gordonToo

McMenemy also relegated us and then went on to manage the team through one of its most successful periods. I have to say your continual persecution of Wotte makes you appear a very sad individual indeed.

Isn't Tony Lynam being set up as the Chairman? Maybe Matt's to be DoF or is that Leon's chosen role?

This may explain the lower than expected deposit paid by Pinnacle with the balance being made up in part from LC's prior donation. Whether this indicates a shortage of funds on the Pinnacle side or a need to have an "experienced" face on the board remains to be seen. Personally I see it as a reassuring sign.

Because it was the only qualified bid that came close to the breakup value of SLH? Because it would then be obvious that this is a pure property play? See above. See above.

Exactly.

£500K was Fry's stated precondition for any party to enter the exclusive phase of the negotiations. If, as reported, Pinnacle was unwilling to meet this demand and Leon Crouch's cash and Dyer's rushed through transfer fee has been used to part pay the wages then I think we are entitiled to ask why.

But it does appear to be based on fact i.e. that Pinnacle did not stump up the full £500K as requested. It was also not denied by Tony Lynam.

The reported fact that Pinnacle did not put up the full £500K.

It does however carry a ring of truth and fits the known facts.

Holloway's at Blackpool.

My guess is that it all depends on the Pinnacle budget as some of the names mentioned here will only be interested if the team can be largely rebuilt in their own image. If the funds are not available to attract a "name" then Wotte would be a more than adequate choice IMO but I'd set him a definite target to be achieved by the year end.

We have been told that some of the Pinnacle backers dropped out when they realised it would cost them money so maybe the Surman and McG sales are needed to make the deal work. Then there's the statement that the club can be run as a business which suggests we'll continue to be a selling club.

The letter talks about one client as though that had always been the case whereas we were told the Pinnacle bid had stalled because the backers (NB plural) had got cold feet. If Pinnacle really were the only serious bid on the table then the asking price could be driven down if Fry believed they had a funding issue. BTW INITK.

There may only ever have been one Pinanacle investor, the 3 that walked away having been invented as a negotiating tactic to drive the price down.

Haven't we been here before? For TL read MW. For MLT read MC. Let's see a little more detail first.

Some caution is called for surely given that 3 out of the 4 original "investors" dropped out? I'm not sure we would survive if it turned out there was another MW style outfit in control.

By outgoings do you mean wages? If so, the solution is for the players concerned to cancel their contracts and move on. If they stay and SFC folds, they're stuffed anyway.

In the end the creditors will have to accept the best offer unless they want to run the business themselves.

IMO a deal will be agreed eventually with Barclays and NU having to accept payment based on our L1 position and future (non)-performance. Fry would be making more of a media song and dance if we really were into an end-game.

Today's announcement confirmed that one or more members of the Pinnacle consortium dropped out when they realised the scale of investment needed. Fry may be hoping the "foreign" interest can fill the gap but so far so there's little sign of that materialising. FWIW I didn't find Lynam's interview today particuarly convincing and he gave every impression of being part of a 2nd rate outfit.

Still looks like brinkmanship but Fry has to extract some value for the creditors and is duty bound to accept the best offer on the table. And if that offer is the bid from SCW for SMS as the home of his new rugby club then SFC will indeed be no more.

I agree but a total cleansing of the old regime and a fresh start is necessary.

SCW Associates

All it means is that the prospective buyer(s) have confirmed they are interested only in certain assets of SLH (ie SFC) and that shareholders of SLH can expect zilch. Looks like matters are now moving to some sort of conclusion,