Why would Heaney bother to complete in August ?

I have to say Posty that I tend to agree.

After spending hours trying to catch up with post’s made on pasoti and reading the Trust forum as well as asking Chris directly on here, I’m none the wiser as to why the Trust jumped into bed with Brent prior to “due diligence” taking place.

The longer these questions remain unanswered to more cynicism will grow regarding the agenda of those that sit on the Trust.

PL2 3DQ wrote:

It's clear there's a campaign against Paul Buttivant, especially over the last few days. Is it because he's seen as a threat? Some opinion makers are trying to get everyone behind a Brent bid, which is fine, the future of the club is more important than scoring points about the best bidder but some comments about Buttivant leave a sour taste.

Of the three bids only Buttivant would have kept the stadium together as one entity with the football club. Heaney wants to split it and Brent wants the Council to buy Home Park.
As for due diligence, how has Brent done his due diligence? He hasn't paid for any exclusivity so how has he carried out due diligence, unless someone on the inside, who would benefit from a Brent takeover, has carried out due diligence on Brent's behalf? Did Brent carry out his due diligence before Heaney won Preferred Bidder status?

Asking to see and more likely publish Buttivant's Proof of Funding is similar to when the Trust sent Buttivant an aggressive set of questions. It's Buttivant's business and between him and Guilfoyle.

Anyway, all these are minor issues compared to the future of the club. If Heaney fails there has to be a Plan B with either Brent or Buttivant.

Posty

You won't find any anti Buttivant posts from me apart from my genuine personal belief that he has no money. You know that I have spoken to, exchanged emails with and set up a meeting with Mr Buttivant.

There is no agenda against him. You say his funding is an issue between him and BG. In normal circumstances I would 100% agree. If however Mr Buttivant has the correct proof of funding in line with the legalities of administration then he should publish it - as I have requested. This would put pressure on Mr Guilfoyle to do the right thing and reall up the ante. You know that I have asked Paul Buttivant to do this over the phone, via letter and in person (through Lee Jameson). No proof has yet materialised.

There is nothing being held against Mr Buttivant by the Trust. The facts are simple - IF the current preferred bidder fails then we will be on a kinfe edge. Is it right to support someone who have proved their funding or someone who despite public mutterings still hasn't produced the evidence of their funds.

On the due dilligence my understanding is that the 'books' were opened to any bidders who has proven their funding - which PB did not.

I'm awaiting responses from serveral key players on PLAN B.....I know that you will play a big role in this.

Chris

Thanks Chris.

My point about anti-Buttivant posts was aimed at others (Rupert on Pasoti for one), I'll ask PB if he can publish his proof of funding or find a way to reveal his funding.

Chris, I'll ask again. Can you say why the Trust backed Brent prior to due dilligence taking place?

A workable plan B would have to have the nod from Guilfoyle. If Buttivant wants to be a player in a Plan B, then he needs to sort his reported problem out with the administrators pronto if he really is that bothered... it really can't be that difficult. I personally believe the Trust have every right to choose 'their' favoutrite bidder ... why not ? ... why pretend .... everyone else has favourites including the administrator himself. Any fan that has followed this situation closely knows darn well the Trust prefer the Brent/council routine for so many reasons. Time they got out from under the cosh of a very few Pasoti types, you'll never please everyone, and did something focused and proactive ... so well done for that. We will see in the next week whether Brent or Buttivant are prepared to take the time to resurrect something that could impress the administrators.

I wonder if all this Abe and Heaney money shortage thing is real to be honest. It was always going to be the case, once in pole position, that these bidders would start the gloom and doom and rack up the pressure ... what better way to up the anti than to spread rumours that they're pissed off and backing out. That the latest money shortage rumours should be funneled through two of the three same old stooges would suggest to me that the rumour was intended for the fans' consumption, probably instigated by our fearless friend.
I'm sure Ridsdale could play Guilfoyle for months saying he's on the case for new funding under the "heaney" umbrella... how else is Ridsdale going to keep a supposedly itchy footed Guilfoyle down here for anothr 6 months... he needs an excuse.
The truth is the longer it goes on, the more ongoing staff and player overheads become a negotiable debt of the takeover rather than a liability to be met by the new owners.

