CanadaSaint

I thought Derry was perfectly clear on why he stopped, and the reason he gave was one that deserves respect - not the kind of nasty junk contained/implied in your two posts. At least he had the courage and commitment to step forward in the first place.

I sure hope so, Nick.

I don't think there's such a thing as "worrying needlessly" when payroll is missed - especially when it raises the possibility of breach of contract and the loss of players to other clubs (who are probably circling like vultures). The phrase also doesn't apply to the everyday folks at the club who need to pay mortgages and put food on the table. I'm willing to be patient on this but missing payroll is a really, really bad sign. The mixed signals don't help one little bit.

According to Duncan (on the Fry speak up thread) that's a No (as of 9:30 pm).

"Keep up" suggests we have some momentum in a forward direction. Unless it also relates to the concept of ever-decreasing circles, in which case ...

This would be a crucial development. Please don't tell me that we're so un-connected that we can't even verify this.

I just have one simple question: If the players aren't paid by close of work tonight, are they free to leave for other clubs?

And just when we thought things couldn't get any worse ... behold, they did.

Fair comment. It's easy to fall for the uninformed and often wild speculation on here, and to end up accepting it as fact. Time will tell, but there's not much of it left.

When, exactly, are the wages due? Is it today or tomorrow?

I'm not sure that "within 7 days" cuts the mustard because I think all the players would have become free agents by then, and the decent ones would have exercised their right to walk away to other clubs.

Ken, where have you seen, read or heard that? What I've been reading is that the fear of further penalties is what's been holding this up.

The FL is very good at "not blinking" (that skill normally accompanies arrogance) but I'd be surprised if they didn't have legal advice telling them that they could be successfully sued if the Pinnacle bid fails. The plaintiffs (people who have lost out financially in this sh*t show) could go far beyond Pinnacle. So the FL does have to blink at some point. That compromise would be a good opportunity.

I tend to agree with that as well. The "no appeal" component is probably a reflection of the fact that every crash seems to be different, and the FL therefore has to be flexible in resolving them. However, they don't want to be haunted by the precedents they set. The trade off suggested by The9 would resolve this one and allow Pinnacle to start running the club right away, but - with the wages not yet paid - I figure that Pinnacle and the FL have less than two hours to do that deal.

Thanks, Jay, I thought they did know. That does change things.

BST -7. Golf is possible - up to 26 C today. A long walk with wife in the off-leash area is certain. That's the dogs off-leash, not me!

Probably not because they would be fully aware of the real problem issues going in - and likely already are aware of them. If they decided to move it would probably happen in a hurry - especially with another 15 points at stake.

I thought Pinnacle were fully aware of the penalty and the denial of appeal rights when they started negotiations. You're right but, again, I thought Pinnacle knew that the FL was denying them this right. This, I think, is the best hope but it would almost certainly be decided only after the deal has fallen apart, at which point we might well be completely screwed.

I don't think so, Trousers, because the "Reasonableness Test" wouldn't work in Pinnacle's favour: Pinnacle knew, or should have known, that a points penalty would apply, that the FL would uphold it, and that the right to challenge it would be limited.

It looks quite authentic but I have serious doubts because I don't think TL would make the error of addressing the Dark Lord as "Mr". Unless he really wanted to p*ss him off.

That's probably Pinnacle's only strong card - the ability to sue the FL after failing to conclude an agreement to acquire the Club. It doesn't help us much, though, does it?

But my understanding is that a contract provision requiring one of the parties to do something illegal (or to condone something illegal) is unenforceable. So they could sign the contract and still launch the challenge. Lawyers out there?

Off to develop a contingency plan, wasn't it?

Well, if this was a game of brinkmanship we appear to have reached the brink.

Does "players have not been paid" constitute a failure to discharge football-related debt? And does this mean an additional points deduction? I'm pretty sure it's a fundamental breach of contract, which probably makes them all of our players free agents.