Players Wages announcement

Frank Bullitt wrote:

Chris Webb wrote:

I will try to cover off the points raised in this thread but it will no doubt cause yet more accusations.

Firstly to Nick – The staff/players will get all they are owed – over a period of time. The details of this have not been shared with the Trust other than they will all be paid in full.

PP – Please don’t play petty games by claiming the Trust supported BIL. We did so in the Cp statements because if we didn’t then Heaney could have had a legal challenge against us / James Brent for the collapse of his bid. In short we had to tactically call him out. We did that, he’s gone and as far as I am concerned its job done. I know you like to re-write history but to intimate that anyone else than JB has had Trust support is laughable. And to reiterate our support for JB was based on the knowledge that in reality the others could never deliver and that he was the ONLY option between us and liquidation.


Chris

Hi Chris

I am not speaking on behalf of PP (and I am sure he will have his say), but in my humble opinion this is why some people have got the hump with the trust.

The action that you have taken against Heaney is clearly the correct one. But we didn't know what you were doing at the time. And I dont just mean us dissidents on ATD. I am sure you could write a book on the cloak and dagger shenanigans that have on over the last few months. But those outside the inner circle have been clueless to it. Don't get me wrong, I understand why there has been secrecy, but we are taking about perceptions here. Like you say above, you did support him publicly. If we had worked out what you were up to, then surely Heaney would of as well?

That is not meant as a criticism as even with hindsight there is no perfect solution.

For me personally I am never going to trust anyone involved in Argyle again. I will always question their actions and their motives. That is not because I am a git, it is because I am not going to be taken for a fool again. Despite what you may think, (and what we may say at times) we know that you, Ian, the GT's and (almost) everyone else has Argyle's best interests at heart. But a few years ago I would have said the same about Stapes, Todd, Gill and even Guilfoyle.

We have to learn from the mistakes of the past. We almost left it too late before people woke up and realised what was happening.*

Love Frank




*Apart from Tring. He may have mentioned it once or twice

Frank

You make some really sound points and I guess with all thats gone on people are loathed to place their trust in anything Argyle related.

All I can say is when this is all over I will certainly look back with a degree of pride.

And it will be good to talk about football again

Frank Bullitt wrote:

And it will be good to talk about football again

Too right!!!!

Chris Webb wrote:

I will try to cover off the points raised in this thread but it will no doubt cause yet more accusations.

Firstly to Nick – The staff/players will get all they are owed – over a period of time. The details of this have not been shared with the Trust other than they will all be paid in full.

PP – Please don’t play petty games by claiming the Trust supported BIL. We did so in the Cp statements because if we didn’t then Heaney could have had a legal challenge against us / James Brent for the collapse of his bid. In short we had to tactically call him out. We did that, he’s gone and as far as I am concerned its job done. I know you like to re-write history but to intimate that anyone else than JB has had Trust support is laughable. And to reiterate our support for JB was based on the knowledge that in reality the others could never deliver and that he was the ONLY option between us and liquidation.

Claims that the trust should be pushing hard and that JB should give the staff a % than players. This is exactly what he wanted to do but FL rules and the PFA refused to allow anything other than an even % payment. If anyone thinks that the Trust just blindly goes along thinking that this is all rosy then quite frankly I give up. We have pushed hard and will continue to do so post takeover to assist the staff.

It is a horrible situation but here are the facts – If JB had got the Club in May when he originally bid then all staff would have been paid on day 1, 100%. The delays have increased the debt hugely and there is no more money to put in.

Those calling for him to take money off the other creditors – he has already more than done that. JBs offer to the staff is EXACTLY the same as heaneys was planned to be. That shows he was shaved ALL the money off other creditors.

There is fault here – and it sits firmly at the doorstep of Heaney and the Administrator.

James Brent’s deal is a rescue of Plymouth Argyle. It is that or liquidation. As simple as that.

