Football League, fair play and the damage could have been minimal. Maybe you believe it was not a charade? but then words would fail in an apt description for that position.

 

I never took fault with what you tried to do, but I definitely take fault with you for not realising the full implications of your subsequent actions once things had got too far. What did this cost us? At one extreme the possibility of losing Liebherr, at the more practical outcome of being able to keep Surman and DMG.

 

Just for Alpine, who must be giddy from the positions he has taken up with Fry (Looks a good guy, we may have got lucky here :-to-: What's that ****** up to, is he trying to destroy the club :-to-: that's just his job, trying to get the best price for the creditors).

The significance of this could well come at the end of the season should we fall short. Then we can look back on this and summarize if those two players could have made a difference.

[alpine_saint]

Just for Alpine, who must be giddy from the positions he has taken up with Fry (Looks a good guy, we may have got lucky here :-to-: What's that ****** up to, is he trying to destroy the club :-to-: that's just his job, trying to get the best price for the creditors).

The significance of this could well come at the end of the season should we fall short. Then we can look back on this and summarize if those two players could have made a difference.

 

Surman and DMG were going to make the difference to the season ?

 

Riiight...

 

As for my "changing position" on Fry, I was reacting to the news as it unfolded, including his own comments to the press that sometimes we were near to a deal and other times he felt a deal was unlikely.

[Give it to Ron]

We were never going to keep McG though as he had made it quite clear he wanted to return to his family in Nottingham.

Surman agreed may have been a different kettle of fish as AP I believe would of talked him into staying like AL.

What I can't forgive is the false hope he gave us and all the rubbish spouted about the 10 points just to buy time when all along we had a better deal in the wings who so nearly walked away.

 

So far Markus, Cortese, Oldknow and Luker have not put a foot wrong and I have loved being just able to talk about football. Monday night was absolutely superb to listen to AP and Nicola talking so refreshingly and professionally.

No matter how much MLT did on the pitch there is no way Pinnacle would of been as good for us and you TL should hang your head in shame for being involved in this farce and as bad as that photocopier salesman wannabe.

[Wes Tender]

You are a complete waste of time when it comes to reality and other peoples opinions.

 

 

When in the Premiership prior to 2005 most independantly motivated people would agree that SFC was a well run club you might not agree but there is absolutely no need to be agressive to other peoples points of view.

 

Was I aggressive? You must have a very thin skin. Is not your response as aggressive?

 

Who are these independantly motivated people of whom you speak? Anybody who is likely to have registered an opinion on this forum or previous incarnations, would have had an opinion polarised either towards or against Lowe and the board. If you choose to ignore historical episodes such as the failure to secure Stoneham, the reverse takeover, constant changing of managers on an annual basis, failure to attract serious investment, etc and feel that the club was well run, then that is your prerogative. Just do not try and make out that it was a widely expressed opinion. Even before 2005 there were wide divisions at the club, which thankfully can now heal with the removal of that bunch of incompetents

[Draino76]

Surman and DMG were going to make the difference to the season ?

 

Riiight...

 

 

Wrong. Those 2 would have made a fecking HUGE difference.

[up and away]

Was I aggressive? You must have a very thin skin. Is not your response as aggressive?

 

Who are these independantly motivated people of whom you speak? Anybody who is likely to have registered an opinion on this forum or previous incarnations, would have had an opinion polarised either towards or against Lowe and the board. If you choose to ignore historical episodes such as the failure to secure Stoneham, the reverse takeover, constant changing of managers on an annual basis, failure to attract serious investment, etc and feel that the club was well run, then that is your prerogative. Just do not try and make out that it was a widely expressed opinion. Even before 2005 there were wide divisions at the club, which thankfully can now heal with the removal of that bunch of incompetents

 

Why do you have to keep repeating such ******. There was no failure to secure Stoneham. It was not financially viable without modifications which were unacceptable to the council. So you keep trying to advocate we should have gone ahead with it, even though we could not afford it?

[alpine_saint]

Wrong. Those 2 would have made a fecking HUGE difference.

 

Utter nonsense. They both had distinctly unremarkable seasons before they left.

[Saint Without a Halo]

Exactly. After the total demoralisation of the club under Lowe the most likely way that the club could bounce back quickly as a going concern was to unite the fans behind a respected and trusted hierarchy. MLT provided that - along with funds - when it was being initially considered.

 

I don't think we should read any more into it. The fact is SLH plc had been a disaster due to leadership, personal ambitions and greed. MLT offered a credible solution to rebuild some faith in the club.

 

Fry's only interest and indeed his paymasters are the companies owed money. He would have and indeed is legally obliged to pursue the bid that in his opinion offers the best return on the debts accrued!

 

whether or no MLT was involved or what the future of the club is likely to be would have never influenced Fry's decision.

