trousers Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4467910.Football_League_hit_out_at_Pinnacle/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint_stevo Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Well well well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 A league spokesman said Pinnacle had been in receipt of a contract from them for over a week and, to proceed, only needed to provide clarification in regard to funding. Shocker! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint_stevo Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Why didn't they show the FL Fialka's millions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Well, hang on a minute... The spokesman says the issue was a "waiver regarding sporting sanctions". This encapsulates the 10 points but also the other routes through which the FL could deduct points. It's hardly confirmation that the sole issue was the 10 points. Sounds like The Echo have failed to actually consider what the FL has said, which seems to be a fairly politico-banal statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Whether it's true or not, they would say that wouldn't they ? Football League in "tries to wash its hands of club bankrupcy" non-shocker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Just read this - seems MLT and TL were let down by backers who were never totally committed and bottled it - Why do these guys who are well meaning seem to jump in BEFORE they have the full committment of the finance? Its no different to Wilde and Crouch relying on Wilde's 'investors' to fund those transfers/contracts that then never materialised.... I though these were astute businessmen, yet they have been prepared to push things through BEFORE the funding was carved in stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Hopefully this might quieten down the -25 point conspiracy theorists. The FL telling Pinnacle to show us the money is a perfectly reasonably request, and even more reasonable now we know they were full of it from the get go, and built their entire business plan on not being -10. They might as well have built their business plan on us being in the group stages of the Champions League. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 1 July, 2009 Author Share Posted 1 July, 2009 One question....if there were "no other issues" WTF didn't the FL say this on 'day one' that Pinnacle stated there were other issues rather than wait until now? How many times on here did some of us say: "FFS, why don't the FL just state what (public domain) conditions they need Pinnacle to meet?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Well, hang on a minute... The spokesman says the issue was a "waiver regarding sporting sanctions". This encapsulates the 10 points but also the other routes through which the FL could deduct points. It's hardly confirmation that the sole issue was the 10 points. Sounds like The Echo have failed to actually consider what the FL has said, which seems to be a fairly politico-banal statement. Sorry red herring again - other sanctions would only be applied if we continued or broke further rules in future - If SFC and SMS td were in effect purchased, with SLH having AGREED the fees with the creditors that in effect is a CVA - provided teh new SFC dont go into admin, then I fail to see how the FL could apply more sanctions, does not make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 other than a waiver re sporting sanctions - what are the league threatening / what were pinnacle worried about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Whether it's true or not, they would say that wouldn't they ? Football League in "tries to wash its hands of club bankrupcy" non-shocker. Sorry, how can the football league be responsible for us being bankrupt? They've got nothing to "wash their hands of". Christ, get the chip off your shoulder and look a bit closer to home for blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Hopefully this might quieten down the -25 point conspiracy theorists. The FL telling Pinnacle to show us the money is a perfectly reasonably request, and even more reasonable now we know they were full of it from the get go, and built their entire business plan on not being -10. They might as well have built their business plan on us being in the group stages of the Champions League. Why? Because the Echo have misread a statement from the FL? I've no idea if the further deductions issue was important or not, but it certainly isn't clarified by this utterly pointless statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BARCELONASAINT Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Well, hang on a minute... The spokesman says the issue was a "waiver regarding sporting sanctions". This encapsulates the 10 points but also the other routes through which the FL could deduct points. It's hardly confirmation that the sole issue was the 10 points. Sounds like The Echo have failed to actually consider what the FL has said, which seems to be a fairly politico-banal statement. This goes back to what i have said before, the Echo are crap at reporting. It's all very one sided crap. So who do we believe the FL who wanted us to waive a legal right of appeal.....or MLT who himself yesterday when interviewed said there were OTHER issues the FL were trying to impose that the financial backers could not accept!!! Sorry but i would rather believe MLT than the FL and the crap Echo!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Sorry red herring again - other sanctions would only be applied if we continued or broke further rules in future - If SFC and SMS td were in effect purchased' date=' with SLH having AGREED the fees with the creditors that in effect is a CVA - provided teh new SFC dont go into admin, then I fail to see how the FL could apply more sanctions, does not make sense.