Staff Repayments

I was a CPer. At no time did Brent ever say to the Group that it was his intention to take 5 years to pay back the staff. At the time the general belief was that the wages were part of the football debt that had to be settled if any deal were to be sanctioned by the League. The first any of us heard about a repayment plan was from Ridsdale at one of the Guildhall meetings when he quoted the precedent.

Thedifficulty as i understand it was that Brent was not allowed under football league rules to differentiate between the players and the non playing staff. They all have to be repaid at the same percentage rate over the same timescale. As we know Mr Brent is a stickler for rules and was.not prepared to 'create' a scheme where the most needy got their money first.

The GTs.were.not hampered by such rules and even if they were would have found a way.

From reading the comments it sounds like we've been led down the garden path a bit then.

No surprise there!

Thanks again for posting on here Damon amongst us freaks and weirdo's. It's nice to get an insight from someone on the "inside" so to speak.

I'd also like to say massive thanks to Damon for coming on and clarifying that the debt will be paid back by Brent and that redundant staff who've come forward and those in most need ARE being helped. Very good to (at least partially!) win round some of the cynics.

The requirement for ALL staff - ie players and 'ordinary' workers - to be paid at the same speed has been posted several times on here and in the other place.

Some people have said or implied is that rules are there to be broken or 'bent'. I think that that's the way of all sorts of illegal or immoral steps. Brent may or may not be a good guy. Ask yourselves - if, say, Peter Ridsdale were to have taken over the club, with all of his rule-bending, what would your feelings have been then?

And, to reply to GreenSam, cynics will always be cynics. That's both good and bad. Putting it positively enables difficult questions to be asked. Putting it negatively they will never be happy.

Sufferedsince68 wrote:

There are some great posts on this thread about the pondlife we all know about, fair play to damon for coming on here, perhaps you could tell us who are the green taverners and how much of the debt has been paid off, will all this keep the taxman and the fooball league happy, because if this cllub gets a point deduction because we trusted" great blokes" then its non league for years,

The GTs are a group of fans - there is no restriction as to whll can become a.GT, just volunteer and you are in. The driving force and the ones who have put the most time and effort into the cause are Gary Maguire, Mark Russell and Bill Kilroy.

I am not 100% up to date with the financial position but do know that well over half the staff have had all te money owed to them, and everyone has had at least 30%. I did try to explain thathe GTs and the staff came to an arrangement whereby those most in need (where Argyle was the primary job in the family) got paid first.

There is no secret society, we are genuinely open to help from anyone, all the formalities of the loan and taxation implications have been cleared by lawyers and accountants. The limited company will produce accounts at the end of the financial year. There are no paid employees of the company, everyone is a volunteer. All profits made from any event go to either the accelerated staff fund or one of the other club related areas (youth,community, ladies, disability etc.)

Again I say I have every sympathy with the view that Mr Brent should be doing this. But as he isn't I feel it right that we do. Just my opinion. Please join us if you wish, don't if you feel its wrong, butwe are providing entertainment and apre match offering that has become part of the ritual for so many fellow fans.

good to get some clear, concise info there.

GreenSam wrote:

I'd also like to say massive thanks to Damon for coming on and clarifying that the debt will be paid back by Brent and that redundant staff who've come forward and those in most need ARE being helped. Very good to (at least partially!) win round some of the cynics.

Sitting back and reading the comments are eye opening and will win around a few of us cynics, it is me. It's just good to read a few facts rather than reading demands that we worship certain characters unconditionally.

Good on you Damon.

If Damon was standing for the PASB he'd get my vote

GOB wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

I'd also like to say massive thanks to Damon for coming on and clarifying that the debt will be paid back by Brent and that redundant staff who've come forward and those in most need ARE being helped. Very good to (at least partially!) win round some of the cynics.

Sitting back and reading the comments are eye opening and will win around a few of us cynics, it is me. It's just good to read a few facts rather than reading demands that we worship certain characters unconditionally.

Good on you Damon.

Most people listen to an argument if it is supported by facts and does not just rely on the usual bland assurances and inferences.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Again I say I have every sympathy with the view that Mr Brent should be doing this. But as he isn't I feel it right that we do. Just my opinion.

That's a bit circular, though, Damon. Did James Brent perhaps know in advance that if he refused to pay upfront the supporters would step up to cover it?

Think we know the answer to that one.............

GOB wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

I'd also like to say massive thanks to Damon for coming on and clarifying that the debt will be paid back by Brent and that redundant staff who've come forward and those in most need ARE being helped. Very good to (at least partially!) win round some of the cynics.

Sitting back and reading the comments are eye opening and will win around a few of us cynics, it is me. It's just good to read a few facts rather than reading demands that we worship certain characters unconditionally.

Good on you Damon.

Indeed. I wasn't using the word cynic perogatively and I'd like to hope I wasn't one of the ones you viewed as demanding. I think it's genuinely good that Damon's come on and answered the question and quelled the concerns of those who weren't so sure.

