alpine_saint Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 Alps, if you have looked at the Pinnacle website that had been thrown together IMO would it not worry you a tad.I dont wish to disrespect anybody who is trying to save the club but it struck me as a rush job.Why and what point was there to putting up such a site that seemed so unprofessional...to me anyway. Were they expecting loads of business from it? It keeps the alarm bells ringing.Anybody would know as soon as the company name came out everyone would be Googleing it and so why do it?? Loads of questions that i cant tally. I fairness I would rather they focus on their plans for SFC than worry how slick their website is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancelot link Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 OK - if this is true on the Canadian bid I wouldnt right it off but I would prefer to opt for the MLT consortium as it hints on a lack of funding. But I say that without knowing the facts - it may be a good idea. Pinnacle are wise here. The 10 points deduction mean that any plan to hit the Premier League in 5 years is almost certainly delayed a year. Thus funding would need to be more cleverly spread or increased and may impact on the type of manager employed. MLT's association gives me a degree of confidence I have to say. Certainly seems to be the best 'feel good factor' bid. This is the closest anyone has got to the reality of the situation. Put simply, have we considered that if we are stuck in L1 for more than 1 season (or even worse - go down again), it will probably double the budget needed - not because these people would have to fund for 'another year' but because most fans, myself included, might not have the appetite to go and watch us playing Acrington Stanley for more than 1 year (no 'who are they" jokes please!). Then we get a major problem as SMS will be half empty (at best) for games, there'll be no atmosphere and for all their ambitions, it just won't work. So lets take stock, we've got a statement making clear that their/MLT plan isn't for an overnight fix. They've been honest and told us what they are doing, but kept every single part of the deal top secret. I would love to see MLT back in some capacity and as he actually is ITK like so many (me included) who claim they are, I'm on board. Please make this work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minstral Man Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 Talk is cheap - let's see if they get the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is. Just looked up Pinnacle's financal profile, don't hold your breath! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancelot link Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 Pinnacle aren't buying it MM, someone they/MLT know is (wants to). And as far as I can tell its only a trading company anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaSaint Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 And there was no further mention of the Canadian consortium and the council but I would assume the Canadians can't afford a total buy out which doesn't make them look particularly affluent. Maybe that how they do things in Canada. There's quite a strong leaning towards stakeholder involvement here so I'll offer an alternative thought to Duncan's, even though I tend to agree with it. The stadium can easily be a financial millstone unless City Council approves more "non football" (i.e. music) events. The financial appeal of the club is significantly higher if the prospects are good for developing the surrounding area, which also needs City Council approval. Doesn't it make sense to draw City Council into some kind of more active involvement - so that they succeed if the club succeeds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 I think its clear, there is a definate takeover in the offing. Its easy to pour scorn on whoever is currently being suggested, pinnacle, fulthorpe, the jersey trio, marc jackson etc etc None of these names meet the criteria of a board of scrutineers Im so happy alpine and Mr sanctimonious (Stanley) so they will not happen. But lets be realistic. Those seriously involved will not be using the media let alone this forum to gauge fans opinions etc or try to influence one bid over another. I am certain the main players are doing the takeover in a very professional manner and do not need to enlist the likes of this forum or the echo to promote their intentions unlike some of the charlatans trying to stake a claim thru the echo or this forum I have and never will trust the echo again in reporting all matters saints. It just shows how desparate they are for saints news. How unprofessional of them to print wildes, crouch mcmenemys fes on what happened at the club. Instead of focussing on the negative they should be promoting a positive picture of Southampton football club. Also one other thing that keeps me optomistic is the fact that the FL are not calling for the club to go to the wall inorder that they can advise other teams who may be taking our place in the leagues next season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 Has anyone got a link to the pinacle site please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 Has anyone got a link to the pinacle site please? http://www.pinnacleassetmanagement.co.uk/index.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 Has anyone got a link to the pinacle site please? http://www.pinnacleproperty.net/contact.htm I think when it was first put up there was a spelling mistake that then was quickly corrected. All done in a rush and I cant see quite why Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 (edited) Has anyone got a link to the pinacle site please? From Google http://www.ukdata.com/company-credit-reports/PINNACLE-PROPERTY-CONSULTANTS-LIMITED.html EDIT* Read down a little: Credit Reports: As this company has either not or only recently filed, they are not yet analysed by our system, so we are unable to offer a credit report. Is this cause for concern? Edited 9 May, 2009 by EastleighSoulBoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 (edited) http://www.pinnacleproperty.net/contact.htm I think when it was first put up there was a spelling mistake that then was quickly corrected. All done in a rush and I cant see quite why Cheers Nick and Trousers. Had a brief look at it seems OK to me, boring finance stuff, but OK. I would advise them to spell "dialogue" correctly though. American dumbing down of the English language is a pet hate of mine. Edited 9 May, 2009 by Mole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 Cheers Nick and Trousers. Had a brief look at it seems OK to me, boring, but OK. I would advise them to spell "dialogue" correctly though. American dumbing down of the English language is a pet hate of mine. i don't think they are worried one iota about either of our cares for correct use of the English language! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint77 Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 From Google http://www.ukdata.com/company-credit-reports/PINNACLE-PROPERTY-CONSULTANTS-LIMITED.html EDIT* Read down a little: Credit Reports: As this company has either not or only recently filed, they are not yet analysed by our system, so we are unable to offer a credit report. Is this cause for concern? why would this be a concern pinnacle are acting purely as the broker for others who are based in london Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 I recall when Branfoot arrived he talked about aiming to win the European cup. :smt082 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 why would this be a concern pinnacle are acting purely as the broker for others who are based in london That's cleared that up for me then. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancelot link Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 why would this be a concern pinnacle are acting purely as the broker for others who are based in london see my earlier post! What we say on a public forum debate is neither here nor there, but you do have to question why we are all debating whether or not these people have the clout and know how to pull off what would be a dream takeover. A few facts however do make me relaxed about it - it has MLTs support (FACT), it has long term plans and are not here to rip us off (FACT), - its taking a view on whether the 10 points thing is legal (FACT), - will this be accepter by Fry or done before anyone beats them to it (the only unknown but at least they even told us that!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 see my earlier post! What we say on a public forum debate is neither here nor there, but you do have to question why we are all debating whether or not these people have the clout and know how to pull off what would be a dream takeover. A few facts however do make me relaxed about it - it has MLTs support (FACT), it has long term plans and are not here to rip us off (FACT), - its taking a view on whether the 10 points thing is legal (FACT), - will this be accepter by Fry or done before anyone beats them to it (the only unknown but at least they even told us that!) Should point out a few things: 1. Yes, it has MLT's support, but he has stated that anyone who he feels will save the club and give it a decent chance of stabilising things will have his support - as far as I'm aware, he's not held discussions with any of the other interested parties; if he did, he might be inclined to support them instead/as well. 2. It's certainly not a fact that they're not here to rip us off - make no mistake about it, they're interested because they see something in it that will see them at least make their initial investment back. In theory, that would have to involve the club being successful (in relative terms), but that's not stopped various conspiracy theories about previous major shareholders, so I doubt that'll stop now. 3. Yes, it's a fact that they're getting a legal position on the points deduction, but I would expect any interested party to be doing exactly that - for anyone who believes they'll ultimately end up owning SFC, it's in their interests to investigate it. I'm not pouring scorn on this bid/potential bid - far from it - but it's worth taking a step back every now and then to make sure we don't let the heart rule the head too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morph Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 This is the closest anyone has got to the reality of the situation. Put simply, have we considered that if we are stuck in L1 for more than 1 season (or even worse - go down again), it will probably double the budget needed - not because these people would have to fund for 'another year' but because most fans, myself included, might not have the appetite to go and watch us playing Acrington Stanley for more than 1 year (no 'who are they" jokes please!). Then we get a major problem as SMS will be half empty (at best) for games, there'll be no atmosphere and for all their ambitions, it just won't work. So lets take stock, we've got a statement making clear that their/MLT plan isn't for an overnight fix. They've been honest and told us what they are doing, but kept every single part of the deal top secret. I would love to see MLT back in some capacity and as he actually is ITK like so many (me included) who claim they are, I'm on board. Please make this work I wouldn't like to think that you are close to Mark Fry ???, Notwithstanding NickG will no doubt constantly remind you that I have been very wrong in my overall conclusions over the years, so I must be wrong again Kindest Regards Morph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 Should point out a few things: 1. Yes, it has MLT's support, but he has stated that anyone who he feels will save the club and give it a decent chance of stabilising things will have his support - as far as I'm aware, he's not held discussions with any of the other interested parties; if he did, he might be inclined to support them instead/as well. 2. It's certainly not a fact that they're not here to rip us off - make no mistake about it, they're interested because they see something in it that will see them at least make their initial investment back. In theory, that would have to involve the club being successful (in relative terms), but that's not stopped various conspiracy theories about previous major shareholders, so I doubt that'll stop now. 3. Yes, it's a fact that they're getting a legal position on the points deduction, but I would expect any interested party to be doing exactly that - for anyone who believes they'll ultimately end up owning SFC, it's in their interests to investigate it. I'm not pouring scorn on this bid/potential bid - far from it - but it's worth taking a step back every now and then to make sure we don't let the heart rule the head too much. Agree Steve. What is more Fry holds Counsels opinion on the chances of a legal challenge. I am sure he would have shown it to any