The scandal of the Trade Union represenatitive and the club's employees

Chris,

At the moment, I think you would agree... The 'truth' is yet to be written. You have presented your side, let's see how it all plays out against what the pirate' has to say.
'
Thanks for answering the question(s) on whether you supported a 'Trust discussion forum'. No doubt with you leading the way, it will become a reality.

If the trust can save Plymouth Argyle I am sure it can save itself!

Ps. Good Luck!

Chris Webb wrote:

The offer to the staff is EXACTLY the same as the BIL one. All the money he has trimmed has come off the other creditors which will see the ex directors become accountable for more with makes your first point I have picked up on even more wide of the mark

Sorry, but then Brent's two stories don't add up. Some of us have a memory and remember what Brent said 4 or 5 months ago. He said he would have paid all employees up to date immediately and would take on all future payments under TUPE.

The only significant debts that have increased since he would have owned, managed and paid for the club, is an extra half million to the administrators and we are told that much of that fee is rightly being negotiated downward. So in my simple brain, he is either paying much less than he originally proposed, he intended to sack a lot of people to cut the wage bill, or the money is still going elsewhere .... as intended by Heaney/Ridsdale. With pay arrears of £3m + if reports are to be believed, where is the missing approx £2m going ? Going on his previously stated intentions he should be able to afford at least £2m to the employees .... SURELY ? If not, WHAT ARE these huge extra debts that have suddenly supposedly appeared since May that would have had to have been paid ?
I suspect it is this simple maths that is also upsetting some of the employees.
I'm not making it up Mr Chair, these are just the figures we have been given all along.

Chemical Ali wrote:

I would guess that Arnason is one of the 2 players after the way he was treated regarding his sacking.

I'd say it was any two from Arnason, Rory Patterson and Stephane Zubar. I bear them no malice, they've got to get the best deal possible for themselves.

It's without doubt being portrayed by Chris and others that by one or two not accepting a considerable reduction of wages payments that they are threatening the future of the club.

Chris, I suggest that if Brent is not prepared to pay, what is in the big scheme of things, I would imagine an extremely small amount, that Brent himself is placing the future of the club in jeopardy and I would question his interest and enthusiasm.

You have been screaming for months about the staff being paid, why now the change of direction?

Youum a load of bleddy freaks Ian told us just get us over the line

GOB wrote:

It's without doubt being portrayed by Chris and others that by one or two not accepting a considerable reduction of wages payments that they are threatening the future of the club.

Chris, I suggest that if Brent is not prepared to pay, what is in the big scheme of things, I would imagine an extremely small amount, that Brent himself is placing the future of the club in jeopardy and I would question his interest and enthusiasm.

You have been screaming for months about the staff being paid, why now the change of direction?

But then you've got the problem of the other stakeholders deciding they want a bigger share of the pie.

You've got to draw a line somewhere.

peter_dout wrote:

GOB wrote:

It's without doubt being portrayed by Chris and others that by one or two not accepting a considerable reduction of wages payments that they are threatening the future of the club.

Chris, I suggest that if Brent is not prepared to pay, what is in the big scheme of things, I would imagine an extremely small amount, that Brent himself is placing the future of the club in jeopardy and I would question his interest and enthusiasm.

You have been screaming for months about the staff being paid, why now the change of direction?

But then you've got the problem of the other stakeholders deciding they want a bigger share of the pie.

You've got to draw a line somewhere.

That's assuming that they are asking for a larger share then anyone else. Didn't Brent also say that he would pay the staff in full?

GOB wrote:

[ Didn't Brent also say that he would pay the staff in full?

Yes, he did, but apparently in 5 months the club has supposedly racked up all these huge extra mythical debts that changes Brent's tactics. The trouble is no one will say what these bleddy debts are, least of all the Pasoti Trust bunch. The extra admin costs nowhere near make up for this change of heart from Brent over 5 months.

I suspect the money men are sticking out for much more money now they know the staff have become creditors like them ... I also believe that was the whole point of this long drawn out exercise..... to reschedule this seaon's salary liabilities into never ever land.... while technically pleasing the Football League.

Of course, there is also the Football creditor court case next month, when these wages might not be just rescheduled, but actually written off ... surely it must be tempting for the likes of Gardner to hang out for another 6 weeks and then really skin the employees.

peter_dout wrote:

GOB wrote:

It's without doubt being portrayed by Chris and others that by one or two not accepting a considerable reduction of wages payments that they are threatening the future of the club.

Chris, I suggest that if Brent is not prepared to pay, what is in the big scheme of things, I would imagine an extremely small amount, that Brent himself is placing the future of the club in jeopardy and I would question his interest and enthusiasm.

You have been screaming for months about the staff being paid, why now the change of direction?

But then you've got the problem of the other stakeholders deciding they want a bigger share of the pie.

You've got to draw a line somewhere.

My take on it entirely. A bit like the position a certain Essex council was put in through no fault of it's own, hold the line or open the floodgates?.

And to echo Ricklers point earlier - Chris, thanks for stating the position, your willingness to address "the freaks" is appreciated, long may it continue.

Now I understand that the cost of the purchase has increased significantly. JB stated that 100% of wages would be paid immediately after completion way back when. After all the delays and obvious increase in debt, does the 17% now offered represent the amount that was going to be paid before he was gazumped by Heaney?

