So are you saying that the use of the word "suspended" means we're in limbo regarding stadium rights, so even if someone offered more money than USM we legally couldn't accept it? (I realise you're speculating, I'm just trying to follow the line of argument)
If that's true that makes the points deductions seem even harsher.
And the second half of your response makes the club sound like a gambler refusing to take a 3 times their stake cash-out in case they win £1m. (That level of incompetence does seem believable sadly)
Not that I know any better than you, but my answer to two specific sections you wrote (happy to be corrected)...
"One of our mitigations for the PSR charges was that we lost money when he was sanctioned. So surely, if he'd paid the market value for the sponsorships, we'd just go to the next best offer which presumably should only be a little bit less."
The charge that has been heard and finalised only related to potential stadium sponsorship, not general USM sponsorship. The actual USM Finch Fan etc sponsorship falls in the second charge (hearing last week, waiting on decision, based on 3 year period up to and including the accounts published today).
One of the interesting points was the wording in the accounts. It stated 'suspended' and not cancelled. The wording to me suggested (??) that we would use this as a reason we couldn't legally replace it.
"I believe we had access to finance for the stadium at cheaper rates than the loans we've taken.....there was also a good deal from the council available, wasn't there?"
The council offer was there, but refused by the club. I presume they thought they could get better. The same with other more traditional funding routes. We seem to have had an offer there, but thought if we improved other areas of the business we could get an even better rate. We didn't improve other areas, then external factors pulled the rug from these offers, leaving us with nothing.
I don't get the impressing of criminality, rather simply bad decisions & bad management.
Responses