Ken Tone

Everything I've seen, read or heard suggests that this is exactly what has been available since wednesday of last week, but that pinnacle won't accept that. Unless someone definite happens very soon, I'd conclude that the money man doesn't want to buy us with the -10 and all the fuss at the moment is designed either to railroad the FL into removing the penalty or give him a good chance to recoup his non-returnable deposit if he backs out, via the courts. K.

Not reallly. You can only really sue to re-gain what you have lost. So if Pinnacle back out now they *may* have a case against the FL or Fry, but only to attempt to regain their deposit and other expenses. The reality is that if it went to law there'd probably be an out of court settlement if anything, with an agreed part payment. The FL could afford a few hundred thousand without too much trouble. Not much of a position of strength for Pinnacle is it? The players won't have case because if someone else takes over, no loss,and if we go bust their registration goes to the league and they'll find other clubs on free transfers. Pinnacle are in 'cutting off nose to spite face' territory here IMO. K.

It's just as likely that the FL's contract recognises that our circumstances do not fit their standard pattern, and gives us the licence without a cva, against their rules by letter of law, which further weakens their legal position over the 10 penalty, so that they will only do this on the condition that we do not appeal the -10, which was also against the letter of the law. Fact is, we all know diddly squat! Going slowly nuts personally. :-( K.

According to Solent and Lynam's own statements on Solent, FL were taking legal advice *yesterday* on what he sent them and were expected to get back to Pinnacle this morning. Even allowing for "lawyers' slippage", I can't think it will be much later than now that Tony Lynam hears from the league. How long can it take to write: Dear Tony, Sod off. love, Brian Either pinnacle sign this pm after capitulating, or the swiss or whoever will enter a period of exclusivity very soon IMO. K.

Nothing Lynam has ever said indicates that there is any danger of more than the -10. Where do you and adriansfc get this from? Every public statement from Lynam has been about the right to appeal the -10. The -25 conspiracy theory has only appeared on this forum as far as I know. K.

Quite . It might get them their deposit back. But even then they'd probably have more chance of getting that from Fry, on the basis that he misrepresented what was being sold. K.

Exactly, that is what is in the Leeds agreement isn't it? And IMO Pinnacle's lawyers are saying that is an unreasonable requirement. Don't sign it. Meanwhile the FL will not budge. Surely even Lynam must be beginning to realise this by now. For god's sake even if we appealled there'd be no guarantee we'd win. Once again I suspect Pinnacle's lawyers are saying we'd win on the technicality of SFC v SLH, but I bet the FL's lawyers are saying the opposite. We do not have the time to waste on this. The FL always win. Look what they did to Luton. Does Lynam really think that was fair or even watertight legal? The trouble is he has now gone so public on this that positions have become entrenched. It's going to take one hell of a linguistics expert to find a mutually face-saving form of words to get us out of this impasse. Meanwhile the staff go without wages and the club falls apart. K.

We talk as if the FL is an entity in its own right. It is actually a members' club. What happens is that nearly every other club votes to put the weak one in the ****, so as to improve its own position relatively. Why would any L1 club want us NOT to have a -10 start? It's like a pack of hungry wolves turning on one of their own when it is injured. K.

Hardly a surprise is it? The FL won't even have got back to Pinnacle yet to say they won't agree to Pinnacle's modifcations to the contract. This is getting us nowhere. What possible contingency plan can Lynam have, other than to sign regardless? K.

Don't know when you heard that. What I heard at 7.50ish was that Pinnacle expected to hear back from the FL this morning (nothing about a meeting or a conclusion), after they've had their lawyers look at what Pinnacle sent them yesterday, and yes that Pinnacle had a contingency plan. What will have happened IMO is that Pinnacle's lawyers are telling them that they could win an argument in court . Pinnacle have thus sent the FL a modified contract with their lawyers 'threats' of court action if it's not accepted. During yesterday the FL's lawyers will have been looking at the detail of that modification so that the FL can reply today. Again, solely IMO, they will say 'sod off'. The league's lawyers will tell them, 'no we think we would win in court'. That's what lawyers do. That's how they earn their money. If you didn't get opposite opinions from 2 sets of lawyers there'd be hardly any court cases and they'd all be out of work. I can't imagine what Lynam's contingency plan can be apart from to cave in. We have no time to play hardball with the league. They hold all the aces in this game. Surely he doesn't expect to do some fresh holding deal with Fry in return for paying the wages? This can't go on much longer. K.

Not knocking you personally Farmer, but ..... My interpretation.. What I've heard him say in person in the media, plus the report on solent this morning, imply to me that yes it is a VERY important day, not because he will sign today, but because he this morning sent his side's modifed version of the contract back to the FL for them to consider, I suspect along with his lawyers views/threats that we should not be forced into signing the no appeal clause. Assuming he is not a two-faced liar, he seems genuinely to believe that this will make the FL change their mind. They won't. The FL will look at it. Their lawyers will say: No, we're right. It's our club. We can make whatever rules we like ..cf Leeds. Eventually, either late today or some time tomorrow, the FL will say: No Tony, we won't accept your modifications So what then? Meanwhile Fry is obliged to take other offers very seriously, and if anyone is prepared to match Pinnacle's bid, and pay this month's wages in return for exclusivity, Pinnacle will be history. The best we fans can hope for is that the FL is prepared to find some face-saving, but largely empty, form of words to enable Lynam to sign very soon without looking a complete idiot. Mawhinney is not known for such a cooperative approach! K.

