John Lloyd

Lee Jameson wrote:

I have no clue Andy.

I am upset with John's post yes I think it was misguided, I don't believe you can have your cake and eat it.

There are also some posters on PASOTI who use there real name like Lee Jameson and John Petrie.

But not often do I agree with Dogger or Deep Throat but on this one I do. Should they use there real names? Yes.

Lee

The thing is, as I have said earlier in this thread, I disagree with John's views on this. But I'm able to do it without insulting, abusing, sniping or defaming the guy. The sort of deeply unpleasant personal attacks that have been launched in JL's direction say far more about the people abusing him than they do about John. He's shown excellent restraint and diplomacy in not responding to some of the less savoury stuff.

John Lloyd or Dogger, Deep Throat and IJN? No contest, JL every time.

In amongst that thread where John Lloyd is coming in for some stick, over matters I know nothing about I have to say, Grovehill is again digging and I believe people are not understanding the questions he is asking.

To me Grovehill is not saying that any known bid would have been better than Brent's, and he says this much, what I think Grovehill is trying to say, which is something that I subscribe to as well, is that the club was badly marketed by Guilfoyle either to ensure his buddy Ridsdale got the club for £1, or through plain incompetence.

The figures bandied around at the time, £17 million kept being mentioned, which included the debt to Lombard and Ticketus, and I am absolutely certain that Brent paid a tiny fraction of that figure for Argyle, sold the ground to PCC which meant even less of a pay-out for him, and if it was made more well known that the cost of actually buying the club was not going to be anywhere near the figure quoted, then possibly there would have been more interested parties, and in amongst those, maybe someone with football experience who would have been prepared to invest more in players and a real manager. Sorry Fletcher but I just don't see you as a manager, just a means of reducing the running costs.

If the details in this Pasoti thread are correct,

http://www.pasoti.co.uk/talk/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=64748&start=30

then Brent is not liable for the excess Lombard debt, nor the Ticketus debt which is quoted as being £1.2 million! This makes a hell of a difference to the purchase price does it not? And again if the details Babba gives on the thread are correct, it pretty much proves that BIL was a front for ex-directors, something that to me has always seemed obvious without ever being confirmed.

So maybe that is why Grovehill is so interested in the details of how much Brent has actually paid to acquire Argyle? If the actual figure is the peanuts that I believe it to be, comparatively speaking, then this was not made clear whatsoever last year, so Guilfoyle was either trying to ensure Ridsdale got his grubby hands on the club for £1, or he was just a complete idiot. Ridsdale was called in by Stapleton not to get the club out of trouble, but to minimise his losses. It didn't cost Stapleton anything to have Ridsdale on board "saving" the club, but it appeared to me as though Ridsdale was carrying out a specific job on behalf of Paul Stapleton, possibly the reason that BIL had dealings with his accountancy firm, and why some of the addresses of parties involved in the BIL bid originated in Yorkshire.

No I don't believe for one minute that Brendan Guilfoyle is or was an idiot, and I think he granted exclusivity to BIL without them even signing the agreement for 2 weeks ffs, and without them ever having to stump up the publicised £1 million, because the BIL bid gave his buddy Ridsdale the club for £1. Now the exclusivity period went on and on and on without the money ever being handed over, and during this time any possible rival bids were told that BIL had exclusivity therefore putting them off. Eventually it became too difficult, even for the administrator, to keep the wolves at bay without Heaney's mob ever paying the agreed exclusivity price, hence Ridsdale jollying off abroad to speak to Kassam, before declaring that Brent was always his choice!

Knowing how much Brent forked out is probably never going to happen, but it looks like Grovehill will at least keep chipping away no matter what abuse he comes in for, even having the ultimate putdown from IJN of having his real name used

This is what Graham Clarke has just posted on pasoti in response to grovehill.


