Who exactly are the GTs?

Posts : 1737 Join date : 2012-03-26

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

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 see. Thanks for the clarification Damon. Glad we got there in the end-my fault!

Guest

what will happen to the lump sum if it is paid back to the GT's?
what are the future plans of the GT's?
from what i have read, and not knowing much about who or what the GT's are, it could be conceived as a type of quango

Guest

They give it to local charities I believe, the spotlight should be on Brent here, if Brent had paid the debt when he bought the club (as he should have done) we wouldn't need the GTs.

Posts : 2291 Join date : 2012-01-24

A couple of things are worrying me.

The whole set up of a holding Company owning both Akkeron & PAFC, clearly lends itself to financial "slieght-of-hand"

The losses of one can be set against the tax bill of the other etc. so any "losses" the football club makes might not hit Brent/Akkeron in the pocket-indeed, assuming that Akkeron is a profitable business, financing a loss making football club might be just what the Accountant ordered in terms of reducing tax liability.

Furthermore, there are several degrees of seperation betwen Brent personally and PAFC should the club go bust again.

It also occurs to me that should the GT's clear the bulk of the FC debt, and JB decides not to pay them back as he should, they could be in the position of having to lie and say that they have been repaid in full or force the club into serious trouble because the FC debt hasn't been cleared as it should be.

Of course, the simple thing would have been for the FC debt to have been cleared in full when Brent/Akkeron bought the club. Has there ever been any explanation of why this was not done? Was it a case of "can't pay" or more simply "don't want to pay"

Posts : 3040 Join date : 2011-11-23

Grovehill wrote:: A couple of things are worrying me.

The whole set up of a holding Company owning both Akkeron & PAFC, clearly lends itself to financial "slieght-of-hand"

The losses of one can be set against the tax bill of the other etc. so any "losses" the football club makes might not hit Brent/Akkeron in the pocket-indeed, assuming that Akkeron is a profitable business, financing a loss making football club might be just what the Accountant ordered in terms of reducing tax liability.

Furthermore, there are several degrees of seperation betwen Brent personally and PAFC should the club go bust again.

It also occurs to me that should the GT's clear the bulk of the FC debt, and JB decides not to pay them back as he should, they could be in the position of having to lie and say that they have been repaid in full or force the club into serious trouble because the FC debt hasn't been cleared as it should be.

Of course, the simple thing would have been for the FC debt to have been cleared in full when Brent/Akkeron bought the club. Has there ever been any explanation of why this was not done? Was it a case of "can't pay" or more simply "don't want to pay"

This is Shirley wholly disingenuous or maybe it simply displays a complete lack of understanding of how a business operates.

If the use of a holding company bothers you so much what other system would you suggest they employ that was less open to "financial sleight of hand"?

Losses are losses, the ability to offset a loss against tax is a useful tool if you want to keep a business running until it can be turned around.

Does anyone with any grasp of reality think there are any circumstances under which Brent is going to pay the club's losses out of his own pocket ? Why should he ?

Apparently the GTs have paid some £100k toward the defraying of a liability of £2million, a creditable effort no doubt, does anyone other than Grovey think this has been done by the slipping of bulging brown envelopes with no audit trail ?

Finally why the chuff would any business man worth his suit pay a £5million bill now, assuming they could fund that without impinging upon other business, when they could offset it five years at little or no extra cost?

Brent took on the clusterfook of PAFC because he knew he could make big money via a nice piece of land, get over it. Your club is now being run at a level its support can justify, if somebody comes along willing to throw spunk loads of cash at you Brent will be out the door faster than a rat up an aqueduct, as long of course as it doesn't impinge upon his development.

Guest

Grovehill wrote:: A couple of things are worrying me.

The whole set up of a holding Company owning both Akkeron & PAFC, clearly lends itself to financial "slieght-of-hand"

The losses of one can be set against the tax bill of the other etc. so any "losses" the football club makes might not hit Brent/Akkeron in the pocket-indeed, assuming that Akkeron is a profitable business, financing a loss making football club might be just what the Accountant ordered in terms of reducing tax liability.

Furthermore, there are several degrees of seperation betwen Brent personally and PAFC should the club go bust again.

It also occurs to me that should the GT's clear the bulk of the FC debt, and JB decides not to pay them back as he should, they could be in the position of having to lie and say that they have been repaid in full or force the club into serious trouble because the FC debt hasn't been cleared as it should be.