Iggy wrote:

Also how much is owed in total? I noticed that Keepitgreen in his thread moaning about how badly treated Porkie is let slip that out of 450k the GT,s have paid back an amazing 100k.

Iggy, I didn't let anything "slip" as you put it; I was passing on information that was openly given by Peter Jones to the Senior Greens gathering. He stated that the debt started at 350k and is now down to (because of the GTs and the auctions) 250k.

keepitgreen wrote:

The people that you criticise, Ian Newell, Senior Greens, Chris Webb the GT's etc have all helped to reduce the staff debt from 350k to 250k in 10 months. That's why the staff will be paid a lot quicker than the 5 years they had to agree to.

Peggy wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Again I say I have every sympathy with the view that Mr Brent should be doing this. But as he isn't I feel it right that we do. Just my opinion.

That's a bit circular, though, Damon. Did James Brent perhaps know in advance that if he refused to pay upfront the supporters would step up to cover it?

Nothing like that was ever mentioned, not in front of me - if it had been I would have given a two word response.

Yea Man wrote:

If Damon was standing for the PASB he'd get my vote

Thanks for that but PASB is not something I believe in. I am a member of the Trust and that is the vehicle the Club should talk to.

I'm not allowed to vote anyway, i'm over 5

I would like to give a massive vote of thanks, to Green Sam, for giving a massive vote of thanks to damon, for coming on here! would it be possible to get someone who sits in the directors box, to come on here so we could give them a massive vote of thanks too?

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Yea Man wrote:

If Damon was standing for the PASB he'd get my vote

Thanks for that but PASB is not something I believe in. I am a member of the Trust and that is the vehicle the Club should talk to.

As you know the Trust are currently running their elections and are seeking nominations for Board members.

keepitgreen wrote:

Iggy wrote:

Also how much is owed in total? I noticed that Keepitgreen in his thread moaning about how badly treated Porkie is let slip that out of 450k the GT,s have paid back an amazing 100k.

Iggy, I didn't let anything "slip" as you put it; I was passing on information that was openly given by Peter Jones to the Senior Greens gathering. He stated that the debt started at 350k and is now down to (because of the GTs and the auctions) 250k.

keepitgreen wrote:

The people that you criticise, Ian Newell, Senior Greens, Chris Webb the GT's etc have all helped to reduce the staff debt from 350k to 250k in 10 months. That's why the staff will be paid a lot quicker than the 5 years they had to agree to.

Whoaaa, put the handbag down mate, I was actually acknowledging that an amazing 100 k had been raised by the GT,s myself and most posters on here think that is an amazing achievement. The reason that I made the remark "let slip" was the fact remains if you are out of favour with Newell and co and banned from pasoti then you have no access to the information you told us and it would seem to us like it is privileged information. Reading what you wrote was the first time I was aware of that fact. Thanks to you and Damon for giving us that information.
As for the staff debt being reduced by the people you mention, they have done it by collecting money from fans like me. I have contributed £100's and I am not a wealthy bloke, but because I called someone a bully and questioned Brent I am banned from pasoti and now apparently didn't help the staff, can you see why some of us are bitter?
I am unashamedly a critic of Brent, have been from the early days, also of Fletcher, and for that I won,t gloat, we have different viewpoints, I welcome your views, I have a reason to dislike pasoti and Newell I don,t see why that automatically makes us adversaries, come on give us a kiss.

The more you chirp and deal with fans' thoughts Damon, the more you seem an ok guy. Good on you. A couple of other 'erberts could take a leaf out of your book.

And very good news regarding the worst affected 30% of staff, and while I, out of principle, would never have given to such an appeal, short of an employee strike, you yourself must be very proud of your efforts.

I won't go ino the whole what Brent did or didn't know all over again, what Ridsdale kept to himself away from Brent,as nothing will ever come out, but I will repeat once more that Brent said he would never pay for the administration process ( which included mainly a massive wage liability that would render other interested parties' and former owners' claims worthless ), so how employees were allowed to believe for sooo long that somehow their wages were to be paid up in full on exiting admin is quite extroadinary.... and impossible for me to believe.
As for following rules, most humans follow the rules that suit themselves, and I'm sure Jamesy is no different to most of us. Nice to be able o follow rules in such a moral way ... a bit like the rules I guess that allowed Citigroup to rack up $50billion of debtt while top people pulled huge salaries and performance bonuses... nice to have rules like that, nice to have had a stooge like Heaney to in effect reschedule £3.5m of wages. I guess the administration run by the Yorkshire bunch was just too difficult for poor old Jamesy to undrstand... what with him being such a novice.

When we exited administration the staff and players had to be treated in exactly the same way. It is the law. There is nothing that Brent or anybody else could do about that. The wages owed to all of them had to be treated in exactly the same way. The vast bulk of the money owed was owed to players and the PFA negotiated a settlement on their behalf. The staff accepted exactly the same deal. Because of the football debt first rule the players had to be paid in full and so the staff had to be paid in full too so they were right to expect all money due to them to be paid.

