Lt. Aldo Raine

Why?

Which is fair enough. It's more the people (mostly on twitter to be fair) who've taken it to assume Bassini's finally been fucked off I'm confused by.

Aye. I'm not worried, just bemused as to why that statement's been taken as being a big deal.

So do I. I'm not arguing that he'll be successful, I'm just arguing that if he intended to pursue a legal claim yesterday, that statement won't make one jot of difference as to whether he can or will continue to pursue it. That's all.

Bassini and the administrators would both have known each other's opinions on his bid all along. All that statement does is confirm to us the administrators' views. It has no bearing on whether Bassini will or won't pursue a legal claim.

I know that. I'm not concerned that he'll be successful, it was just that people were reacting to this latest statement as though it's something meaningful. I'm just pointing out that it isn't and he can still try and make things difficult, no matter how futile his efforts would ultimately be.

Yes it does. But he can still try and prevent the sale from going ahead, just like he could yesterday. The statement changes nothing in that respect. But anyway, hopefully in a few days' time it'll all be done and we can start talking about which players we'll be signing for our play-off push!

That's good to hear. I don't think he'll be successful if he initiated legal action but people seem to think that this latest statement means we've heard the last of him when it doesn't. He's as capable of taking his claim to the High Court today as he was when the story broke yesterday.

All well and good. But that would also have been the position all along. Today's statement is irrelevant to whether Bassini will or won't make an application for an injunction because, presumably, the positions of both parties (Bassini and the administrators) remain the same today as they did yesterday and in the weeks preceding. And do we know that he didn't meet the EFL's approval second time around?

No doubt he's a moon man and it will probably come to nothing. But if he can prove that his bid might have been bigger, the administrators' comments in today's statement aren't definitive. I don't think the situation today is any different to what it was yesterday.

Probably the same as yesterday. The naming of the preferred bidder and the signing of a Heads of Terms agreement won't prevent Bassini from making an application for an injunction.

I'd argue that many of those who had played in the PL and the Championship were well on their way to finding their level in League One. It was a good squad obviously lacking in even a League One quality playmaker, but it wasn't a great one.

If Bassini's telling the truth about his offer, he'd surely have been the preferred bidder. The fact he isn't leads me to believe it's horseshit.

Looking purely at managerial win percentages would only be worthwhile if football was a level playing field. Jack Ross' win percentage at Sunderland is 49.18%, whereas John Coleman's at Accrington Stanley last season was around 30. Yet I'd argue that Coleman keeping Accrington Stanley up was a bigger achievement.

This keeps being repeated by people, but I've seen no evidence that it's true.

If Connell had started as a third-year scholar at the start of the season just gone and was about to become a free agent then the written offer of a professional contract would have protected us in terms of getting compensation. As he was a second-year scholar, the extension of his scholarship to a third year has the same effect.

I think it's just that top quality goalscorers are expensive and we've not had enough money to buy one (except maybe the first season after we got relegated).

Hopefully that won't be the choice we face.

I'd feel pretty awful about it, to be honest. The only reason to consider Phil Brown is because he used to play for us (same with Nolan and Davies). My only requirement is that the new manager is a good one, I don't care whether he "knows the club".

I'm not sure that's right.

Pretty much. He could at least have released one of those “thank you and all the best in the future” type statements that no-one really means but he didn't even bother with that.

I think Clough returning is nailed on if Parky leaves. I'd sign Brockbank and Darcy up. I've barely seen either of them play but they're supposedly quite highly rated and I'd rather not lose anymore Academy graduates for a pittance. I'd have Connolly back as well, and I'd try to steal Mayor from Bury before anyone else does. Failing that, I can't claim to know anything about players at this level so fuck knows.

I expect Matthews didn't have quite as many irons in the fire as Connell did, though. Connell made his debut in January and the reports of clubs being interested in him appeared almost instantly. Presumably, we would have known by then that an eighteen month contract wouldn't have strengthened our negotiating position very much because we had no way of honouring it. The point is, it's unlikely that we didn't offer him a professional contract because we though he wasn't good enough or didn't deserve one but because we didn't have a pot to piss in. He held all the cards, to use a turn of phrase.

As you were criticising the decision to offer an extension of his scholarship rather than a professional contract, I assumed it was the administrators you were referring to. But by January, our ertswhile chairman had bigger things to worry about. And, considering we had to ask the PFA to help cover November and December's wages, had just reneged on an agreement to sign Doidge permanently, and were second bottom of the league, what were the chances he wanted to sign a professional contract with us anyway? An extension of his scholarship was probably the only option on the table - it kept him signed on at professional club but left his options open, and allowed it small amount of protection against losing him for the bare minimum if he moved to a club in England.

I think that had more to do with us being in administration. No doubt administrators have a responsibility not to bind the company to contracts they or any potential owner can't cover the costs of. A 12-month extension to his scholarship is hardly a problem but a four-year contract on a higher wage is an altogether different prospect. Well, that and the strong chance that he was unwilling to commit himself to our basket case of a football club for a long period.