derry

So what brought that on. Unveiled himself with no deal done. Sounds like a football enthusiast though.

It was the structure demanded by the football authorities when we became owned by a public company in 1997 as a result of the reverse takeover.

You can bet your bottom dollar that once the league's answer to the legal issue is known, the backer and his legal advisers will look at it and make the decision.

You're up early, No golf? what time are you, BST -7 or -6?

There would be no reason to argue that if he wasn't still contesting the club's position.

I think you may be right. It depends on the Swiss accepting a warts and all licence. Pinnacle probably about now are trying to get their backer to accept this. If I was as rich as they make out I'd either forget it unless I was keen, then I'd sign up as SFC, buy and keep SLH going out of administration complete with CVA and take them to the high court anyway.

Except the legal advice is saying the league has punished the wrong company because it is not in administration in the eyes of the law. The lawyers on all sides are handling this one.

The league were taking legal advice today, I would think that is what is holding things up now, as Pinnacle are awaiting the outcome.

Pinnacle wouldn't get the addressee wrong, it is Lord Mawhinney.

Pm Steve Grant Bill, (copy me his answer). The clause if it's the same as another one from the FA forbids legal action. Can you voluntarily sign away all rights in a disclaimer? I would think it is common in as much as all league clubs will have done it, but not have the situation and the public company in administration that we have. SFC probably had this clause in their licence before it was rescinded.

It is probably the catch all clause that not only doesn't allow an appeal but also doesn't allow any appeal to an outside body including the law and I bet the illegal bit is to preclude any legal action.

Marc Jackson was browsing through the site yesterday evening but didn't post.

I haven't a clue. It was just an opinion from somebody who could know and my reading of the Swiss tight lipped approach. I think you are warm, I'm not sure it has much to do with football at all. It looks a no brainer at the price, with a £50m stadium that is self sustaining, a training ground, 41 acres of potential development land, a property in Hill Lane, and a football club with potential ground filling ability if successful. If they have a long view, with promotion, just look at Burnley/Hull/Stoke for example, they would moore than get their money back without spending silly money with a good manager.

Ok,:confused: you've got me, where do I sign?

Not if you are Irish.

You don't know that. I once had a labrador called Derry.

Go and get your head down Mike, It'll all look different in the morning. I suppose it's not dark until midnight up there but if you are tired enough it'll work.

Steve Grant who is a corporate lawyer, a director of Warner Goodman Commercial, made some interesting comments in the Echo. " It gives the impression it wasn't the right decision in the first place. In corporate law the holding company and the trading company are treated as separate financial entities. Surely the Football League rules should be clear and unambiguous with regards to that. Look at Norwich. Delia Smith is a separate entity to Norwich City FC. If Delia Smith was declared bankruptthen Norwich City wouldn't have any points deducted. For the Football League to ride roughshod over 100 years of corporate law in this country is highly unjust. The right of appeal is a major part of British law. That's why British law is recognised all over the world. If the Football League believe their rules are clear then why do they fear an appeal? Generally in all forms of corporate law if you believe you have grounds for appeal then you are entitled to one. Sometimes courts rule against an appeal if they feel the case is so clear. The Football League are not operating within the standards expected in a country like ours. Saints fans have been through enough without being held to ransom in this way." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- It could be the sticking point is signing means losing all the means of rectification not just the appeal.

If Pinnacle paid the wages it would take the pressure off Fry for the month. It might buy exclusivity but this deal must be pretty close to completion or failure.

The fact that Tony Lynham has posted on here shows a level of respect for the average fan. Tying up a deal of this nature was never going to be easy. It seems obvious that the behind closed doors Swiss group won't be talking to anybody even if they buy the club. I don't find the MJ bid credible. They have taken the cheap option all the way through. Although being the first bid in failed to produce the deposit as the investor walked, saw the books without the exclusivity, ditched the original finance and took on new middle eastern based backers after the exclusivity deal started. They now say they would take the easy option with the league and would pay the wages on Thursday, whilst it is obvious the bid is on the never never, payments geared to subsequent promotions. For me The Pinnacle bid is the way to go provided it does what it says. The Swiss whilst being probably more substantial would I think have no empathy but see it as a profit in due course.

Duncan, this may be about a catch all clause regarding appealing or taking it out of the league's hands. For example the court of arbitration or alternatively the high court. I think the league are trying to tie up the licence so that there can be no subsequent action. Pinnacle's lawyers appear to be having a big say in this. It has to be remembered that Pinnacle is a consultancy company employed by a rich third party who probably has the final say in how far this goes. They may not be prepared to accept the league laying down the law.

It's been put to the test twice and the football authorities lost both times. George Eastham proved the maximum wage illegal, Bosman proved the transfer system illegal. Sooner or later somebody is going to take the league on in the high court regarding their use of their rules.

We have to get this right and build a solid base. If the income with the reduced outgoings and crowds for a successful team comes in, we will be one of the best placed clubs in the football league, but we have to get it right.

You might get some politically correct non violent critcism. I think you will ring a bell with a lot of people. Bringing back compulsory national service and the cane in schools plus the birch for violent offences would be a start. After a referendum of course. Governments should have to have a constitution to govern which needs a referendum to change.

The worrying thing about all this, is who makes the most money out of selling the business. Mark Fry could be getting ready to call time on the Pinnacle bid and start a new round of bidding. We know about the MJ bid, the Swiss interest, and now two new bidders. Isn't this where we came in, after all without Fry's agreement nothing happens. The best deal for the creditors may be getting in the way of completing this deal yet again. Another exclusivity deal will pay next months wages, the club stays in limbo and risks further sanctions. All parties need to sort this out PDQ.