Of course, the simple thing would have been for the FC debt to have been cleared in full when Brent/Akkeron bought the club. Has there ever been any explanation of why this was not done? Was it a case of "can't pay" or more simply "don't want to pay"

That's an interesting point. Damon?

Posts : 2291 Join date : 2012-01-24

No problem with a holding company, just with Brent's portrayal of what's going on.

Just wish that Brent didn't keep giving the impression that a) he's keeping PAFC afloat purely by digging into his own personal money, & b) he's doing it out of the kindness of his heart.

Brent is happy to portray himself as the owner of the club and as such, who else does he/you/anybody else think should cover the club's losses?

It's his club, he's running it, he should cover the losses. If and when there's a profit to be made, you can be sure he won't be offering to share that out.

As I've posted before on this thread, Brent is very careful to never actually quote figures, so no one really knows what state the club's finances are in.

I'm also acutely aware that in 4 years time PAFC might well call in the Administrators again, purely because JB/Akkeron will be better off by not paying up the FC debt and writing off the losses at PAFC against tax.

As for the money owed to the staff and other FC creditors, Brent knew all about this, and knew that it was why he could get "a nice piece of land" for virtually feck-all-- because the debt cancelled out the value of any assets the club had. He was happy to profit from this, and virtually hold a gun to the heads of those who will now have to wait for what they are owed, in order to get what he wanted. When he bought the club he took on the moral, as well as legal responsibility for the debts and his actions since have epitomised "the unacceptable face of capitalism"

I'm also sure that the arse-lickers knew that Brent was going to mug the staff in this way and were happy to go along with it, just so they could bask in the light that they believe shines out of his orifice.

Posts : 1201 Join date : 2011-12-23

GOB wrote:

Grovehill wrote:: A couple of things are worrying me.

The whole set up of a holding Company owning both Akkeron & PAFC, clearly lends itself to financial "slieght-of-hand"

The losses of one can be set against the tax bill of the other etc. so any "losses" the football club makes might not hit Brent/Akkeron in the pocket-indeed, assuming that Akkeron is a profitable business, financing a loss making football club might be just what the Accountant ordered in terms of reducing tax liability.

Furthermore, there are several degrees of seperation betwen Brent personally and PAFC should the club go bust again.

It also occurs to me that should the GT's clear the bulk of the FC debt, and JB decides not to pay them back as he should, they could be in the position of having to lie and say that they have been repaid in full or force the club into serious trouble because the FC debt hasn't been cleared as it should be.

Of course, the simple thing would have been for the FC debt to have been cleared in full when Brent/Akkeron bought the club. Has there ever been any explanation of why this was not done? Was it a case of "can't pay" or more simply "don't want to pay"

That's an interesting point. Damon?

But the audited accounts of Green Taverners Ltd will not permit any such lie.

Posts : 3040 Join date : 2011-11-23

Grovehill wrote:: Just wish that Brent didn't keep giving the impression that a) he's keeping PAFC afloat purely by digging into his own personal money, & b) he's doing it out of the kindness of his heart.

I'm also acutely aware that in 4 years time PAFC might well call in the Administrators again, purely because JB/Akkeron will be better off by not paying up the FC debt and writing off the losses at PAFC against tax.

Does he really do that Grovey or is that just your perception ?

In order for the company to right down its tax liability those debts would have to be paid off, if the debt has been paid why would you be going into admin ?

Posts : 2291 Join date : 2012-01-24

Not strictly true your Lordship-if PAFC go tits up Brent/Akkerron would merely write off the unrepaid loans against their trading profit, thereby reducing the tax bill.

And Damon, does the F L have the legal Authotity to look at a third party's accounts if the third party doesn't kick up a stink? They (The FL) are hardly going to check the tax returns of every FC creditor to ensure they've been paid are they? They'll just ask

Posts : 3040 Join date : 2011-11-23

Grovehill wrote:: Not strictly true your Lordship-if PAFC go tits up Brent/Akkerron would merely write off the unrepaid loans against their trading profit, thereby reducing the tax bill.

Yeah, but they would be out of pocket to the tune of the loan, we are not talking about loans made by Akkeron to PAFC, the issue here is PAFC's liabilities to third parties, if Akkers don't take that liability onto their books than they couldn't claim the relief, Brent is not stupid enough to do that, or at least I don't think he is, a further pre pack admin would be a better deal for him.

