Administrator's report

Graham Clark's posted on pasoti that the administrator's final report has been published and should be available here later today.

He's also posted a summary of some of the key points. The whole thing should make, er, interesting reading.

Graham Clarke has said this in one of his posts about something contained in the report:

As a parting shot by BG and probably uniquely in a legal document such as his Final report he states in para. 6.15

"The Joint Administrator's identified several alternative interested parties between August 2011 and October 2011 but all withdrew their interest following a campaign instigated by the Club fans"

Interesting reading.

Would like to know who the several alternative interested parties were when we were told the was no alternative!

Hang on a minute, wasn't this the main thrust of Grovehill's argument about the deal? I was always lead to believe - even when I was on the Trust Board - that the only interested parties were O'Heaney, Buttivant and Brent?

Unleash the dogs and you will be rewarded Look into my eyes............

Andy_Symons wrote:

Hang on a minute, wasn't this the main thrust of Grovehill's argument about the deal? I was always lead to believe - even when I was on the Trust Board - that the only interested parties were O'Heaney, Buttivant and Brent?

What with the dogs being unleashed, drooling in anticipation of future roles within the club, a £17 million price tag and a distinct lack of marketing of the potential of the club, there was also the Riddler factor , whereby any new buyer had to satisfy his needs and those of those who had hired him.
Argyle would and should have been a bargain for a football entrepreneur.
Instead, the stitch up raged for months and months with the bucket rattlers aiding the sting with promises of parking spaces.

Only at Parochial Argyle FC.

Andy_Symons wrote:

Hang on a minute, wasn't this the main thrust of Grovehill's argument about the deal? I was always lead to believe - even when I was on the Trust Board - that the only interested parties were O'Heaney, Buttivant and Brent?

I would guess he's referring to Kassam. Now even the most ardent sceptic on here who does some basic research would surely not want him anywhere near the club. He was Ridsdale's last gamble wasn't he, how desperate do you have to be?

Gillfool was the one who kept saying " there is no alternative " over and over again . It's on record . So what is the truth .

greengenes wrote:

Gillfool was the one who kept saying " there is no alternative " over and over again . It's on record . So what is the truth .

Who knows for sure but he was bestie mates with Ridsdale and that piece from the final report is clear enough.

Tringreen wrote:

greengenes wrote:

Gillfool was the one who kept saying " there is no alternative " over and over again . It's on record . So what is the truth .

Who knows for sure but he was bestie mates with Ridsdale and that piece from the final report is clear enough.

It's,clear to many that a stitch up was attempted by certain individuals .

greengenes wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

greengenes wrote:

Gillfool was the one who kept saying " there is no alternative " over and over again . It's on record . So what is the truth .

Who knows for sure but he was bestie mates with Ridsdale and that piece from the final report is clear enough.

It's,clear to many that a stitch up was attempted by certain individuals .

I guess that Brent was 'always there' as a reluctant but nice gentleman, who wanted the club on his terms, fair enough. Who knows how he managed to get the local activists on side? One can only surmise. He's a clever and articulate fella for sure. It would appear that he just sat tight waiting for the Ridsdale/Heaney and others plan to fail. Meanwhile other interested parties were either told it was a done deal or told it would cost £17 million maybe ?

We're stuck with him now anyway and it's comforting that he thinks the top end of the BSP is no worse than Div 2. Also how much faith he has in Fletch's ability.................. maybe to take us there ! Shed some staff and get more and more unpaid Aviva volunteers on board.

Nick Wall wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

Hang on a minute, wasn't this the main thrust of Grovehill's argument about the deal? I was always lead to believe - even when I was on the Trust Board - that the only interested parties were O'Heaney, Buttivant and Brent?

I would guess he's referring to Kassam. Now even the most ardent sceptic on here who does some basic research would surely not want him anywhere near the club. He was Ridsdale's last gamble wasn't he, how desperate do you have to be?

But Nick, Kassam was just one last ditch throw of the dice by Ridsdale. Guilfoyle's report says several other interested parties, and even gave a timeframe of a few months, so I find it difficult to believe that Kassam is who Guilfoyle means.

I have been accused of posting potentially libellous comments about the takeover process, with reference to the relationship between Ridsdale and Guilfoyle, so I'd better not say too much with our new found "new members" being slightly anti-ATD to say the least, but this goes a long way to reaffirming my belief that the club was poorly marketed, for whatever reason, meaning that James Brent got an absolute bargain, and this was partly due to the people who "saved" the club backing James Brent straight away and doing everything possible to put off any other potential bidders, when possibly we could have had a new owner with a football background who was prepared to invest in the playing and management side of things, with the sort of money that would have ensured that we were safe from the relegation scrap long ago this season, and would be out of this god foresaken league next year.

