CanadaSaint

And the rationale behind this structure (to protect against administration) was made very clear with Leon Crouch's shockingly unwise admission some time back. Pinnacle can't even distance themselves from that because Crouch appears to be part of their team. Without Leon on the inside of the bid I think we'd have a chance. We didn't conduct ourselves anything like Leeds, and appeals are supposed to address differences like that. With Leon inside the Pinnacle group I think we should just swear, spit, punch the wall, call the FL bastards - and then take the ten-point hit.

I thought the courts had found a significant and unilateral change in reporting relationship amounted to constructive dismissal.

If it really was MJ, then someone wrote it for him. It's certainly not his 'style', if you know what I mean.

Absolutely. That's the fourth possible explanation. He's got a job to do and it sure as hell isn't working for us, no matter what we'd like to think.

I don't agree. It is far too articulate (that's not meant to be funny) and it reflects a detailed knowledge of Administration law. IMO this could mean that it's one (or more) of the following: A) a fairly accurate reflection of what's going on, B) someone with a grudge trying to screw things up with mischief C) another bidder who'd like to see a re-set on the process Having said that, I'm still of the view that there will be many gyrations (PR and real) before this thing wraps up, so patience is the key. Easier said than done, though.

Or, Ron, demonstrate how they got to be real money men in the first place. This is just like the game itself. We're spectators, with our reactions tightly attached to our hearts. They are businessmen, with their actions tightly attached to their wallets and financial statements. God, and we thought the last few games of relegation near-misses were hard to get through. They've got nothing on this!

Surely they can co-exist. That completely transforms the business model because single usages never seem to work out too well.

I wouldn't overplay this "Norwich Union/Aviva have nothing to bargain with" argument, although I do tend to agree that their hand isn't too strong. While it's dead right that the stadium is useless without a football team, let's not forget that the reverse is also true. And that is probably why we're where we are today. I'll never forget a negotiating lecture I attended many years ago. The lecturer said "You make your pitch, you overcome objections, and then do you know what you do next?" "You shut the f*ck up, because the first guy that talks, loses". Until the respective parties have sussed out their opponents' final positions, we'll continue to be stuck between what we've been and what we hope to be. And I'm sure Mr. Fry is skillful enough to use the media to get a message across, and yet never allow himself to be used by the media. I'm not too worried. Yet.

There's quite a strong leaning towards stakeholder involvement here so I'll offer an alternative thought to Duncan's, even though I tend to agree with it. The stadium can easily be a financial millstone unless City Council approves more "non football" (i.e. music) events. The financial appeal of the club is significantly higher if the prospects are good for developing the surrounding area, which also needs City Council approval. Doesn't it make sense to draw City Council into some kind of more active involvement - so that they succeed if the club succeeds?

Yes, Tim, it's extremely unlikely because they have more than enough money to go for something much larger and better established. On the other side (the slim possibility side), they were interested enough to sniff (by visiting SMS) and they like to bring a development focus (hotel, condominium, restaurant and retail developments) near their sporting investments. There's also another of those "links, sort of" because the GM of Toronto FC is an old WGS acquaintance, Mo Johnston. If we hadn't dropped a division this year I would have given us more than the 10% chance (at best) I think we have now.

I think we might have overdone it. Unless someone turns up and says this was the plan all along. Nick, they own two top flight franchises (the Leafs and the basketball Raptors) and they clearly have a developing affection for football. They also own Toronto FC in the growing Major League Soccer league; MLS seems to have a much more solid base than its previous iterations. Toronto sells out most games and has a very enthusiastic fan base (sometimes a little too enthusiastic). Much to the horror of the old-fashioned purists, football has more youth registrations than hockey in Canada and more than baseball in the States. One of the keys is the relatively recent availability of university scholarships, which has caused parents to push their kids to soccer rather than away from it. It makes sense for MLSE, especially if it fosters a two-way conveyor belt for talent.

You'll change your tune if Balsillie gets his wicked way! Or perhaps you are one of those died-in-the-wool Leaf fans, but I thought you were smarter than that.

Well, if it is MLSE they've got pots of money, thanks (as Ottawa said) to owning the Toronto Maple Laughs who sell out every game but haven't won anything since 1967. In terms of fan affection, the Leafs are to Canadian hockey what Man United are to English football. Much as I'd like to see that kind of well-heeled ownership, I'm struggling with the whole notion that we would be related to the Leafs. What say you, Ottawa?

No kidding. Although that would still be a step up from losing games and losing money. Good thinking, Batman. If you feel comfortable you could PM me and I'll see if the name rings a bell (which could make him a telecom, I guess!).

Do you have a name for him?

The most likely telecom would be Rogers, who also have radio, television and publishing interests, and own the (baseball) Toronto Blue Jays. In some ways they are a better bet than Jim Balsillie or MLSE but they are a public company with the vast majority of their activities within Canada, so this would be quite a departure for them. In addition, their founder and chief visionary passed away not too long ago and they are still adjusting to life without him.

He's certainly got tons of dough - he and a buddy invented the Blackberry and run Research In Motion, which manufactures them. However, he's a hockey man through and through, and he's got more than enough on his plate trying to buy and move the Phoenix Coyotes. As Offside suggested, it's more likely to be Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment but I'd be surprised if they would start this low when they could afford to buy something a lot closer to - or in - the Prem. I'm sceptical about this supposed potential Canadian buyer but you never know, especially as MLSE's head honchos have been to SMS.

itk?

I don't know why people are getting so excited at the "Lucy Pinder's gash being on display at SOS". We've seen plenty of them on the pitch over the last few seasons.

Call me an optimist (which I am), Dave, but I'm not too concerned just now about a creditor pulling the plug. Okay, so they're not getting their money yet, but the way to make sure they don't get the money at all is to pull the plug. What they probably would receive, though, is a sh*t-kicking in the public arena. The only real exception to this is football-related debt and possibly the government stuff, which could bring a whole new barrel of crap down on us. I'm much more concerned that we have new owners who understand the importance of success on the pitch - not just development success off it, and that they cut themselves a deal that rids us of as much of the cost millstone (i.e. stadium debt) as possible. That leaves them with less pressure and more money to spend on the squad and management. We're playing for a longer term future here, so I'm quite content to wait - although just as anxious and frustrated as everyone else.

If he was even in the room they have a problem.

Please tell me you're kidding. How on earth could they allow someone in a clear conflict of interest to sit on that panel? That alone would add a lot of substance to any legal challenge.

Some of us appear to have completed the journey from beggars to choosers in record time.

I think he's been embalmed but I'm not sure he's dead yet, bless his cotton socks. Mind you, owning Saints could change all that in a hurry.

It caught my attention when Oakley said "I think players like Jason Euell have been in and out of the team because of wages and things like that". This suggests that some of the older heads we desperately needed as things started to unravel in mid season were kept out of the team because the club didn't want to pay appearance money or - god forbid - a win bonus. Players like Euell were going to get their base wages anyway, so those decisions had to be down to the extra money items. If so, that must surely have come from Rupert. Who else? It would be yet another example of interference in team affairs and false economies from the king of interference and false economies. It makes me want to scream.