I really can’t agree Pirate, I think it’s imperative that the Trust holds its head above the water for all to see and be as transparent as possible. A PB cannot be backed simply because of gut feeling, the promise of a position or for any other reason. A PB should only be supported if it is believed he has the best interest of the club and should prove this by way of business plans etc. that can be rated higher then other proffered bidders that show an interest.

If this is carried out with all parties involved it avoids difficult questions and closes the window of any potential accusations.

It seems to me (maybe Chris can put me right?) that Brent was favoured by the Trust without any real effort to investigate other PBs. If that is the case then it begs the question, why?

As I have said before, I’m still not in any camp of a favourite PB, but I would like to see all given a fair chance to put forward their reasons why they believe they can be the most suitable owners of PAFC, I’m not sure this has been the case as far as the Trust and its dealings with Bullivant is concerned.


Edit to add: Providing the rumours are correct and Heaney is pulling out...fingers crossed!

For me it's simple. If a 'Trust' has no aspirations to be the owner of a club, then it is always struggling to gain real meaningful support. Failing that and considering this Trust is barely 6 months old, it should at the least make it it's business to use it's position to inform the fanbase what it feels is the best solution ... who else can the 'fans' trust ?

With that in mind, rarely will circumstances arise at a club so fundamental as this right here, right now. If this Trust hasn't the confidence, knowledge or capability to run a rule over the different bidders and come up with their particular favourite, then it might as well be the committee that runs the club's canteen and skittle team ... a supporters' association in other words.
How any interested party can be involved in this process and not have a favourite is just plain daft... might as well just leave it to the money men then ... as they sure as hell have a favourite they're backing.
To remain neutral is to play into the hands of Ridsdale and his long formulated plans that are for hisbenefit and the ex owners who have the most money to lose.

That I agree with Pirate, but that brings me back to the original question, why?

It's a simple question that requires little thought of response, why did the Trust favour Brent prior to any process taking place?

Let's be honest here. I believe the people interested in this Trust ( with one notable and obvious exception on the ISC ), or any other Trust, will be slightly left in nature, a bit socialist if you like, the Michael Foot/peter Jones branch of the fanbase. Personally, I'm ver happy with that, I'm no mill owner/taverner/ Ridsdale sort of guy. .
Quite simply, although he is just another mill owner, he has echoes of a Cadbury or Clarks .... Brent's WORDS have suited that constituency ... he was introduced by PCC, is based locally, knows the city and it's intentions, has no massive development plans, and has even offered the chance for the city to right the wrongs of Stapleton's mistake.
What Trust wouldn't jump at that ?

If that's the case Pirate then lets hear it from the Trust, that's all I'm asking.

Exactly Gob. But they can't, because they haven't got the courage ... yet.
They're afraid they'll be picked up on every democratic ruse going, especially on Pasoti, the spiritual home home of the Mill owner ... their biggest problem is that there has been no real time to have elections.
Well, that's true, but nor has Ridsdale been elected, nor has Heaney and nor has Guilfoyle, the Taverners or certain other gentlemen.
In my opinion, they should have the confidence they are a darn sight more accountable than any other interested party in this debacle and just go for it. Pasoti is split, and if people don't like it, they can vote them out next month... what's to lose ? ... having to sit there rubber stamping decisions of the likes of Ridsdale ?

As Tring has pointed out, there is a big P word out there just waiting for a 'real' Trust to lead them.

Now we're cooking on gas Pirate, I have no idea why they want to delay things, what's the fear? Get on with it, make it happen and get a mandate...do that and I can assure them of least one new member!

Here's a question for you Gob.
If it really is democracy we're worried about, then right now at this moment in time, who has more of a democratic 'mandate' to inform us fans who is best for Argyle ?
Ridsdale, Guilfoyle, Buttivant, Heaney, Brent, The Herald or the Trust ?

GOB wrote:

That I agree with Pirate, but that brings me back to the original question, why?

It's a simple question that requires little thought of response, why did the Trust favour Brent prior to any process taking place?

Hi GOB

I have made this point a million times.


Here we go again.

