alpine_saint Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 What other reason is there for the possible reopening of the Fialka/Pinnacle bid ? What the FL said in private to Pinnacle being different than their public statements before ? Maybe sanity has prevailled at the FL at last, and a few suits have realised that driving clubs out of existence benefits nobody. Either that or there has been some SERIOUS communication issues between Pinnacle and the FL, and that seems unlikey considering how long the communication loop has taken sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 What other reason is there for the possible reopening of the Fialka/Pinnacle bid ? What the FL said in private to Pinnacle being different than their public statements before ? Maybe sanity has prevailled at the FL at last, and a few suits have realised that driving clubs out of existence benefits nobody. Either that or there has been some SERIOUS communication issues between Pinnacle and the FL, and that seems unlikey considering how long the communication loop has taken sometimes. or maybe your flaky heroes are repositioning their story now that the FL have publicly shot down their previous missives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorpie the sinner Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Problems never existed according to league. They did ask one difficult question though, 'have you got the money?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 What other reason is there for the possible reopening of the Fialka/Pinnacle bid ? An ego boost for Mike Faker? Maybe he was allowed a few more minutes on line before tea and decided to email the JC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westmidlandsaint Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Have Pinnacle called the Football League's bluff? With Pinnacle pulling out and laying the blame with the football league, were they hoping the FL would publicly deny this is the case? Now they could re-emerge knowing that the FL have made that statement and wont be able to back track. thoughts? I'm not saying this is what I think will happen or indeed what I want to happen but just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 (edited) "Do you, uhm, do you think this was a ploy in order that the FA publically declared further point deductions would not happen, do you ?" I posted this on one of the other very many threads of similar category( at 1:29 west midland) Edited 2 July, 2009 by INFLUENCED.COM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 (edited) What other reason is there for the possible reopening of the Fialka/Pinnacle bid ? What the FL said in private to Pinnacle being different than their public statements before ? Maybe sanity has prevailled at the FL at last, and a few suits have realised that driving clubs out of existence benefits nobody. Either that or there has been some SERIOUS communication issues between Pinnacle and the FL, and that seems unlikey considering how long the communication loop has taken sometimes. Ist we have a single individual who is worth several hundred million. Then we are told he is well known to many.:confused: We then get Fialka wheeled out to the cameras, who is not well known by any means. He has been shown to have little likelyhood of having any personal wealth. Tony Lynam then tells us he has others in his group that are wealthy. :confused: They pull out due to FL having clauses that couldn't be ironed out. FL statement appears to **** on Pinnacles take on things. Fialka now states that they (FL)have changed their stance and will look at pursuing their interest. Either the FL have changed what was discussed with Pinnacle, or Pinnacle have run out of places to hide. My guess is that Tony Lynam and Matt Le Tissier have been fooled and no one likes to be made a fool of. So out comes Fialka with a statement of intent to rejoin the race knowing full well someone else is in pole position to win. This gives them the excuse that they were genuine but unfortunately got pipped at the post. Face saved. Edited 2 July, 2009 by slickmick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westmidlandsaint Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 sorry influenced.com hadn't read that thread first. thinking along the same lines then? i must admith this was the first thing that came into my head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Maybe little micky has found some money down the back of the couch. Issue's always been about the 10 point deduction. Le Tiss said as much over the weekend and Monday when he said he would be prepared to the 10 point deduction and move on. Of course, the FL is not blameless. In its arrogance and imperiousness, the c**ks never felt a need to clarify the issue in public; had they done so, we would have been spared alot of needless doom-mongering among fans and time-wasting by Pinnacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 thinking along the same lines then? But could 'they' be that clever and calculated ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Of course, what is also being ignored is that fact that the FL statement stated that Pinnacle couldnt state where the money was coming from... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadhall Saint Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Of course, what is also being ignored is that fact that the FL statement stated that Pinnacle couldnt state where the money was coming from... Exactly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgow_Saint Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Ist we have a single individual who is worth several hundred million. Then we are told he is well known to many.:confused: We then get Fialka wheeled out to the cameras, who is not well known by any means. He has been shown to have little likelyhood of having any personal wealth. Tony Lynam then tells us he has others in his group that are wealthy. :confused: They pull out due to FL having clauses that couldn't be ironed out. FL statement appears to **** on Pinnacles take on things. Fialka now states that they (FL)have changed their stance and will look at pursuing their interest. Either the FL have changed what was discussed with Pinnacle, or