CanadaSaint

"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.

No but every ITK expands the risk of it becoming common knowledge - especially as the FL is essentially our competing clubs. How long is that going to stay secret?

I thought there were (quite logical) rules preventing one party from owning more than one club, which would mean that the FL would HAVE to know the identity.

I'm starting to lean towards Bletch's view. Pinnacle will go ahead if they are guaranteed that it's ten and only ten. The FL likes to receive guarantees but not give them, and might be reluctant to give that commitment. However, the FL needs to remember this: Its biggest legal threat comes not from one of its members but from someone who has spent a p*sspot full of money trying to become one, and failed because of the FL's unfair behaviour. They've both got their arses sticking out the window on this one and they both need to pull them in. At the same time, of course.

It seems to me that there's some brinkmanship going on, with TL trying to enlist the media to add some pressure to the FL. From the Pinnacle perspective he's handling it really well. It's just that A) I'm not sure he can win, and B) the FL has a lot more time than we do. I'm concerned that we're going to get so hung up on the deduction/right of appeal issue that we end up damaging our prospects for the 2009-10 season even more. For me this is about a much longer time frame than just the 09-10 season - it's about a five-year plan towards long term success.