1. Kevin Heaney has not returned emails, calls, texts or letters from the Trust. Brendan Guilfoyle has asked him to meet the supporters. He has refused. How can you support a bid of somebody that won't even meet you?

2. Paul Butivant - A nice guy. We have asked him time and time again to either (a) provide the proof of funding in the format required by BG or (b) if he can't do that reveal his financial backers to the supporters. He has refused to do either.

How can you support a bidder who has not carried out any due diligence, has no proof of funds and who would delay this ridiculous process even further by needing to do these thing - if, which I doubt he could.

3. James Brent has provided proof of funds, carried out due dilligence, met with the Trust, always answers calls / letters and acts in an honourable manner.

So in summary it is not a case of the Trust favouring one bidder because we like him or for any self serving reason. The facts are laid out above. Make your own minds up!

Chris

penzancepirate wrote:

Here's a question for you Gob.
If it really is democracy we're worried about, then right now at this moment in time, who has more of a democratic 'mandate' to inform us fans who is best for Argyle ?
Ridsdale, Guilfoyle, Buttivant, Heaney, Brent, The Herald or the Trust ?

Yes the democratic process, or lack of it is a concern but that's a problem for members of the Trust and as I'm not a member it's not a lot to do with me. Maybe I could throw that question back at you, who "don't" you think should be informing the fans?

Chris Webb wrote:

GOB wrote:

That I agree with Pirate, but that brings me back to the original question, why?

It's a simple question that requires little thought of response, why did the Trust favour Brent prior to any process taking place?

Hi GOB

I have made this point a million times.


Here we go again.

1. Kevin Heaney has not returned emails, calls, texts or letters from the Trust. Brendan Guilfoyle has asked him to meet the supporters. He has refused. How can you support a bid of somebody that won't even meet you?

2. Paul Butivant - A nice guy. We have asked him time and time again to either (a) provide the proof of funding in the format required by BG or (b) if he can't do that reveal his financial backers to the supporters. He has refused to do either.

How can you support a bidder who has not carried out any due diligence, has no proof of funds and who would delay this ridiculous process even further by needing to do these thing - if, which I doubt he could.

3. James Brent has provided proof of funds, carried out due dilligence, met with the Trust, always answers calls / letters and acts in an honourable manner.

So in summary it is not a case of the Trust favouring one bidder because we like him or for any self serving reason. The facts are laid out above. Make your own minds up!

Chris

Sorry to put you out Chris, it must be a tough life answering this question for the millionth time!

Maybe if the Trust didn't limit itself it could have been heard in other places then just pasoti and you wouldn't have had to answer the question for a millionth time!

Thanks for the reply anyway.

Chris Webb wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Chris Webb wrote:

GOB wrote:

We can also, if Chris would like, create a Fans Trust Forum on this site where ALL can ask questions and Chris can put right some of the issues he is concerned about? At the moment things are quite divided amongst different threads, maybe this would make it easier for Chris and may also add one or two to the Trust membership over time.

GOB - In short for me it is a question of time - physically being able to fit in work, life, Trust website, media, pasoti (whatever you think it has huge numbers and is good for getting news spread). What I am happy to do is (a) post whenever I can and (b) add one of the Admins to my media contact list so that the news goes out to everywhere then and the links / posts can be just copied.

Chris

That sounds reasonable.

Hopefully, if and when the race has been run, things will settle down and we can all get back to normal. Whether that includes an active interest in Argyle remains to be seen.

This is a crucial period in the club's history and I wish you every success in hopefully helping to form a future we can all believe in.

May the force be with you.

Tring

As you have emailed me previously I will add your address to the contact list for releases if that is OK?

Chris

Fine with me.

Andrew

Seems to me that PCC still holds the key to resolving this situation. If they have any desire to keep the club alive and allow it the opportunity to flourish in safe hands, they must know what they have to do ?

GOB wrote:

Maybe I could throw that question back at you, who "don't" you think should be informing the fans?

I personally think Ridsdale should be bound and gagged. At the end of the process, he should be tossed into the Tamar, weighted down with his wages ... maybe that'll cool down his wage demands. He is supposed to be 'neutral' in this, but he is bent on driving sheep to his own pen. His information is misleading and often contains embedded messages intended for the ears of others .. I always find that method of communication insulting. His 'information' is worse and more damaging than hearing nothing.