 

As I have said previously if the best bid came from a developer who wanted to close the club down, demolish the stadium and build on the ground and the training ground then that is what he would have gone with.

 

We were lucky that the training ground has a restrictive covenant on it from the original owners donation, the stadium is built in an area of little development potential and the credit crisis all combined to chase away any potential developers and asset break up merchants leaving an ongoing football club as the best bet!

 

Fry must have either thought there was a better return from the Pinnicle bid or he was using it to try and drive the Swiss bid up. Either way I don't care as WE CAME OUT OF A POTENTIALLY DISASTEROUS SITUATION IN THE BEST WAY WE COULD HAVE POSSIBLY HOPED FOR!

Edited 25 September, 2009 by Saint Without a Halo

[Andyb1]

Why dont you start an interesting thread then instead of being irratating

 

It is easy being negative but posters are geuinely interested in the Pinnacle bid I know FF is

 

There isn't really anything interesting going on is there. Hense this crap all being rehashed again and again.

 

I started one this week when i heard some news... This is OLD news...

[Nineteen Canteen]

Carry on deluding yourself about this is you wish. Most can see vast improvements in the professionalism shown by the current incumbents over those charlatans that presided over club affairs pre-2005.

 

Yawn - I bet you'll take an FA Cup final appearance now Wes. John is correct to say that there are similarities in the way the club is being run now and when under Lowe and comparisons are a lot closer than when under Wilde or Crouch. The only thing I don't agree with John is , is his insistence over the urgent improvement of results. We've only been beaten twice and only once well beaten and our goal difference of -1 shows that we have already built a platform in 8 games on which to build despite giving the reat at least a 6 week head start.

 

Financial prudence and a clear business plan is how NC and ML have set their stall out but the one obvious difference they have recognised is the importance of a good manager and one open to new ideas. Lowe got that wrong more often than he got it right but was the one area where eventually he allowed himself to be influenced by fan pressure and on his return last season he was clearly admanant to learn from that mistake and failed not replacing JP quick enough, the Reading result buying JP time he didn't deserve IMO.

 

ML's money has allowed the club to become debt free and with that millstone removed from our necks we are in a tremendous and very lucky position but it is interesting to see that financial prudence remains paramount and more interesting to see if the slow but positive influences on our results will be tolerated because this season I would be surprised if we finish above halfway but provided we finish the season in a flourish like Bournemouth did last year for example and carry on next season as they have this year I would be very happy with that.

 

It is strange to see how money and power can silence most critics and could you imagine Lowe charging McMenemy last season for his seat? The uproar and pomposity would have been a sight to behold but this season hardly a murmur. Of course Mcmenemy was vicariously charged for a ticket but IMO he probably ponced his 'seat at the game' off Crouch who IMO added McMenemy's name to his box for a little high profile kudos and gloating - no more supporting the new regime than positioning himself for a return. Lowe was not and never will be the only charlatan in the firmly closed closet of our past.

 

If there is a god he is called Markus and I pray he is in it for the long haul despite inevitable rocky roads ahead no doubt lined with impatient fans calling for cheque books to be opened. The first of which, because of injuries, maybe the M6.

[Nineteen Canteen]

Wrong. Those 2 would have made a fecking HUGE difference.

 

Nothing was guaranteed with those two. McGoldrick was dependent on which player turned up as under JP he was a mere shadown of the player he became during the second half of the season and who can forget 2 of the most woeful penalities we have ever seen?

 

With regards to Surman he had become a shadow of the player that he was when we earned selction for the England U21's. Thereafter, he inexplicably went off the boil and whilst he had the occassional great game he had become consistent in only at best, his steady and unremarkable play. Could he have benefitted from dropping down a league? Maybe, but IMO good players become great players by playing with players at the highest level they can attain. IMO Surman needed the move more than we needed him to stay and perhaps watch an obvious talent decline even further. With his love of Saints I would love him to come back when we are in a position to have him back and he has found his game and confidence again.

[Wes Tender]

Why do you have to keep repeating such ******. There was no failure to secure Stoneham. It was not financially viable without modifications which were unacceptable to the council. So you keep trying to advocate we should have gone ahead with it, even though we could not afford it?

 

As long as there are posters trying to rewrite history as you have attempted, I will repeat my response.

 

It was eminently viable financially, with all sorts of add-ons to help make it so, but just not with the two things that Rupert wanted, which were the only two things that the EBC couldn't realistically allow.

 

When Stoneham collapsed, we went ahead with a new stadium with no external additional revenue streams, so yes, I am entirely happy to advocate that we should have proceeded with Stoneham with a 4* Star hotel, a sports and leisure complex, training grounds, fast food outlets, a night club, bowling alley, ice skating rink, sports shop, any or all of those things included.

[Nineteen Canteen]

As long as there are posters trying to rewrite history as you have attempted, I will repeat my response.