Don't get me wrong, I see from whence commeth your angs,t I just don't think it is right to ascribe so much blame to Brent, he is only doing what any self respecting blood sucking leech would do and imho without his input you might well be a lot worse off now, as previously suggested, I don't see a queue of addled philanthropic Janners looking to bail you out.

Subject: Re: Who exactly are the GTs? Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:57 pm

Maybe the PASB could ask about the company and tax arrangements?

On second thoughts....

Posts : 1555 Join date : 2011-05-29

I'm still none the wiser who they are, anybody?

If I read the replies correctly Damon infers monies are going solely to the non-playing staff but I never got corrected.

At a time when Argyle appear to be losing money in all directions, one of the most notable being merchandise sales...

Anyone up for buying my t-shirts or scarves?

Posts : 1201 Join date : 2011-12-23

Yes CG, the primary purpose of the monies raised is to accelerate the non playing staff fund. There are other fund raising efforts by the GTs and when the focus of any event is to raise funds for one of the other purposes people are clearly told - ie the Ladies Team trip to Newcastle

Posts : 1555 Join date : 2011-05-29

Any chance of some sort of background to the GTs other than they're nice people?

Can you explain the market where GT merchandise can be sold right under the nose of PAFC?

I don't wish to be confrontational, I just wish to understand.

Posts : 1201 Join date : 2011-12-23

Gary Maguire is the driving force behind the GTs and a greener fan you could not meet.
Maybe the GTs have merchandise fans want and the Club don't - that's something that should be aimed at the Club, not the GTs.

Posts : 1555 Join date : 2011-05-29

Grovehill wrote:: 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.

HE doesn't have to pay them when others will. The 'shoulds' are all null and void here, we know that.

Posts : 1555 Join date : 2011-05-29

Damon.Lenszner wrote:: Gary Maguire is the driving force behind the GTs and a greener fan you could not meet.
Maybe the GTs have merchandise fans want and the Club don't - that's something that should be aimed at the Club, not the GTs.

When you were a Director, did you ever allow exterior merchandise to be sold in or around Home Park?

I do agree somewhat about the club needing to provide what the fans want, many complaints from the XXL contingency, about stock not being available. No suspicion of course.

Guest

In the GT's we trust scratch

Guest

Sufferedsince68 wrote:: In the GT's we trust

They are as bent as a nine bob note.

Plenty of sinister goings on in the GT, not to mention odious links to the Windsor Brothers and Deepthroat etc

Guest

punchdrunk wrote:

Sufferedsince68 wrote:: In the GT's we trust

They are as bent as a nine bob note.

Plenty of sinister goings on in the GT, not to mention odious links to the Windsor Brothers and Deepthroat etc

Do you want to provide evidence of that?

Subject: Re: Who exactly are the GTs? Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:24 pm

Damon.Lenszner wrote:: Yes CG, the primary purpose of the monies raised is to accelerate the non playing staff fund.

And how much has that fund been "accelerated", can anybody tell us?

How much of the money owed has Brent actually paid the staff and how much 'accelerated income' has been paid by the GT's?

Subject: Re: Who exactly are the GTs? Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:31 pm

Rickler wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:: Yes CG, the primary purpose of the monies raised is to accelerate the non playing staff fund.

And how much has that fund been "accelerated", can anybody tell us?

How much of the money owed has Brent actually paid the staff and how much 'accelerated income' has been paid by the GT's?

You and your damn questions Rickler !

Look into my eyes............................ Laughing

Guest

knecht wrote:

punchdrunk wrote:

Sufferedsince68 wrote:: In the GT's we trust

They are as bent as a nine bob note.

Plenty of sinister goings on in the GT, not to mention odious links to the Windsor Brothers and Deepthroat etc

Do you want to provide evidence of that?

Do i really need to explain!!??

The last thing this club needs are more bloody Janner Mafia types

Posts : 358 Join date : 2012-11-04

punchdrunk wrote:

Sufferedsince68 wrote:: In the GT's we trust

They are as bent as a nine bob note.

Plenty of sinister goings on in the GT, not to mention odious links to the Windsor Brothers and Deepthroat etc

"Bent" as in Quintin Crisp or Ronnie Biggs?

Justify your statement please Mr Punchdrunk. Explain.....