derry

I thought Doncaster had resigned and left Norwich in May after relegation.

I read it in the Pink, all in quotes from MJ.

The only writing I do is on a golf card.

I've just realised that the original bid from MJ whilst the sums may be similar is not the bid now on the table. The original Equity fund backers have gone together with the original wealthy man that fell out with Fry who showed the original proof of funds. The new backers are from the middle east so it is completely different. Allegedly the funds are sitting in a solicitor's account waiting. Surely the whole process should start again for this bid, proof of funds etc. I do accept that this may have happened, however I now have grave reservations regarding the credibility of this bid. I just don't see that switching backers is credible.

This is something that I had heard. One has to remember that the Swiss group came in at the last minute. The thing that struck me was that if the Swiss came in they would hardly have LC involved and we do know he wants to be involved. To accelerate Pinnacle's bid it may be the money was paid ensuring his involvement, exclusivity, freezing the Jackson due diligence and stopping the Swiss from achieving exclusivity.

I personally want the Pinnacle bid to be closed as soon as possible. The club can then get on with it's reformation. In any event Pinnacle can't do a damn thing until they close the deal. They will either get a deal with the league, or get nowhere, then have to either close the deal or walk away. If Pinnacle walk away, the Swiss company seem a much better bet than the Jackson initiative as his Bournemouth experience puts me off, despite Weston's view. I know nothing substantial about the Swiss company but have been told of their supposed value and current interest. It may be that the administrator will ask for a further bid on Monday as the wages for June are due next week.

I'm sure it's not about favouritism, a lot was said about both sides, the administrator and the way things have panned out. It seems more about the way things have been done and this present situation re the deadline. It remains to be seen whether Pinnacle finally close this deal. They have been aware from the beginning regarding the points deduction. They did take legal advice, surely the league taking this stance would have been no surprise, which is only repeating what they had said in April, that there was no mechanism for appeal except in circumstances that didn't apply. I suspect any appeal would be about the league's right to make decisions on the hoof when the rules as written don't apply. It would seem a strange thing to do, collapsing the deal, if having already committed £500k on a non refundable deposit. They may be, because of the legal advice, trying to turn this over but in the end accept it. It could also be a way out. What struck me was that I've never seen anywhere that it was actually Pinnacle that paid the deposit. I've heard it said that a third party could have been involved. Then again all the parties concerned are talking about two minor legal matters and the football league problem whilst everything else was sorted. It may be that Fry has decided to continue with Pinnacle, however Tony Lynham does throw a small amount of doubt when talking about Pinnacle fulfilling all their obligations but others haven't.

You could have added and knows a goalkeeper when he sees one;). Thanks Nick.

It is I am told the way the administrator is managing the bids. I get the feeling they feel hard done by. How true this is I don't know but they seem to be substantial. It may be them that are kicking off. I would think if the present situation becomes untenable it would be them not MC that the administrator would turn to.

Another rude prat turns up out of the blue. If you can't be civil, bugger off. What the hell has Jackson to do with it, this came from a source close to MLT.

Only the administrator could do this. The information I was told this morning is that they are not happy bunnies. I didn't say they had a billion at their disposal I said they were supposed to be worth more than a billion, there is a massive difference.

The Swiss bidder I understand is worth more than a billion and watching closely what is happening.

I knew that, read my other posts, it was a loaded question.

It was assuming Pinnacle closed the deal. How then do SFC go about getting a CVA?

The way to go.

The legal advice obviously says that the leagues rules do not apply to a club not in administration. The interpretation chosen by the league is not in accordance with any league rule. If SLH is wound up and SFC isn't they aren't inextricably linked.

Serve a writ on them Mon am with an interim injunction stopping them from doing anything until the judgement is made. That is the way to treat their bullying. Call their bluff, contest their rules and let the courts decide. Remember George Eastham and the Belgian guy, they changed things when the football authorities did the same thing.

FFS the club have already made that declaration. It must be the new owners that the league want to sign a similar declaration not to sue them. That may be illegal.

The injunction would stop them from withholding it. They would look for a way out.

I think that signing under duress could possibly be overturned if taken to court. It is SFC which has already signed this agreement but it's the Owner being liquidated. The Buyer could hardly be forced to sign.

Fight it and take them to court with an interim injunction pending a full hearing if they try and justify misusing their rules.

Firstly thanks Tony for remembering the importance of regular communication and how important that is in getting us onside. Secondly Clapham Saint who posts on here and works in administration says that any takeover would avoid buying the shareholding of the company in administration it would be far too expensive. The assets are being sold and SLH wound up in accordance with insolvency law. The league have no influence over this, it is up to the administrator how he deals with the administration. If SLH is wound up and SFC isn't they can't be inextricably connected. If the league tries to act in such a way as to prevent a company trading it could end up being sued. Pinnacle, the club, and the administrator have all had legal advice which says the league has acted outside it's rules. If the individuals who made these decisions have acted outside the league rules then they could be held personally responsible for the damages. If that is the situation then I would expect a smart about turn, maybe a deal and a suspended sentence. Or if the lawyers play hardball an even smarter about turn.

Sooner rather than later somebody is going to take one of the football authorities to court over a dispute. If there is a full blown legal dissection of companies being denied the right to sue the ruling bodies, it could be, that once challenged the league's rules could be held to be illegal in law. It very nearly happened over the Tevez affair and it could happen here.

One thing missing here is that the creditors gave the club time to pay, and the agreed debts will be paid. The club, whatever the league try to say, traded legally and never went into administration. The lawyers have dissected the league's rules and have come to the conclusion that the league is wrong.

It looks like it is going through and the Pinnacle group's lawyers have set up the club as independent and never in administration, from SLH shortly to be wound up. The league have a big problem as their rules don't cover them.