AS Carlisle United's most notorious triple century was approached, not with a proud wave of the bat but a silent shrug, a tweet arrived from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

"Indomitable DPRK Women defeat Vietnam in football match," the news feed announced, "thanks to Supreme Leader Kim Jong-Un's undefeated "Harmony Fist" formation."

Parody? No doubt. But all parody is a riff on the truth. In the same vein, next Monday - the 300th day since a "billionaire" registered his interest in United - will be marked by a public holiday, an outpouring of gratitude and every Carlisle supporter nodding in grateful unison.

The fact it took our benevolent tycoon so long will be forgiven and forgotten. Hughie McIlmoyle's statue will be replaced by one twice as big of the new father of the Blues. All will be sunny, petals will be scattered and dissenters will conveniently disappear.

If the day passes alternatively, without the mysterious chap showing face, it will feel like one of those newspaper stories that excitedly predicts the end of the world. You wake up next morning, open your curtains and - hang on a second! - the world is still very much alive. Hmph.

Nothing, in fact, has changed at Brunton Park despite last May's elaborate promise of overseas affluence, so what's another 48 hours? Ten months on, even the word "billionaire" has lost currency with supporters tired of the affair.

It no longer represents someone of extreme wealth. It signifies trickery; a bag of empty gestures and likely stories.

The only new news this month is that United's billionaire episode now has the potential to be eclipsed by a League Two rival, but only if Notts County are still waiting for their Danish suitor to show his hand by next February.

Naturally, the Scandinavian reportedly circling the world's oldest football league club is unnamed. To date, no deal has been advanced. It makes one wonder exactly what it is about these fourth-tier English football clubs that attracts so many tentative rich people.

Is it just Carlisle's and Notts' luck that they appeal to the few billionaires on the planet who don't get things done? Seriously, it must be murder going to dinner with these people. At chucking-out time they'll still be poring over the starter choices.

In cold reality, United's 300 days of waiting for what chairman Andrew Jenkins maintains is a "live option" has been a travesty of PR which has long ceased to convince. It is not difficult for fans to see past it and observe the real stalemate at the heart of the Blues.

Yes, there is improvement in certain areas that is not an illusion. The team hit the 50-point mark this season 14 games earlier than last. That suggests a grip has been taken of at least some key aspects of a club that seemed to be drifting towards chaos or worse.

Still, though, an air of Pyongyang prevails in other departments. We are informed by the chairman that United have been "financially secure for a good number of years", while on the same programme page, without the dots being joined, it is stressed how much money Jenkins and his food company have had to loan the club in order to salvage this security.

Repayment is necessary before regime change can occur. Meanwhile, Keith Curle, whose work to date deserves fair credit, professes to have plenty of cash to spend but is "frustrated" at being unable to clinch the loan players who might improve the 11th best team in League Two.

Elsewhere, the club dismisses the need for a managing director, yet facilitates a change of title for its last one to cover "external affairs" that include such incidental business as transfer negotiations, contract talks and a daily line of communication with the manager.

On investment, the most profound of these matters, the record is stuck, and not just with the phantom billionaire. After the 2-1 win at Morecambe a fortnight ago Jenkins claimed to have been offered £50 to part with his shares. "What would you do?" he asked.

The question needs to be volleyed back and opened up. It is apparent what United's owners don't want to do - Jenkins' February 20 programme piece was a dotted explanation of why the recent bid from local businessmen and the supporters' club (CUOSC) had flaws - but how about elaborating on what would be acceptable?

The need for a "succession plan", a buzz-phrase which seems only just to have penetrated the boardroom walls, was mentioned in passing. What does this look like, beyond casually inviting members of the consortium to break away and invest directly, with the carrot of a director's seat?

That is opportunism, not future planning, and to no-one's astonishment it has failed to provoke a stampede. Frankly it does not give any impression that the same energy is being poured into finding solutions for a credible future as it is locating problems with those who challenge the present.

What, then, is the ideal-world result for United's owners? These terms need to be explained to the business/CUOSC consortium and the wider supporter base, who matter the most. Grounds for negotiation ought to be established on a more civil and progressive basis.

Clearly it is not wrong to demand that those behind any bid are convincing on their ability to raise the cash and plan sustainably. It is dead-batting an approach so quickly that raises eyebrows.

Nothing in the tone from HQ to date suggests there will be movement soon, at least until the recent income from player sales and cup runs filters away. Any serious regression in Curle's rebuilding of the football department would bring things back into harsher focus, but if the overall path continues, the cushion also remains.

It is a comfort zone that prolongs change, delays reform. In other news, war is peace, freedom is slavery, debt is prosperity, the billionaire is coming and 300 days of nothing is very much a "live option", thanks for asking.