interested party before they considered a bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 2. It's certainly not a fact that they're not here to rip us off - make no mistake about it, they're interested because they see something in it that will see them at least make their initial investment back. In theory, that would have to involve the club being successful (in relative terms), but that's not stopped various conspiracy theories about previous major shareholders, so I doubt that'll stop now. For them to make more money out of this investment than they could putting the money in other forms of investment or even leaving it in a bank, they will have to invest heavily in order to ensure the club reaches at least the top half of the Championship if not higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFC Forever Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 My only problem is whether Ince would use us as a stepping stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alain Perrin Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 Pinnacle aren't buying it MM, someone they/MLT know is (wants to). And as far as I can tell its only a trading company anyway I believe it will be a kind of reverse takeover.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW11_Saint Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 My only problem is whether Ince would use us as a stepping stone. To what though? I don't think he'll get many "bigger" offers than us in the forseeable future. He does of course want to manage Inter one day, if they go for him after us great - it'll mean he's done a damn fine job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 There's quite a strong leaning towards stakeholder involvement here so I'll offer an alternative thought to Duncan's, even though I tend to agree with it. The stadium can easily be a financial millstone unless City Council approves more "non football" (i.e. music) events. The financial appeal of the club is significantly higher if the prospects are good for developing the surrounding area, which also needs City Council approval. Doesn't it make sense to draw City Council into some kind of more active involvement - so that they succeed if the club succeeds? Interesting perspective that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 My only problem is whether Ince would use us as a stepping stone. He can only do that if he brings us success. So its a win-win is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 My only problem is whether Ince would use us as a stepping stone. How do you know they would want Ince? It would be great if they did as I think he'd do a great job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 Should point out a few things: 1. Yes, it has MLT's support, but he has stated that anyone who he feels will save the club and give it a decent chance of stabilising things will have his support - as far as I'm aware, he's not held discussions with any of the other interested parties; if he did, he might be inclined to support them instead/as well. 2. It's certainly not a fact that they're not here to rip us off - make no mistake about it, they're interested because they see something in it that will see them at least make their initial investment back. In theory, that would have to involve the club being successful (in relative terms), but that's not stopped various conspiracy theories about previous major shareholders, so I doubt that'll stop now. 3. Yes, it's a fact that they're getting a legal position on the points deduction, but I would expect any interested party to be doing exactly that - for anyone who believes they'll ultimately end up owning SFC, it's in their interests to investigate it. I'm not pouring scorn on this bid/potential bid - far from it - but it's worth taking a step back every now and then to make sure we don't let the heart rule the head too much. All fair points Steve, and the stepping back is something which I wish I had done this time back in '07! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 I wouldn't like to think that you are close to Mark Fry ???, Notwithstanding NickG will no doubt constantly remind you that I have been very wrong in my overall conclusions over the years, so I must be wrong again Kindest Regards Morph we all make mistakes! you enjoy it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 My only problem is whether Ince would use us as a stepping stone. This is one of the faces of football though. Unless you are Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea etc etc then you are going to be part of the success food chain and will be a stepping stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry the Badger Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 This is one of the faces of football though. Unless you are Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea etc etc then you are going to be part of the success food chain and will be a stepping stone. True, but because of Ince's reputation it would not take as much success for him to be chased by a bigger club than it would for less of a 'big name' manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
del boy Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 This is the closest anyone has got to the reality of the situation. Lets please not confuse anything on this forum with reality!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 see my earlier post! What we say on a public forum debate is neither here nor there, but you do have to question why we are all debating whether or not these people have the clout and know how to pull off what would be a dream takeover. A few facts however do make me relaxed about it - it has MLTs support (FACT), it has long term plans and are not here to rip us off (FACT), - its taking a view on whether the 10 points thing is legal (FACT), - will this be accepter by Fry or done before anyone beats them to it (the only unknown but at least they even told us that!) This is very good news on paper. Let's hope the bid is sucessful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 True, but because of Ince's reputation it would not take as much success for him to be chased by a bigger club than it would for less of a 'big name' manager. I would be more worried about Ince being a rubbish manager, getting MK Dons out of League 2 was not that great an achievement considering the financial backing they have. What Tisdale has done at Exeter is much more of an achievement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancelot link Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 Lets please not confuse anything on this forum with reality!! Excellent point!!! But we can all have an opinion!