Administrator's report

Mock Cuncher wrote:

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.

Now that Andy scrounges a free ticket and sells his own outside the ground for a fiver every week, he would probably have been interested himself on those terms.

Plymouth Argyle owner in legal row with administrator over who owes who


PLYMOUTH Argyle could be owed a "significant" sum of money by the company that led the club's administration, its owner has said.

The Pilgrims are in a dispute with The P&A Partnership over a five-figure sum, as a row over the details of James Brent's takeover continues.


The Sheffield-based firm was appointed to find a buyer for the Pilgrims in March last year, after the club hit the wall with debts of £20million.

Mr Brent rescued Argyle from extinction in October after a series of failed buyout bids led to staff and players working for months without pay.

P&A have now formally ended their involvement with the Greens by filing a court notice to end the administration process.

As part of those formalities, a final report to creditors has been compiled stating that the firm is "pursuing a debt from the purchaser" to the tune of £18,449.

The Herald understands that both sides have now engaged lawyers, and that the dispute potentially centres around a much higher five-figure sum.

Mr Brent said: "Based on our calculations the administrators owe the club a significant amount, and we are in discussions with them to better understand the net amount owed to us."

But P&A partner Brendan Guilfoyle, who led the administration process, said: "We believe Mr Brent's counter claims to be without merit."

The creditors' report also reveals how P&A racked up costs of £883,635 during the process. However, the takeover deal has seen them paid just £238,010, with a further £100,000 due in October and a final £50,000 dependent on future player sales.

Mr Guilfoyle said that P&A, their lawyers Walker Morris and mortgage company Lombard each took a "significant haircut" to facilitate the sale.

He added that prospective owners should be better vetted in future, after several bids fell through due to a lack of cash.

Argyle Fans' Trust chairman Warren Bowden said: "This report concludes a sorry chapter of Plymouth Argyle's history and we're hopeful of a much more positive future."

He also questioned the report's assertion that other bidders pulled out following a "campaign" by fans. A bid fronted by developer Kevin Heaney was withdrawn amid funding concerns and an offer led by businessman Paul Buttivant had been rejected. Two others withdrew when their late interest was revealed.


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

This little nugget seems to have gone un-noticed (except by me ):

Quote :

Transfer income pf £411k

Jack Stephens £150k

Joe Mason £250k

Those two youth lads we sold to Liverpool & west Brom (?) £80k

Reda Johnson £100k (?)

Craig Noone £200k

Bradley W-P £150k

At least, I seem to remember these were the sort of figures we were fed at the time. Now I know that BWP went for a fraction of what we were told, but, seriously, £411k total for that lot? Anyone get the feeling we've been mugged off?

Andy_Symons wrote:

This little nugget seems to have gone un-noticed (except by me ):

Quote :

Transfer income pf £411k

Jack Stephens £150k

Joe Mason £250k

Those two youth lads we sold to Liverpool & west Brom (?) £80k

Reda Johnson £100k (?)

Craig Noone £200k

Bradley W-P £150k

At least, I seem to remember these were the sort of figures we were fed at the time. Now I know that BWP went for a fraction of what we were told, but, seriously, £411k total for that lot? Anyone get the feeling we've been mugged off?

Maybe that's what the club received after "consultancy fees" for arranging these fantastic transfers?

And the club will have to pay out another 100k in October, plus 50k from player sales (although we don't have to sell players, I have been told off by the farm boys for saying so) I wonder if Brent pays for anything up front?

When you think how many companies are entering administration at the moment you can see why the country is struggling with such huge finances going to so few whilst creditors seek out the crumbs.

This is from the BBC site:

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

May answers a few questions, but apparently still lots to pay off. I have posted before that I did not keep up with all the "ins and outs" of the process (lack of PC/personal happenings) but think that Mr B finished up with a very good deal.

