thefuriousb

Or he could make our Johnstone's Paints Trophy final record! :-)

did you mean BRYAN Robson? I'd take Adams over him, thanks!

Only last week I was waiting to find out who the new owner was. If it was Marc Jackson, then I wasn't renewing. Jackson v no club was the same thing to me ;-)

How do you move seats if you are renewing (have actually renewed) online? Mine defaulted to my usual seat, and charged me the family enclosure price? Am I guessing I have to pay a personal visit to get this resolved now - though i now expect them to honour the price charged. Its their error after all.

well, when you continue to post as a dyslexic bigot, it can't come as too much of a surprise, surely?

F**k All Chance, Trousers ??

of which you know nowt about?

Bingo! and amen to that

Very helpful. Pat yourself on the back

My reading of events/comments would suggest that the way the administrator has sold/broken up the assets of SLH is what has caused the issue with the league. It would therefore have been the same for any of the potential groups looking to takeover. Legally, it has possibly questioned the validity of the points deduction, so the league are seeking to ensure that the decision is not challenged. Morally, would we be right to do so?

As I understood it, and that is all it is, the football club debt was the overdraft with barclays and St Mary's Stadium Ltd had a mortgage with Aviva. It would seem that the administrator has sold the assets (football club, training ground and St Mary's) as "going concerns", leaving behind SLH as a shell with no assets. SLH which is in adminstration is therefore to be liquidated. With the club and stadium sold as going concerns there is no CVA - it is this that may be the sticking point. Whether this is clever and brilliant, or just too damn clever by half appears to have caused Friday's shenanagans (??) The league decided that SLH and SFC were the same thing, hence the points deduction. So for SFC to "come out of administration" and to avoid further penalty, the league are asking where the CVA is? This not only would appear to muddy the waters, but is also brings into question of the validity of the point deduction as this wouldl show that there was a distinction between SLH and SFC. As such, the league may be trying to ensure that the original -10 is not challenged, and just accepted? Legally, it would appear, we would get the points back, but morally should we really be challenging? You have to remember SLH, including its assets, have been poorly run over the passed 5 years since relegation. Otherwise, we would not be in this position in the first instance.

The below is a quote from TL on the "Pinnacle clinch it" thread: "We now have 20 days (the clock started ticking yesterday) to get down to the serious business. We'll let the legal people do what they have to for the delisting process of the PLC, transferring of assets to the new holding company, repayment of debt to creditors, and handing over of title to me (on behalf of my client). Meanwhile, Matt and myself and colleagues will be formalising football matters." I can't see from the above what would suddenly turn the situation into "desperate". May be it is just a poor choice of words I have as the issue with your post? Something not eased by your own statement yesterday that you are now "in the dark", and the fact that there have been no negative whispers on here so you feel more at ease that all is fine. You see, it seems you are trying to be authoratitive, whilst not appearing to have any inside track. There is the contradiction and my grounds for cynicism, in a nutshell. Fingers crossed for the news we all want to hear today. Then it is forwards and upwards!!!

Things that desperate that Exit confirmed that bank accounts were sorted yesterday afternoon? Things that desperate that TL's post confirming only legal traansfer of titles remained was utter guff? Things that desperate that the league have been informed of the names of the new board? Forgive me if I treat everyone's ITK statements with deep cynicism. I will wait for the official announcements. Not like I/we have not waited far too long already

A further points deduction will only be applied as and when we come out of administration, and only then, if we do so without the CVA. The end of the exclusivity deal, and any re-opening to other interested parties in itself does not invoke the further points deduction.

Just seen that I pretty much made the same point, so echo your post. I am going to have to mind out because my optomistic tendencies will become uncontrollable and I will be making bold predictions like we will walk this league, irrespective of how many points they wish to take from us! D'oh! :-)

well, I always remember going to West Ham on the last day of one season (around 95 or 96).... Saints were awarded a free kick (as it turned out when I saw it back on Tv, around 35 yards out). The travelling army were celebrating "goal" before the wall had even been set. Free kicks anywhere in that range seemed to be the same as a pen!! With "Lookiing for eric" being topical, MLT could just have easily left a similar mark in a club the size of Man U. Many a fan of a rival team appreciate and remember Matt equally highly I guess looking back, it really is amazing that he was a saint through and through. I guess too it is also equally sobering in light of where we find our club now.

Where he scored a hat-trick? Where "Milky" Moore scored the best goal of the game? Cracking game by all accounts, as I was not present myself

Not sure what most do not understand about the difference in the offence/charge. Had he killed someone by his wrecklessness, the charges and subsequent penalty/sentence would be different. Bit like a charge of affray for hitting someone is not the same if the punch(es) had left to death or serious injury. On some people's thinking we should just have one law, and one punishment.

Clearly the 2 examples are nothing like the same. The fact that a life was not taken does lessen the crime. It is a different charge all together. also, what happened to every one being treated equally in the eyes of the law? You can't just put someone in jail because they were once an ex-pro or other "celebrity". You would have to have more than one law for each offence depending on "who you are", and therefore not treated equally.

Christian Democrats??

Are you sure it was that price for "early bird" renewal? I thought it came out nearer £15 a game? I can't remember

Just seems strange to suggest that not accepting offers ("missing out on beneficial investment") is therefore a bad thing. That is not how it made me feel. Then, I am not one for conspiracies

Think of it the other way.... If they had accepted 3rd party offers, everyone on hear would be in hysterics about how Pinnacle don't have a pot to p*ss in / all the rumours scaremongering were in fact true / blah blah blah and how did Fry get duped into awarding exclusivity etc etc Is this another one of those "can't do right for wrong threads"? It seems by saying "thanks but no thanks" is short-sighted and fool-hardy.

Jim Skinner - CEO McDonald's ?? :-)

Yes - that is him. Interesting that if that is his connection how he comes by this news?