Howardroark

Pedantry aside, you know what he means, the EFL have made no comment in respect of this.

One hasn’t ventured to that part of town since the infamous ‘Nathan Blake woz ‘ere’ tattoo at Steph’s circa 1997

Red Snapper with a lobster bisque if you must know.

Didn’t claim this, he’s Hindu..... Said Bahraini interest walked away.

Unfortunately he would be in breach of more privacy laws than Facebook. He has already admitted to using my email suffix to attempt to discover who I/we are. But for the record, I/we were employed to test the credentials of interested parties, both in respect of their actual abilities to complete a deal and to shine a light on issues that they may have missed. That should realistically tell you who we were in the employ of. As Marc Iles said, you can’t take people seriously who don’t go ‘on the public record’. A cursory glance at the messaging boards of other clubs who have been taken over would reveal a common theme where we have been employed. We had actually been engaged to further an agenda against the ST over the coming week, but I now believe that this will not be necessary. Good luck.

Ask ST why they refused to waive their ‘exclusivity period’

This kind of message puzzles me. It’s your choice to read, or not as it goes. Its like when you have sex with your wife (I mean you personally, not generalising) you know it’s terrible, yet you keep coming back. It’s probably ‘her’ fault too. Although if you username relates to your work then substitute ‘wife’ for cabin mate.

Not On None Segregated Exercise

Do you know, that in 3 months, only 2 people have asked me privately who I am, Casino and Andrew Gartside. Both of whom I have been very open with. Don’t forget, you can always find a distraction if you are looking for one.

Ah the old misogyny lives on. Political Scientist is the trade. I suppose my question to you is would you consider being a nonse to be your profession, or are you a professional nonse? Or are they the same thing?

Touchy in respect of defamation of character? Not particularly, as you correctly state, PR is my trade, personal reputation is left at the door.

Not rattled at all, just a little ploy to determine if you were on a personal crusade to discredit my posts and if you could be reasoned with. I do feel sorry for you, wife beaters do typically get found out by their passive aggressiveness on interest forums 🙂

FV do not have the free cash to purchase from administration or to satisfy the EFL funding requirements. Doing ‘deals’ with the secured creditors does not offer a long term solution that an administrator, or indeed EFL would look for. All it shows is a desire to further reduce the entry costs and that is not indicative of a secure bidder. The only way that FV would be approved over a Chinese consortium would be if the money saved by doing ‘deals’ was used to repay the unsecured creditors at a higher rate than 25%. So the auction that I mentioned will be on the repayments to the unsecured creditors as this is the only flexibility.

There’s a long track record of administrators acting, ahem with certain interests in mind. Don’t forget that their ‘fees’ are paid from administration, the longer than admin the higher the fees.

Ah yes, a take of two Saul’s