benjii

If you knew she had done it, but it was up to you to convict/sentence her, would you let her off for a blowie?

A&F will be feeling the strong arm of the law soon.

I suspect the situation is that Pinnacle require the FL to accept that their statement that the " rest of the League's Insolvency Rules will apply" is stupid. These rules include the requirement to exit administration with a CVA. The reason it is stupid to try and apply the rules in this case is because the PLC will not exit admin; it will be wound up following an asset sale. This sale is apparently satisfactory to the creditors (or at least a majority who would be able to approve a CVA, were one needed). The point of the rule is to protect creditors; therefore in our case the rule is substantively and pragmatically of no effect or benefit, notwithstanding that it is inapplicable in any case. I suspect Pinnacle are seeking an assurance that no further point penalty will be levied in the absence of a CVA. I suspect the FL are being obstinate old ****s because they fear that an acknowledgment that their Insolvency Rules are inapplicable and ill-equipped to deal with this situation will weaken the pretence upon which they applied the 10 point penalty in the first place. Unerstandably, Pinnacle are not going to waive all and every right of appeal if there is a prospect of a further 10 or 15 points, which would probably equate to relegation, being applied. This would make the proposition before their investor a completely different one.

People are probably scared seeing as how she's 15.....

A Dan Quayle's egg? Be careful now or Cheney will poach it.

Unless the money is used to pay teachers a lot more and recruit the best people (from university, of course), then schools will continue to be the career-play ground of: the uninspired; the plaid target-driven; the intellectually moribund; the unambitious and the unaspirational.

"Potato" you numpty.

Pathetic.

No Stu, it's only the mong schools.

You can't post "*****"!? **** me what a ****ing **** of **** ****.

More importantly... who would play me *****?

Wow, I bet they have never thought about it before.

Good post, but unfortunately a lot of people on here are too borish to bother reading and considering it as it's more than three lines long.

From whom? Of course they aren't. Fry / BT will only make any money if he sells the businesses.

Here's an idea.... start a fred.

Oh, **** off with the ,"who's behind it?", you impertinent, simpering bores.

I know what you mean, but he's doing that in the event Pinnacle can't complete. He has to assume that's a potential reality. Anything could happen and the exclusivity period has finished. His statement mentioned the "abuse of power" by the FL. Strong language and no need for it whatsoever if he didn't still believe Pinnacle were viable.

**** me, that's rank. I'm finding "Solero exotic" to be a rather funny sponsor as well, all things considered.

I agree with that. You mentioned the creditors being wronged and I pointed out why you were wrong. That is all.

Clearly, as evidenced by Um's quotes, the arbitration panel decided that Leeds were a commercial entity with sufficient bargaining power to chose whether to sign a waiver or otherwise. The English courts won't touch this if there is a pre-existing agreement to be bound by arbitration. Unless Pinnacle are planning on taking this higher, (ECJ, or CAS - which I doubt as the timescale is too prohibitive and by the time it's heard it would be impossible to reverse the sporting sanction) then I applaud their stance and for highlighting the League's bizare thought process, but they need to let it go. I suspect that the stumbling block is actually more to do with assurances being sought over how the FL is going to deal with the CVA rules.

If Fry is prepared to stick with them, or at least issue a supportive statement such as today's, despite being under no obligation to do so that's good enough for me. I don't see why revealing the identity now would help.

Speaking of "justice for the creditors" with reference to commercial lending institutions is a nonsense. They decided to lend money in the name of commerce. Lenders take a risk that they will not be paid. If they don't want to take the risk they don't lend the money. There has been no fraud or misappropriation; they haven't been wronged.

What is?

So is the issue more that Pinnacle have asked for clarification about how on earth these stupid CVA provisions will apply, rather than the stand-off over the appeal that has been referred to? Or both!?

That's the point I've been making all along. The FL's rules demand a CVA - there won't be one as the football club is not insolvent so can't exit insolvency. The PLC is being wound up so won't have one. This is why they screwed up with their original decision. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean the points deduction itself was wrong, but it does mean the over simplistic attempt by the FL to simply apply all existing Insolvency Rules was ill-thought out and silly.