Charlie Wood – Why do you see fit to bring my day job into this? Since you asked I will tell you my feelings on the staff situation from my own personal view. It is and has been a total disgrace. What would I have called for? Probably strike action within a week of not being paid.

But I am not their representative and they have chosen another path.

We will do everything possible to help the staff.

There is no fault here on the Trust – we have played a part in saving Argyle.

There is no fault here on the staff – they have played a huge part in saving Argyle

There is no fault here on James Brent – he stands between us and liquidation.

It you guys cannot see who the real enemy is then I can do nothing about that,

A horrific situation and I know that James Brent is personally disgusted at what the staff have been through.

Our aim will be to work our backsides off to ensure that the staff get their monies as quick as possible.

Chris

Chris,
Maybe my memory is deceiving me,but did not James Brent declare from the start that he was a "backstop" candidate?

i seem to recall him saying he would buy the club only if he had to, in order to save it

and surely the club has to adhere to corporate laws, as well as fl rules, which would mean the staff receiving their back wages in full, upon completion of the takeover..?

Chris Webb wrote:

PP – Please don’t play petty games by claiming the Trust supported BIL. We did so in the Cp statements because if we didn’t then Heaney could have had a legal challenge against us / James Brent for the collapse of his bid.

Absolute utter rubbish!

Heaney may - and it's a very big may - possibly have some sort of claim against Brent but certainly not against the Trust. Do you see Buttivent being sued?

What are you saying... That as a free and independant group you are not allowed to endorse anybody but the preferred bidder!


Who are you trying to fool, and more importantly, why?

Rickler wrote:

Chris Webb wrote:

PP – Please don’t play petty games by claiming the Trust supported BIL. We did so in the Cp statements because if we didn’t then Heaney could have had a legal challenge against us / James Brent for the collapse of his bid.

Absolute utter rubbish!

Heaney may - and it's a very big may - possibly have some sort of claim against Brent but certainly not against the Trust. Do you see Buttivent being sued?

What are you saying... That as a free and independant group you are not allowed to endorse anybody but the preferred bidder!


Who are you trying to fool, and more importantly, why?

Hello Nigel

Most unlike you to completely twist my words and get it wrong!

Where did I say that the Trust would be sued?? I said the advice given the CP committee (and we sought legal guidance for your information) was that any action by a party linked to a rival bid could see BIL gain compensation. This would have in turn bought Heaney more time to push our Club closer to the brink.

We had to use the tactic of calling him out. It worked, he's gone.

Just for once maybe give some credit.

Chris Webb wrote:

Hello Nigel

Most unlike you to completely twist my words and get it wrong!

Where did I say that the Trust would be sued?? I said the advice given the CP committee (and we sought legal guidance for your information) was that any action by a party linked to a rival bid could see BIL gain compensation. This would have in turn bought Heaney more time to push our Club closer to the brink.

We had to use the tactic of calling him out. It worked, he's gone.

Just for once maybe give some credit.

Chris, no need to twist your words to come up with something wrong, you do it admirably yourself.

But then there is twisting and then there is making them up!
Can you point to where you on this thread you said this:

Chris Webb wrote:

Where did I say that the Trust would be sued?? I said the advice given the CP committee (and we sought legal guidance for your information) was that any action by a party linked to a rival bid could see BIL gain compensation.

As for credit? If you think Heaney has gone because of anything the Trust has done or the reasons you listed, you are more deluded than I thought. He has gone because he coudn't get the money together.

As for twisting your words and getting it wrong?

Chris Webb wrote:

We did so in the Cp statements because if we didn’t then Heaney could have had a legal challenge against us / James Brent for the collapse of his bid.

How in your wildest possible imagination do you possibly see the Trust being "linked" to James Brent in a rival bid?

How? In the fact that you supported it? The Trust didn't! It was the CP group that did, and I argue they were not "linked" either. I supported it, am I linked?