[/quote'] Is "in effect a CVA" enough? Maybe that was the clarification being sought and the FL wouldn't confirm one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 1 July, 2009 Author Share Posted 1 July, 2009 The FL telling Pinnacle to show us the money is a perfectly reasonably request Given the administrator had already determined Pinnacles financial viability this should have been a rubber stamping exercise, surely? Unless, of course, the FL and Begbies have different proof-of-funds criteria....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Hopefully this might quieten down the -25 point conspiracy theorists. The FL telling Pinnacle to show us the money is a perfectly reasonably request, and even more reasonable now we know they were full of it from the get go, and built their entire business plan on not being -10. They might as well have built their business plan on us being in the group stages of the Champions League. Well, hang on a minute... The spokesman says the issue was a "waiver regarding sporting sanctions". This encapsulates the 10 points but also the other routes through which the FL could deduct points. It's hardly confirmation that the sole issue was the 10 points. Sounds like The Echo have failed to actually consider what the FL has said, which seems to be a fairly politico-banal statement. I agree with Benjii on this - it doesn't actually reassure me that FL were not putting other possible problems re sanctions in the way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurosaint Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 One question....if there were "no other issues" WTF didn't the FL say this on 'day one' that Pinnacle stated there were other issues rather than wait until now? How many times on here did some of us say: "FFS, why don't the FL just state what (public domain) conditions they need Pinnacle to meet?" TBF we only have the Echo's word that they actually said anything at all !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Why? Because the Echo have misread a statement from the FL? I've no idea if the further deductions issue was important or not, but it certainly isn't clarified by this utterly pointless statement. Sorry, not sure what you are reading into the statement here, apart from actively looking for things to keep the conspiracy going. Funny if the issue was lots more points being deducted, why hasn't Lynam and co been shouting it from the rooftops? That's what I'd have been doing because it takes all the blame off me and onto Mawhinney and the League. But not a sausage about it. Funny eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saints_is_the_south Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Well who'd have thought it, Pinnacle in not being able to prove funding shocker! It would be nice to hear what Pinnacle have to say in response to this? Hopefully also means that aslong as the Swiss or whoever actually do have the funding in place then the takeover should be completed in no time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Given the administrator had already determined Pinnacles financial viability this should have been a rubber stamping exercise, surely? Unless, of course, the FL and Begbies have different proof-of-funds criteria....? 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 I agree with Benjii on this - it doesn't actually reassure me that FL were not putting other possible problems re sanctions in the way So why hasn't Lynam just come out and said it then? Or Fry for that matter. Funny how the FL get ripped apart for "politico-banal" and "pointless statements" but Pinnacle says nothing apart from "other issues" and you all decide that it definitely definitely means we're going to be deducted eighty points a season for the next ten years. Why do the Pinnacle "banal" and "pointless" statements get given so much more worth in your eyes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanimal Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 That we had some clarity from someone actually in position to give it. I spent all yesterday driving and flying around thinking that the FL want to close us down. They have a DOC to us as supporters to tell us what the issues are. The administrator has a DOC to me as a SLH Shareholder to say what may be a barrier to a deal. SFC has a DOC to me as a member/ STH to give relevant information. In the last month very few people have treated thousands of us as grown intelligent adults and potential customers/investors. Still cant get my head around how the FL can sanction the sale of an asset from a company in administration, bizarre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Sorry red herring again - other sanctions would only be applied if we continued or broke further rules in future - If SFC and SMS td were in effect purchased' date=' with SLH having AGREED the fees with the creditors that in effect is a CVA - provided teh new SFC dont go into admin, then I fail to see how the FL could apply more sanctions, does not make sense.