saintbletch

You should have added Adams to show the depth of support he would enjoy (or not).

I agree completely with this but there is a prerequisite or two to allow this to happen. Firstly, our new owner has to have the stomach and balls to stick with the manager through tough times (Steve Gibson's backing of Gareth Southgate at Middlesbro). Secondly, and this is where the problems may start, we need a support that will get behind the team unconditionally.

So when Mark Fry says this.. does that not suggest that Richard Fry was instrumental in selecting Begbies Traynor before he then went and accepted a position there? I must admit I thought I'd read that the board called in the administrators not the bank.

If we're looking for lower league experience then that's not a bad shout at all. Plays the game the right way too. BTW if he's not on the manager's short list I assume that Strachan is still on short manager's list.

Tony accident is an Adams waiting to happen.

Hmm I thought the same. Unless it's a fast moving market and one that they won't be tracking 24 hours a day and don't want to be exposed overnight? We'll see in the morning I guess.

Liebherr Luvvie! Here's to a united future!

No but it's an false comparison. Crouch (we believe) put money in after the club's shares were suspended for which he received no equity or guarantee of reimbursement. I'm sure he was was expecting to get something from Pinnacle but he kept the club afloat for nothing in return. That said I don't think he should be reimbursed and I don't think he should be given any boardroom role. I think we should remember that he kept us going in tough times but now we need a clean break.

Thanks for trying Mark. Glad you were more loyal to us than to your other Dutch mate. Poortvliet Karma?

Best nickname in football in my opinion...Chris.

As much as we might want to see a conspiracy where none exists, I think this is the most likely scenario.

I tend to agree. Martinez at Swansea is an example of a (non-English) manager who got his team promoted from League 1 playing easy on the eye football.

Very good! That gets my vote for when the deal is announced - New Toblerowners!

Hmm yes that does start to make sense. Do we know what sort of percentage of their business the white goods product lines make up? Candy washing machines on Liverpool shirts, Liebherr cigar cabinets on Saints' shirts. Who knows?

Judging by what Nineteen Canteen posts on here I don't think I could be more opposed to his views if I tried. BUT as a "student" of communication, I thoroughly enjoy the way he puts his arguments together. But I think that in a similar way to Guided Missile on here, the clever use of language frustrates posters. It's not the differing view as much as the feeling of being tied up in semantic string by Nineteen Canteen that appears to frustrate. Personally I think Nineteen Canteen should see this potential new era as a chance to put a lot of his posting history behind him, start to rise above it all and entertain us with his views on the future. Perhaps if he sees an anti-Lowe or pro-Crouch thread he should simply post "Disagree" and move on. If he doesn't I would have to conclude that he is indeed a bit of troll. So to help him out whatever you do, don't mention the "war".

Pinnacle bid > Swiss Bid = Happy Fry ?

That's a hell of 'tash he's got. Abel Xavier anyone?

Was she?

Don't know about The Farmer's previous in the other place but I'd echo your support of him over the Pinnacle debacle. He was completely open with me yet never devolved anything he "knew" about the structure/people involved.

"I know he knows nothing about football and currently runs a retirement home but what's the worst that could happen?"

Sorry I should have been clearer. Two questions. In saying... a) is this a specific statement about the FL's dealings with Pinnacle versus a generic statement on their approach to administration? I ask because in their introduction it says that there this is a standard response due to the volume of communication they receive. I "assume" this is a comment that is specific to the Pinnacle dealings with the FL. b) If a) is true then does this suggest that Pinnacle only ever asked for a waiver of the -10 points and therefore there was never a dispute over a "no appeal" condition?

I thought I'd post this here instead of on the Lord Mawhinney thread. I've just received a response from the FL to the email below. Although it says it is a standard response, it looks like a standard response to the Saints' issue given the last paragraph.... What do you make of that? Is this a comment relating specifically to the Saints situation? Or is it as the intro below suggests a standard response to all such sporting sanctions enquiries? Full correspondence follows...

But it didn't say "proof" of funding. It said provide "clarification" in regard to funding. This is a significant choice of words for me. Would the league be asking who was providing the money and that was what scared the backers away? (And yes I know that I'm giving Pinnacle the benefit of some significant doubt here).

Continuity?

To be fair if the Echo changed a "statement" I'd be really worried. It's not their job unless they were interpreting the statement. Oh and if we're on pedantry patrol....Should it not be St. Mary's? (full stop and apostrophe).