itchen

Which one?

That's it! I wondered what was wrong last season. Were we playing an untested and confusing system? Were our players too young and inexperienced? Did the coach not really know what he was doing? No. We were only fielding 9 players! Now it all makes sense.

While I'm ambivalent about the Council owning the stadium, it has be said that the Council will incur significant costs if it is forced to remove its own facilities from it by a new owner. The City's CCTV control room is housed there and to move it, I'm told, would cost £1 million. But it's unlikely that a new owner would want the Council to leave as it provides rental income.

I don't think you need to apologise. Like most of us, you went on the published "facts" that Pinnacle had put a large sum into the club for exclusivity (between £100,000 and £1,000,000) and that Fry had seen proof of funds. This made them a credible bidder. Assuming all parties were telling the truth, and I can't see why Fry should lie, it still baffles me why Pinnacle were prepared to write off a large investment, including their own costs, if they weren't serious. The League are saying that the only point of dispute was the 10 points so I no longer buy that excuse. So why did the money man, and I believe there must have been one for the bid to get that far, throw his initial investment away and pull out?

Has anybody actually heard this on Radio 5 or is everybody quoting Master Bates who "heard it from somebody else"? Did anyone hear it first hand?

How do you know this? He had two objectives: to keep the business trading and to secure as much money as possible for the creditors. It's not clear yet that he has failed in either. The time to pass judgement is either when we have been successfully taken over or when it is announced that we have been liquidated. Even if the latter occurs, it doesn't necessarily mean that Fry has failed. He can only sell something if somebody wants to buy it and the price offered is agreeable to the creditors.

Oh come on. Kelvin might have stayed with us if a Championship side had come in for him. But an established Premiership side like West Ham? What would you do if it were you? Stay for a League One wage or take your last chance of a big Premiership payday.

It's usually Bon Jovi.

What with abusive calls from Rupert Lowe and now threatening calls from persons unnamed, I'd go ex-directory if I were you.

I pay my taxes and so I pay the tax man or woman. As I'm sure you do. The question seems to be "Should football clubs be allowed not to hand over taxes which, let's not forget, they've collected from us on sales?" Are you suggesting that tax debts generally should be written off? Or just tax debts incurred by football clubs? Or should we have a vote on each tax debt? What's your alternative?

Because, as I read it, Pinnacle still want to buy the club (or are at least claiming this). There is nothing to stop any other bidder coming in with either a better offer in money terms or one that will go through more quickly. It's then up to Fry and the creditors to decide whether to accept the new offer or stick with whatever Pinnacle are offering in the hope that it may come off. I don't see that Pinnacle sticking around is actually an obstruction to a deal with anyone else. Fry and the creditors are presumably much better informed of what is in the various bids, their timescales and credibility than any of us on here. It's down to them to choose. What I can't get over is why Pinnacle have invested a substantial sum (between £100,000 and £1,000,000) directly into the club plus incurring must be substantial costs if they are not serious. It simply would not make sense. Having said that, if somebody else can come in with an offer that means the staff get paid, we keep at least some of the team and have some sort of pre-season preparation then I would welcome it.

It's a fact that he posted it two days ago.

If it is genuine then whoever wrote it is an idiot. While the Football League may be trying to enforce unlawful terms, I can't see how human rights legislation has any place here. We're not talking about individuals, we're talking about a football club, a business and an association. I would say it's a fake and, if it's not, for the first time I begin to doubt Pinnacle's competence.

I don't quite understand why some people (not you) seem to think that if Crouch paid for Pinnacle's exclusivity this somehow shows that Pinnacle are not serious. I have no idea who paid but whoever it was clearly believed that Pinnacle was a credible bidder. No other group has paid any money to the benefit of the club although I accept that anybody who has done more than just ask for the brochure has incurred some expenditure.

Who is Rob Casey? Should I care that he "for one, would be glad of it"? Anyway, if Pinnacle are negotiating our restoration to the Championship they need to play hardball. All other teams should be directed to concede all their games against us until we have an unbeatable points tally. If Lynam is not demanding this then clearly he is not the man that many thought he was. I bet Salz would have sorted it.

The only evidence is that somebody paid the administrator a substantial sum (between £100,000 and over £500,000 depending on who you believe) for Pinnacle to have exclusivity for three weeks. I don't know if this means that Pinnacle will complete but it does seem to me to be an indication that they are serious about wanting to. There are much cheaper ways of getting yourself publicity without running the risk of making yourself a laughing stock all over this part of Hampshire.

Bizarre post. What is your evidence for Tony Lynham being a tyre kicker? Even if you don't believe his claim that his group has already spent over £1 million it can't be denied that it has made a substantial outlay. Why do that when you can kick tyres and walk away without handing over a penny? Salz has been talked about for so long but, as far as I can see, has not invested 1p. Should he come up with the money tomorrow to rescue the club, invest in the team and get our season underway then I will be delighted, as I would with almost anyone. But I haven't seen any evidence that this is likely.

Charming. I'm not sticking my head in the ground but, because I am not privy to the discussions, I'm not jumping to the most dramatic conclusions either.

You're heading home for work?

I really cannot believe that you know what Pinnacle are wasting time on.

I know the feeling. I haven't got much done today either. Maybe you'll have more luck tomorrow.

Now you've done it. You can't just say he's given you a little bit of background and then not share it on here. There are some people not getting any work done at all.

I can't answer your question but I would find it hard to believe that the Football League had anything more important to deal with during the close season than the future of one of its oldest members. But that would be bringing logic into the world of blazerdom.

But surely the way out is to say "I'm sorry but, having looked further into it, we no longer want to purchase SFC." They don't need to concoct artificial obstacles. There's no contract. They paid for exclusivity and that has now expired. If they don't want the club all they have to do is say "no".

Do we know enough to what? We're not going to get a vote on who takes over. Obviously, we're all interested and hope it's someone with cash to spare and the interests of the fans at heart. But nobody is going to ask our opinion. We don't know anything about the other rumoured bidders either other than that one of them is linked to someone who looked a bit of a fool at Bournemouth. In an ideal world, all clubs would be owned by their fans and would be clubs in the true meaning of the word. But they're not so we just have to accept (unless we find £15 million down the back of the sofa) that this is all out of our hands.