Pinnacle have run out of places to hide. My guess is that Tony Lynam and Matt Le Tissier have been fooled and no one likes to be made a fool of. So out comes Fialka with a statement of intent to rejoin the race knowing full well someone else is in pole position to win. This gives them the excuse that they were genuine but unfortunately got pipped at the post. Face saved. sounds about right could also have been an attempt to get the purchase price down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Of course, what is also being ignored is that fact that the FL statement stated that Pinnacle couldnt state where the money was coming from... Couldn't or wouldn't, or do they have the same meaning/result ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 The one bit I don't understand is how they managed to prove funds to Mark Fry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadhall Saint Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 The one bit I don't understand is how they managed to prove funds to Mark Fry. Now where is Fitzhugh Fella? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Now where is Fitzhugh Fella? Are you suggesting he knows how they did it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Are you suggesting he knows how they did it ? I believe Toady is talking about the info that FF had on who was originally in the Pinnacle "bid". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 I believe Toady is talking about the info that FF had on who was originally in the Pinnacle "bid". Surely that was not all that Fry needed ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Surely that was not all that Fry needed ? I guess it would all depend on when/if those listed names a) became involved and b) removed themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 The one bit I don't understand is how they managed to prove funds to Mark Fry. IMO Fry was persuaded that they had the funds because no-one would be foolish enough to put down a non returnable £500,000 exclusivity payment unless the rest of the money were in place. Obviously he reckoned without...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Of course, what is also being ignored is that fact that the FL statement stated that Pinnacle couldnt state where the money was coming from... Wernt they just waiting for clarifcation on the money? Not the same as saying they couldnt state where it was coming from but either way thats the point Pinnacle seemed to do a runner so 2 + 2 = ? The statements that the FL have said have had most of us urguing on what they could mean so its funny that Pinnacle now all of a sudden see the quotes as proof there will be no further sanctions. Unless they are now expecting the league to deny there statement suggests there will be no follow on punnishments? It could be that Pinnacle are trying to be clever. Take a 50/50 statement by the FL State it means no further punnishments 100% If the league dont deny it and then hit us with further points at a later date then the league will look like the bad guys. If the league come out and say there statement does not eliminate the possability of further punnishment then Pinnacle are the ones looking like they were right to walk away money or not. just guessing though ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Thing is the FL statement is both clear as mud and ambiguous - Its a great oxymoron really - on teh one hand its states no other issues apart for the waiver against the appeal of the-10 points, but then goes on to leave the way open for further sporting sanction if teh 'club' do not satisfy the rules re admin.... Then we have the query about where the money is coming from... Really dont have a clue now what to believe - What is clear though is if the backer has 100's of millions, how odd it is that we dont have any confirmation that the deposit was paid in full by the consortium... that does not add up, nor does thier unwillingness to declare who the backer was/are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordswoodsaints Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Problems never existed according to league. They did ask one difficult question though, 'have you got the money?' I'd go with this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer Engine Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 (edited) The FL made its position clear in April. Nothing has changed. Lynam, Fialka and MLT are full of $h1t. Let's move on. Edited 2 July, 2009 by Beer Engine utter incompetence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickn Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 The FL made its position clear in April. Nothing has changed. Lynam, Fialka and MLT are full of $h1t. Let's move on. So you think MLT was talking out of his arse in the Echo last night, he basically backed up everything TL has been saying. Now im not saying he was lying or not but i found it interesting to read that everything he was saying seemed to back TL's reasons for pulling out, and TL has had nothing but abuse and MLT hasn't. (I'm not saying he should btw) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plumstead_Saint Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Mark Fry just had to be convinced that they had the money. The FL needs to know the source of the money, in order to decide that it is from "fit and proper persons" and not for example the profits of crime. Maybe....but the FA weren't so picky when poopey got bought with the profits from gun-running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Mark Fry just had to be convinced that they had the money. The FL needs to know the source of the money, in order to decide that it is from "fit and proper persons" and not for example the profits of crime. Maybe....but the FA weren't so picky when poopey got bought with the profits from gun-running. Fit and proper persons bit was done ages ago when they submitted the preposed new board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer Engine Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 (edited) So you think MLT was talking out of his arse in the Echo last night, he basically backed up everything TL has been saying. Now im not saying he was lying or not but i found it interesting