Who exactly are the GTs?

This is another example of JB's mastery of the the art of misdirection.

This time, rather than sniping at an internet geek with delusions of adequacy, we are having a go at the way people are helping the unpaid staff, rather than hammering Brent on why HE doesn't pay them.

When JB first made noises about taking PAFC out of Admin. he was willing to pay off the FC debt, IN FULL AT ONCE. It was only after Ridsdale pointed out that there was a way to avoid paying all the FC debt in one go that Brent changed his tune.

In fact, all the hogwash from the Brent fanclub about how many people JB had to get to sign agreements in such a short space of time & that "only JB could have done it" refers to the large number of FC creditors (from the ex-Manager to players dispered all over the UK & beyond to the cleaner) that had to be "encouraged" as in "sign this or we tell the World it's YOUR fault PAFC go under" not the secured creditors of which there were only a handfull.

If Brent had paid off the FC debt in full, not only would there have been no need to persue dozens of people to get them to agree to wait for their money, but PAFC would not now be waiting to fall off the huge cliff of debt that has been created.

The fact that Brent would rather create a debt to be repaid 5 years down the line, rather than start with a debt free PAFC, seems to point out the way his mind works and gives a good indication of what involvment , if any he intends to have with PAFC when the full debt becomes payable.




Bear in mind that he's a Banker and Bankers don't normally go into debt, they just encourage other people too, so that they can make money.


Edited to add. It's quite revealing that JB alludes to sums of money without ever being specific and giving actual numbers. As in "Competative budget" "FC debt is being reduced" "JB is covering current losses" "Argyle are running at a lose this eason" etc.etc.

We have no real information on the financial performance of the club, yet JB has created a situation where most people assume he is bankrolling the club to the tune of a 6 or even 7 figure amount. For all we know, this year's losses could be less than an average transfer fee at this level- or there might not even be any losses!

Evidence that the balloon debt has been massively reduced?

I thought I read or heard a few months ago that the GTs had thus far accelerated over one hundred thousands pounds that is owed to the staff. Perhaps Damon could confirm if he knows?

If that was only within such a short time, by October 2016 it is likely be a lot, lot more. So ok, perhaps "massively reduced" is over egging the cake a bit. Quite significantly reduced is probably more apt.

GreenSam wrote:

Evidence that the balloon debt has been massively reduced?

I thought I read or heard a few months ago that the GTs had thus far accelerated over one hundred thousands pounds that is owed to the staff. Perhaps Damon could confirm if he knows?

If that was only within such a short time, by October 2016 it is likely be a lot, lot more. So ok, perhaps "massively reduced" is over egging the cake a bit. Quite significantly reduced is probably more apt.

The debt isn't being reduced at all Sam - it is merely passing from being owed to staff members to being owed to the Green Taverners. JB doesn't benefit at all - the only beneficiaries are the staff members receiving their money earlier than JB planned to pay them.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Evidence that the balloon debt has been massively reduced?

I thought I read or heard a few months ago that the GTs had thus far accelerated over one hundred thousands pounds that is owed to the staff. Perhaps Damon could confirm if he knows?

If that was only within such a short time, by October 2016 it is likely be a lot, lot more. So ok, perhaps "massively reduced" is over egging the cake a bit. Quite significantly reduced is probably more apt.

The debt isn't being reduced at all Sam - it is merely passing from being owed to staff members to being owed to the Green Taverners. JB doesn't benefit at all - the only beneficiaries are the staff members receiving their money earlier than JB planned to pay them.

This is the crucial issue for me. I have no problems with what the GT do, and any reduction in the financial pain being suffered by the staff is obviously good. But what happens when the rest of the debt needs to be paid off?

In 4 years time we'll have a situation where the club has to make a lump sum payment of £2m. Some of that will be due to the GT based on their fundraising efforts, and the rest to the original debtors.
I had a question asked at the Cherry Tree meet as to how exactly where Brent was going to get this £2m lump sum from. The answer that was reported back was in accountacy-speak but appeared to me to mean that PAFC will take another loan out to pay off the debt. What I can forsee happening is that Brent will ask the GTs to write off the money owed, thus reducing the club's debt. The long-term consequence of the GTs actions will therefore be to reduce Brents/Akkeron's financial liabilities regarding taking over the club.

