Ken Tone

I bit like me saying I'll be ready to sign as soon as I sort out the problem with my lack of a lottery win! K.

Probably just local TV doing a piece on the bid falling apart, and staff remaining unpaid. K.

Look back at one of Lynam's very first posts on this forum. He said, direct quote (but snipped): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I was originally asked by a group of 4 very wealthy business people to become involved with their proposed takeover of SFC. In the end, the group/consortium changed my mind, and to be honest I am now quite glad that they did. When I projected the sheer cost of this, a couple of the guys were a little less willing to throw cheques at me. Ultimately I have in fact now entered into this "exclusivity agreement" on behalf of ONE client only. And myself, Matt and others involved are very pleased with that. Gone are the days of petty squabbles. Our one client has SUBSTANTIAL wealth - several hundred million." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. That does NOT fit with any sort of consortium or "one of the gentlemen putting his hand in his pocket". So either Fialka is worth several hundred million, or he is not the real backer, or ..... ? K.

People keep saying this, but there has never been any public suggestion from Fry, or even Lynam, that there is any problem with a cva or any risk of another -15. I would think it is very very likely that the contract gives us the licence with no extra problem but insists on our waiving the right of appeal over the -10 in return for waiving the need for any technical cva, thereby avoiding all the possible complications of our SLH v SFC structure. Everything Fry and Lynam has said indicates that. Nor is there any real indication that anything in the FL's contract is 'illegal' apart from Lynam's saying so once. That is clearly nonsense. Why or how would a body like the FL do something illegal? The closest it could be to 'illegal' is to include a clause forcing us to accept their penalty, which our lawyers felt was not according to the rules. Lynam appears to have been forced into a corner where he won't or can't sign without the chance to appeal the -10. That has been the case for about 10 days now, with absolutely nothing changing apart from his increasingly desperate and hollow messages on here. The warning bells started ringing for me when he switched to saying "I" won't accept this contract and "I" won't sign. If he really were acting for a big player financially, it surely wouldn't be Lynam making such decisions, it would be the backer. As far as I can see the last week or so might well be about pinnacle's trying to establish a position whereby they can claim that it was the FL's unreasonable behaviour that forced them to pull out, and/or that the administrator misrepresented the situation by implying they could appeal. If they could show that they would have a good chance of recovering their costs to date. All in my opinion of course. If they meant what they said earlier in this process they surely would have completed by now. The FL wil not back down. We've all known that from day 1. I bet that if we get another buyer in time who has the money, the FL contract will not be a problem. Accept the -10 and all will go through on the nod in a matter of hours once the 'fit and proper person' test is passed. K.

I *trust* matt too, but that is not the same as sayong that I think he knows much about business,or is capable of assessing the worth of poinnacle/fialka. Matt, lynam and fialka all say it is the right to appeal over the 10 points that is the problem. Well we all knew weeks ago the league would not back down,so surely they knew that too? It makes no difference what fialka's lawyers say. Either pinnacle cave in or the deal won't go ahead. It's as simple as that -- and they say they won't cave in. What a waste of a month. . K.

Presumably Mr Lynam wouldn't be posting on here now if the deal was about to be signed today or indeed first thing tomorrow? Presumably therefore nothing has changed and we are still in the same impasse as we've been since wednesday/friday of last week, with him saying black and the FL saying white. Depressing.... even more so for the club employees. Who was it said Lynam had promised to pay this month's wages anyway? K.

Where have you read anything about further penalties except in third party speculation, mostly on here? Read Lynam's own statements on here and listen to what he says on SSN and the Echo web site. He says it is about the removal of the right to appeal the 10 point penalty, and that this appeared in the FL contract last wednesday ..and that resolving this is the only problem. Nothing has changed since as far as I can see. All we've had is a stand off between pinnacle and the FL. K.

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.