Sheff Saint

I almost don't beleive this. Maybe they think the KK rumours are true, cos, and i do still think we're a decent sized club, are there really no CCC games deemed worthy of kicking off the new season? It's like skipping the Charity sheid for live coverage of Derby v Scun!horpe.

Something is definatly wrong. The rules are not plain and clear, they are inconsisent and rely on far too many external variances. The way i view it is the League have dug themselves a hole. Leeds screwed the league when they got relegated and took their ten point hit before Bates bought them back for nowt. The League were so adamant to exact revenage they decided to create this CVA punishment on top of the -10. All well and good as Leeds missed out on promotion as a result. Trouble is we now have a culture of punishment rather than cure. Of course you need to run your business sensibly but all good business needs to take the odd risk. What's happened is the financial bubble has grown so big we are one of a lot of clubs with big finaincal depedents. The bubble is starting to be burst and the league should spend more time trying to cure that than dishing out silly penalties. I'm not advocating we shouldn't get some form of punishment, but minus -27 or relegation is an absolute joke, especially we've already had a season in all but administration resulting in adminstration just to aviod the 10 point hit in the first place!

Have we missed the deadline required to have a CVA for already?

And personally i agree. And i wouldn't want too much fight over the ten points if it starts to affect preperations for next season. But if it meant a few more days with no deal but then we got start on 0, i'd take that. If it means a few more days and we start on -10, then so be it, worth a try. If it means we don't get a new owner cos of the -10, well, i hope and believe that not to be the case. I just worry that somewhere along the line this -15/-17 point issue is going to come along and i bet the outputs of the -10 point discussions impact that decision, which is why the delay.

And that might be the case. But i'm hopeful that if a few geeks on an internet forum can work out 10 points isn't as important as actually having any sort of club, it leaves two options. One is that by wiaving the right of appeal we leave ourselves open to further point sancations that would not be 'fair' or 'moral' (whatever your definition...) The other is that this is all a smokescreen cos they're getting cold feet. In general (thou not with the Dutch experiment last year i hasten to add) I'm a look on the bright side kind of person so i'm assuming/hoping the wrangglings with the FL are more complex then we know about, or can be communicated about (given the NDAs). I truly hope i'm right.

Or, shock horror, we as fans are not aware of all the inner workings. Maybe, just maybe, the FL discussions are wider than just the -10 points? What's the ramifaction of taking the appeal away? I don't know what they are, hey there might be none, but i reckon there's a fair chance the conversation is more about if we start in League 1 on -27 or in League 2 on 0. If that's the conversation, i can appreciate why it's taking a bit longer to iron out.

Quite. Basically, there is nothing we can do. Ironing out this kind of deal, with so many parties involved, will take time. Rightly or wrongly. We can hypthoersis all day long about why or what is causing the dealy but none of us know the whole picture. It is frustrating but what can we do? Mark Fry is, despite what people might think on here, experienced at what he does and commands a high fee as he knows what he's doing. That might not mean the best deal for the fans but it should mean a deal which keeps a club. From all the info we have had so far, Pinnacle look like they have a plan, go about stuff in a professional way and are intrested in the football side, thus the link up with Matt. I could be wrong. But as i can have no influence and as such my judgement is not relevant, i'd prefer to be wrong on that view than be a sceptic that can turn round and say i told you so if it does go wrong.

It would be great to have got started but i don't think many other clubs are back yet and until July not much in the way of transfers happen anyway. Of course its frustrating but let's not forget last pre-season was one of the most organised we've ever had! 'Normal' criteria for success and failure seems to not apply in the mad world of football. It is frustrating but it does look like Pinnacle have a plan, they just can't implement it yet. Another couple of weeks and the clock will be ticking but i don't think we've a lot to worry about at this stage. Keep the faith!

Am i wrong to be worried about the fact that, if we accept the -10, we're liable for -17 on top. Cos Surely Darlington and Stockport face -17 (and if not i can see Luton, Bourenmouth, Rotherham and Leeds having a complaint...) and if they get -17 and we don't i can see Darlington and Stockport complaining about us. Certainly if we start the season with 7 points more than Stockport!

So is the discussion Pinnacle are having with the FL about if we start in League 1 on -27, or League 2 on 0? That would be a hard decision. Last season S****horpe got promoted but would have been relegated if you docked them 27 points! EDIT - They'd have stayed up on goal difference!