Flat_Track_Bully wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Evidence that the balloon debt has been massively reduced?

I thought I read or heard a few months ago that the GTs had thus far accelerated over one hundred thousands pounds that is owed to the staff. Perhaps Damon could confirm if he knows?

If that was only within such a short time, by October 2016 it is likely be a lot, lot more. So ok, perhaps "massively reduced" is over egging the cake a bit. Quite significantly reduced is probably more apt.

The debt isn't being reduced at all Sam - it is merely passing from being owed to staff members to being owed to the Green Taverners. JB doesn't benefit at all - the only beneficiaries are the staff members receiving their money earlier than JB planned to pay them.

This is the crucial issue for me. I have no problems with what the GT do, and any reduction in the financial pain being suffered by the staff is obviously good. But what happens when the rest of the debt needs to be paid off?

In 4 years time we'll have a situation where the club has to make a lump sum payment of £2m. Some of that will be due to the GT based on their fundraising efforts, and the rest to the original debtors.
I had a question asked at the Cherry Tree meet as to how exactly where Brent was going to get this £2m lump sum from. The answer that was reported back was in accountacy-speak but appeared to me to mean that PAFC will take another loan out to pay off the debt. What I can forsee happening is that Brent will ask the GTs to write off the money owed, thus reducing the club's debt. The long-term consequence of the GTs actions will therefore be to reduce Brents/Akkeron's financial liabilities regarding taking over the club.

No flies on Mr Brent

GreenSam wrote:

Evidence that the balloon debt has been massively reduced?

I thought I read or heard a few months ago that the GTs had thus far accelerated over one hundred thousands pounds that is owed to the staff. Perhaps Damon could confirm if he knows?

Therein lies one of the many problems with th'interweb, the "massively reduced" debt has been put out there in categoric terms whereas in effect the poster was confused as to the meaning of both the word "massively" and "reduced", his sauce was dubious in the extreme and paled totally to insignificance when put up against the word of some pissed up bloke down the pub.

People will have read his post, admittedly not many of them on here, and some will have repeated it verbatim thus turning what appears to be little short of drivel into a FACT in the minds of an audience !

Not wishing to slag off the condescenti but the concepts involved in both football and the business of football are way beyond yer average punters ability to grasp and yet one of the more oft quoted maxims is, "everyone is entitled to an opinion", well no they are not especially when an incorrect or incorrectly expressed "opinion" sways an important debate just because there is no teacher to send the div in question to the corner with the pointy hat.

Control of th'interweb may well be the most important facet of the political future of this planet, the Chinese know this while we in the free West dole it out to anyone with fifty quid for the hosting fee. Egypt is now a free, democratic and equitable state, we know this because Twitter and Facebook made it so with all the happy smiling people in Tahrir Square........ooops!

Duh, got a bit off track there, considered deleting the post but decided not to on the basis that one person might read it and think hey, he's got a point there.

Flat_Track_Bully wrote:

In 4 years time we'll have a situation where the club has to make a lump sum payment of £2m. Some of that will be due to the GT based on their fundraising efforts, and the rest to the original debtors.

That of course is the salient point FTB, one rather suspects any debt to the GTs would be pretty much like the money owed by ECFC to the Trust, a figure close to a million pounds, in that we simply will not be asking for that money to be repaid, why would we it is after all our club and why should we want to cause it harm?

Damon says the GT money has no benefit to JB, of course it does, it is an interest free loan which is never going to have to be paid back. When the due date for the £2million is reached there are a number of possible scenarios as to what might transpire, none of them will cause any harm to JB, he will most likely be sat there with a two bob shelf company that has plenty of debt and no assets, bean counters and shysters call it a liability shield, the likes of Brent and all the other bankers and financiers that have raped the people of the world are well versed in how to use such shields so that, no matter how much poo hits the fan, they continue their merry way with pockets full of what used to be other people's cash and smelling of the proverbial roses..

It cracks me up that the little sound bytes we have been fed have been devoured with glee and re distributed by the superfans. All this moral integrity and trustworthiness bullshit sticks in my craw. We are told that the club is being run in a sustainable manner, £5m in debt to either the staff, players, Brent himself and now the GT's, if we end up in the BSP do we stand any chance of surviving?