to read that everything he was saying seemed to back TL's reasons for pulling out, and TL has had nothing but abuse and MLT hasn't. (I'm not saying he should btw) Yes I do - it all smacks of sticking to a carefully prepared script for arse-covering purposes. Edited 2 July, 2009 by Beer Engine didn't know you can say "arse" on here ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Nice Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Of course, what is also being ignored is that fact that the FL statement stated that Pinnacle couldnt state where the money was coming from... Nail on head and thats why they wouldnt give them the licence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 What other reason is there for the possible reopening of the Fialka/Pinnacle bid ? What the FL said in private to Pinnacle being different than their public statements before ? Maybe sanity has prevailled at the FL at last, and a few suits have realised that driving clubs out of existence benefits nobody. Either that or there has been some SERIOUS communication issues between Pinnacle and the FL, and that seems unlikey considering how long the communication loop has taken sometimes. What a spanner you really are. Could it be, maybe, there was no bloody additional points punishment, ever. Your hero Micky Fialka was talking out of his arse yesterday, which we all worked out in seconds. Except you, who swallowed it hook line and sinker. Ten points. It hasn't changed a jot since day one, except in the heads of some divs on a messageboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Marco Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 I just wish the people who have that "evidence" would print it once and for all so that this guy and Tony can **** off and never be heard from again. Seriously again ask yourself this. If this guy knows people with hundreds of millions of pounds, or is so chummy with them that they would give him 33% of the buyout then why can he not get a job with one of them? Why have those supposed multi-millionaires not put investment of that magnitude in his hands before? Why has his company got just a 20k turnover, i make nearly three times that.... and finally if he is that good at business, that well trusted, has that many contacts, why is he living with his mum? Surely they would have given him a job which in turn would of meant he could afford to move out? The guy is looking for his 10 minutes of fame and he had it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndy1970 Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Thought id just share with you all a email I recieved today from the Football league in response to my message to the Lord at the House of Lords. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dear XXXXXXX The Chairman, Lord Mawhinney, has asked me to respond to your communication send to him at the House of Lords. It may be helpful to clarify that the sporting sanction, i.e. points deduction has been made in accordance with League regulations, which are put in place by the clubs themselves – The League then administers them. An appeal is allowed with a specified period. When a club suffers an insolvency event, e.g. administration, their share in The League is liable to be withdrawn under the terms of our Articles of Association. In other words their membership comes to an end. However, because we are in the business of trying to keep clubs alive, the Board operates a policy within the provisions of the Articles which suspends the withdrawal of a club’s share in order to give them a second chance – this is entirely in keeping with the law of the land. Recent arbitration proceedings confirm The Football League has the right to impose conditions on a company that seeks to join The League in this way. These conditions reflect the need to protect the integrity of the competition by ensuring that no club should be able to gain an advantage over its rivals by not paying its debts. Owners of football clubs will change over time, but the ‘club’ remains the same. It is the club which secures a competitive advantage from wiping out debt through insolvency proceedings, and therefore, it is only right that it is the club, regardless as to the identity of the new owners, that is made subject to any conditions. The League has a responsibility to ensure all League clubs start the season. Furthermore clarify throughout our discussions no conditions other than a waiver in regard to sporting sanctions have ever been raised with us as a major issue. We hope this clarification is helpful. Patricia Brown Customer Service The Football League http://www.football-league.co.uk xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx This does clarify that the only issue discussed was the points (Sporting sanctions) deductions and therefore this was the only issue with the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 2 July, 2009 Author Share Posted 2 July, 2009 What a spanner you really are. Could it be, maybe, there was no bloody additional points punishment, ever. Your hero Micky Fialka was talking out of his arse yesterday, which we all worked out in seconds. Except you, who swallowed it hook line and sinker. Ten points. It hasn't changed a jot since day one, except in the heads of some divs on a messageboard. Cant you answer without being abusive - just for once ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 2 July, 2009 Author Share Posted 2 July, 2009 The one bit I don't understand is how they managed to prove funds to Mark Fry. Indeed, has anyone bother answering this in a coherent fashion yet ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Cant you answer without being abusive - just for once ??? Right you are, Dr Kettle. How about you admit you were wrong instead of started yet more deluded threads built on more stuff from the dim recesses of your head. The FL haven't back tracked, Failka was making stuff up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Indeed, has anyone bother answering this in a coherent fashion yet ? Fry clearly blamed FL and said he had seen evidence of substantial wealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hasper57saint Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 StAndy. I think you are a). Making the