I'm not even going to bother looking on Pasoti to see what the "saviours" are saying, but if challenged I reckon the usual suspects will trot out the usual lines about being proud of ruining other bids, proud of giving out Guilfoyles telephone number etc. Maybe there weren't any other serious bids from people only interested in property development, but it would be interesting to know who the "several" other interested parties were.

Greenjock wrote:

Nick Wall wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

Hang on a minute, wasn't this the main thrust of Grovehill's argument about the deal? I was always lead to believe - even when I was on the Trust Board - that the only interested parties were O'Heaney, Buttivant and Brent?

I would guess he's referring to Kassam. Now even the most ardent sceptic on here who does some basic research would surely not want him anywhere near the club. He was Ridsdale's last gamble wasn't he, how desperate do you have to be?

But Nick, Kassam was just one last ditch throw of the dice by Ridsdale. Guilfoyle's report says several other interested parties, and even gave a timeframe of a few months, so I find it difficult to believe that Kassam is who Guilfoyle means.

I have been accused of posting potentially libellous comments about the takeover process, with reference to the relationship between Ridsdale and Guilfoyle, so I'd better not say too much with our new found "new members" being slightly anti-ATD to say the least, but this goes a long way to reaffirming my belief that the club was poorly marketed, for whatever reason, meaning that James Brent got an absolute bargain, and this was partly due to the people who "saved" the club backing James Brent straight away and doing everything possible to put off any other potential bidders, when possibly we could have had a new owner with a football background who was prepared to invest in the playing and management side of things, with the sort of money that would have ensured that we were safe from the relegation scrap long ago this season, and would be out of this god foresaken league next year.

I'm not even going to bother looking on Pasoti to see what the "saviours" are saying, but if challenged I reckon the usual suspects will trot out the usual lines about being proud of ruining other bids, proud of giving out Guilfoyles telephone number etc. Maybe there weren't any other serious bids from people only interested in property development, but it would be interesting to know who the "several" other interested parties were.

I should add that the people who sabotaged any other potential bidders were doing so because they believed that this was in the best interests of the club, but stopping the Heaney/former directors bid was totally justified, but if other bidders were scared off by the threats, then this is another thing altogether. I just hope their blind faith in Mr Brent doesn't come back to bite them/Argyle on the ass.

So many people only want "their " truth out there, a lot of it stinks, and I get a ban for trolling when asking questions such as these.

Matt Slater, who did quite a few decent articles on Argyle during the admin process, has stated that Argyle fans scared off at least two bids (from Guilfoyle's report)- I would say Kassam was one, would the other be Heaney/BIL (I don't think they were scared off, just couldn't complete) or was it another bid completely?

Quote :

Administrators' report into #pafc debacle has been filed & fans are angry at suggestion they scared off bidders..

Quote :

..Guilfoyle not having it, tho, "to suggest an officer of court would lie in a report is outrageous. And how could they know?"

Quote :

Guilfoyle says 2 bidders 'definitely' withdrew because of fan campaign. Also says his firm took same 'haircut' as bank on fees #pafc

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I spoke to Matt earlier this afternoon on behalf of the Trust.

We have a statement in response to the report.

"The publication of P and A's final report concludes a sorry chapter of Plymouth Argyle's history that saw the club nearly die and its fans and staff suffer financial and emotional hardship.

We condemn the implication in the report that 'alternative interested parties' withdrew their interest following fans' campaigns against them. While we're immensely proud of the roles fans played in securing Argyle's survival, we believe the withdrawal of a number of 'bids' had much more to do with their failure to persuade anyone that they had the money to do the deal.

While Mr Guilfoyle may have been happy to see the club sold for a handful of beans, Argyle fans wanted more, and we're glad the pantomime is now over and done with.

The Trust will also be asking Plymouth's MPs to raise with Secretary of State Vince Cable the report into the conduct of the club's former Directors before we went into administration as we believe there are significant questions to answer about how they allowed Argyle to dangle on the brink for so long"

@Greenjock. I guess we've gone past the time where any new information is going to come to light that will change people's opinions on the process. It is not beyond the capability of Guilfoyle to make a barbed comment without any substantiation. In terms of the club being marketed properly then that was Guilfoyle's job and once he had settled on the Heaney bid he should have insisted that the exclusivity payment was made in full immediately and that he stuck to the numerous deadlines he let slip. Once it was clear to Guilfoyle, months after everyone else it seems, that Heaney had no chance of completing the deal then we were another 4 months into the process with 4 months more liabilities.