[/quote'] They could apply more sanctions because at the point where they declared us in Admin they also announced that the other sporting sanctions rules applied - including the one about needing to exit admin with a CVA. Just because they used the spirit of the law to penalise us -10 doesn't mean they wouldn't use the letter of it to whip off another -15. Long and short of it is from here I'll be glad to see us get to the point where we can be p155ed off with the FL for a further deduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Sorry, how can the football league be responsible for us being bankrupt? They've got nothing to "wash their hands of". Christ, get the chip off your shoulder and look a bit closer to home for blame. Eh ? All I've said is they're making damn sure no-one points the finger at them, which is obviously what they're doing. I'm not interested in who's to blame, that's a bit 2007 for my liking, just in having a football club at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Is "in effect a CVA" enough? Maybe that was the clarification being sought and the FL wouldn't confirm one way or the other. Should be - why? Because the the purchase price would have been agreed between FRy and teh creditors as the minimum acceptable - this will be contractually agreed with creditors then waivering any rights to further claims which is what a CVA is... the FL could not at a later date start to demand a seperate CVA as this would then be saying that SLH and SFC were NOT inextricably linked as the FL have stated and i the -10 point punsihment for admin. The only thing I can speculate on is this. That the deal on the table was similar in structure to the rumoured Jackson bid, in that creditors would receive further payments on success/future revenues which would have formed part of the CVA - thus if this also included a time frame, could be why teh FL were insisting on reviewing teh finance behind teh deal and maybe the granting or the 'ALLEGED/RUMOURED' 2 year license? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Sorry, not sure what you are reading into the statement here, apart from actively looking for things to keep the conspiracy going. Funny if the issue was lots more points being deducted, why hasn't Lynam and co been shouting it from the rooftops? That's what I'd have been doing because it takes all the blame off me and onto Mawhinney and the League. But not a sausage about it. Funny eh? I imagine Lynham will be keeping something of a lower profile now. MLT has already come out and made a statement on those lines on behalf of "the Group" anyway. So why hasn't Lynam just come out and said it then? Or Fry for that matter. Funny how the FL get ripped apart for "politico-banal" and "pointless statements" but Pinnacle says nothing apart from "other issues" and you all decide that it definitely definitely means we're going to be deducted eighty points a season for the next ten years. Why do the Pinnacle "banal" and "pointless" statements get given so much more worth in your eyes? Fry won't be shouting about any potential hurdles whilst there are still other bidders around. Would be stupid to do so for many reasons. As for the last two paragraphs; who has said that? I certainly haven't. Talk about reading too much into things.... Look, I have no idea if the FL intend/want/have to deduct further points or not. What I do know is that if I was lobbing £14m at something, I would want certainty over what I was buying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 TBF we only have the Echo's word that they actually said anything at all !! They've just read out a press release on SSN. I does however mention "sporting sanctions," not the 10 point penalty and to me that reads as a plural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Eh ? All I've said is they're making damn sure no-one points the finger at them, which is obviously what they're doing. I'm not interested in who's to blame, that's a bit 2007 for my liking, just in having a football club at all. Why should anyone point the finger at them - you are inferring they are "washing their hands" of something ie they've done somethng wrong. They haven't done anything wrong. If Pinnacle had the money they'd own the club and we'd be ten points down, not 17, not 25, not 55. Who didn't come up with their side of the deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Given the administrator had already determined Pinnacles financial viability this should have been a rubber stamping exercise, surely? Unless, of course, the FL and Begbies have different proof-of-funds criteria....? I have been pondering this question my self and the only explanation I have is that at the start of exclusivity, Pinnacle were able to provide proof of funds and in the time between that and furnishing the FL with the same proof they were no longer able to for whatever reason. Pure conjecture on my part but in the absence of any answers from those involved difficult to conclude otherwise without some damning accusations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 So why hasn't Lynam just come out and said it then? Or Fry for that matter. Funny how the FL get ripped apart for "politico-banal" and "pointless statements" but Pinnacle says nothing apart from "other issues" and you all decide that it definitely definitely means we're going to be deducted eighty points a season for the next ten years. Why do the Pinnacle "banal" and "pointless" statements get given so much more worth in your eyes? the release just doesn't say what you say it does! It talks about other issues itself- sporting sanctions! It doesn't say apart from the 10 point appeal etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Should be - why? Because the the purchase price would have been agreed between FRy and teh creditors as the minimum acceptable - this will be contractually agreed with creditors then waivering any rights to further claims which is what a CVA is... the FL could not at a later date start to demand a seperate CVA as this would then be saying that SLH and SFC were NOT inextricably linked as the FL have stated and i the -10 point punsihment for admin. It's not a point of membership, it's a point of financial law. You can't have a CVA if you're not in