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Flat_Track_Bully wrote:

In 4 years time we'll have a situation where the club has to make a lump sum payment of £2m. Some of that will be due to the GT based on their fundraising efforts, and the rest to the original debtors.

That of course is the salient point FTB, one rather suspects any debt to the GTs would be pretty much like the money owed by ECFC to the Trust, a figure close to a million pounds, in that we simply will not be asking for that money to be repaid, why would we it is after all our club and why should we want to cause it harm?

Damon says the GT money has no benefit to JB, of course it does, it is an interest free loan which is never going to have to be paid back. When the due date for the £2million is reached there are a number of possible scenarios as to what might transpire, none of them will cause any harm to JB, he will most likely be sat there with a two bob shelf company that has plenty of debt and no assets, bean counters and shysters call it a liability shield, the likes of Brent and all the other bankers and financiers that have raped the people of the world are well versed in how to use such shields so that, no matter how much poo hits the fan, they continue their merry way with pockets full of what used to be other people's cash and smelling of the proverbial roses..

If the GTs end up raising 400k, maybe Brent could give them 20% of the club in return for waiving the debt

All you can say is that Brent clocked the Janner pshichy and thought this is going to be a doddle, spin, spin and more spin, they won't have a clue!

Flat_Track_Bully wrote:

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Flat_Track_Bully wrote:

In 4 years time we'll have a situation where the club has to make a lump sum payment of £2m. Some of that will be due to the GT based on their fundraising efforts, and the rest to the original debtors.

That of course is the salient point FTB, one rather suspects any debt to the GTs would be pretty much like the money owed by ECFC to the Trust, a figure close to a million pounds, in that we simply will not be asking for that money to be repaid, why would we it is after all our club and why should we want to cause it harm?

Damon says the GT money has no benefit to JB, of course it does, it is an interest free loan which is never going to have to be paid back. When the due date for the £2million is reached there are a number of possible scenarios as to what might transpire, none of them will cause any harm to JB, he will most likely be sat there with a two bob shelf company that has plenty of debt and no assets, bean counters and shysters call it a liability shield, the likes of Brent and all the other bankers and financiers that have raped the people of the world are well versed in how to use such shields so that, no matter how much poo hits the fan, they continue their merry way with pockets full of what used to be other people's cash and smelling of the proverbial roses..

If the GTs end up raising 400k, maybe Brent could give them 20% of the club in return for waiving the debt

That's not a terrible shout. In 5 years time Brent will have his hotel and will be looking for an escape route no doubt so he no longer has to spend his weekends with the creeps hanging out behind the Grandstand.

Brent purchased the club and in effect he purchased a debt with assets.

A part of that debt was wages owed to the staff.

Brent found a method for not paying the staff, so didn’t.

The GTs are now lending the money to pay the staff on behalf of the club that is owned by Brent.

Now maybe I am confused here but no matter how I read this it seems to me that…

1) As the owner of the club Brent is simply having his debts paid by the GTs.
2) Brent can walk out at any stage without having to pay the debt back to the GTs.
3) The club will be responsible for paying the debt back to the GTs.
4) The club already has substantial debt owed to Brent and would be unlikely to pay back any further debt.

Have I got that correct Damon?

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Evidence that the balloon debt has been massively reduced?

I thought I read or heard a few months ago that the GTs had thus far accelerated over one hundred thousands pounds that is owed to the staff. Perhaps Damon could confirm if he knows?

If that was only within such a short time, by October 2016 it is likely be a lot, lot more. So ok, perhaps "massively reduced" is over egging the cake a bit. Quite significantly reduced is probably more apt.

The debt isn't being reduced at all Sam - it is merely passing from being owed to staff members to being owed to the Green Taverners. JB doesn't benefit at all - the only beneficiaries are the staff members receiving their money earlier than JB planned to pay them.

Sorry-I'm explaining what I mean to say poorly here. Let me try and express myself better.