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 I would be more worried about Ince being a rubbish manager, getting MK Dons out of League 2 was not that great an achievement considering the financial backing they have. What Tisdale has done at Exeter is much more of an achievement. go on bump my thread on him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 According to today's Echo Pinnacle's clients are awaiting legal advice on whether the 10 point deduction can be overturned. That advice from an independent barrister is expected imminently. But it is understood that even if there are sufficient grounds for the decision to be overturned the deal will not be scuppered, although the amount of finance needed for the 5 year plan would change. The late Canadian interest is based on the Council buying the stadium and leasing it back. That doesn't add up Duncan. Buying the stadium is a 'no brainer'. It could be self financed at the reported price and make a profit without a football match played at the stadium. 4 decent concerts a year, the council contract plus using the corporate facilities etc would make a minimum £0.5m profit after mortgage payments. Anybody looking to cut the stadium loose doesn't have the money to do anything but apply a band aid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capitalsaint Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 I would be more worried about Ince being a rubbish manager, getting MK Dons out of League 2 was not that great an achievement considering the financial backing they have. What Tisdale has done at Exeter is much more of an achievement. I agree completely. Just because Ince was a useful player doesn't mean he can translate it to being a useful manager. In League 2 most ex-players of his stature would be successful because of the respect they command amongst players who will never reach the same heights. The thing that worries me about him, above all, is that he doesn't seem to be all too clever. His interviews didn't make much sense, he's not particularly eloquent, and as for calling yourself 'The Guv'nor'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeBoyer Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 i don't think they are worried one iota about either of our cares for correct use of the English language! Incorrect ESB. They are. I went on their website last week and made a comment on this forum that they'd made a grammatical error. Here's my post.... A grammatical error on their website still remains though: Under the Services link, "clients needs" should read "clients' needs". Hey if their willing to front up a bid, I don't really care though....... Within 1-2 days this error had been rectified, along with another error someone else had noticed. It's clear they, or someone acting on behalf of them, are monitoring this forum. Hope that helps! Kind regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 (edited) A grammatical error on their website still remains though: Under the Services link, "clients needs" should read "clients' needs". Hey if their willing to front up a bid, I don't really care though....... A grammatical error on your post still remains though: "if their" should read "if they're".... Edited 9 May, 2009 by Guided Missile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeBoyer Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 I hold my hands up. How silly of me. Well spotted, thanks! Kind regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 A grammatical error on you post still remains though: "if their" should read "if they're".... And on yours, it should read 'A grammatical error on YOUR post......' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 And on yours, it should read 'A grammatical error on YOUR post......' That's nown as a typo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 That's nown as a typo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 Incorrect ESB. They are. I went on their website last week and made a comment on this forum that they'd made a grammatical error. Here's my post.... Within 1-2 days this error had been rectified, along with another error someone else had noticed. It's clear they, or someone acting on behalf of them, are monitoring this forum. Hope that helps! Kind regards. Good to know they're paying attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 Good to know they're paying attention. If I remember correctly the site also had a makeover too. Same content but a more "professional" appearance. Didn't someone suggest that one of the posters "The Farmer" on here created the web presence for Pinnacle? If so I'd suggest that he simply saw the criticism of his work and tidied it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 (edited) Domain name: pinnacleassetmanagement.co.uk Registrant: Spencer Farmer Registrant type: UK Individual Registrant's address: ****** Registrar: Fasthosts Internet Ltd [Tag = FASTHOSTS] URL: http://www.fasthosts.co.uk Relevant dates: Registered on: 09-Jan-2004 Renewal date: 09-Jan-2010 Last updated: 11-Dec-2007 Registration status: Registered until renewal date. Name servers: ns1.livedns.co.uk ns2.livedns.co.uk Edited 10 May, 2009 by Guided Missile Sorry, thought the address was Pinnacles' registered office Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 Yep - same WHOIS entry for pinnacleproperty.net too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonist Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 Yep - same WHOIS entry for pinnacleproperty.net too. looks uninspiring on google streetview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 (edited) looks uninspiring on google streetview. Looks uninspiring when you go there. 1970s mock Georgian terrace on an estate. Next door sold for £155,000 two years ago. Not home of the wealthy and connected its fair to say. Edited 9 May, 2009 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobM Posted 9 May, 2009 Share Posted 9 May, 2009 (edited) Or perhaps the Iranian Tchenguiz brothers of Rotch Property Group? Highly unlikely given their current investments, and it wouldn't likely be under the Rotch brand, but if that does happen and they are involved I'd personally be very pleased They do already have business in the South too Edited 9 May, 2009 by RobM 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