admin, and the FL rules demand a CVA, not any other kind of agreement with creditors, no matter how happy the creditors might be. I just hope we get the chance to find out who's right one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 They could apply more sanctions because at the point where they declared us in Admin they also announced that the other sporting sanctions rules applied - including the one about needing to exit admin with a CVA. Just because they used the spirit of the law to penalise us -10 doesn't mean they wouldn't use the letter of it to whip off another -15. Long and short of it is from here I'll be glad to see us get to the point where we can be p155ed off with the FL for a further deduction. Sorry this does not make sense - Until we are liquidated, in which case creditors just get what is there, the sale was being structured with creditor approval as we are led to understand - hence the price being set at 15 mil in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 They've just read out a press release on SSN. I does however mention "sporting sanctions," not the 10 point penalty and to me that reads as a plural. Why should anyone point the finger at them - you are inferring they are "washing their hands" of something ie they've done somethng wrong. They haven't done anything wrong. If Pinnacle had the money they'd own the club and we'd be ten points down, not 17, not 25, not 55. Who didn't come up with their side of the deal? exactly - this leaves the very arguement pinnacle make (which I am not convinced is the real reason) as reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 One question....if there were "no other issues" WTF didn't the FL say this on 'day one' that Pinnacle stated there were other issues rather than wait until now? How many times on here did some of us say: "FFS, why don't the FL just state what (public domain) conditions they need Pinnacle to meet?" The rope needs to be slackened before being tightened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 This is very damning as far as Pinnacle go. It shows that lying c*nt Lynam for what he is. Unfortunately the least it shows about Matt is how easily he was taken in by all of this. I don't think Pinnacle ever had any intention of buying the club. It was just an elaborate wind up perpetrated by a skate. I feel sorry for Crouch if he stumped up the exclusivity money, but he is the sort of man who would probably have paid the wages last month anyway. A very sorry tale that could really mean the end of the road for the football club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 This is very damning as far as Pinnacle go. It shows that lying c*nt Lynam for what he is. Unfortunately the least it shows about Matt is how easily he was taken in by all of this. I don't think Pinnacle ever had any intention of buying the club. It was just an elaborate wind up perpetrated by a skate. I feel sorry for Crouch if he stumped up the exclusivity money, but he is the sort of man who would probably have paid the wages last month anyway. A very sorry tale that could really mean the end of the road for the football club. read the comments not the headline - it certainly leaves pinnacle room to say they are being truthful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Look, I have no idea if the FL intend/want/have to deduct further points or not. What I do know is that if I was lobbing £14m at something, I would want certainty over what I was buying. Yeah, a club on minus ten. The fact that Pinnacle was built on the childish delusion they could buy a club on zero is the root cause of our current plight. The league have done nothing wrong so the idea they are "washing their hands of it" or "not giving certainity over what people are buying" is pretty tiresome. As far as I can see the FL haven't changed one jot the details on the club for sale, it's everyone else and their lawyers poncing around that is the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Yeah, a club on minus ten. The fact that Pinnacle was built on the childish delusion they could buy a club on zero is the root cause of our current plight. The league have done nothing wrong so the idea they are "washing their hands of it" or "not giving certainity over what people are buying" is pretty tiresome. As far as I can see the FL haven't changed one jot the details on the club for sale, it's everyone else and their lawyers poncing around that is the problem. sanctions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 the release just doesn't say what you say it does! It talks about other issues itself- sporting sanctions! It doesn't say apart from the 10 point appeal etc Err - sporting sanctions is the ten points, not the ten points and something else. Come on kids, enough GCSE textual analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 (edited) It's not a point of membership, it's a point of financial law. You can't have a CVA if you're not in admin, and the FL rules demand a CVA, not any other kind of agreement with creditors, no matter how happy the creditors might be. I just hope we get the chance to find out who's right one way or another. OK but from a legal perspective IF SFC and SMS are SOLD to a third party as this deal was all about, this in effect would be a new SFC Ltd, and thus a seperate entity from the remaining shell SLH... The NEW SFC ltd were applying for a NEW license to participate and according to the FL the only stipulation was that like ALL FL clubs this new body agreed to waiver the rights of appeal. The FL sanctions were already inplace against SLH/SFC based on that administration - and SLH would then be wound up. I can not see how the FL would have any legal case in applying