If Heany wasn't going to 'sue' what was he going to do? What sort of "legal challange" against the trust or the CP(not James Brent) did you have in mind?

Chris Webb wrote:

Just for once maybe give some credit.

It's not my "credit" due that you crave. It's 'public' credit from James Brent that you and the Trust desperately need. Sorry, not the Trust (what did they do?), I mean your CP group.

Correct me if I am wrong... But I don't think I have seen one public aknowledgement at all from Brent about the role played by anyone but himself in all this? Apart from the political thanks to 'staff and players'.. Well 'natch'... ...and the fans of course... But we're all fans aren't we?

Even the "freaks" on ATD!

But individuals or groups outside of PAFC? Any thanks at all?



And sorry...

Surely I didn't miss your reply about the date of your next meeting and whether you personally are going to vote for, or against the Trust, having its own discussion forum?

I don't think the Trust will exist by the time renewal of subscriptions is due. Maybe it will have a few hundred members, chiefly Pasoti users, to keep the control thing in place.

Tringreen wrote:

I don't think the Trust will exist by the time renewal of subscriptions is due. Maybe it will have a few hundred members, chiefly Pasoti users, to keep the control thing in place.

I agree, I can't see the point of the trust going forward if it isn't going to own the club.

In fact I don't really think the trust has existed now for some time, its been subsumed by the CP and the Taverners. I do honestly think that Chris Webb has done a sterling job with the CP but I personally think that this work is over once the club is out of admin. Unless he is interested in representing the fans voice on things like re-opening the mayflower enclosure, quality of the pasties or the lack of tribute in the Horseshoe but I doubt if he is.

Rickler wrote:

Chris Webb wrote:

Hello Nigel

Most unlike you to completely twist my words and get it wrong!

Where did I say that the Trust would be sued?? I said the advice given the CP committee (and we sought legal guidance for your information) was that any action by a party linked to a rival bid could see BIL gain compensation. This would have in turn bought Heaney more time to push our Club closer to the brink.

We had to use the tactic of calling him out. It worked, he's gone.

Just for once maybe give some credit.

Chris, no need to twist your words to come up with something wrong, you do it admirably yourself.

But then there is twisting and then there is making them up!
Can you point to where you on this thread you said this:

Chris Webb wrote:

Where did I say that the Trust would be sued?? I said the advice given the CP committee (and we sought legal guidance for your information) was that any action by a party linked to a rival bid could see BIL gain compensation.

As for credit? If you think Heaney has gone because of anything the Trust has done or the reasons you listed, you are more deluded than I thought. He has gone because he coudn't get the money together.

As for twisting your words and getting it wrong?

Chris Webb wrote:

We did so in the Cp statements because if we didn’t then Heaney could have had a legal challenge against us / James Brent for the collapse of his bid.

How in your wildest possible imagination do you possibly see the Trust being "linked" to James Brent in a rival bid?

How? In the fact that you supported it? The Trust didn't! It was the CP group that did, and I argue they were not "linked" either. I supported it, am I linked?

If Heany wasn't going to 'sue' what was he going to do? What sort of "legal challange" against the trust or the CP(not James Brent) did you have in mind?

Chris Webb wrote:

Just for once maybe give some credit.

It's not my "credit" due that you crave. It's 'public' credit from James Brent that you and the Trust desperately need. Sorry, not the Trust (what did they do?), I mean your CP group.

Correct me if I am wrong... But I don't think I have seen one public aknowledgement at all from Brent about the role played by anyone but himself in all this? Apart from the political thanks to 'staff and players'.. Well 'natch'... ...and the fans of course... But we're all fans aren't we?

Even the "freaks" on ATD!

But individuals or groups outside of PAFC? Any thanks at all?



And sorry...

Surely I didn't miss your reply about the date of your next meeting and whether you personally are going to vote for, or against the Trust, having its own discussion forum?

You really are something else.

I will carry on trying to play a small part in saving Argyle.

You carry on with your bitter and twisted agenda. Very sad.

