A GREAT many words have been used to describe Carlisle United's doomed courtship of an overseas "billionaire". A situation, a saga, an epic, a mystery, a debacle.

All fair and accurate. At a time like this, though, perhaps a piece of pure Carlisle sums it up best.

A shan.

From the very early days, when a person of supposed great wealth was taking a curious amount of time to do a deal with a relatively small fourth-tier football club in the north of England - a shan.

The same goes for different stages of the story. The initial tone struck by the those at the very top of the club: a shan. The periods of unexplained silence: a shan. Other times when the last straw seemed impossible to grab by all concerned: also a shan.

Even the firing of the fatal bullet, on Monday night, failed to be a clean dispatch. On the 650th and final day, the "potential overseas investor" still could not be named. "Legal issues" prevented the Blues from revealing who they have (and haven't) been talking to all this time.

This, supporters were quick to observe, clashed with chairman Andrew Jenkins' remarks last August, at a fans' forum and also on United's official website, where he "promised" to name the individual "in the end".

Not a hint, not a maybe. A promise. There remains, of course, the possibility that the "legal issues" (a non-disclosure agreement has been referred to by the Carlisle United Official Supporters' Club) could eventually be resolved, allowing Jenkins to be true to his word.

But in the short term it is one more frustration to throw onto the large, steaming pile. It also suggests one of two scenarios. Either the equivalent of a prenuptial agreement was inserted into negotiations after August 2, when Jenkins spoke, or the man with the most shares at United was making a pledge he wasn't sure he'd be able to keep.

In each case, yet more questions are raised about exactly what the Blues were entertaining, and how.

There will be a thirst now inside the United boardroom to "move on" from this most bizarre episode in Carlisle United's history. A hope that closure, of a fashion, has been achieved.

A safe bet is that many supporters, sick to the back teeth of waiting, would love never to hear about it again. Amid the fury and the cynicism - with CUOSC also receiving a bit of both for their involvement in Monday's statement - the outcome is surely the right one. Whether the end justifies the means, though, is a question many are struggling with.

It cannot be simply waved into the past yet; not when aspects are still unexplained. This has been a story of more grey areas than an EL James novel and it is no real wonder that a number of people have been so reluctant to trust what they have been told.

There are many little examples. For instance - in July 2015 John Nixon said the potential overseas investor was "doing his due diligence" on the club, yet little more than two weeks later Jenkins suggested that due diligence had not happened yet. At best, a clumsy clash of phrasing. At worst, a direct contradiction.

Another: in the summer of 2015, Nixon replied to a News & Star question by saying that, according to the club's research, it was "indeed the case" that the suitor was a "billionaire".

This appeared to validate the initial, excited remarks by former vice-president Andy Bell. A year on, though, and co-owner Nixon was humming a different tune, describing "billionaire" (a word that ironically lost currency the more you heard it) as something the situation had been "dubbed" by the "local press". Chin stroke emoji.

What, too, of "five to 10 days," "three to five years" and other vague/specific timescales that stalked the story? What about the silence during the floods? What about the four transfer windows that passed without the interest of May 19, 2015 being realised?

What about the sale of three significant playing assets in that time? What about the lack of recent meetings, a situation "beyond anyone's control," according to Nigel Clibbens?

These details may be old news now. But they leave a mark. At the weekend United's chief executive said he doubted that the episode has "damaged" club-fan relations. The hostile response to the club's announcement on Monday suggested otherwise.

In the same comment Clibbens did accept the saga has "cast a shadow" over proceedings at Brunton Park, with fans and media constantly wanting to know about investment when other, brighter things were happening at the club. Those standing in that shadow, the many good and diligent people who work for United, are entitled to be as frustrated by its length as anyone.

For it was United's owners who started the "ticking clock" referred to by Clibbens. It was they who put the shadow there. It was they who did so with, it appeared, the old-fashioned belief that followers of a football club in 2015 would accept without question every morsel of information they were given.

Those days are long gone. Now people remember, they scrutinise, they look at things sceptically. They hold those in charge accountable to what they say.

As such, they were always going to wonder why United sounded so enthusiastic about something so vague on day one ("pleased to announce"), why they felt the need to stress the approach was "genuine and firm" (as opposed to?), why the infamous "five to 10 day" period for the "next stage" of talks passed without anything tangible; why the proposed funding was already "structured" over a "three to five year period", yet another 17 months were needed for face-to-face talks to begin?

Even in this latest chapter, when Clibbens has at least applied a degree of focus since being appointed last summer, there are oddities. The "negotiation" period has only been the last three months, he told BBC Radio Cumbria at the weekend.

Yet it was longer ago than that, last October, when the "billionaire" apparently met the owners and CUOSC (who had to wait more than a year to be brought into the fold, a curious matter in itself). What were those encounters if not the start of negotiations? Pleasantries? Welcome to Carlisle United - you know, that club you wanted last year. Still fancy it?

Other low moments: Nixon appearing on the radio two summers ago on the proviso that no questions were asked. The tarring as "negative" of people who challenged the club on what they were doing and saying. The best part of two years spent deciding why our bashful suitor "did not present a way forward [we] could support".

The most cynical feel it has been an illusion; an appearance of chasing new money and a "succession" plan which, 21 months later, has changed nothing, succeeded nobody and added zilch to the pot.

They also aren't being discouraged in their opinion that this "approach" was, if not designed to ease the dropping of the Andrew Lapping proposal of 2015, then certainly embraced as a convenient alternative before its own credibility had been remotely examined.

It is time, too, to rebuff another line which has stalked the story: "Be careful what you wish for", a false implication that United's fanbase actually wanted the club to do business with this person they couldn't see.

What they wanted, in fact, was not a reckless deal, a Morecambe or a Leyton Orient, but for transparency, explanation and elaboration. Their queries covered the areas of intent, commitment, sincerity and plausibility.

The definition of being careful, in fact. And now we have a conclusion but still some loose ends; an ending, but still the same concerns about the long-term funding, security, debts and running of the Blues; and all this while a good team with a popular manager tries to maintain a promising promotion push.

A shan, truly, and ladgeful too. Words our distant suitor will now sadly never get to know.