saintbletch

From what I've read on here I think a more charitable spin on your self-answered question would be that he perhaps recognises that he can't offer enough to satisfy the creditors so will let others buy the club unless, there is no offer for the club then he will step in with a bid to keep the club in existence.

Steeleye Saint?

I'd go further than that to say that for some of the potential investors, the promise of getting a £30m+ stadium, land, training facilities, other property and the football club for ~£12M-£14M might have been what brought them to the table. But I do agree that the option of removing the stadium purchase from the deal should be there. Isn't that what the Salz bail out plan is? I'd seen £5m mentioned there so that surely doesn't include the stadium.

Thanks. So doggface's is still a mystery then.

No offence Steeleye Saint and I'm sure you'll put my right if I've got the wrong end of the stick here but are you connected to Tony Lynam? The wording of the post above together with your very defensive (of Pinnacle) posting history and the fact that I "think" Tony Lynam's business partner's family name was Steel(e) made me ask.

I noticed the same thing. If memory serves your naming of the 4 preceded FF's and so I went searching for some of the names and they no longer exist on this forum. Can I ask the mods what/who made them remove the offending posts/threads? Anyway these names appear to be still in the public domain, in another place, ironically a Pompey fans' forum here.

I see what you're getting at. So, not wanting to reveal anything embarrassing here but from memory the key substance from your post was to show that Tony Lynam had named the team of 4 who would be backing the bid in a communication to Fry. So for you to make the assertion that Tony Lynam is a fraud and that he had no backers, you presumably must feel that those 4 people were either not involved or had never formally agreed to fund the acquisition? Tell me to back off if I'm going too far.

Occasionally pages open instantly then it will take 5-20 seconds to open a page the would under other circumstances have opened instantly.

Can you prove that FF? And if you can, can you post the proof? (I saw the brief posting over the w/e and I'm not sure that it constituted proof in and of itself).

Well you have no right to post on this forum thedelldays. You've proved that you have shocking judgement. You've supported a team that got relegated from the Prem, relegated from the Championship and is now perhaps only days from disappearing altogether. What sort of football fan are you? You obviously know nothing about the game. Unless of course you have allowed your heart to rule your head these past several years. That I could understand.

Not surprised but it will surely bring the price down now...as long as there is anyone left who is interested.

Well there are two realities aren't there. The reality that I think we all "knew" that MJ would not buy the club, and the reality that despite this he was in discussions with Fry and, I would bet, he had also sounded out Peter Reid too. Despite what Reid said publicly. I find it too coincidental that both MJ and PR made announcements today.

Many a true word spoken in jest. I think that if Jackson has formally pulled out it means that the battle has been lost. Whether that means that someone has "won" the bid or that nobody will remains to be seen but I don't think Jackson would formally withdraw without there having been some sort of result. Like Peter Reid miraculously fell back in love with the Thailand job this morning probably as a result of having been told he didn't stand a chance of getting the Saints job (as Jackson was out or the bidding).

This is a good point. Perhaps the signing on fee of a player on a Bosman free would be similar to the transfer fee and this way the clubs control the situation and avoid being in a Dutch auction?

Hmm this could be significant GITR. I could read this as the usual manager merry-go-round PR nonsense that Reid was desperate to join Saints and has now been informed that he is not going to get the job. Therefore he saves face and doesn't risk embarrassing and annoying his current employer by distancing himself from the job. So it could be that we're moving closer. Then again...

OK now for some blind optimism but...that could be the best news we've had in a while. MLT is being the spokesman and Tony Lynam is not commenting to the media and neither he nor The Farmer are posting on here (so far). So that is either the model way to conduct the bid or Pinnacle has not paid its phone bill and has done one.

Fnarr! Fnarr!

Unless of course DMG and Surman had both made their intentions to leave clear and the £14M already reflected that?

I'm interested to understand how the offer price for the club is calculated and potentially re-calculated following these "asset" sales. Could it be that the price for the club (including player's registrations) will now be reduced? Or was the reported £14M always going to be for the club less DMG and AS?

If it was a property deal that just came with a football club attached?

In the above capatainchris, aren't you attempting to speak for the majority of fans?

You could well be right Donkey. But for that to be the case, in the last 3-4 days then Pinnacle's public position would have gone from having a mystery single backer, to having Michael Fialka unveiled as the apparent single backer, to now announcing that there is another mystery group owner presumably working alongside MLT, Tony Lynam and Michael Fialka. It just seems such a confused media communication "strategy" that I didn't think MLT as a member of the Pinnacle team would have introduced another character for us in that off the cuff way. That's why I "assumed" MLT's talk of the "Group owner" must refer to one of the characters we already know. But as C B Fry said earlier the story seems to be unravelling a bit so who knows.

Yes a cynical view would also say that when Tony Lynam wrote: He was setting Pinnacle up for the heroic but ultimately doomed ending you suggest above. And now that he has paved the way to not appealing the -10 points, presumably history will remember them fondly and MLT's reputation will not be unduly damaged. A cynic certainly would think that way. I'll know for sure if I'm a cynic some time late on Tuesday evening I think.

So confirmed that Fialka is only part of a group and strong implication that he is not the leader of the group. To my mind that restores a lot of the Pinnacle Credibilty that was lost when Fialka came forwards. Hmm I read MLT's comments as referring to Tony Lynam as the group Owner. You think MLT meant head money man and someone other that Michael Fialka?

No I can't David Strover but I think I the issue for people comes from separating liberalism/libertarianism and the third party in the UK - "the liberals". I think for many "liberal" means a wasted vote, a cop-out and sitting on the fence. Hence the negative spin. Not sure how the PC banner got ties to the liberal fence though. I think Billy Bragg's definition of being a "liberal with a small ell" summed up the distinction best for me.