Chris

i think he just wants some straight answers, tbh

Sneinton Green wrote:

i think he just wants some straight answers, tbh

what he said.

Tringreen wrote:

I don't think the Trust will exist by the time renewal of subscriptions is due. Maybe it will have a few hundred members, chiefly Pasoti users, to keep the control thing in place.

I agree Tring, unless the Trust take on our freely provided and wise advice and move beyond pasoti ASAP, the Trust is doomed.

Sneinton Green wrote:

i think he just wants some straight answers, tbh

If he wanted straight answers then he would ask a question, get an answer then move on rather than attempt to completely twist what anyone says.

On a positive not PP and Charlie seem to be happy with the reply judging by their silence

Not really Chris, it's just that unlike Ricks, I've now decided to give up asking questions and wait for the answer that never really comes ... I would be as likely to get an answer out of Peter Ridsdale... Anyhow, I've never really believed questioning is the way to get one's point across .. the dynamics in a debating sense are hopelessly skewed against the questioner in any walk of life. Nothing personal, that's just the way it is.

As to my particular point, it wasn't your support of Brent that I have been banging on about as you well know, I myself and most fans have seen him a better bet than Heaney all along. It was that the WAY YOU SUPPORTED him meant you would not ATTACK the Heaney bid months ago. Like you, I am a big, big believer in direct action, but Heaney was given a free ride for months. It now appears his bid was so fragile, any concerted public pressure might have seen him crack a whole lot sooner.
That might not be your judgement, but it is certainly mine.
Yourselves or Pasoti, one of you, should have seen it as their role to organise REAL protest AGAINST Heaney ... you didn't.. and given the near monopoly nature of Pasoti, there is little point in trying to organise anything public that they disapprove of and don't actively promote. Even then it's all pretty dismal.
We all know who are the big losers in this delay, not the administrators and not the monied creditors ... purely the employees .... and I feel that is what was always intended. They did well to stretch it out as long as they did ... Ridsdale, Gardner et al will be tickled pink, and if they can stretch it out even longer thus freeing another half a million they'll be over the moon.

penzancepirate wrote:

Not really Chris, it's just that unlike Ricks, I've now decided to give up asking questions and wait for the answer that never really comes ... I would be as likely to get an answer out of Peter Ridsdale... Anyhow, I've never really believed questioning is the way to get one's point across .. the dynamics in a debating sense are hopelessly skewed against the questioner in any walk of life. Nothing personal, that's just the way it is.

As to my particular point, it wasn't your support of Brent that I have been banging on about as you well know, I myself and most fans have seen him a better bet than Heaney all along. It was that the WAY YOU SUPPORTED him meant you would not ATTACK the Heaney bid months ago. Like you, I am a big, big believer in direct action, but Heaney was given a free ride for months. It now appears his bid was so fragile, any concerted public pressure might have seen him crack a whole lot sooner.
That might not be your judgement, but it is certainly mine.
Yourselves or Pasoti, one of you, should have seen it as their role to organise REAL protest AGAINST Heaney ... you didn't.. and given the nature of Pasoti, there is little point in trying to organise anything public that they disapprove of. We all know who are the big losers in this delay, not the administrators and not the monied creditors ... purely the employees .... and I feel that is what was always intended. They did well to stretch it out as long as they did ... Ridsdale, Gardner et al will be tickled pink, and if they can stretch it out even longer they'll be over the moon.

But then we wouldn't have been able to do all the wonderful fund raising. I mean, what have you done ?

Since this administration started, I've fiscally supported REAL charities and given of my time and demonstrated against many injustices and supported many movements of fair play. I have met up with other long time season ticket holders and campaigners on those demos who are also castigated as villains by the likes of Pasoti Trust. I'm a very naughty boy Tringy
Does this mean I'm barred from the next fanfest ?