response from Mawhinney appear 'genuine' or b). It IS genuine because the 'grammar and syntax' is typical of an organisation that trades in obfuscation. Inside knowledge is a wonderful thing but why really (apart from the Negotiators) is ITK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 This does clarify that the only issue discussed was the points (Sporting sanctions) deductions and therefore this was the only issue with the league. I don't think thast email/letter does clarify anything to do with the Saints, it just talks generally and the arbitration it refers to was I think regarding Leeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 2 July, 2009 Author Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Right you are, Dr Kettle. How about you admit you were wrong instead of started yet more deluded threads built on more stuff from the dim recesses of your head. The FL haven't back tracked, Failka was making stuff up. In. Your. Opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian the Red Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 I agree with Apline Saint... The FL appears to back tracking having realised taht they will effectively put a club out of business. Now that is bad PR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndy1970 Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 StAndy. I think you are a). Making the response from Mawhinney appear 'genuine' or b). It IS genuine because the 'grammar and syntax' is typical of an organisation that trades in obfuscation. Inside knowledge is a wonderful thing but why really (apart from the Negotiators) is ITK? I don't think thast email/letter does clarify anything to do with the Saints, it just talks generally and the arbitration it refers to was I think regarding Leeds. I am not personally insinuating that Mawhinney is anything. Yes the email is genuine, all i have done is share it with this forum. Any of you who want a copy PM me your email addresses and i will copy it too you. At the end of the day any of you can come to your own conclusion about what it does or does not mean but for once it is a conclusive response from the league (and lets face it they did not have to reply) rather than some of the recent comments from frustrated fans on this forum who they claim are ITK or are whizz kids in the business world and think everything is black and white. As I said above all I have done is share it with you. Make of that what you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndy1970 Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 I don't think thast email/letter does clarify anything to do with the Saints, it just talks generally and the arbitration it refers to was I think regarding Leeds. " Furthermore clarify 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 above paragraph refers specifically to Saints Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 I am not personally insinuating that Mawhinney is anything. Yes the email is genuine, all i have done is share it with this forum. Any of you who want a copy PM me your email addresses and i will copy it too you. At the end of the day any of you can come to your own conclusion about what it does or does not mean but for once it is a conclusive response from the league (and lets face it they did not have to reply) rather than some of the recent comments from frustrated fans on this forum who they claim are ITK or are whizz kids in the business world and think everything is black and white. As I said above all I have done is share it with you. Make of that what you will. Mate I don't for one minute think its not genuine all I'm saying is the response in my opinion is talking in general terms rather than on the specific facts of the SFC case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 " Furthermore clarify 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 above paragraph refers specifically to Saints Jesus, I missed that bit completly, my mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 FL havent backtracked, Pinnacle have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Seems crystal clear to me... "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.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 (edited) "Do you, uhm, do you think this was a ploy in order that the FA publically declared further point deductions would not happen, do you ?" I posted this on one of the other very many threads of similar category( at 1:29 west midland) I do believe this is the case. How else does one get Mahwindbag to commit to making a positive statement on a matter of crucial importance? He has been pontificating from a position of strength knowing he holds all the cards, while his opponent SFC is weakening by the day. (PS You are still referring to the FL as the FA.) Edited 2 July, 2009 by eelpie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 2 July, 2009 Author Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Seems crystal clear to me... "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.” I dont agree. Pinnacle proved funds to the administrator, so proving it to the FL should have been a doddle. I simply dont believe the FL. They tried to go for -25 by playing hard-ball, and its blown up in their face. Some of you probably think that the FLs statement means that anyone else who wants to buy SFC can expect to lose no more than 10 points. B*ll&cks I say. Why ? Well, according to Malwhinney, we had a right-to-appeal, remember ?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 I dont agree. Pinnacle proved funds to the administrator, so proving it to the FL should have been a doddle. I simply dont believe the FL. They tried to go for -25 by playing hard-ball, and its blown up in their face. Some of you probably think that the FLs statement means that anyone else who wants to buy SFC can expect to lose no more than 10 points. B*ll&cks I say. Why ? Well, according to Malwhinney, we had a right-to-appeal, remember ?????? You're an idiot. What exactly are these 25 points for? Which clubs have been deducted those kind of totals before and why have they been deducted them? Get an education before you spout off about things you know simply nothing about. Nothing at all. 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