"You might find the links below of assistance regarding the Trust's position regarding James Brent. It should also be remembered that it was the legal duty of the administrator to market the club to obtain the best outcome for the creditors. The club was marketed by him from 4th March (with several deadline extensions as no acceptable bidder had stepped forward) until 7th May when Guilfoyle confirmed he had signed an exclusivity deal (as it transpired only he had signed it as BIL did not sign it until two weeks later). The club was 'off market' until the BIL deal officially collapsed in late September 2011. The Rescue Plan / Contingency Group was founded given the fears and extended deadlines that surrounded the BIL bid. The Trust in their 14th July statement openly welcomed other bidders.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=52051 22nd February 2011

* (apologies that the Pasoti Argyle Fans Trust links are not live but click on the GASB and Argyle Fans Trust link and look for the corresponding dates for the full thread and statement)

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=52925 13th March 2011

http://www.argylefanstrust.com/2011/04/ ... brent-bid/ 27th April 2011

This support was on the basis of James Brent being 'last man standing' (or so we and he thought) in advance of the administrator's last and final deadline before the CVA meeting. There were no other bids with proven funds on the table. At that time it would have been unthinkable that the Trust would not support the only bid that may save the club.You may recall that it was the eve of the CVA meeting that Guilfoyle informed James Brent that he had accepted another bid (and at the time that bidder and his links with any former Directors was unknown)

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=55280 15th June 2011

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=56111 14th July 2011

In answer to your other questions. Yes, we (the ISC of the Trust) were aware that James Brent's deal was dependent on an agreement from the Council as a stakeholder. (I recall much debate whether the Council would agree given their stated position that their preference was for a 'private sector' solution in total but one with a development proposal that fitted with the Central Park AAP.).

Akkeron's press statement in April said that it was the intention to run the club on a sustainable basis

With regard to the Football Creditor's debt James Brent, right from the start committed to meeting this obligation. However, the financial situation of the club was very different in April 2011 to that which existed in October 2011 due to the 'lost' five months with BIL adding to the overall debt position with additional deferred wages, fees and costs. The structure of payments over five years ensured that the Football Creditor debt would be paid in full. The club was 'hopelesly bust and to cover the FC debt day one would have rendered the purchase unviable in anyone's terms with its liabilities, potential value as a going concern as a League 2 club and restricted (by Council covenant requiring 50% of any uplift) development value. It is a matter of record that the PFA objected to the staff debt being paid in advance of the players contractual obligations and given that debt was somewhere north of £3m that dictated the nature of the settlement. There were already precedents for such resolutions with the Football League.

I could go on ...... If you look all the information you require IS in the public domain. Look at the Trust website and the Pasoti links to the Trust and the Story So Far. I cannot comment on whether James Brent 'got a good deal' or not. Only time and circumstances will determine that. What it was, though, was the only deal to save the club that the administrator considered could be delivered and even Guilfoyle famously went on record that he did not think such a deal could be done. It was and within four weeks too. Given the complexities of dealing with stakeholders, secured creditors, the Football League and the required 300 signatories to secure the Football Creditors debt (when any one failing to sign could scupper the deal) that it was ever completed was pretty remarkable. It is no wonder that given the Council's robust position on future development, coupled with the reality of the complexities of doing a deal quickly, as circumstances dictated, that any other so called bidders fought shy or in BIL's case failed to deliver.

It is easy over time, given the infamous twists and turns to forget what actually happened and it is equally easy to see how sometimes myths turn to 'facts'. The truth is that all the facts in terms of statements made are publicly available and far from a 'cloak of secrecy' I doubt whether there has ever been such a comprehensive record of such an administration process, given that it took place in the full glare of widely accessible internet availability and use and the explosion of social networking."

I read that Knecht. My point is that to me Guilfoyle didn't want to consider Brent's, or anyone else's other than the BIL bid, for one reason only. And that reason was that Ridsdale was involved in the BIL bid. If the BIL bid was not considered for months and months like it was, as the only viable bid, then I believe more people might have been interested.

