CB Fry

Sorry, don't buy it. If that was the case then Lynham and Jackson have got the greatest get out of free card in the world. If we were about to be deducted 30 points and Pinnacle and Wacko were told that we'd know about it, South Today would have led on it and it would be all over the Echo website , Sky Sports News and Talksport like sh*t on a pensioner's blanket. Pinnacle clearly built their whole plan by telling their mystery backer "we can get out of the 10 point thing" which was utterly deluded and they dragged it on and on as long as they could, built on ridiculous hope. Wacko Jacko probably got wind of the Pinnacle bail and got out before he was expected to do anything on his fantasy. He is an idiot. And anyway, failing to comply with a CVA is simply "not having enough money to run the business". Its not about points deductions - if they can't comply with a CVA they can't run the bloody club. I'm saying chancers, the pair of them.

If this "catch 22" 25 points thing you keep going on about was anything like a reality then Lynham and co (and Fry) would have mentioned it by now. If not before than definitely today now Lynham is not even involved anymore. After all, Lynham could take all the heat off himself and his fantasy consortium by blabbing about 25 points, couldn't he? That would remove all anger to him and straight to Mahwinney. This 25 points rule is you reading some rules and making 2+2=5. It just isn't going to happen. There is no "catch 22" except in your head. We've got things to worry about, but this isn't one of them.

Pinnacle was a Ted Bates statue of a consortium though. Full of good intention, people giving progress reports about how great it was all looking, massive anticipation, supported by leading figures from the club's past. But when it came to the crunch turned out to be total cowplop. And a national embarrassment. That statue is still hilarious, though.

He's probably guilty of believing too much. He probably feels more gutted, let down and angry than any of us right now. Fans slagging him off really are shameful. Legend last year, legend last week, legend yesterday, legend today. Legend, forever.

Not sure I buy this latest excuse - when has a club ever had its licence revoked "because the time ran out" or "it was only a two year licence"? If Saints are trading normally then I can't see the problem. It's probably part of the league's procedure with clubs coming out of administration/with new owners - some conditions, a few health checks.

If Pinnacle does fall through, MLT is going to look pretty foolish. Which is why I don't think Pinnacle will fall through now, MLT has staked too much on it. He's talking as if he is the chairman and can't see a situation where he won't be. Can you imagine if it turns out Lynam and co are full of it - it won't be MLT the fans turn on, it'll be the Pinnacle boys. Leading the fans along is one thing, but leading on our talisman is quite the other. Pitchforks at the ready.

He's a bit like the James Dean of Saints - "died" before he had the chance to get rubbish (imagine if, say, Glenn ****erill had a career ending injury three years into his Saints career) Was brilliant for us in his time, but don't buy into the "loyalty" thing - if has was 100% fit on the day we were relegated, the likelihood would have been he'd have been gone that summer, or during the Jan window, like Niemi. The tragedy, of course, is that we probably wouldn't have gone down with a fit Svennson. Our team with a fit Killer would have been easily good enough to finish a point above Bryan Robson's lowest-survival-total-ever WBA team*. * until Hull. So all in all, a mini legend, and a tragic career cut short.

Bosko Balaban was famously a John Gregory signing, and Angel (who DOL didn't sign either) was a good player, so not sure what your point is there. David OL was the man that promoted all the players you list into the first team. George Graham wasn't playing them. That's the point. DOL believed in them, and he made those kids, he made that team. You can say "they were good anyway" but using that argument Man U could appoint me as manager tomorrow because "they're good anyway". DOL I don't think even spent that much money at Villa as memory serves. And Risdale was to blame for the spending at Leeds. To be honest, I don't even want DOL, not least because he has been out for a long time and is unproven at our level. But he has a record that stands up against anyone, including Keegan who never did anything much in Europe. But if he did take over at Saints, we'd stroll to the playoffs.

I think you've gone a bit over the top there. Risdale would have negotiated Johnson's salary, not O'Leary. And O'Leary worked to the budget that Risdale gave him, and it was Risdale who cooked up the idea of borrowing to fund players wages against guaranteed CL football. His career at Villa was mixed, but his first season was very good. He is hardly "one of the worst managerial options out there" and his work with young players at Leeds was exceptional. You name any other option for saints and I can bet they've never finished third, fifth and sixth in the Prem, and into the Semis of the Champion's League. And you can say "he bought it" but Mark Hughes spent more and finished nowhere near anything last season. Not that I think DOL would come here in a million years of course.

Would probably get us promoted from L1 at a stroke, but really any one with an "aura" or a reputation could. You could call it "the Paul Ince rule". But we couldn't afford him and I think he'd want to spend too much for us, especially once we'd got into the CCC. So although he was successful at both clubs he's been at, its a no from me.

