CB Fry

According to multimillionaire Michael Failka. I am sure the League may have gone through the ramifications of not completing a CVA (more points deductions) and as the Pinnacle clowns didn't have a pot to p*ss it, who can blame them? I'm saying if Pinnacle were multi gazillionaires as we were led to believe and could satisfy all creditors, it would have been ten points, no question.

The Jewish Chronicle is weekly, so it could be out of date with the interview from a couple of days ago to go into the print edition then replicated online, but they do look like new quotes. I think its dead.

Correct. So the big win is to get a multimillion stadium with decades of life in it for a knock down price. By the way, this (a knock down stadium and potentially debt free when other clubs are spending millions on new stadiums) is the sporting advantage we are getting the sporting sanctions over (10 points). Writing off huge debts is the advantage you get from going into admin. But no one ever listens when I post that.

Have you ever read anything you've posted yourself? What are you disagreeing with exactly - have Pinnacle been transparent in your opinion? Sorry, I am right - the extra 10, 20, and more points exists entirely in the heads of people on here aligned to various theories (Adriansfc's "Catch-22", "Look at Luton" etc). My theory is different - I'm stopping at 10 points - and is of as much worth as the other theories because they are all speculation. My speculation is 10 points was/is our punishment, no more, but Pinnacle couldn't get the money. What's the problem with that, Einstein?

Pinnacle's excuse is "other issues" which is a vacuum for you to fill in with whatever punishment you can make up in your own head, be it ten, twenty or whatever points. Well in my head it's "Pinnacle are full of it". It's all speculation.

But it is perfectly possible that the 10 points is the only thing under discussion, that's what the League said, and Pinnacle have barely contested it ("other issues" is lame nothing ness) so who thinks it is more than that? Oh, people on a webforum. As far as I can see the league have been transparent. Pinnacle, on the other hand....

Becuase they didn't have the money.

Well, last post on this one - this is hindsight. Not selling to the council was the right move then, and I still think it will prove to be.

Sorry everyone is ignoring that sentence in favour of wetting themselves over the "s" in sanctions.

And me yours. Lynham had the opportunity yesterday to stick a parting shot on the league by saying "they tried to clobber us with 17 points". He didn't - he had a coy mention of "other issues" which is utterly meaningless and far more meaningless than this statement from the league which is getting torn apart. The complications seem to arise from total top of head speculation rather than anything concrete at all, so apologies if I disagree on how complicated it all is.

LOL.

Err - sporting sanctions is the ten points, not the ten points and something else. Come on kids, enough GCSE textual analysis.

Yeah, a club on minus ten. The fact that Pinnacle was built on the childish delusion they could buy a club on zero is the root cause of our current plight. The league have done nothing wrong so the idea they are "washing their hands of it" or "not giving certainity over what people are buying" is pretty tiresome. As far as I can see the FL haven't changed one jot the details on the club for sale, it's everyone else and their lawyers poncing around that is the problem.

Why should anyone point the finger at them - you are inferring they are "washing their hands" of something ie they've done somethng wrong. They haven't done anything wrong. If Pinnacle had the money they'd own the club and we'd be ten points down, not 17, not 25, not 55. Who didn't come up with their side of the deal?

Do you know what "price Fry is asking for"? Well, that is what is called hindsight, and I for one would not have been happy if the club was broken up and the stadium flogged to the council in the first week. I'd have said there were better deals to be done out there, and I think there still is. So I won't be loosing sleep over it, especially if your dream ticket is Trust + Council. Jesus wept that is the lastest, lastest resort you could think of.

So why hasn't Lynam just come out and said it then? Or Fry for that matter. Funny how the FL get ripped apart for "politico-banal" and "pointless statements" but Pinnacle says nothing apart from "other issues" and you all decide that it definitely definitely means we're going to be deducted eighty points a season for the next ten years. Why do the Pinnacle "banal" and "pointless" statements get given so much more worth in your eyes?

Sorry, not sure what you are reading into the statement here, apart from actively looking for things to keep the conspiracy going. Funny if the issue was lots more points being deducted, why hasn't Lynam and co been shouting it from the rooftops? That's what I'd have been doing because it takes all the blame off me and onto Mawhinney and the League. But not a sausage about it. Funny eh?

Sorry, how can the football league be responsible for us being bankrupt? They've got nothing to "wash their hands of". Christ, get the chip off your shoulder and look a bit closer to home for blame.

Hopefully this might quieten down the -25 point conspiracy theorists. The FL telling Pinnacle to show us the money is a perfectly reasonably request, and even more reasonable now we know they were full of it from the get go, and built their entire business plan on not being -10. They might as well have built their business plan on us being in the group stages of the Champions League.

I do know how renting works. My point is about additional funding generated by the facilities going to the council rather than the football club would hurt the club, especially in L1 where a 32,000 state of the art stadium is a more significant advantage than it is in the Prem or even CCC. Ask Mark Goldberg how not owning Selhurst Park worked for him. And Coventry aren't doing too well either in their council owned stadium. Hull are the one example I can think of where it is working, but lets not get too excited about them yet - their success could still be a passing fad. The point is the council owning the stadium should have been last resort, and it probably still is, so that's about right.

If Fry had sold the ground to the council in the first week, it makes the rest of the club much less of an attractive investment. Especially in the lower leagues it is the ground/facilities that gives you the capacity to increase revenues - the "club" isn't going to do that as well. Bon Jovi could still play an SMS if saints are in L1, but comparatively that is now worth a lot more money than it was when we were in the Prem. Any prospective buyer would have wanted the ground. So easy to say in hindsight but it was the right thing to not sell to the council at the time.

Agree with this. It's also worth pointing out that if the figurehead was AN Other person on earth, they would be getting ripped apart on here for lying, deceit, leading the fans on etc. Just like Mr Lynam in fact. So some gentle appraisal of MLT's limitations is not exactly crime of the century, not least because I am sure he is feeling a little bit of a tit himself at the moment. And before some loon gives it all the "HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!!" routine with me, I'm quoting my own post from further up this very thread. So there.

Sorry, this theory is 2+2=5. SLH and SFC are inextricably linked, they were before and they will be following. The league are not going to say "SFC can't provide a CVA" if the new company, or the new SFC business has settled all its debts and has a CVA. There is no catch-22 except for paranoid conspiracists on web forums. As I've said a couple of times, if this was the case then Lynam and co would be milking it to death because it gets them off the hook. Correct.

Shut up you plum. That was my Bellemoor favourite.

We might have some further points deductions but not for the reason Adriansfc keeps going on about. He thinks we are going to get deducted because SFC doesn't sumbit a CVA because they "weren't" in admin in the first place therefore they can't. He thinks we'd get deducted on a technicality even if a billionaire bought SLH and paid every single debt in full. That isn't going to happen - the League are treating SLH and SFC as inextricably linked, and as long as that entity in its new form sorts itself out we won't get any more deductions. The league aren't going suddenly go back on their entire argument and then split them out just for the sake of deducting points. If we don't get sorted then additional points deductions are perfectly possible, though.