Tony Campbell & Peter Reid

As Jeremy Kyle would say, well, well, well, it turns out to be IJN's old mate that seems to be holding up the process, but don't worry, according to IJN it's all Todd's fault once again so Tony is forgiven!

Yet another pungent stench of decaying pork!

Staggering stance...

I thought the cry was of morality and integrity and doing the right thing. I thought the masses would rather watch 'Pub Team Argyle' than the staff not be paid?

Suddenly, it's sod all that, and screw your personal circumstances Tony, I want to watch Argyle next week, and why don't you just bend over and take it like the rest of em?

So it's Brent the bully after all... No wonder Newell and his cronies admire him so much!

What say you, Smiffy?

And shall we rename the thread to add Peter Reid (as if you hadn't guessed)!

And good on him I say...

Cough up Brent!


How much do you want it - how green are you?

How tight is that scarf around your neck?

If I had not been paid for X months then was sacked so St Peter of Ridsdale could continue his West Country Crusade I too would expect full payment of my contract.

I will not hear a bad word said against.........................*



*insert name as appropriate

Anybody wanna buy a pen cheap?

Get it auctioned!

You couldn't make this up!


And, oh dear! Surely not Peter "legend" Reid too! The beardy Brentophiles will want their pen back

it's a good job its not heaney who was proposing this lemon street would of been burnt to the ground, i had a quick browse through the thread and all the usual troops are on there blaming tc rather than questioning james brent and i cant wonder if the question from mr clark is his own or he has been told to ask it from the brent camp but he does seem to want it answered.

Thread re-named in honour of the 2 people holding up the process.

Lifted from Pasoti before the site implodes

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Statement from Tony Campbell

Following contact from the press and media I wish to clarify my position regarding the agreement that James Brent is insisting be signed by all football creditors who are owed money by Plymouth Argyle Football Club.

James Brent employed Foot Anstey to provide legal advice to all past and present employees regarding their legal entitlement under TUPE, the Trade Union (Protection of Employment) Regulations.

Their independent advice was that the offer made to me was substantially less than my legal entitlement. As such I informed the relevant parties that I am more than happy to sign the agreement which will see the money owed repaid to me over the next 5 years, however I reserve the right to contest the amount offered.

I was informed that this was not acceptable and that I either sign the letter waiving all rights to the disputed amount or James Brent will pull out of the deal and the club will go in to liquidation. I responded by stating I had no wish to see the club harmed in any way and as such I was prepared to sign the agreement to allow the sale to proceed and that we could address my outstanding wages as a separate issue at a later date by agreement with all parties.

I have since met with Peter Ridsdale who informed me that James Brent was not prepared to negotiate under any circumstances and that if I didn’t sign he would walk away from the club. I reiterated that I had no wish to hold the deal up and was prepared to sign the agreement. However I still wished to reserve the right to contest the amount offered. Peter confirmed Brent’s stance and claimed that if I didn’t sign the club would fold, I would feel the full anger of the supporters and that I would have no option but to leave the city and move away.

This threat, plus the deliberate leaking of my name to the press in an attempt to increase the pressure upon me and my family is unhelpful.

I am sorry but I will not be bullied and intimidated in this manner. I am simply asking for what I am legally entitled to receive, no more, no less. I am happy to go through the correct legal process to address this issue and will agree to any arbitration procedure that may be proposed.

I have no wish to delay the takeover of the football club and urge James Brent on behalf of all supporters to proceed with the purchase as quickly as possible. To assist in this process I am more than happy to sign any agreement that allows the sale to be concluded and for my own personally circumstances to be addressed at a later date.

A few interesting points.

He quite clearly states he will not be bullied or intimidated. Whether this has come from Ridsdale's negotiating "skills" or a directive from Brent is not clear. I really hope it has not come from Brent, but then you don't get to be a multi millionaire by being nice all the time.

He states that someone has leaked his name to the press. I wonder who did that?

I wonder whether we will hear a similar story from Peter Reid.

I read the thread this morning and I'm sure the threat was stated as being from Peter Reid, not Ridders, once again the fans are being whipped into a frenzy against named individuals.

I pity the staff faced with such bullying after months of no cash.

So I didn't dream it then!

Remarkable, you really can't make up this sort of crap. A CPers mate and a guy that a CPer encouraged a whip-round for, good on ya Ian Newell!

£5.00 from me for the pen!

I read it and I am sure PR was Mr Reid, whether it has been edited since I can't tell.
Risddale's negotiating and man management skills seem to need a bit of polishing.

seadog wrote:

I read it and I am sure PR was Mr Reid, whether it has been edited since I can't tell.
Risddale's negotiating and man management skills seem to need a bit of polishing.

But why would Reid be negotiating with Campbell on Brent's behalf?

It was just how I read it this morning, too many acronyms probably, I didn't see the TC statement on the first page, oops.

TC seems to be copping all the flack in any case.

So even if Brent wanted to pay them, he can't. Have I got this right?

GOB wrote:

So even if Brent wanted to pay them, he can't. Have I got this right?

Yes GOB, because it would open him up to a legal challenge from everyone else and push the Club over the edge.

Chris Webb wrote:

GOB wrote:

So even if Brent wanted to pay them, he can't. Have I got this right?

Yes GOB, because it would open him up to a legal challenge from everyone else and push the Club over the edge.

What makes these 2 so different Chris? Is it because of personal loans/heating bills/petrol costs etc?

Obviously for us mere mortals to raise the stakes for everyone involved in this sorry mess would be a fortune too far, but couldn't Brent just raise his bid a hint for all and resolve the situation?

At the end of the day I do not believe that either Reid or Campbell will allow the club to die and neither will Brent, it's a day of bluff for everyone.

GOB wrote:

Obviously for us mere mortals to raise the stakes for everyone involved in this sorry mess would be a fortune too far, but couldn't Brent just raise his bid a hint for all and resolve the situation?

At the end of the day I do not believe that either Reid or Campbell will allow the club to die and neither will Brent, it's a day of bluff for everyone.

If JB raises his bid for two then everyone else will be legally entitled to challenge the process. It simply isn't an option.

Chris Webb wrote:

GOB wrote:

Obviously for us mere mortals to raise the stakes for everyone involved in this sorry mess would be a fortune too far, but couldn't Brent just raise his bid a hint for all and resolve the situation?

At the end of the day I do not believe that either Reid or Campbell will allow the club to die and neither will Brent, it's a day of bluff for everyone.

If JB raises his bid for two then everyone else will be legally entitled to challenge the process. It simply isn't an option.

But if that were to happen, would it be a massive hit for Brent?

The argument seems to be down to..

1) Have Campbell/Reid been offered "exactly" the same terms as others?

2) Is the amount offered the correct amount?


For fans to reach a conclusion and therefore a horse to back, they need to know the facts and not just a ton of spin and innuendo.

I'm with you there Gob, too much rabble rousing and not enough fact.

I wonder if this has happened before..

An Administration company wants a few more bob but the new buyer says no.

The Administrator has a quiet word with one or two and suggest that by the one or two delaying the process the administrator gains the income of the failed business for a couple more weeks and gets his "bit more" anyway.

The delay is a success and the administrator makes sure that those that caused the delay and helped him to gain a few more bob, do "OK" out of it.


Just an idea like!