trousers

I just knew there'd be a get out clause for us....quick, someone tell the Football League....

Looking at the report of Darlington coming out of Admin and only just scraping the timetable deadline for start of season I think the 'demotion and clean slate' is, alas, looking more and more palatable than milling around at the foot of League One all season

the Darlington Echo actually says "4 to 8 weeks"....

Blimey....that puts a different perspective on things....(the article quoted actually says "4 to 8 weeks to complete the admin process once the CVA is agreed).....the bottom line being that this will still be going on when (if??) the season starts...during which period we can't sign players etc.... One word: bad

Good question! Have been asking myself the same thing for 2 years! Almost a good analogy (me speaking from a position of little strength of course!)....trouble is, Saints do not currently have a big knob. We currently have a one inch knob but with minor erectile disfunction....the choice is between a one inch knob with even worse erectile disfunction or a half inch knob with no erectile problems.

It was more than a case of 'being led to believe'....Mawhinney stated we could appeal on national television!

Thinking out loud (dangerous I know...), if it comes to it, could/would Pinnacle sell the 'intellectual property' (knowledge, paperwork, etc) that they gleaned during their 3 week exclusivity period to the next preferred bidder in-line in order to: (a) expedite the process for the next bidder and (b) recoup some of their costs?

Absolutely - I posted the same elsewhere on here earlier. As you say, surely the steps of the actual procedure they are asking Pinnacle to follow are not subject to NDAs or secrecy.

Which may mean that they are 'more capable' of absorbing a maximum point deduction, if that were to transpire, than the two other bids? (e.g. by greater up-front investment in players) Who knows

Being a pessimist, I voted 'no' (yesterday)

I guess it depends what 'worst case scenario' their bid and 'investment plan' was based on. Here's hoping that they pre-empted that the FL were likely to "move the goalposts" otherwise we could be back at square one IMHO

If it was 'just' about the 10 points, most people on here were/are in favour of biting the bullet and getting on with it. That would be the pragmatic approach. IMHO it has to be about more than 10 points that they are spending a hefty sum on legal fees for

Aye, could well be true...I guess the question I'm posing is more about the principle behind trying our luck in League One with a swinging points penalty or wiping the slate clean in a lower league, whatever that league may be.

That's spooky - just seen "Tony Lynam" mention the very same act in the post above....

How about the 'Unfair Contract Terms Act' ? http://www.legislation.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1977/cukpga_19770050_en_1

What scenario do you think would work out best for the club in the LONG TERM? Starting in League One on -25 points (which I fear is where we could be heading if the FL 'win the legal battle' with Pinnacle) or Starting in League Two on zero points (I'm not sure if this is a feasible sanction in our current circumstances but has been mooted on here as a possibility)

The FL's reaction to SFC going into Admin, in addition to the holding company, would indeed be 'interesting' IMHO

Cheers. Just one more question though.... Are they still interested?

Haircut 100?

Doesn't one normally report illegal practices to the police? Telephone number for Mr Lynam: 999 HTH

We (SFC) didn't go into admin when wages weren't paid for 24 hours last month....

But if the FL rules say you have to lodge an appeal within 7 days then aren't the FL "adhering to their rules" if they are saying it's too late to appeal? (if indeed that is what they are saying)

What's this got to do with the takeover?

What experience did Niall Quinn have before becoming chairman of Sunderland? (genuine question as I've no idea)