Merv Plummer

Andy_Symons wrote:

This little nugget seems to have gone un-noticed (except by me ):

Quote :

Transfer income pf £411k

Jack Stephens £150k

Joe Mason £250k

Those two youth lads we sold to Liverpool & west Brom (?) £80k

Reda Johnson £100k (?)

Craig Noone £200k

Bradley W-P £150k

At least, I seem to remember these were the sort of figures we were fed at the time. Now I know that BWP went for a fraction of what we were told, but, seriously, £411k total for that lot? Anyone get the feeling we've been mugged off?

Without going back through the timeline weren't some of these sold prior to entering administration to reduce the debt to HRMC below the required level at which HRMC could appoint administrators. If that is the case they wouldn't be on this report. As Greenjock also says is the £411 nett of what we received after paying Mr "fixit" Hart.

Andy_Symons wrote:

This little nugget seems to have gone un-noticed (except by me ):

Quote :

Transfer income pf £411k

Jack Stephens £150k

Joe Mason £250k

Those two youth lads we sold to Liverpool & west Brom (?) £80k

Reda Johnson £100k (?)

Craig Noone £200k

Bradley W-P £150k

At least, I seem to remember these were the sort of figures we were fed at the time. Now I know that BWP went for a fraction of what we were told, but, seriously, £411k total for that lot? Anyone get the feeling we've been mugged off?

You're wrong, Noone, WrightPhillips and Johnson were sold before the club went into admin. The report only covers the admin period.

pafcineurope wrote:

This is from the BBC site:

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

May answers a few questions, but apparently still lots to pay off. I have posted before that I did not keep up with all the "ins and outs" of the process (lack of PC/personal happenings) but think that Mr B finished up with a very good deal.

Merv Plummer

Couple of things from the BBC report.

Firstly, the bloody fans did abuse Guilfoyle and his company, whether it was right or wrong even Mr President can surely remember the abusive calls and e-mails, and people were quite openly admitting do it at the time. Stapleton's firm was going to get the same treatment as well. Now I'm neither a Guilfoyle or Stapleton supporter, but that statment from Chris is bullshit.

"The Joint Administrators identified several alternative interested parties between August 2011 and October 2011 but all withdrew their interest following a campaign instigated by the fans," the report stated. That doesn't sound to me like just the Heaney bid being put off by well meaning fans, so hopefully Brenda will make public the details of these other bids shortly.

Secondly, my blind 84 year old gran could have negotiated a better deal for Joe Mason, even if it needed to be done pretty damn quickly. The fact that Ridsdale was not exactly in Cardiff City's good books might have had something to do with the fact that a proven Championship goalscorer, U-21 International with obvious ability and bags of potential, was sold to Cardiff City for £150k with NO add on fees attached ffs.

How much do you reckon it would cost a Premiership club to prise Mason off Cardiff right now? Couple of million minimum? And he can only get better. The whole admin process stinks. The actions of certain individuals during the process stinks, and hopefully pretty soon the full picture will emerge and then the Argyle fans can have a rethink on who is and who isn't a hero, and who was and who wasn't responsible for "saving" Argyle.

What is clear from the report is that we face quite a few seasons like this one before we can finally ride out the storm and with a self financing agenda, I'm not sure that we will.

Gareth Nicholson wrote:

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

Not so, make no mistake about it ~ when an administrator is appointed of any company he is appointed by the creditors with the express brief to serve the interests of those creditors before all else.

He is also there to serve himself and make as much money out of taking on the task as he can
the interests of the company and thereby of those who own it are irrelevant.

Given the amount of money being paid out to Guilfoyle's firm, I don't think the interests of the creditors have been best served at all; and in the case of the employees of the business as usual the little man has not only been shat on from a great height but continue to be shat on by Brent and co.