Of course we were then an even more distressed sale and Brent, like it or not, at the time saved the club.

In addition of course we didn't have a pre-season and look at the potential ramifications that our first 9 games may have.

During the process and indeed I haven't changed this opinion I wanted a club that tried to where possible to represent its community by living within its means. That means using local suppliers where possible and paying them. It means utilising the local talent of the South West and it means offering affordable admission. If that income meant that we played in the BSP then so be it. Call me an Aviva Village idiot...if that is what living within our means makes me , so be it. Argyle for me is much more than what division we are playing in. I went to Arsenal, it was shit. Shit view, shit atmosphere and a military operation to sit with your mates. I went to Barnet this year and loved it. Stood on the terraces, nice few pints, met up with old friends and we got beat 2-0.

Hey ho the rich tapestry of life.

There is a world of difference between what you actually know and what some people may only suspect. To state categorically there was a stich up attempt is just simply not correct. There is absolutely no evidence in the public domain to substantiate that as a statement. It may well be true but where is the proof and what is it?

The two who were scared off as the Admin suggests were probably Butivant and Heaney with an alternative being Kassam as a third option. There was never any suggestion that I can recall that there was anyone else in the frame other than Brent to those three. If there was even a hint of a fifth option or even sixth option then I missed it and would like to know if anyone knows who they were or where it was stated publicly they existed.

Look at it another way. If there was a potential bidder out there we did not hear about, why would they back out on the threat to others if their bid was a good and decent one? Had details been published of a bid, or information obtained, why would the "dogs of war" be unleashed if it was indeed a good prospect and acceptable bidder. Why would anyone be afraid and it does not make any sense.

I do not think that supporters backed Brent and his bid just because of any possibility of a bribe of position and iffluence. The bid was backed rightly or wrongly because people genuinely believed it to be the best on offer for the club. What this report appears to do is make vague suggestions rather than put any facts into public hands. Words can be used to muddy as well as make clear and you would have to wonder if maybe it could be a bit of revenge on the part of the Admin who had an axe to grind with Brent due to not getting the whole of their pound of flesh. Not lying just using the truth ecconomically and a hint or two.

I don't know any better than the next person what happened and who was there or not there. I do believe that the Administrators did not market the club fully and actively seek bidders. I think those that were in the frame came to them rather than them selling the club to selected people. That is based on my own opinion of how the process seemed to be undertaken rather than inside knowledge. All other opinions are pretty much based in the same way.

Nick Wall wrote:

@Greenjock. I guess we've gone past the time where any new information is going to come to light that will change people's opinions on the process.

Not necessarily Nick, if - & it's a big if but far from an impossibility- this becomes a criminal investigation, I'm sure some eye watering details will emerge, including the identity - if they exist - of these alleged interested parties.

Jon

I don't think kassam was one of the parties scared off by the fans. Ridsdale flew off to meet him right at the end of the saga, before returning with his tail between his legs and stating that Brent was always his preferred option. Heaney/former directors/ridsdales bid was allowed to rumble on for months with just a fraction of the advertised £1 million paid for preferred bidder status.

That meant any other potential bidders were under the impression that the deal was done because who was going to risk a million pounds if they weren't going to complete? This fee was non refundable. Guilfoyles close relationship with ridsdale kept the bid as preferred even though Heaney never stumped up the cash. In this period the staff went without wages and we were forced to sell off our best players, who are performing far above league 2 now incidentally, for a bag of buttons. And all the while ridsdales and guilfoyles fees kept racking up.

Eventually even guilfoyle couldn't justify Heaney/former directors/ ridsdales bid still having preferred bidder status and Brent who had always said he would bid if no one else did, stepped in and got a good deal, backed by the superfans who threatened to derail any other bids.

As soon as the Heaney fronted bid failed to pay for exclusivity, the plug should have been pulled and other bids should have been invited. Yet there are people who still applaud ridsdale for helping save the club?

My gripe is that because of a combination of lets say guilfoyles reluctance to see his buddy ridsdale lose on on acquiring the club for a whole English pound, and the dogs being unleashed on anyone other than James Brent, that we will never know if the likes of the Russian guy who bought Bournemouth shortly afterwards, Bournemouth with their huge potential! would have had a look at argyle.