And this worries me and i also think is why there is a delay. Cos if they are saying this to us, they should be saying it to Stockport and Darlington too. And if they are saying it to them they should say what they said to Bournemouth and Rotherham and Luton and Leeds. And that seems to be that you will play in a division lower or start with -17. And if they say that to them, they have to come back to us and say you must start with -27. And that might be why Pinnacle are panicking. Just a thought. And it might be why the League have realised years of made up rules on the hoof have caught up with them. After all, the main driver for this -17 points was to screw Leeds over after they screwed the FL over with the -10 points. Trouble is we are the first one's to be relegated before the -10 mattered and still face this -17 point rule. And whether the -10 is fair or not, no way is -27 fair. But if they give it to Stockport and Darlington, surely they have to give it to us?

But where did our debt come from? Sure, it was Barclays that pulled the plug but if we didn;t have the stadium debt, chances are the football debt wouldn't be nearly as bad. So should we have not got the stadium? Sure we are at an advantage over, say, Oldham, but only if we fill it. And we might, Oldham won't cos history tells us they wouldn't. When we bought SMS we had been in the top flight for 25 years. You don't get more established. It was hardly spending willy nilly. Sure we could have curtailed our spending in later years, but we'd not have the probs then if it wasn't for the stadium. I'm being simplistic and i do recognise what you are saying. However i do think the rules are, in any economic climate, no where near subtle enough. And by the by, it may be the FL's party and they can invite who they want to play, but given the overall rule by the FA and in turn by Uefa and Fifa i'm not sure they can quite tell us to find another league. Again that is far too simplistic.

Just a quick question with this. Why do the League relegate you? Is it because you've been bought by a new company? In that case i can see why this happened to Leeds. But will the same apply to Stockport and Darlington, assuming they are taken over and agree a CVA?

Agree 100%. I think it is a very difficult situation. Football does not want to promote overspending, or it shouldn't. The difficulty is how do you define 'overspending'. Manchester United (through no fault of their own) are £1 billion in debt. That seems like overspending, but their turnover and assets must be massive. As you say, if we had got out of the CCC in the year we spent big, we'd probably be ok now. The stadium point is a great one, and one i've considered too. There are serious, much bigger question that needs to be asked now of FIFA, UEFA, the FA and FL. I think some some big changes are required to bring Professional Football into the 21st century so it is competitive and can be enjoyed by the many, on the pitch, not in the boardrooms.

Umm, i'm sure this will need to wait til after the takeover. Not bothered at this stage about any of them. Only seen Patterson and the jury is out. Didn't look anything special at all but a couple of halves of football are not enough to judge really.

Shame. I’m sure it’ll be replaced by something or they’ve got something lined up but living in Sheff I couldn’t get a ST anymore and I lked to continue my affinity by getting a membership. Also, despite some whining on here about ticket allocation, I always think it was spot on. I don’t think anyone that’s wanted a ticket has not got a ticket since the cup final. And even then I reckon anyone that had been to more than 3 or 4 games in the previous year got one. Hope they don’t introduce some silly system to replace it, but sure they won’t.

Tisdale as KK's number 2 anyone? Great succesion planning.

Sensible pricing. The ST's offer is fair and good to see doing that in conjunction with Northampton.

Tranmere 4-3. Wasn't there, having seen the 0-0 at the Dell, but at Uni and had a massive session on the Monday night. Watching on TV, i didn't fancy a drink so was on the soft stuff. Probably just as well cos i was in a big enough state anyway!

Oh no, Pauls' Kebab House was best opposite the Post Office HQ. Free food if you timed it right there.

It might. And it wasn't just a handful of games in a Mark Hughes type of way, it was a handful of games after coming right through the ranks. Am i right in saying we were his only professional club as well? It isn't a massive thing, but all things together, it just feels like the right club at the right time to me...I hope i'm right!

But Tisdale wouldn't be stepping up. He'd be moving sideways. We are where we are.

Far to rational for some! But agree 100%

I believe that Paine holds the record for most appearances under one manager. A record very very quickly being honed in on by Ryan Giggs.

True and i agree. But being old doesn't make you ****. Steve Howard for Leicester anyone? Neil Shipperley for Sheff Utd? What we need is a manager who can work some seasoned pro's into a strong and solid unit. Sure, we need to bed in some kids as well but bed them in. As for 'quality' - what constitues 'quality' in this league? I don't think Safri was real class. He definatly bought about a certain something when he was here, but would he have inspired last years lot? Doubtful, i reckon he would have had the innfluence Wotton did. McGoldrick is neither a poacher or a lump. Rather simplisticly, i think that's what we need in this division. A big bloke and a quick little fella.