Who knows how many other interested parties there might have been if the figures being bandied around were the same as the actual price that James Brent bought the club for? And would The Trust have thrown their support behind James Brent so quickly had there been other bids on the table? Bids like I have said that might have come from people with football experience who would have known that investment was badly needed in the playing and backroom staff areas that I don't think James Brent has invested enough. And would another possible owner with a footballing background have accepted Peter Ridsdales advice that Carl Fletcher was the man to keep Argyle in the Football League?

One problem with what you are suggesting Jock is that, unless there is an in-depth exhumation of the administration process, we will never know. Another is that it borders on libel.....

Oh well I'll await the knock on my door

Greenjock wrote:

Oh well I'll await the knock on my door

I'm sure we could all share a minibus to court!

It'll be fun being sued for everything I don't have. I'm unemployed, with an overdrawn bank account, living in a rented house. And I'll be able to ask loads of awkward questions in court that would have to be answered.

I don't know how I would sleep at night

Greenjock is innersent innosent inossent guilty

Andy_Symons wrote:

Greenjock is innersent innosent inossent guilty

Thanks for the support Andy

Now Grovehill has had he say again.

How long before he gets banished from the farm?

chriswebbfanclub wrote:

Now Grovehill has had he say again.

How long before he gets banished from the farm?

It won't be long before his password mysteriously doesn't work

They won't ban Grovehill. They need characters like him for the sheep and cough *made up Mod poster accounts* cough to pick on and attack- Grovehill posting creates interest and others post as a result.

Chemical Ali wrote:

They won't ban Grovehill. They need characters like him for the sheep and cough *made up Mod poster accounts* cough to pick on and attack- Grovehill posting creates interest and others post as a result.

Nail on head there CA, they need a controllable number or pasoti would be a dead duck, imagine the different perception if us lot posted on there!

GOB wrote:

Chemical Ali wrote:

They won't ban Grovehill. They need characters like him for the sheep and cough *made up Mod poster accounts* cough to pick on and attack- Grovehill posting creates interest and others post as a result.

Nail on head there CA, they need a controllable number or pasoti would be a dead duck, imagine the different perception if us lot posted on there!

Are you saying you don't post on there using a double-secret pseudonym, routed through a dozen servers to make your IP impossible to track?

Must just be me then

Andy_Symons wrote:

GOB wrote:

Chemical Ali wrote:

They won't ban Grovehill. They need characters like him for the sheep and cough *made up Mod poster accounts* cough to pick on and attack- Grovehill posting creates interest and others post as a result.

Nail on head there CA, they need a controllable number or pasoti would be a dead duck, imagine the different perception if us lot posted on there!

Are you saying you don't post on there using a double-secret pseudonym, routed through a dozen servers to make your IP impossible to track?

Must just be me then

No I post using my real name, Gavrilovich Bollockov.

Morning all

Thanks for the thoughts on this thread.

It's ironic that the point I was originally making has been demonstrated in some of the responses that followed, by people that clearly misunderstood it.

It used to be simple to get Argyle fans to rally behind a single unifying point - the old Trust.

But nowadays, following the last couple of years which have made everyone so suspicious and so likely to see agendas and ulterior motives in almost anything that is said about the club, the prospect of getting the keener fans to work together seems very distant.

We clearly need new structures to try to protect the club from a repeat of what we've just gone through, but I fear the febrile and splintered nature of the activist fanbase may make the building of those new structures very hard work indeed.

Proof of that can be found every day.

The mini-battering I've taken is of negligible concern to me, in comparison to that unpleasant truth.

It'll be someone else's turn soon, I'm sure!

John,

I'm not sure whether people misunderstood what you were saying, or deliberately took the discussion away from the points you were making; after all, several prominent individuals may not have liked the direction the discussion may have taken if your points had been debated fully.