What I mean is, the amount that has to be paid on a given date (the remaining amount in October 2016) will be less as a result of the GTs. The debt will not be reduced no, but the amount that has to be paid in the immediacy will be less as a result of the Taverners debt repayments as I understand it. The fact that the debt will then be paid back to the Taverners over a longer timescale than it would have if it had been directly paid to the staff with no hastening from the GTs is something that means the debt is more manageable for the club. If that is inaccurate, and the remaining £2 million worth of baloon debt will be paid to the GTs as it would have been paid to the staff when it comes to the October 2016 cut off point then fair enough I got that one wrong. But I was of the understanding that the money would be re-paid to the GTs after that cut off point-over the next 5 years after that until 2021 maybe? Which of the two is it may I ask?

However you're right in that regardless of which one it is, saying the debt has been "reduced" is a poor choice of words.

GreenSam wrote:

Sorry-I'm explaining what I mean to say poorly here. Let me try and express myself better.

What I mean is, the amount that has to be paid on a given date (the remaining amount in October 2016) will be less as a result of the GTs.

Tbf I thought it was pretty obvious that this was what you meant in the first place, unfortunately once you allow yourself to get a bit waffty with the language you open your comments up to misinterpretation especially on one of the more emotive themes.

Iggy wrote:

, if we end up in the BSP do we stand any chance of surviving?

It would hardly make a scrap of difference.

Neither the existence of debt not the actual size of the debt is a problem, the terminal problems come when the debt is badly managed, Brent will not manage it badly, he will make sure that no single creditor holds enough of the debt to create a problem, with your asset structure the only one that might be is HMRC, no commercial organisation is going to wind you up when the chance of getting paid at the CoP is zero. When the "balloon" falls due you will either have the money to pay it, Brent will 'borrow' that money, or most likely he would renegotiate the terms. Should any one or a group of creditors get larey and pursue the debt he would probably either scare them off by threatening to liquidate or simply exercise the god given right of every avaricious, capitalist, blood sucking leech on the planet to stage a pre pack admin and come back with less or no debt while the creditors get to suck on the fuzzy end of the lollipop once more.

Brent didn't create this problem and without him, or somebody very like him, you would be fecked.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Sorry-I'm explaining what I mean to say poorly here. Let me try and express myself better.

What I mean is, the amount that has to be paid on a given date (the remaining amount in October 2016) will be less as a result of the GTs.

Tbf I thought it was pretty obvious that this was what you meant in the first place, unfortunately once you allow yourself to get a bit waffty with the language you open your comments up to misinterpretation especially on one of the more emotive themes.

Fair point LT- hopefully I straightened it up a little and removed all traits of wafftyness in that most recent post.

GOB wrote:

Brent purchased the club and in effect he purchased a debt with assets.

A part of that debt was wages owed to the staff.

Brent found a method for not paying the staff, so didn’t.

The GTs are now lending the money to pay the staff on behalf of the club that is owned by Brent.

Now maybe I am confused here but no matter how I read this it seems to me that…

1) As the owner of the club Brent is simply having his debts paid by the GTs.
2) Brent can walk out at any stage without having to pay the debt back to the GTs.
3) The club will be responsible for paying the debt back to the GTs.
4) The club already has substantial debt owed to Brent and would be unlikely to pay back any further debt.

Have I got that correct Damon?

Firstly I am not answering in anyway shape or form as an apologist for JB. What is happening is wrong but I am trying to put across the way the same events are seen by others who are just trying to help:

1) JB is not having his debt paid by the GTs - they are raising money in order for the staff to be paid quicker. JB is repaying the GTs at the same rate that he would have been paying the staff.
2) The loan is unsecured, therefore if JB walks away the GTs are in the same position as any other unsecured creditor.
3) The debt is the Clubs. It is unpaid wages of staff who worked for the Club before JB took over. Therefore it is the Club that will repay the debt (whether that is morally wrong is another question)
4) Akerron has loaned money to the Club - JB is duty bound (FL regulations) to repay the GTs at the same rate he would be paying the staff back. The two things are unconnected.

GreenSam wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Evidence that the balloon debt has been massively reduced?

I thought I read or heard a few months ago that the GTs had thus far accelerated over one hundred thousands pounds that is owed to the staff. Perhaps Damon could confirm if he knows?

If that was only within such a short time, by October 2016 it is likely be a lot, lot more. So ok, perhaps "massively reduced" is over egging the cake a bit. Quite significantly reduced is probably more apt.