To blame the fans is quite shameful and being done purely as a smoke screen to cover up exactly who it was made the most capital out of the Football Club's demise and also disguise who will continue to make capital should it decline any further as a footballing entity.

merse wrote:

Gareth Nicholson wrote:

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

Not so, make no mistake about it ~ when an administrator is appointed of any company he is appointed by the creditors with the express brief to serve the interests of those creditors before all else.

He is also there to serve himself and make as much money out of taking on the task as he can
the interests of the company and thereby of those who own it are irrelevant.

Given the amount of money being paid out to Guilfoyle's firm, I don't think the interests of the creditors have been best served at all; and in the case of the employees of the business as usual the little man has not only been shat on from a great height but continue to be shat on by Brent and co.

To blame the fans is quite shameful and being done purely as a smoke screen to cover up exactly who it was made the most capital out of the Football Club's demise and also disguise who will continue to make capital should it decline any further as a footballing entity.

That is true Merse, but fan power definitely helped Brent get the club, possibly at the expense of another bid that could have been better for the clubs long term future, and for the creditors.

Guilfoyle kept the Heaney/Ridsdale/former directors bid in pole position for one reason only. How Ridsdale got to choose his own administrator is beyond me, but it seems to be common practice now. Maybe if all clubs opting to go into administration from now on will be forced to accept whichever administrator is appointed by the largest creditors, then this "cherry picking" of administrators known to the clubs will stop. If this happens then we may see a club go to the wall next time.

Where is the report available to read?

GOB wrote:

What is clear from the report is that we face quite a few seasons like this one before we can finally ride out the storm and with a self financing agenda, I'm not sure that we will.

It's the stand out issue for me. Straight off the top of the playing budget whichever way you slice it for some time to come.

Rickler wrote:

Where is the report available to read?

Not sure Rickler. The link I tried has not got the updated report. Anyone?

Greenjock wrote:

pafcineurope wrote:

This is from the BBC site:

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

May answers a few questions, but apparently still lots to pay off. I have posted before that I did not keep up with all the "ins and outs" of the process (lack of PC/personal happenings) but think that Mr B finished up with a very good deal.

Merv Plummer

Couple of things from the BBC report.

Firstly, the bloody fans did abuse Guilfoyle and his company, whether it was right or wrong even Mr President can surely remember the abusive calls and e-mails, and people were quite openly admitting do it at the time. Stapleton's firm was going to get the same treatment as well. Now I'm neither a Guilfoyle or Stapleton supporter, but that statment from Chris is bullshit.

"The Joint Administrators identified several alternative interested parties between August 2011 and October 2011 but all withdrew their interest following a campaign instigated by the fans," the report stated. That doesn't sound to me like just the Heaney bid being put off by well meaning fans, so hopefully Brenda will make public the details of these other bids shortly.

Secondly, my blind 84 year old gran could have negotiated a better deal for Joe Mason, even if it needed to be done pretty damn quickly. The fact that Ridsdale was not exactly in Cardiff City's good books might have had something to do with the fact that a proven Championship goalscorer, U-21 International with obvious ability and bags of potential, was sold to Cardiff City for £150k with NO add on fees attached ffs.

How much do you reckon it would cost a Premiership club to prise Mason off Cardiff right now? Couple of million minimum? And he can only get better. The whole admin process stinks. The actions of certain individuals during the process stinks, and hopefully pretty soon the full picture will emerge and then the Argyle fans can have a rethink on who is and who isn't a hero, and who was and who wasn't responsible for "saving" Argyle.

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

Just a few old topics there about the fan action. Used the search term unleash as I remember "unleash the dogs" was used.

If these kinds of campaigns were very much in the public eye then how many other potential bidders were put off by all this?

Greenjock wrote:

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.

This is exactly the issue for me, it's not about Heaney etc. it's about who else was put off by Brent's "friends", who else could have been a far better owner then a guy that isn't really interested in PAFC but development.

GOB wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

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.

This is exactly the issue for me, it's not about Heaney etc. it's about who else was put off by Brent's "friends", who else could have been a far better owner then a guy that isn't really interested in PAFC but development.