On the more general point of the behaviour of the T&DT Trustees, I think the big problem they faced was that they forgot that their duty was to the Trust, not the football club. Huge mistakes were made, and I do think some of those involved should demonstrate some honour and step down.

As to the problem of a unified fanbase, that's something that I believe is now with us on a permanent basis. Unity is something that many of the more prominent supporters have no interest in - if everyone was given a free and equal hearing, some empires may start to crumble as alternative viewpoints get equal airtime. All any of us who care about our club can do is pretty much what you've done here; put forward our point of view, brace ourselves for the inevitable abuse and insults, and hope that some can see through the attacks and will take on board the points made.

I've said it before but it bears repeating - anyone wanting a fair hearing and a reasoned debate is far better off on here than any other supporters message board. In the time I've been posting here I've not witnessed anything like the sort of venom and intolerance that characterises pasoti these days. This site is also 100% opposed to the racism and bigotry we've seen at Home Park in recent months; I don't believe the same can be said of pasoti, and that sickens me.

I welcome your input here and on pasoti, the trouble you have been having is because there are definitely questions or topics that shouldn't be talked about on pasoti, our future is definitely being guided by people who know better than us and in the words of Tony Blair "you are with us or against us", it is just that simple.

John_Lloyd wrote:

Morning all

Thanks for the thoughts on this thread.

It's ironic that the point I was originally making has been demonstrated in some of the responses that followed, by people that clearly misunderstood it.

It used to be simple to get Argyle fans to rally behind a single unifying point - the old Trust.

But nowadays, following the last couple of years which have made everyone so suspicious and so likely to see agendas and ulterior motives in almost anything that is said about the club, the prospect of getting the keener fans to work together seems very distant.

We clearly need new structures to try to protect the club from a repeat of what we've just gone through, but I fear the febrile and splintered nature of the activist fanbase may make the building of those new structures very hard work indeed.

Proof of that can be found every day.

The mini-battering I've taken is of negligible concern to me, in comparison to that unpleasant truth.

It'll be someone else's turn soon, I'm sure!

don't worry about all that. while you were asleep they saved our football club.

Wot did u do in the wor?

http://www.pasoti.co.uk/talk/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=64542&start=240

I see Iggy is asking some of the same questions I raised about the amount is has cost James Brent to buy Argyle on Pasoti, and whether anyone else would've been interested if they knew that the actual price was nowhere near the figures being made public.

Esmer says that the CVA took care of around £9 million of the debt, the Football Creditors debt stands at around £3 million, payable over 5 years and being aided by ordinary fans putting their hands in their pocket on Brent's behalf, the sale of the ground deducted a big chunk, and if my earlier post was correct about Brent not being liable for the Ticketus debt, James Brent has himself a pretty good deal I would say.

IJN has stated that it was not Panda's job to create funding plans for potential buyers, but it was their job to get the best deal for creditors and to properly market the club. I just don't think that it was made abundantly clear how little it would cost anyone to buy Argyle, and that's why Brent had no competition from someone who would've been prepared to invest more in the playing and management side of things.

It wouldn't have taken that much investment to have ensured us comfortably surviving this season and to challenge next season. That doesn't appear like it's going to happen under Brent, even if we do manage to scrape enough points to survive this year.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't feel particularly "saved" right now

Greenjock wrote:

IJN has stated that it was not Panda's job to create funding plans for potential buyers, but it was their job to get the best deal for creditors and to properly market the club. I just don't think that it was made abundantly clear how little it would cost anyone to buy Argyle, and that's why Brent had no competition from someone who would've been prepared to invest more in the playing and management side of things.

Not just Ian Newell. The law. Guilfoyle was legally bound to get the best deal he could for the club. Whether he did, given the BIL debacle, is another question altogether.

At the start of the Administration process, would Brent have got the club with the deal he eventually got? I doubt it. Again another debate altogether again.

Slight correction there, Cerbs. The Administrator's job is to get the best deal possible for the creditors, not the club.

Sorry Andy, that's actually what I meant.