"As soon as I get a phone call telling me that the issues have been resolved I'll sign" And if you don't Tony, then what? Because the FL is not going to back down. And if another consortium offers at least what you did and pays up for this month's wages to gain exclusivity, you're out anyway. Stop ****ing around . Either pay up or shut up. You won't beat the League. They hold all the aces, especially given the timescale. Your lawyers may well be telling you that you have a good legal case. The league's lawyers will be telling them the same. That's what lawyers do. It's how they earn their money. The best you can hope for legally is suing the FL or the administrator for your lost deposit if the deal falls through, claiming they were to blame by changing the contract details during exclusivity. K.

Has anyine else noticed how it is "I" now, not we any more? Surely the person who will make the final decision over when/if to sign is the money man, not Mr Lynam? If I were spending £15 mill or so, I'd like to make the final decison myself. Most worryingly, this statement implies that he wil never sign. What is in front of him will never be right morally and legally, since he thinks that would mean the right to appeal ,and the FL will not allow that right. Am getting seriously worried now. This statement is NOT reassuring. K.

Been driving me nuts too. The media, Lynam ,most posters on here, all keep getting it wrong. But more seriously why in god's name didn't the prats on Solent ask him when he now expected to complete? Given the FL's stance, either pinnnacle back out which he says they won't or they can complete pretty much immediately. So when ? K.

The one I can read doesn't say the meeting is over. Just say pinnacle are confident they can complete following meeting. Not the same thing as saying it is over. In fact I have seen nowhere any indication of the precise time of the meeting. I found the timing of Tony Lynam's post on here very puzzling ...before during or after FL meeting and decision? I note he is saying "I" now, not "we" , with no reference to the financial backer's view, which I also found puzzling. And has he been in touch with Leeds? They had exactly the same "no appeal" experience ...and lost. K.

But this is exactly the Leeds situation. They signed the no appeal note, then started legal proceedings against the FL saying they'd only signed under duress. The FL backed down enough to allow the appeal ...which they then rejected! All the history shows that a single club never wins against the League. The reality is that, quite apart from that tory plonker Mawhinney, all the other clubs have a vested interest in us starting with the deduction. Any appeal to a panel of other club chairmen will fail, regardless of the legal niceties. Football clubs are like piranhas or a pack of wolves in a feeding frenzy; if one is injured the others turn on it and tear it apart. K.

What I can't get my head around is that Pinnacle supposedly were surprised by a late issue with the FL. Surely they know what happened to Leeds? They were effectively forced to sign a no appeal clause, then took it to court saying 'we only sgned this under duress' ,so the League 'backed down' and allowed an appeal, to them, which they then turned down ..surprise, surprise ..points deduction stood. The media reports imply that we are simply having the same experience as Leeds. Why is this a shock? Why is this a last minute hitch? K.

Maybe if we asked the FL for a licence instead of a license we might do better?! ;-) Really appreciate Lynam taking the time to post, seriously. Btw yesterday's Times had a few 'facts' about the deal I hadn't heard before. The say Pinnacle's deal was less than the rivals offers for initial payments, but has (greater) additional payments built in if/when we get promoted. They also listed Curbishley, Shearer and Keegan as the managers' shortlist -- no mention of Dowie, and with Keegan the cheapest. K.

Why does he need to grant any exension? All that has happened today in terms of admnistration is that the 21 day exclusivity period that Pinnacle 'bought' with their non-returnable deposit has expired. That doesn't mean that Pinnacle cannot now go on and complete. It just means they no longer have any greater rights than any other bidder ..and I suspect that the agreed price is no longer fixed. If they sign on the dotted lne on mo,nday Fry will happily let them complete the deal. If there is any chance they won't he needs to start re-considering other bidders asap. It is not in *our* interests for him to extend the exclusivity. K.

Surely the FL don't give a damn about us appealling to them. They will just reject the appeal. What they'll be trying to get us to commit to is not to take the case to law, ie not to sue them for loss of income etc because they should not have deducted the points. K.

Surely the 21 day exclusivity is just a deal between Fry and Pinnacle. If/when it runs out all it means is he can accept offers from other interested parties, not that Pinnacle can't go ahead. Their deposit bought them these 21 days as preferred bidders on a fixed price ... nothing more or less If Pinnacle end up standing by Fry's door on Monday with £15 million in used fivers in a suitcase, he will not turn them away just because they missed today's deadline. K.

Ince simply isn't very intelligent is the point, and is also full of himself. His success at MK Dons and Macclesfield was largely down to his very experienced assistant, Ray Matthias, IMO. Dowie may be as ugly as sin, but he does have a brain. K.

hear hear K.

Seems a pretty good summary to me. Expect to see this re-hashed in tomorrow's Echo! K.

Stop sitting on the fence. Why not say what you really feel? ;-)