On the 3 threads I linked to earlier which show the extent of the "unleashing the dogs" campaigns you can see why other bidders will have been scared off.

Saved the club? Really?

It is not who was put off by Brent's friends. It was who was put off because Brenda didn't market the club properly. There were no "dogs of war" in April. When it became cloudy that the old directors were using Heaney to front a bid (and please no-one try and deny that) some people acting in the best interests of PAFC (in their opinion) believed he had no money. They were right. Buttivant confused the issue by throwing his hat into the ring. Did he have any money - no. By then Heaney had been given preferential status with his Ridsdale, Stapleton and Batley connections. At that point Brenda wasn't looking for other options. There was no-one to scare off. For four months there could have been no other bidders.

If Heaney had the money the club was his.

I participated in the campaign against Brenda, I participated in the campaign against Stapleton. My bottom line was that I didn't want anyone from the old regime getting control of the club.

I would do the same tomorrow.

I also firmly believe that if the supporters had not played their part Plymouth Argyle would have been in far worse ownership than we are now and could well have been liquidated.

Brenda is quoted by other people than Chris, Ian and Posty at the Pavilions meeting as saying there were no other options than Heaney.

One of the benefits of this website is there is no swear check. Having said that there are boundaries.

We got fuc..d by Brenda and we would have been royally f&&ked by Ridsdale.

The supporters who took part in the various campaigns were right and I'm proud to be one of them.

[quote="Yea Man"]

Greenjock wrote:

pafcineurope wrote:

This is from the BBC site:

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

May answers a few questions, but apparently still lots to pay off. I have posted before that I did not keep up with all the "ins and outs" of the process (lack of PC/personal happenings) but think that Mr B finished up with a very good deal.

Merv Plummer

Couple of things from the BBC report.

Firstly, the bloody fans did abuse Guilfoyle and his company, whether it was right or wrong even Mr President can surely remember the abusive calls and e-mails, and people were quite openly admitting do it at the time. Stapleton's firm was going to get the same treatment as well. Now I'm neither a Guilfoyle or Stapleton supporter, but that statment from Chris is bullshit.

"The Joint Administrators identified several alternative interested parties between August 2011 and October 2011 but all withdrew their interest following a campaign instigated by the fans," the report stated. That doesn't sound to me like just the Heaney bid being put off by well meaning fans, so hopefully Brenda will make public the details of these other bids shortly.

Secondly, my blind 84 year old gran could have negotiated a better deal for Joe Mason, even if it needed to be done pretty damn quickly. The fact that Ridsdale was not exactly in Cardiff City's good books might have had something to do with the fact that a proven Championship goalscorer, U-21 International with obvious ability and bags of potential, was sold to Cardiff City for £150k with NO add on fees attached ffs.

How much do you reckon it would cost a Premiership club to prise Mason off Cardiff right now? Couple of million minimum? And he can only get better. The whole admin process stinks. The actions of certain individuals during the process stinks, and hopefully pretty soon the full picture will emerge and then the Argyle fans can have a rethink on who is and who isn't a hero, and who was and who wasn't responsible for "saving" Argyle.

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

Just a few old topics there about the fan action. Used the search term unleash as I remember "unleash the dogs" was used.


No no Yea Man, all the former Trust Leader, who now has a far more important role and isn't quite so keen on the Trust, did was along with the rest of the fans "campaign for the best person to be given a chance to take over the club" That's what "You have 24 hours and we unleash the dogs ...." means. A tub-thumping post that was amongst others directed at Tony Wrathall, oh I won't bother going down the road of who suddenly wanted Wrathall to attend a game at HP where Chris himself would buy him a pint, and the subsequent shit storm that eminated from that.