The debt isn't being reduced at all Sam - it is merely passing from being owed to staff members to being owed to the Green Taverners. JB doesn't benefit at all - the only beneficiaries are the staff members receiving their money earlier than JB planned to pay them.

Sorry-I'm explaining what I mean to say poorly here. Let me try and express myself better.

What I mean is, the amount that has to be paid on a given date (the remaining amount in October 2016) will be less as a result of the GTs. The debt will not be reduced no, but the amount that has to be paid in the immediacy will be less as a result of the Taverners debt repayments as I understand it. The fact that the debt will then be paid back to the Taverners over a longer timescale than it would have if it had been directly paid to the staff with no hastening from the GTs is something that means the debt is more manageable for the club. If that is inaccurate, and the remaining £2 million worth of baloon debt will be paid to the GTs as it would have been paid to the staff when it comes to the October 2016 cut off point then fair enough I got that one wrong. But I was of the understanding that the money would be re-paid to the GTs after that cut off point-over the next 5 years after that until 2021 maybe? Which of the two is it may I ask?

However you're right in that regardless of which one it is, saying the debt has been "reduced" is a poor choice of words.

No Sam - the amount will not be reduced. JB is repaqying the GTs at the same rate as he would have been paying the staff. The 'balloon' payment will be the same, whether it is owed to staff or the GTs.

I can't quite get me head around that Damon, the GT's are collecting money from the fans, giving it to JB who uses it to make the agreed payments to the staff, or a proportion of that sum. But at the same time he repays the amount raised by the GT's to the GT's. Why?

Surely the GT's, as a limited company, can't be raising money from the fanbase whilst their bank account swells with repayments from Brent.

Now I'm sure that can't be right but that seems to be the way you've explained it unless I've missed something.

I'd assumed the repayments to the GT's were deferred until some undefined point in the future when they would be used by JB for "community projects".

Sorry Charlie, probably haven't explained it very well - I'll try again.

FL regulations state that JB has to repay the Football Creditor debt and the unpaid wages by Octobher 2016. The rules also state that he cannot pay the staff quicker than the players. JB has laid out his payment plan (I think it was 17% down, 7% per annum for 5 years then the remaining 48% as the 'balloon' payment).

The GTs raise money to go to the non playing staff and loan that money to JB who is allowed to use that loan cash to pay the non playing staff. JB repays the GTs at the same rate as his repayment plan. So the GTs could have paid out c. £200,000 and have been repaid c. £50,000 so far - no idea of the actuals. Under FL regulations the amount owed in unpaid wages must be paid by October 2016, whether he owes it to the staff themselves or the GTs. All the GTs have done is made sure the staff have had the money earlier than they would have under the repayment schedule.

Is James Brent the owner of PAFC or is Akkeron? Who is liable for the FC debt, Brent or Akkeron?

Is Akerron funding current loses or is Brent.

If the Club goes into Administration again, will it be a loss to Brent personallly, or to Akkerron, and if it's Akkeron, will they reduce their tax liability by writing off the PAFC debts?

OK Damon, just about there, but any repayments to the GT's must be a private arrangement as they wouldn't/couldn't be attached to the FC debt...could they?

The FC debt is treated seperately to the unpaid wages although both amounts as laid out in the administratyion process must be paid back within the October 2016 timescale - whether it is to the GTs or the staff directly.

Grovehill wrote:

Is James Brent the owner of PAFC or is Akkeron? Who is liable for the FC debt, Brent or Akkeron?

Is Akerron funding current loses or is Brent.

If the Club goes into Administration again, will it be a loss to Brent personallly, or to Akkerron, and if it's Akkeron, will they reduce their tax liability by writing off the PAFC debts?

There is a holding company that owns both Akerron and PAFC.

The answer to that question was given in writing - The year to date shortfall in net revenue has been funded by the investors and associated companies.

We don't even know if it will be a loss to anyone - the PASB has askied a supplementary question as to the details of the loan as we do not know if it is secured or unsecured or the length of the repayment term.

What could the loan be secured against? The only thing that springs to mind is future season ticket sales. And if we have mortgaged them we are well and truly stuffed.

In fact if we have mortgaged our future season ticket sales it is scandalous.

Please tell me that that hasn't happened. Please.