miserableoldgit

Did you actually hear the clip? He did not say that he was going to be Chairman. He did use words like "possibly" and "let`s wait and see" so it certainly wasn`t put over as a shoo-in.

He also said that the Pinnacle stuff was going well, which after the Ted Rogers rumour was good to hear (if true).

Does this tie in with this from todays Echo? Ted Rogers, Winchester says... 11:01am Thu 4 Jun 09 Ted Rogers wrote: Bad news re. Pinnacle Take over, they have put the brakes on having uncovered info during due diligence. Not in a position now to employ anyone at SFC. What`s this? Tell us more. Don't worry Pedant, it's a wind-up. Due diligence had already been done when the non-refundable deposit was paid. Ted must be a skate. Pete, What process do you think Pinnaccle and Mark Fry are going through now? Exclusivity and initial due diligence is not enough to complete a deal. Pinnacle now have access to SLH, SFC warts and all. I will accept your apology when this is announced formally. Ted, If you have been keeping up to date with everything, and read the letter from Tony Lynam himself, you would know all due diligence was completed beforehand, not just the initial stages. No-one wanted to pay the £500,000 so the books were opened to everyone but without exclusivity. This period has now been entered into for all the LEGAL matters to be concluded, not the financial matters. Where did you get the informmation from? Do you really think they would come this far to pull out in the final furlong? Pinnacle did not pay £500k, that was a figure mooted in the media and widely accepted by most. This deal is faltering - fact. Has no deal ever fallen out of bed because matters cannot be agreed upon? Do not think that this is a simple case of dotting i's and crossing t's;Pinnacle were given preferential treatment over the Jackson consortium on a set of verbal commitments and the involvement of MLT. You will soon witness the collapse of this deal due to 'irreconcilable difference'

Oh Yeah!

Vanilla Fudge!

I pointed out my thought/suspicions about DD on another thread. I was just indicating where the Tabor started.

I don`t think that Tabors name would have been mentioned had it not been for DD`s post, although I may be wrong.

Here is the only reason that the Tabor rumour is popular/strongest. His most recent post, dated 29-05-09 :- DaintyDave Registered User Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 68 Michael Tabor. There, said it. "Mystery" backer no more. No need for silly hints, racing analogies and all that. Now wouldn't it be REALLY funny if it turned out Pompey deal wasn't quite as nailed on as claimed.................

You don`t seem to have answered this question Stanley. "I respect their decision" is not an answer.

And I am going to put you on "ignore"!

Perish the thought!

Didn`t take long did it?:confused:

Presumably then so does the blame?

His argument is that they all stayed away as part of a concerted "boycott" to shift Lowe. The vast majority stayed away because the "product" was crap. "Customer" not happy with the product. I have no problem with people staying away for whatever reason but to make it something it isn`t is ridiculous.

Ask Stanley.

I am going to take your advice:- 30-05-2009, 02:05 PM Stanley Full Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 4,353 30-05-2009, 02:08 PM

That is not an answer. Are you saying that those who went to games shouldn`t have? Were they misguided? What is your opinion? Sorry, you don`t have opinions - you spout facts. So were the people that went to games wrong to do so?

Well good for you. Obviously a man of principle. But I still maintain that you were in the minority as far as as the "stay-aways" are concerned. Most stayed away because the team were crap.

Does this mean that because I bought my ST and went to every game, I am some sort of traitor? Come on Stanley. How do you describe people who have done this?

ROFL

Not sure that increased ST sales will be that much evidence of an anti-Lowe stance. There is great high ATM due to the (prospective) take-over and the MLT involvement, after the "dark" years and that wave of optimism should translate into good ST sales.

I didn`t expect you to agree, but in this case YOU are wrong. A handful of load-mouths on here ranted and raved that they "wouldn`t set foot in SMS whilst Lowe is there". That is not a boycott. Yes, generally Lowe and Wilde were unpoplular (understatement I know) but to suggest that thousands stayed away purely because they were in charge is naive and simplistic. ROFL

Like Stanley, I am always right!

It was reduced revenues from lower crowds that led to the problems not some concerted "boycott" campaign from anti-Lowes. How many other "businesses" are going through the same thing at the moment?

THERE WAS NO "BOYCOTT!" People stayed away because "the product" was poor and they didn`t want to throw good money after bad. The amount that didn`t go purely because Lowe was there would fit in a phone box. Don`t make it sound like some great master plan.