trousers

Indeed....

I can't believe some people still don't know who the current Football Club directors are...

(excuse me while I bump this to the towards the top of the page...posts tend to get cut adrift a the foot of previous pages. Thanks for your time and understanding)

Hi Farmer, Grateful if you could clarify this one for me.... Are the 'group of rich people' that Mickey Fialka is associated with a contractually bound 'consortium' that have specifically joined together (formally) to jointly bid for Southampton Football Club OR are they an informal group of business associates that the likes of Lynam and Le Tissier would call upon for financing on a case-by-case basis. i.e. they have not contracturally joined together as an official 'consortium' to buy SFC ? I believe you or Tony Lynam could answer that one at a high (not detailed) level, and thus not break any NDAs, to put minds at rest. Thank you

oops...this one...take your pick....

Actually...this one is more realistic....

Don't tell us if you know anything though....I prefer surprises

Oh come on....just tell us whether it's Ramon Vega or Nycomed/Nordic Capital. You know it makes sense.

They are filming a new series of Challenge Anneka. She has 5 days to turn St Marys into a baboon sanctuary.

I assume the players will hand back their wages from last season before leaving by way of an apology to fans for what we had to put up with last season?

Why can't the consumer be presented with a form to sign upon purchase to waive their consumer rights? The risk then passes to the consumer.

Remind me, who employs the tax man and pays his/her wages? Is this a democracy or a dictatorship we live in?

Smokescreen?

Perhaps he's been trying to convince the Swiss and/or Jackson's consortium to buy him out of pole position? (i.e. by selling them access to the 'intellectual property' Pinnacle accumulated during their 3 week exclusivity period?) Just a guess. Probably wide of the mark

Nobody is saying that he knows/knew that Pinnacle's bid may not be all it has been purported to be, hence he would not be risking his reputation (based on what he knows/knew).

Any chance of posting some info on who they are so that we can discuss your post objectively? Ta very much

Fry's statement today says Pinnacle's issue with the Football League is about the right to appeal about the 10 points. He doesn't mention anything about protecting against further points reduction.

Apart from the season tickets page

No he's not. He's taken the opportunity to resign without anyone noticing by hiding behind today's other major news story. Keep up

I agree with this

First game on Sky? FFS - how many more straws can this F***ing camel take? FFS

So, on which of the 21 days of exclusivity did Begbies become aware of the change in Pinnacle's financial backers and thus the need to cancel the exclusivity period and re-assess the 'proof-of-funds' situation (for all still interested parties)? Given the exclusivity period was never 'canceled' the only logical conclusion one can come to is that Pinnacle didn't advise Begbies that their situation had changed. Or they did and Begbies glossed over the 'revisit proof-of-funds' clause. I could be talking out of my hat of course

FFS

Wouldn't Begbies have included a condition in the exclusivity contract that obliged Pinnacle to declare a material change in the original 'proof of funds' criteria?