Administrator's report

Nick wrote:

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.

The old board must have known how bad things were when they ordered it .

Nick wrote:

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.

I personally heard Ridsdale raise the procurement of the pitch as an example of potential fraudulent activity.

Jon

The pitch was paid for or rather not paid for through another company. Not the one the report is about. I was expecting the pitch company to take action against that company and it's directors who, from memory, included Todd Wrathall and Stapleton but not all the football club directors.

No Grovehill he cannot openly lie about anything as he is as said an officer of the Court. But, there is always liberal use of the English language and ways to phrase something so that an alternative meaning can be construed without you actually saying it outright and plainly. MPs are supposed not to be allowed to lie in the Commons. However, many of them have said things that are untrue only to explain later that they had never said that at all and everyone had interpreted their words wrongly. Where were these "other" bidders who were put off ever mentioned previously if they were not two of the three we knew about? When you don't add any meat to a statement then it is open to all sorts of a conspiracy theorists imagination. I'm not saying there were not two other bidders we knew nothing about because I don't know that there weren't any. Anymore than anyone else knows that there were. Except the Admin people of course and as they did not take this opportunity to spill any beans they will be the only ones who ever do know.

I've posted on the "other" site (I think on a Development Trust Thread) the direct quote from a Trust ISC meeting which discussed discouraging other bidders.

You can google "Argyle Trust" and see for yourself if you don't believe me.

I suspect that Brenda's is smart enough to have proof before he publishes what some may claim are "untruths"

JonB wrote:

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.

JonB wrote:

Nick wrote:

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.

I personally heard Ridsdale raise the procurement of the pitch as an example of potential fraudulent activity.

Jon

Thanks Jon.

Dougie wrote:

The pitch was paid for or rather not paid for through another company. Not the one the report is about. I was expecting the pitch company to take action against that company and it's directors who, from memory, included Todd Wrathall and Stapleton but not all the football club directors.

Good point, Dougie. I'd forgotten that. What a bloody mess.

So which "other bidders" did they discuss then? Was this specific bidders or just any other bidders who happened along?

Use of language to disguise a truth very famously used by an American President call Clinton. Categorical statement on US television to the Nation. "I never had sex with that woman". Never was he called a liar and it was explained that interpretation of sex with that woman meant sexual intercourse. He didn't say they didn't do anything else and most people would conclude that doing anything of a sexual nature with somebody else was "having sex" except him and a thesaurus of definitions/alternative meanings. Just shows you can tell a lie by telling the truth if you are liberal with your interpretation and politicians do this all the time.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

So which "other bidders" did they discuss then? Was this specific bidders or just any other bidders who happened along?

Don't ask me, I wasn't there.

Ask the person who is now the Club President, he was there, he should know.


Use of language to disguise a truth very famously used by an American President call Clinton. Categorical statement on US television to the Nation. "I never had sex with that woman". Never was he called a liar and it was explained that interpretation of sex with that woman meant sexual intercourse. He didn't say they didn't do anything else and most people would conclude that doing anything of a sexual nature with somebody else was "having sex" except him and a thesaurus of definitions/alternative meanings. Just shows you can tell a lie by telling the truth if you are liberal with your interpretation and politicians do this all the time.

I'm not getting into a debate about who fu sorry, "had sex" with who in the Argyle takeover or at Trust ISC meetings!

Nick wrote:

Dougie wrote:

The pitch was paid for or rather not paid for through another company. Not the one the report is about. I was expecting the pitch company to take action against that company and it's directors who, from memory, included Todd Wrathall and Stapleton but not all the football club directors.

Good point, Dougie. I'd forgotten that. What a bloody mess.

A mess indeed. I didn't know this (from Graham Clark over the way)

Quote :

While you are at it could you also ask how the debts incurred by Home Park Properties Ltd apparently got rolled into the eventual CVA so that many of the professional companies that provided advice ans services on the ill fated World Cup bid didn't get paid. The same situation applied to Inscape's the pitch company. Was that part of any deal with Mastpoint?

Sensible, I think the point is that the whole process stank and still does. Once Brent threw his hat in the ring the decision was made to support this bid no matter what. As has been pointed out, the trust minutes show that ANY other bids would have been sabotaged.

Now Brents bid was definitely much better than the Heaney,ridsdale,former directors bid, but who knows who else might have been interested? Im not saying Brent bribed anyone to get them on board, he didn't have to, any fool could see that by saying the right things to certain individuals ensured a smooth passage with no competition. People who were in positions of power with the fanbase who have admitted they were willing to go on hunger strike to ensure Heaneys bid failed would definitely be a useful ally don't you think?