Why did people like me not invest our time ?
I tried once but it was a huge disappointment. Truthfully it was Pasoti Trust's gig, and their way of getting their massage across was not the best, confrontational to many. Have they succeeded ? .. time will tell, but in my own opinion ? ... they were a bit tardy and passive and Ridsdale may well have succeeded in levering out contracted millions from the employees' pockets and passed it over to those that sought his help originally.
It's looking like a disaster actually, but no fans' group can really be blamed for that ... it's deeper and more to do with the nature of money and who write the rules for that money........ YES, IT'S THE REFEREE'S FAULT, perhaps they should be dressed in grey, not black.

Chris Webb wrote:

Sneinton Green wrote:

i think he just wants some straight answers, tbh

If he wanted straight answers then he would ask a question, get an answer then move on rather than attempt to completely twist what anyone says.

On a positive not PP and Charlie seem to be happy with the reply judging by their silence

Problem is Chris, you rarely get a straight answer from you. I normally get some sarcastic quip mixed with an allegation that I am 'anti' in some sort of way and that I am a waste of time, and should feel lucky that you even aknowledge me - and I don't think that is "twisting" things?

Here is a simple question put for the umteenth time in different ways because you will never ever answer it straight. If you do, maybe we can "move" on?

1. I know you are unable to vote as chair of the society board, but if you could do so - in all votes held on the matter, would you vote for the trust to run its own discussion forum ?

2. Speaking as a private individual trust member, do you endorse the trust running its own discussion forum?

3. Would you as the trust chair, ever publicaly or privately campaign for the trust to run its own discussion forum? If not, why not?

4. What are your thoughts on the Trust running its own discussion forum?

Let's see if we can get that 'straight' shall we?


PS. One more question... What is my "agenda"? Please tell everyone (and me)!

I think you 'question' too much Ricks. Just fall into line behind our proven leaders. We only have 2 weeks to save the club ffs !

Longest 2 weeks of my life .... feels more like 5 and counting
Can't wait for the next deadline to go out the window.... what did Brent say ? the 21st ?
Ridsdale certainly has everyone all bottled up now.... not a peep against Brent's tactics .. not a peep.
He wasn't going to fund the administration, he said 6 months ago... and he certainly didn't .... the employees have.

With the strike threat easily curbed by Ridsdale and the wealthy Fletcher, I can't see Brent and Guilfoyle passing up on the chance to redirect another month's wages. Perhaps someone could frame the wage cheques as a trophy and hang them on their office wall as a warning to anyone else who tries to take these sort of people on. I'm sure Naps could find a use for them ...might make a bob or two for the staff fund.

The correct answer to your questions Ricks is ...... YES

The Trust should have its own forum. We have seen the best and worst of Pasoti over the last few weeks. On one hand they continue to raise money and rabble rouse when needed. On the other hand they continue to get involved in petty arguments with THE NAUGHTY STEP at every opportunity. The Trust would never consider us as the official messageboard for the Trust, so why consider them?

But every time there is a discussion about the trust on the main board it descends into farce, with the usual suspects weighing in on both sides. An independent site, with one board dedicated to trust matters, for all the members to contribute and debate is the way forward. Its not difficult.

Pasoti may well be the best way to communicate with the fans on the internet. But in the real world it doesn't have a very good reputation and the majority of fans want nothing to do with it. Chris only became a member in Feb 2011 - what took you so long?

Just make a clean break and put this argument to rest. Its only going to get worse as time goes by.

Interesting to note that Brent has been in talks over buying Argyle out of administration since February, Webb joined pasoti in February. Just coincidental?

The naughty step agenda! Purely coincidental.

There will be a lot of revelations/ recriminations once/ if the deal is done.

Guilfoyle has watched the "Fan Leaders" well, blame any dissenters then threaten and blackmail to get your own way.

GOB wrote:

Interesting to note that Brent has been in talks over buying Argyle out of administration since February, Webb joined pasoti in February. Just coincidental?

Oh no GOB you have found me out