And that shit storm was largely due to a certain IJN who tried using me to expose the person who had invited Wrathall to Home Park to be wined and dined by the staff who had gone without pay for so long, and who got to be a guest of honour walking on the new pitch that was ordered for £500,000 but the club never had the funds to pay for, so the company who supplied it had to make do with a paltry £4,000. And all because IJN was afraid of the guy who invited Wrathall, but didn't mind using me as the patsy to name him! The same IJN who is fed up of cowards and keyboard warriors, and bans people for "trolling" on Pasoti on a regular basis.

How times change.

The Trust "appear" to have firmly nailed their hopes on Brent's bid from the outset despite not knowing (I suspect) the details of that bid-staff paid over 5 years, debts rolled over to reduce available funds for the same period etc.

By so openly favouring a "reluctant" bidder, they were effectively deciding to not even consider any other bidders-who may have offered a far better deal (if only for the staff) than Brent.

If the Trust had concerns about how Brendan marketed the club, why didn't they do so themselves?

Grovehill wrote:

The Trust "appear" to have firmly nailed their hopes on Brent's bid from the outset despite not knowing (I suspect) the details of that bid-staff paid over 5 years, debts rolled over to reduce available funds for the same period etc.

By so openly favouring a "reluctant" bidder, they were effectively deciding to not even consider any other bidders-who may have offered a far better deal (if only for the staff) than Brent.

If the Trust had concerns about how Brendan marketed the club, why didn't they do so themselves?

And who was "leader" of the trust at the time?........

Brent's taxi driver

Conspiracy conspiracy conspiracy. Theory theory theory. If you examine the actual facts that are known there is absolutely no other bidder ever mentioned except those known about or any proof that anyone else was warned off or scared off. You could make up any old story about what might have been and there would be those that would take that as gospel and it would meld into folklore as reality. People want to believe there is a story other than the Administrators failing badly to market the club properly. To support their theory they take a bit of this story and a bit of that one and mix them up until it fits their opinion.

Just because several people have gotten carried away with the idea they saved the football club, which in itself is a myth, and people have taken a dislike to them, maybe for perfectly valid reasons, people or some want to believe they sold out to the devil or indeed cocked up the club. The facts known do not bear this out one bit but lets not stop a good story for the sake of facts. Neither you nor I are ever likely to know the full story of who did what, didn't do what they should or monies finally paid for anything. Whether anyone else was interested or not or nobody was there at all. In the meantime we can all make up our own version of events and be convinced it must be true. The secret is not to spell out your opinion as factual. That way it is as valid as the next persons because none of them will be proved or disproved.

merse wrote:

Gareth Nicholson wrote:

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

Not so, make no mistake about it ~ when an administrator is appointed of any company he is appointed by the creditors with the express brief to serve the interests of those creditors before all else.

He is also there to serve himself and make as much money out of taking on the task as he can
the interests of the company and thereby of those who own it are irrelevant.

Given the amount of money being paid out to Guilfoyle's firm, I don't think the interests of the creditors have been best served at all; and in the case of the employees of the business as usual the little man has not only been shat on from a great height but continue to be shat on by Brent and co.

To blame the fans is quite shameful and being done purely as a smoke screen to cover up exactly who it was made the most capital out of the Football Club's demise and also disguise who will continue to make capital should it decline any further as a footballing entity.

It's a point to consider as to whether BG did in fact serve the interests of the creditors before all else. The Mastpoint masif had already tied up their money outside of the agreed .77 pence in the pound for most creditors. Can't shake the feeling that they've done more then alright of the whole deal.

Also because of the utter silence on the issue by those in the know my suspicions are heightened. Do anyone think all those sharp suited business men and ladies from Mastpoint will have rolled over for the same deal as everyone else. And if they did can you imagine the CPers not gloating and shouting it from the rooftops. Notice how proud they are about costing P and A money. Wouldn't it be even greater if they stuck it to Todd and Gardiner.

BG even threatened Suroy with court over the issue of his secured mortgage on the ground. But nothing was said after that to say what Gardiner had agreed to.