Carlisle United's talks with an overseas investor have "advanced significantly" in the last two months, chief executive Nigel Clibbens has said. But questions still remain about the 582-day saga. Such as these:
1. What took you so long? The latest milestone, 600 days, is looming, and while Clibbens said that he could not answer for the long period when he was not at the club, someone else ought to.
Before the chief executive was appointed in the summer, and seemingly upped the pace of this dragging saga, this "interest" from abroad was going nowhere fast.
Why? For what reasons would someone make a "genuine and firm" approach to United, with plans to fund the club over "three to five years", and yet not follow up on that bid until the club's leaders had written to him more than a year later, wondering what on earth he is up to?
In the very early days, fans were told that "holidays, illness and the investor's business commitments" were to blame for a delay. Later it was suggested last December's floods caused the mystery man to back off.
Yet there are other swathes of time that are not explained. And so the old question comes back: if United's potential saviour is not particularly pro-active whilst trying to put money into the club, how forward-thinking and responsive will he be once he's in the building?
What happens, too, if he intends to remain an absentee investor? Who calls the shots on his behalf - and how reliable, given the drawn-out nature of events so far, can we expect this process to be?
2. How due is the diligence? Another mystery is what happened when the "billionaire" examined Carlisle's finances the first time - and to what extent he actually did.
One inconsistency in the narrative appeared in summer 2015, when one co-owner (John Nixon) said the foreign party was "doing their due diligence" on the club, and yet, a short period later, another (Andrew Jenkins) said due diligence would only be happening "in due course". Which was it?
Then there are the questions of what the wealthy one found when he supposedly took his first real look at the Blues, and what happened with this information.
As of this year, we are told Carlisle sent the would-be investor, via his agent, more up-to-date details. One hopes these have not also vanished into the pending tray.
If he and/or his representatives have finally scrutinised United's books thoroughly, have they asked all the pertinent questions one would expect to arise from this? And do they have satisfactory answers? We don't yet know.
3. How much clout will the "billionaire" get in exchange for his investment? This was a key question aired by BBC Radio Cumbria's James Phillips in his interview with Clibbens.
Thus far we do not know what size of stake he wants, expects or is being offered. But whether large or small it can still bring a lot of power if the man concerned is bringing most of the cash.
Either way, Clibbens implied that United were keen to avoid a situation where a new figurehead goes mad with the controls. We would not wish to see a "Birmingham", where foreign stakeholders have just controversially axed manager Gary Rowett, the chief executive suggested.
So, with this as an example, how do the current Blues hierarchy intend to limit their new friend's influence whilst also welcoming his money?
And, from his point of view, will he really be content to leave the big decisions in the hands of the current regime, whose recent managerial calls include a contract extension to Greg Abbott during a decline, and a two-year deal for Graham Kavanagh after two caretaker games (before the much better call on Keith Curle)?
If he is happy to hand over the cash but not call most of the shots, why does he want any part of United at all?
4. We heard, on Saturday, about the "strings" the investor may wish to attach. But what about United's? What other conditions are the Blues imposing on any possible deal?
Earlier this year the current owners knocked back one local investment proposal because, in part, they were unclear on how their outstanding loans would be repaid.
Since then, Jenkins and Nixon have said they would accept shares in a new structure rather than get their money back.
Is it the case that those men, plus Steven Pattison, must remain at United in some significant way even as the club is reshaped?
Nixon, it is well known, has a range of roles with the Football League and Football Association as well as his double boardroom status at Brunton Park. To what degree should retaining these positions matter in the big-picture outlook for the Blues?
And how will any such deal affect the shareholding and rights of the Carlisle United Official Supporters' Club - or the "Trust", as Clibbens still refers to them, despite CUOSC casting off that old name for certain deliberate reasons last year?
5. How credible, truly, is this mystery man? 582 days of courting must have satisfied United to a fair extent.
Yet there is also credibility of proposal and intention, and so far we do not know to what degree Carlisle have tested his true commitment, right down to the very bottom line.
On Saturday Clibbens said that, "regarding the headlines in terms of what a financial deal might look like, we've got enough to go on; [then it's] just about proof and delivering that."
This is the real nitty-gritty - and, as 2015 showed us, United's owners take a dim view of those who do not meet a particular set of stipulations.
Andrew Lapping and his consortium of local investors had their financial commitment scathingly questioned, with the Blues sceptical about pledged amounts and also disappointed at the lack of deposit into an Escrow account.
Are we at this sort of stage yet with our "billionaire"? If not, when will Carlisle show a similar cold-eyed wish to see the colour of his money? And is he, to settle a long-standing question, a billionaire at all?
6. Each deal may be different, every investor may have his own particular wishes. With this one, the tension is between the need for "confidentiality" and the wider desire for transparency.
The risk of the "billionaire" turning on his heel should his name be leaked has stalked this entire process. As such, a request for non-disclosure has been tightly adhered to.
Yet why, after 582 days of apparent progress, would things be so precarious? Would one tongue-slip at this supposedly "advanced" stage, however regrettable, really cause the whole house of cards to collapse?
One must wonder, too, why it took so long - more than a year - for CUOSC to be allowed in on things. On whose say were they kept out of the loop for such a period?
These issues form the history of a curious tale and cannot be ignored simply because a "fresh start" has apparently been launched.
Now, of course, CUOSC know who he is (and indeed say they met him in October). The rest of us don't, and a good deal of the fanbase are still struggling to get behind something they cannot see.
Scepticism abounds. Cynicism too.
The time when everyone can examine this suitor's intentions will have to come eventually, of course.
And then - to adapt a line from Pattison at August's fans' forum - we will finally be able to see this saga for what it is.