As for the three bidders, they have every right to blow their own trumpet to anyone who will listen and I just wish the Trust had had that same confidence throughout this process rather than looking over it's shoulder.
Guilfoyle should also button it, in effect he is the presdiding judge, no more, his job is to listen, not spout.

The only real source and opinion I trust in all this is ATD

The Trust (or a trust) is the way forward, shame it wasn't thought about 10 years ago. How much better if there had been a means for the training and development trust's money to add to a financially strong fan's trust (I'm sure there could have been a legal way found to do that). Morals and principles are a fine starting place, Penz, but a little financial muscle would help.

My instinct at the start of the process is that some mug would come along and keep Argyle alive and the collective would breath a sigh of relief and then let the embryonic trust wither on the vine. Hopefully the continuing shambles will persuade folk to keep building the Trust structure. It's a bit unfair, Gob, to criticise too much as it's still early days from a standing start.

That's what they decided at Sheffield Wednesday ... financial muscle is indeed a valid way forward in today's world. If you can't get your mits on the club, then standing outside with a pile of dosh waiting to pounce is the next best thing. All the more pity the development trust 'loaned' their money to Stapleton et al and the Trust were duped by the Taverners into giving away their subscriptions to fund the administration process ... silly people.
Still, if one is slow on the uptake, there's nothing like experience to determine your future behaviour. If the Trust change their behaviour and targets then I and many others might consider joining.

Charlie Wood wrote:

The Trust (or a trust) is the way forward, shame it wasn't thought about 10 years ago. How much better if there had been a means for the training and development trust's money to add to a financially strong fan's trust (I'm sure there could have been a legal way found to do that). Morals and principles are a fine starting place, Penz, but a little financial muscle would help.

My instinct at the start of the process is that some mug would come along and keep Argyle alive and the collective would breath a sigh of relief and then let the embryonic trust wither on the vine. Hopefully the continuing shambles will persuade folk to keep building the Trust structure. It's a bit unfair, Gob, to criticise too much as it's still early days from a standing start.

With reference to the bold bit.

I have a distrust of those involved with the Trust following contact from the Trust to form a united front, only for us to be locked out of the Trust forum shortly after and as far as I am aware, without protest from the Trust.

I also have a distrust of those connected with the pasoti moderators that forced us to move from our old site by way of abuse, gained access to personal information, posted private comments and may well have also had access to financial information such as bank account details. Despite a financial commitment by most of it's users the site was closed by the same people that gained access and abused it, hence the existence of this site.

I make no apology for my questioning that you have somehow turned into a "criticism", although I strongly believe that a critical eye is a benefit to any organisation.

As someone that had lost interest in the Trust when that "lock out" occurred, I have a desire to be brought up to speed with the affairs in the hope that the Trust are prepared to open doors to all and in the hope that I will feel aligned enough to become a member of the Trust and to gain a trust of the Trust.

Maybe that will provide an understanding.

I have been swayed hither and thither of late.
I see the trust as a force for good but it's alignment with the dark side who so ignorantly undermined AT does grate somewhat.
Chris Webb has been pretty forthright and straight on here.

I take your point, Gob. I wasn't involved or aware about what happened and find it difficult to understand the perpertrators motives I still maintain the growth of the Trust will be our future salvation and to ensure it is truly representative it needs the engagement from the widest range of opinions and views. The nature of these organisations means they run the risk of reflecting their leaders view of things, it's human nature, I've been happy to run "things" during my lifetime, as long as everybody realised I was right and did things my way. Now that may sound odd but so many of us are happy to sit back and be led, after all, we think, they've volunteered to do this and save me from exerting any effort.

I'm sure you're no shrinking violet, Gob, have your say. If you joined the Trust as a member you would have a valid complaint about being excluded from their only active forum that would surely have to be addressed.

I guess it's a matter of opinion if the Trust are using PASOTI or PASOTI (some parts of) are using the Trust. Personally I think the Trust's relationship with PASOTI is a "needs must" in these early days.

Benign Dictatorships can work but only if the said dictator has high levels of intelligence and integrity.