Iggy wrote:

keepitgreen wrote:

Iggy wrote:

Also how much is owed in total? I noticed that Keepitgreen in his thread moaning about how badly treated Porkie is let slip that out of 450k the GT,s have paid back an amazing 100k.

Iggy, I didn't let anything "slip" as you put it; I was passing on information that was openly given by Peter Jones to the Senior Greens gathering. He stated that the debt started at 350k and is now down to (because of the GTs and the auctions) 250k.

keepitgreen wrote:

The people that you criticise, Ian Newell, Senior Greens, Chris Webb the GT's etc have all helped to reduce the staff debt from 350k to 250k in 10 months. That's why the staff will be paid a lot quicker than the 5 years they had to agree to.

Whoaaa, put the handbag down mate, I was actually acknowledging that an amazing 100 k had been raised by the GT,s myself and most posters on here think that is an amazing achievement. The reason that I made the remark "let slip" was the fact remains if you are out of favour with Newell and co and banned from pasoti then you have no access to the information you told us and it would seem to us like it is privileged information. Reading what you wrote was the first time I was aware of that fact. Thanks to you and Damon for giving us that information.
As for the staff debt being reduced by the people you mention, they have done it by collecting money from fans like me. I have contributed £100's and I am not a wealthy bloke, but because I called someone a bully and questioned Brent I am banned from pasoti and now apparently didn't help the staff, can you see why some of us are bitter?
I am unashamedly a critic of Brent, have been from the early days, also of Fletcher, and for that I won,t gloat, we have different viewpoints, I welcome your views, I have a reason to dislike pasoti and Newell I don,t see why that automatically makes us adversaries, come on give us a kiss.

No handbags drawn Iggy. You put it across that I unintentionally gave out the figures which were heard by anyone attending the last SG meeting. Of course fans across the spectrum have donated to the cause, I've never denied that. By the way, I don't kiss on a first date.

At the risk of turning this into a '20 questions to Damon' thread, I have been wondering if, at any point, was it suggested to Brent that he match the fundraising efforts of the GT's for the accelerated payment scheme - ie for every £ the GT's raise, Brent chucks in the same amount.

After all, without the sacrifices of the staff, Brent wouldn't have been able to pick up this prime property development opportunity football club for the bargain price he seemingly arrived at.

It was mentioned Andy. Brent is putting in 50% of all unbudgetted income. This includes cup games, so whilst i understand people's reluctance to go on Tuesday a larger crowd would put more into the fund. At the moment i fear that the cost of putting the game on will be more than our dhare of the gate revenue.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

I was a CPer. At no time did Brent ever say to the Group that it was his intention to take 5 years to pay back the staff. At the time the general belief was that the wages were part of the football debt that had to be settled if any deal were to be sanctioned by the League. The first any of us heard about a repayment plan was from Ridsdale at one of the Guildhall meetings when he quoted the precedent.

Thedifficulty as i understand it was that Brent was not allowed under football league rules to differentiate between the players and the non playing staff. They all have to be repaid at the same percentage rate over the same timescale. As we know Mr Brent is a stickler for rules and was.not prepared to 'create' a scheme where the most needy got their money first.

The GTs.were.not hampered by such rules and even if they were would have found a way.

Sadly, this sort of attitude seems to sum up the CPers and is a large factor in where the club is now.

Brent said he'd "save" the club and no one (even those with experience in running a football club) ever seemed to ask any questions about the how and why.

Such as "What's your Business plan?" "Where's the money coming from?" "What's going to remain after you've gone?" "Are you just going to asset strip all the valuable land and let the club wither & die" "Who's going to run the club?" etc.etc.

If they'd asked a few questions, they might have had a better understanding of the guy than "I've looked into his eyes" and made an informed, rather than emotional decision as to whether they should back his bid or not.

The reality is that at the time the only thing we really knew about him and his plans for the club was that he wasn't Heaney. Well this was the same way McCauley got to buy the Club isn't it-at the time he wasn't the other guy (Steve Tiller?) so he was the choice of the Board. They let him "Buy the Club in three days" because he came up with a cheque-without really looking into his past or his plans. And we all know how that one turned out.


Anyway, would the CPers been so enthusiastic in their support of Brent if they'd asked the right questions?

And don't give me that bullshit about "there was no one else" There was no one else because of orchestarted campaigning to discourage other buyers even before Heaney got involved and because no one ever got off their collective asses to a) find out how much it would REALLY cost to buy the club, or b) go out and find other interested parties.

I don't blame Brent for the state Argyle are in at the moment. He's a businessman, and in business they say never give a sucker an even break. Well 6000+ sucker keep turning up and reinforcing the belief that the CPers were not the only suckers.