And any other bidders who were interested may have been put off by the prospect of a hostile set of fans who were making it clear that they were prepared to cause loads of trouble and im sure guilfoyles company will confirm this, as well as Stapletons accountancy firm, who were also being targeted on pasoti, as well as the small matter of the £17 million pricetag being bandied around. An amount that will be not on the same planet as the amount James Brent will pay, aided by donations from ordinary working class fans, whilst he pays decent local businesses peanuts for the losses they have had to accept.

Nail hit squarely on the head there Greenjock.

My point is quite basic though Grovehill. I thought it was said previously that there were minutes of the meetings taken when the "dissuading" of other bidders was discussed. If this was true then surely to discuss it the other bidders must have been known and that would have been outed by now by somebody. The very fact that we have no idea if there were other bidders should tell you all you need to know. The only point I was making about the US sexgate was that you can use the English language to mean a lot of things you never actually said or vice versa depending what you want people to believe.

I'm not in love with the way the Administration was conducted greenjock anymore than most. If there was a carve up in the background then it almost certainly would have been to get Ridsdale to acquire the club. Was the thing done properly or was the marketing done properly is my doubt even if I cannot know for sure what the truth is. It looks like it's fishy so chances are it may well be fishy is where I come from in this. I like others have to make assumptions based on what I do know and the rest is pure conjecture. I said previously that if a serious bidder had come forward with a sound proposal which was better than the Brent bid and better for Argyle and therefore us the supporters, then why would they be afraid of anything. Business people are not easily put off by a band of marauding football fans when their product is proved to be in their interests. I think that Guilfoyle meant two of the three other bidders and did not mean any other party or at least that is how I read it. His use of specific language to imply something different without ever having said it is possibly meant to mislead or rather stir. He hasn't lied to anyone he just lets others imaginations take hold and run riot all by themselves.

It's an interesting point don't you think to consider if others might have been interested in buying the club knowing that the council would by the ground off you immediately at a profit.

So the £13 million creditors debt becomes a mere £100K, the football debt is unusually spread over 5 years, the Lombard debt is cleared and in affect turned into a profit. It's a very good deal for the buyer (and I don't begrudge Brent doing it).

Still don't understand how much Mastpoint are getting back and how. Or how that with the football debt and now deferred admin fees will affect the playing budget.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

My point is quite basic though Grovehill. I thought it was said previously that there were minutes of the meetings taken when the "dissuading" of other bidders was discussed. If this was true then surely to discuss it the other bidders must have been known and that would have been outed by now by somebody. The very fact that we have no idea if there were other bidders should tell you all you need to know. The only point I was making about the US sexgate was that you can use the English language to mean a lot of things you never actually said or vice versa depending what you want people to believe.

I'm not in love with the way the Administration was conducted greenjock anymore than most. If there was a carve up in the background then it almost certainly would have been to get Ridsdale to acquire the club. Was the thing done properly or was the marketing done properly is my doubt even if I cannot know for sure what the truth is. It looks like it's fishy so chances are it may well be fishy is where I come from in this. I like others have to make assumptions based on what I do know and the rest is pure conjecture. I said previously that if a serious bidder had come forward with a sound proposal which was better than the Brent bid and better for Argyle and therefore us the supporters, then why would they be afraid of anything. Business people are not easily put off by a band of marauding football fans when their product is proved to be in their interests. I think that Guilfoyle meant two of the three other bidders and did not mean any other party or at least that is how I read it. His use of specific language to imply something different without ever having said it is possibly meant to mislead or rather stir. He hasn't lied to anyone he just lets others imaginations take hold and run riot all by themselves.

See the entry dated 8th March.Guilfoyle did not market the club on the say so of Ridsdale and Hinchcliffe and therefore could not possibly said to have done his job properly in respect of getting the best deal for creditors or the club,for that matter.It all stinks.

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

I may be entirely wrong but looking at Graham's 'highlight' figures in the opening post on the pasoti thread, might it be correct to assume that JB only purchased PAFC's debt and liability (liability might be the wrong word - I mean liability for running costs from the point when he took over onwards), and only forked out the 100K for the CVA and the 238K administator's fees?

Edited to add: what else is/was there to purchase? Honest question.

Ok greenskin that article does indeed seem to confirm that the thing was fishy or rather no proper marketing was done by the Administrators. However it doesn't say there ever were other bidders we didn't know about. I've always questioned the marketing of the club and have never thought it was done properly anyway with or without that article. I've also always thought there should be an investigation into the conduct of the Administration but I doubt there ever will be so they will walk away scot free from any blame and leave us to contemplate exactly what they did do to warrant payment of any fee.