If it turns out to be a Glazers/Liverpool style leverage deal then I think that will be a massive disappointment to a lot of fans. I think that would have been the kind of "real world" deal we would expect a prospective purchaser to carry out for us a few weeks back, but after a fair few big noises from Pinnacle I think it will be something of a damp squib now. It wouldn't be terrible (not least because the renogiated mortage or lump sum to close the debt completely will make things a lot easier) but it doesn't demonstrate genuine incremental investment, and certainly won't justify the hype attached to it. PS - and yes, Liverpool and Man U do seem to be doing okay out of it broadly, but it is fairyland in the Prem.

Correct. While some were going all goey over Pinnacle for "standing up against the evil league ()" and other such rot, the unfortunate admin/office/commercial/grounds staff had to defer their wages for at least a week while they ponced about over a course of action they could never, ever win. But there are losers, and that's the staff forced to ring their mortgage companies last week because they didn't get their wages. Way to go, Pinnacle legal masterminds. So there is a tarnish there they need to work very hard to remove, very quickly.

Indeed. And all because they decided to ponce and posture over the ten point rule and some nebulous "human right to appeal" (Jesus wept), which did nothing except waste a week to ten days of time they could have spent owning the club and driving it forward. It was plain to anyone with a brain that Pinnacle would never get to appeal, would never get the points back and would never ever win, and what the league were doing was not illegal in the slightest. Funny I did say that several times on this forum over the last week or so and got dog's abuse. So Pinnacle from being the do-no-wrong golden boys now have some serious ground to make up to regain faith. And all because they decided to listen to their greedy lawyers with eyes on a prize and with zero understanding of how sport actually works. That said, with MLT in tow, I think they can regain the faith, but they probably need to start acting on appointing a coach and sorting players futures PDQ.

Finally moved out of your parents house have we?

But I thought we were being told it wasn't a "group", it was one single money man? It does seem to be unravelling somewhat, but sure it will be fine come Tuesday.

Course it will son. You keep knocking one out over Pinnacle's super dooper professional legal team.

You've changed your tune. Pinnacle's sh*t-hot legal team have decided on a course and you're saying they shouldn't bother? And what's your view on the fact that Pinnacle and co now look like doing precisely what I said they should do, just more than a week later than I said it. But what do I know, eh? If they'd listened to this gob****e we'd have been under new ownership for a full week by now and all the staff would have been paid. But hey, I'm just a gob****e.

Again, any consortium with half a brain would have planned for this eventuality. Or have the legal mega brains helping out Lynam and co not bothered to study the cases of Rotherham, Luton or Leeds? Coming out and wailing "well, we can't believe the cheek of it" after months of planning just makes them look ridiculous.

Hilarious. So it's all our fault. We should have welcomed them all in, just like all the Man United fans welcomed the Glazers with wide open arms and unquestioning adoration a couple of years back.

No they haven't you f*cking plank. It's looking more and more like Pinnacle have been posturing over the ten points because they don't actually have the funds to complete the deal. Before it all kicked off there was a general consensus that we didn't like it but we were lumbered with the ten points, and any consortium with their eyes open knew they were buying a club ten points down. They've had more than eighty days to get used to that fact.

This is my favourite post ever on this website.

Of course we gain an advantage - in our case, primarily post admin. And anyway, the league can't just ignore clubs going into admin, there has to be a sanction otherwise all clubs would be p*ssing money up the wall forever. Anyway it isn't me you need to rant at. Plenty of people on this forum were screaming for us to go into administration NOW NOW NOW throughout last season because "we'd be stronger for it". Those people have now changed their tune. Whether you think we've gained an advantage or not (I get what you're saying) we spent money we didn't have which is cheating. We could talk all day about the ins and outs of it, but that is the fundemental rule we've been done by. Don't bother mentioning Liverpools, Pompeys and Man Us debt. I know.

....but as you have just admitted, a renegotiation of the loan in our favour is 100% guaranteed to happen. Even if we had to pay the whole lot back in the Prem we'd still be at a massive sporting advantage against lots of other teams in L1 and the CCC, not least Brighton who have a £90m stadium to pay for, and lots of clubs who would love a stadium like ours. I'd like a mortgage holiday until the day I win £100,000 or above on the Premium Bonds. That would put me in a much stronger position than I am now. So a renegotiated stadium debt in our favour is a fact. Cheers.

Evidence, eh? Let me see now.... Christ. We've gone into administration and the adminstrators and potential purchasers of the business have been renogiating with creditors. What do you think has been going on for the last three odd months? Do you honestly think Pinnacle have negotiated with Aviva to pick up the mortgage precisely where SLH left it and just carry on paying the same amount against the same mortgage? Do you think Lynam, Fry and co are absolute idiots? So sorry, I have no "evidence". Actually, I think there was something from Le Tissier or Lynam, I think, very early on, about us being debt free. Can't remember. Doesn't matter though. Take it as read the stadium mortgage will be massively renegotiated, and firmly expect it to be settled via an early lump sum or two.

Because no one gives a flying f*ck about L1. And its the summer.