 

It was eminently viable financially, with all sorts of add-ons to help make it so, but just not with the two things that Rupert wanted, which were the only two things that the EBC couldn't realistically allow.

 

When Stoneham collapsed, we went ahead with a new stadium with no external additional revenue streams, so yes, I am entirely happy to advocate that we should have proceeded with Stoneham with a 4* Star hotel, a sports and leisure complex, training grounds, fast food outlets, a night club, bowling alley, ice skating rink, sports shop, any or all of those things included.

 

What did the Romans ever do for us? Will you ever get it over it Wes? Roads and baths and stuff, oh and the Daily Mail masquerading as the Daily Bluenose.

[greg_hill]

Yawn - I bet you'll take an FA Cup final appearance now Wes. John is correct to say that there are similarities in the way the club is being run now and when under Lowe and comparisons are a lot closer than when under Wilde or Crouch.

 

I find it hard to take your opinion seriously after the way you knocked MLT.

 

I would point out one massive difference - the current regime have invested over thirteen million into the club.

 

You are a complete waste of time when it comes to reality and other peoples opinions.

 

 

When in the Premiership prior to 2005 most independantly motivated people would agree that SFC was a well run club

 

Maybe, but was it not more or less the same regime that presided over the fatal appointment of Wigley and the utterly shameless and embarrassing PR campaign via the OS during the takeover saga post 2005?

I sense far more professionalism with the new guys and I believe many fans would agree.

[Wes Tender]

Yawn - I bet you'll take an FA Cup final appearance now Wes. John is correct to say that there are similarities in the way the club is being run now and when under Lowe and comparisons are a lot closer than when under Wilde or Crouch. The only thing I don't agree with John is , is his insistence over the urgent improvement of results. We've only been beaten twice and only once well beaten and our goal difference of -1 shows that we have already built a platform in 8 games on which to build despite giving the reat at least a 6 week head start.

 

Financial prudence and a clear business plan is how NC and ML have set their stall out but the one obvious difference they have recognised is the importance of a good manager and one open to new ideas. Lowe got that wrong more often than he got it right but was the one area where eventually he allowed himself to be influenced by fan pressure and on his return last season he was clearly admanant to learn from that mistake and failed not replacing JP quick enough, the Reading result buying JP time he didn't deserve IMO.

 

ML's money has allowed the club to become debt free and with that millstone removed from our necks we are in a tremendous and very lucky position but it is interesting to see that financial prudence remains paramount and more interesting to see if the slow but positive influences on our results will be tolerated because this season I would be surprised if we finish above halfway but provided we finish the season in a flourish like Bournemouth did last year for example and carry on next season as they have this year I would be very happy with that.

 

It is strange to see how money and power can silence most critics and could you imagine Lowe charging McMenemy last season for his seat? The uproar and pomposity would have been a sight to behold but this season hardly a murmur. Of course Mcmenemy was vicariously charged for a ticket but IMO he probably ponced his 'seat at the game' off Crouch who IMO added McMenemy's name to his box for a little high profile kudos and gloating - no more supporting the new regime than positioning himself for a return. Lowe was not and never will be the only charlatan in the firmly closed closet of our past.

 

If there is a god he is called Markus and I pray he is in it for the long haul despite inevitable rocky roads ahead no doubt lined with impatient fans calling for cheque books to be opened. The first of which, because of injuries, maybe the M6.

 

John is not correct about what he says. You say he is, I say he isn't. Both are our opinions, so you are not entitled to say that he is correct as it is conjecture not provable fact.

 

With regards to the remainder of your post, I must say that I do agree broadly with your comments and like you, I feel that AP is not not under any undue pressure yet. I accept like you do, that there have been several factors that have held us back and that despite those setbacks, real concrete progress has been made and will continue to be made.

 

I have not been this optimistic to the club's future prospects for many years.

[Wes Tender]

What did the Romans ever do for us? Will you ever get it over it Wes? Roads and baths and stuff, oh and the Daily Mail masquerading as the Daily Bluenose.

 

Is this some compulsive obsessive disorder? MLT, Crouch and now the Daily Mail. You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I might subscribe to the rag.

[greg_hill]

What did the Romans ever do for us? Will you ever get it over it Wes? Roads and baths and stuff, oh and the Daily Mail masquerading as the Daily Bluenose.

 

If you disparage the DM again I will be forced to fly back to Blighty and slap you with the seafood item of your choice.

 

You knock MLT, and now it appears you are some Guardian/Indepedent type of reader, too!

[hughieslastminutegoal]

I think that given the desperate situation we were in that Mark Fry managed to pull the club out of the flames at the last momment, so to speak and in my opinion everything turned out well in the finish.

 

Or NC/ML pulled the club out of the flames despite the administrator?