For my money, James Brent recognised pretty quickly that he only needed to get a handful of high profile supporters on his side, and the ball was in his court.

Now we have players and club staff who went months without full pay, having to wait years to get what is rightfully theirs, and relying on feckin shirt auctions to get an extra fiver a month, which is all saving James Brent mote money. It's disgraceful and yet he's a hero who has hardly invested in players or a real manager with real coaches, and we're sat sweating on survival, months after he "saved" us, with a little help from his friends.

JonB wrote:

Nick Wall wrote:

@Greenjock. I guess we've gone past the time where any new information is going to come to light that will change people's opinions on the process.

Not necessarily Nick, if - & it's a big if but far from an impossibility- this becomes a criminal investigation, I'm sure some eye watering details will emerge, including the identity - if they exist - of these alleged interested parties.

Jon

A criminal investigation into who(m), Jon?

Will it be possible to see or perhaps work out how much James Brent paid for the club?

Also I see some of the administrators fees are being carried forward. A bit shaved off next years playing budget?

[quote="Greenjock"]

Greenjock wrote:

Nick Wall wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

Hang on a minute, wasn't this the main thrust of Grovehill's argument about the deal? I was always lead to believe - even when I was on the Trust Board - that the only interested parties were O'Heaney, Buttivant and Brent?

I would guess he's referring to Kassam. Now even the most ardent sceptic on here who does some basic research would surely not want him anywhere near the club. He was Ridsdale's last gamble wasn't he, how desperate do you have to be?

But Nick, Kassam was just one last ditch throw of the dice by Ridsdale. Guilfoyle's report says several other interested parties, and even gave a timeframe of a few months, so I find it difficult to believe that Kassam is who Guilfoyle means.

I have been accused of posting potentially libellous comments about the takeover process, with reference to the relationship between Ridsdale and Guilfoyle, so I'd better not say too much with our new found "new members" being slightly anti-ATD to say the least, but this goes a long way to reaffirming my belief that the club was poorly marketed, for whatever reason, meaning that James Brent got an absolute bargain, and this was partly due to the people who "saved" the club backing James Brent straight away and doing everything possible to put off any other potential bidders, when possibly we could have had a new owner with a football background who was prepared to invest in the playing and management side of things, with the sort of money that would have ensured that we were safe from the relegation scrap long ago this season, and would be out of this god foresaken league next year.

I'm not even going to bother looking on Pasoti to see what the "saviours" are saying, but if challenged I reckon the usual suspects will trot out the usual lines about being proud of ruining other bids, proud of giving out Guilfoyles telephone number etc. Maybe there weren't any other serious bids from people only interested in property development, but it would be interesting to know who the "several" other interested parties were.

I should add that the people who sabotaged any other potential bidders were doing so because they believed that this was in the best interests of the club, but stopping the Heaney/former directors bid was totally justified, but if other bidders were scared off by the threats, then this is another thing altogether. I just hope their blind faith in Mr Brent doesn't come back to bite them/Argyle on the ass. [/quote]

This is what I have been banging on about for months.

Before people get too deeply into the "well this is just what Brenda's saying" argument, they should remember that as an Officer of The Court he has to meet certain standards. Unlike others, he cannot just make inaccurate claims to support his actions.

As I have posted elsewhere, it's a matter of public record that the Trust ISC were openly discussing discouraging bids other than Brent's (Minutes of their meetings are available on-line) so it's pretty rich if the same people are now saying that wasn't the case.

I won't say too much as I am aware that a certain MP got lots of Solicitors letters after making some comments.

I suspect Dougie that the answer to your first question is a resounding NO. Will we ever know? Another resounding NO. This will continue to lead to wild specualtion and opinions of all sorts for a very long time. I'd also be curious to know what prosecution or even investigation. For what against whom?

Well, for generic example, Trading whilst insolvent is an offence; investigations into which can be prompted some time hence by catalysts such as an administrator's report.

The administrator however, has no control over either the direction or parameters of any resultant police investigation which arguably is why many such reports fail to point fingers with, shall we say, the fullest of vigour.

That aside, it'll be interesting to see if anything comes out of P&A's confidential report into Argyle.

Jon

Is anything mentioned about the pitch and how it was never properly paid for? Apologies but I've had neither the time nor energy to read the report today. Only ask in relation to the potential legal action/trading while insolvent points that have been made. As far as I could make out at the time, we essentially got the new pitch for half a pence of feck all (plus interest) and I'm sure the suppliers were none too happy.