Pete1886 wrote:

Now I understand that the cost of the purchase has increased significantly. JB stated that 100% of wages would be paid immediately after completion way back when. After all the delays and obvious increase in debt, does the 17% now offered represent the amount that was going to be paid before he was gazumped by Heaney?

Roughly yes - its a little bit more cash wise going into the up front pot than back in May.

Quote :

Are you for real PP? There is an extra £3m of debt from when JB originally bid. The administrators fees are more but that is a small slice. You may have forgotten but during that 5months the staff/players were barely paid and this has increased the debt and cost of the purchase dramtically. Surely you can see that??

Good grief Chris ... are you just playing dumb ?
Let me explain for the hundredth time. It is the difference between the two Brent bids I have a problem with, not some new buyer coming in from scratch.
If he is offering the same price now as he was then, then somewhere along the line, someone else is receiving the initial money that would have gone to paying the wages from June.
5 months ago, James Brent stated he would pay all back pay immediately, maybe a million by then, and then pay all employees their wages as due, presumably starting from June ... that would have been about £1.5m by now. Why did he feel he could afford those overheads then, but not now ?
As long as the season's receipts so far have not been trousered and spirited away from the club, that extra value will be reflected in the club he is buying compared to 5 months ago...IE .. the club itself is worth a lot more without 5 months worth of unaffordable wages and consequent unavoidable losses that Brent would have had to cover. My contention is ...if he is still paying the same overall price as he would have done 5 months ago, the price should include the last 5 months wages.... and in effect, it does, because he is taking on the debt .... but why reschedule it to never ever ? Surely you see my logic, or has Ridsdale and his rescheduling money gymnastics done you in, where you just accept the moneymen's decisions as the only solution ?.
For example, why not reschedule more of Mastpoint's money rather than that owing to the employees ? Of course, Ridsdale's answer would be that the likes of Mastpoint and Gardner are secured creditors, whereas the staff are not.
This employee deal stinks of Brent not really taking Mastpoint to task and sounds like he is taking much of the the Ridsdale route formed with Heaney.
Remember Ridsdale ? .. you know, that chap that never gets mentioned anymore. That chap that Brent still wants to be involved with the clu ... that man who has designed much of this fiasco in the last 9 months, he who may well have told Stapleton et al, their only hope was to turn current employee liabilities into unsecured creditors.

I'm going to stick up for Chris here!

He <Chris> is willing to engage with everyone. Even the "freaks"!

People may not agree with his answers, but Chris has provided more recent "scoops (insight)" on ATD than on PASOTI.

I don't agree with everything that is posted here, but I do like the fact that you can express an opinion without being (attempted to be) shot down by "the few"!

I agree as well, Chris has looked us in the eye, taken the stick and held his chin up, he has my respect for that even though there's a few things we wouldn't agree on and I certainly don't agree with a Trust leader having such a close and comfy relationship with the probable owner, but still...

And John, we all hold that opinion mate and none of us are 100% aligned, but what I will say is that there isn't a single user on here that I wouldn't share a pint with or feel that they are about to put a knife in my back.

GOB wrote:

I agree as well, Chris has looked us in the eye, taken the stick and held his chin up, he has my respect for that even though there's a few things we wouldn't agree on.

And John, we all hold that opinion mate and none of us are 100% aligned, but what I will say is that there isn't a single user on here that I wouldn't share a pint with or feel that they are about to put a knife in my back.

True.

To put a knife in someones back, you have to be right behind them.

A true friend stabs you in the front.

I see that Tony Campbell is settling his outstanding pay under TUPE, does this mean there is some union representation amongst the staff at Home Park?

On another note, perhaps a good idea to keep our newest "member" Beef Dagger in front as well if there is any chance of a stabbing.

GOB wrote:

I agree as well, Chris has looked us in the eye, taken the stick and held his chin up, he has my respect for that even though there's a few things we wouldn't agree on...

Agreed as well. Chris has strong opinions and likes an argument. ATD seems like the perfect place for him.

Frank Bullitt wrote:

GOB wrote:

I agree as well, Chris has looked us in the eye, taken the stick and held his chin up, he has my respect for that even though there's a few things we wouldn't agree on...

Agreed as well. Chris has strong opinions and likes an argument. ATD seems like the perfect place for him.

You could say the same for Ian though

peter_dout wrote:

Frank Bullitt wrote:

GOB wrote:

I agree as well, Chris has looked us in the eye, taken the stick and held his chin up, he has my respect for that even though there's a few things we wouldn't agree on...

Agreed as well. Chris has strong opinions and likes an argument. ATD seems like the perfect place for him.

You could say the same for Ian though

He will always be welcome

As long as he uses his own name and does not slip in the back passage.

John_Vaughan wrote:

People may not agree with his answers, but Chris has provided more recent "scoops (insight)" on ATD than on PASOTI.

Probably because we actually have the temerity to ask him questions and query things.

That's true as well. At least on here there's worthwhile questions, whilst on pasoti there's more time spent asking how many carrots Reid's pen will be then anything of quality.

I think Webb has been caught up in the IJN agenda of being star struck and has become unwittingly Brent's puppet, but I admire him for his courage to come on here and be accused of such things and take the time to answer, how many other Trust leaders have done the same? For you Trust members that may be worth remembering when the election comes.

As for IJN or anyone else I'm sure all are welcome here but IJN's not made of the same stuff as Webb.