I can understand where conspiracy theories come from and why people have them. The moment you conduct anything in secret and only release the bare minimum information you have to will lead to this. What it does is allows all manner of theories to develope whilst none of them are ever proved to be right or wrong. Given the disatisfaction with the Administrators people are going to believe whatever they see as a possible or valid opinion that isn't disproved and we all have our own theories on the subject. I have always preferred to believe what I can see and know rather than unproved assumptions which is why I don't believe there were any other bidders in hiding. That is just my take on it but I do accept other people will see it completely differently. Without any meat on the bones it will never be proved whose theory is right or wrong and you end up with a mixture of possibility rather than anything else.

SensibleGreen, the Trust ISC discussed "discouraging other bidders" when only the first three- Brent, BIL, & Buttivant, were known.

Anyone who made a bid, or even considered doing so after these three may have been "discouraged" in some way or another, if only by the vociferous support for someone who said he didn't want to buy the club. It was also known that Webb boasted on Pasotiof having told Ridsdale that the "fans wouldn't stand for " Kassam buying the club.

Who knows, perhaps Kassam would have matched BIL's bid and paid all the debts and given the club away for a quid.

An outside chance I accept, but we shall never know, thanks to the "discouragement"

Grovehill wrote:

SensibleGreen, the Trust ISC discussed "discouraging other bidders" when only the first three- Brent, BIL, & Buttivant, were known.

Anyone who made a bid, or even considered doing so after these three may have been "discouraged" in some way or another, if only by the vociferous support for someone who said he didn't want to buy the club. It was also known that Webb boasted on Pasotiof having told Ridsdale that the "fans wouldn't stand for " Kassam buying the club.

Who knows, perhaps Kassam would have matched BIL's bid and paid all the debts and given the club away for a quid.

An outside chance I accept, but we shall never know, thanks to the "discouragement"

I heard he threatened to keep commentating

Grovehill I kind of get the feeling that you think you are actually telling me something that proves a point with your post. No offence but what you have posted is more or less a confirmation of my last paragraph in my last post. "discourage other bidders". What bidders were there and indeed was anyone truthfully put off by the barking dogs. We just do not know because nobody came forward. You seem to choose to believe there were others which was the very point I was making. Some people will think one way and others the complete opposite. Without any facts both or neither could be right or wrong. I don't say your theory is wrong but that I just don't share it and have my own.

Nick wrote:

I may be entirely wrong but looking at Graham's 'highlight' figures in the opening post on the pasoti thread, might it be correct to assume that JB only purchased PAFC's debt and liability (liability might be the wrong word - I mean liability for running costs from the point when he took over onwards), and only forked out the 100K for the CVA and the 238K administator's fees?

Edited to add: what else is/was there to purchase? Honest question.

Here's me being a tool and quoting myself and answering my own question but there was the 17% up front of wages owed to the staff too.

Nick wrote:

Nick wrote:

I may be entirely wrong but looking at Graham's 'highlight' figures in the opening post on the pasoti thread, might it be correct to assume that JB only purchased PAFC's debt and liability (liability might be the wrong word - I mean liability for running costs from the point when he took over onwards), and only forked out the 100K for the CVA and the 238K administator's fees?

Edited to add: what else is/was there to purchase? Honest question.

Here's me being a tool and quoting myself and answering my own question but there was the 17% up front of wages owed to the staff too.

There is also whatever is owed to Mastpoint. The bits not dealt with by the CVA settlement to other creditors of .77 in the pound. They were due in part to be paid back from future tv money (thus another source of income being denied the club) but nowhere can one find out how much is owed. Given those who seem to have been close to the process are mute on the subject. Nothing in the press ever as far as I can tell. No public pronouncements. No whispers from the 'what did you do in the war' crew.

Anyway whatever way you look at it the club is lumbered with debt in the form of deferred payments to players, staff, the administrators and Mastpoint that have got to affect the all important playing budget.

Things are getting a bit heated down on the farm. Members of the Trust are now openly denying having said things that are recorded in their own Minutes.

The trouble is, the more they deny things that are undeniable, the more I think there is still to come out.

There are so many questions that we'll probably never get to the bottom of. Maybe one day the Trust will be in a position to carry out a thorough investigation employing financial experts and it should start from the day Stapes stitched us up to the methods used to ensure that Brent became the new owner, if only to clear the suspicion surrounding one or two. Hopefully the Trust will be able to carry out such a thing sooner rather than later.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

What bidders were there and indeed was anyone truthfully put off by the barking dogs. .

Well if you came out in the media and stated "I've got a football club going on the cheap, 6k fans with potential for 10k more, wage bill quite high but reduce-able come June, fees needed up front less than 1m", I'd garner that it wouldn't just be James Brent interested.