further sanctions against a NEW entity from which it was now entirely seperate, based on what the previous holding company does in the future.... IT may be that this was not clear and what TL/MLT were looking to have clarified especially in light of the appeal waiver, but according the FL the appeal waiver was against the -10 points already in place. Without being a legal bod, I would suggest that there is no way the FL could insist on a legal waiver against appealing FUTURE sanctions imposed because of actions of a company to which the current club as NO links... surely they would not be insisting on that - It simplydoes not make sense. Edited 1 July, 2009 by Frank's cousin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 sanctions LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webby Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Jesus christ! Poor reporting. This statement does not contradict what Matt said. He said it wasn't about the 10 points anymore, there were other issues ie more deductions. The league are saying there were no other issues OTHER THAN a waiver in regard to sporting sanctions. This means Saints allowing themselves to be at risk of further sporting sanctions ie point deductions. Unless the league can come out and say that they had, and have no plans to apply more deductions, then this statement is useless as far as I'm concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Err - sporting sanctions is the ten points, not the ten points and something else. Come on kids, enough GCSE textual analysis. It's you being simplistic if anyone is. I like your posts but the Daily Mail/Express righteousness isn't suited to a complicated situation like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Why should anyone point the finger at them - you are inferring they are "washing their hands" of something ie they've done somethng wrong. They haven't done anything wrong. If Pinnacle had the money they'd own the club and we'd be ten points down, not 17, not 25, not 55. Who didn't come up with their side of the deal? I don't think anyone is suggesting that Pinnacle's main problem was that they didn't have the cash, but to say the FL's position (even in not clarifying all of this earlier, never mind the vagaries of their various statements) is not in any way contributing to the problem is a bit simplistic, especially given the impact of their previous rulings on the likes of Rotherham and Luton. I also think you're wrong that if Pinnacle had the money we wouldn't be 25 points down - due to the unequivocal requirement for an agreed CVA in the insolvency rules - but the only way we'll find out is if someone else takes over and we somehow stay on -10, which is frankly a best case scenario we should now be grateful for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Jesus christ! Poor reporting. This statement does not contradict what Matt said. He said it wasn't about the 10 points anymore, there were other issues ie more deductions. The league are saying there were no other issues OTHER THAN a waiver in regard to sporting sanctions. This means Saints allowing themselves to be at risk of further sporting sanctions ie point deductions. Unless the league can come out and say that they had, and have no plans to apply more deductions, then this statement is useless as far as I'm concerned. Yes, quite. It's suprising how many people seem unable to read it correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 1 July, 2009 Author Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Apologies if thread title is misleading....I took the article at face value....a lot of that going on at the moment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Jesus christ! Poor reporting. This statement does not contradict what Matt said. He said it wasn't about the 10 points anymore, there were other issues ie more deductions. The league are saying there were no other issues OTHER THAN a waiver in regard to sporting sanctions. This means Saints allowing themselves to be at risk of further sporting sanctions ie point deductions. Unless the league can come out and say that they had, and have no plans to apply more deductions, then this statement is useless as far as I'm concerned. Exactly. IMO a carefully worded statement from the FL meant to clarify their position that just clouds the issue even more. Typical politician spiel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 read the comments not the headline - it certainly leaves pinnacle room to say they are being truthful. Personally, I don't think it does. It seems that they never proved to the FL that they had any backing either. “Throughout our discussions no conditions other than a waiver in regard to sporting sanctions have ever been raised with us as a major issue. “The Pinnacle Group has been in receipt of a contract from the League for over a week now. “To proceed, all it needed to do was to provide clarification in regard to funding and sign the contract.” It's quite damning in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 It's you being simplistic if anyone is. I like your posts but the Daily Mail/Express righteousness isn't suited to a complicated situation like this. And me yours. Lynham had the opportunity yesterday to stick a parting shot on the league by saying "they tried to clobber us with 17 points". He didn't - he had a coy mention of "other issues" which is utterly meaningless and far more meaningless than this statement from the league which is getting torn apart. The complications seem to arise from total top of head speculation rather than anything concrete at all, so apologies if I disagree on how complicated it all is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now