Tony Wrathall set to return to Plymouth Argyle's board of directors

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Assuming Wrathall's 5% costs £100k (because AFT was offered 20% @ £400k) Brent's finances must be more stretched than even we thought if he thinks the stench of shame and disgrace attached to Wrathall has been forgotten and justifies getting a measly £100k.

Do we really need £100k that bad? Very, very worrying if we do. Further evidence, if any was ever needed, for the need to constantly scrutinize the club's finances and to trust nobody ever.

Obviously Chris Webb will be resigning as club President moments after Wrathall's return is confirmed.

According to the last accounts (December 2012) the asset value of the PAFC Ltd was £4.522m. Since that date the intangible assets (player contract values) may have been enhanced further with extended contracts signed together with the emergence of valuable younger players. In addition, the football club is the beneficiary of a planning permission that may, in accounting terms at least add value to the asset. It may be in accounting terms the asset value of the club is higher than at December 2012, notwithstanding its liabilities extending to one year and beyond.

The £100k figure of the value of the 5% shareholding is not only wholly inaccurate it is unnecessarily misleading. An authoritative source has told me that the actual figure is significantly higher. Perhaps an official club statement will confirm.

£110k?

A case of rats 'joining' a sinking ship?

I need a lie down.

I have sat in Contingency Group meetings listening to Jones disgust at the way the 7 led the club to the brink of extinction. Now he is happy to be sitting around the Boardroom table witf h TW. So he's now happy that the Club will buy the ground out of public ownership and share his prawn sandwiches with TW. Quite simply the biggest turncoat in football history.

Actually the amount is irrelevant. It reminds me of a (not very good) joke.

There is a very pretty girl sitting on a train and a very wealthy man sitting opposite her. They start to chat. The man eventually offers her £1m to sleep with him. She replies that she couldn't possibly answer such a question. He then offers her 50p on the same terms. "No! Never! What sort of girl do you think I am?" "We've already established that, my dear; all we are doing now is haggling over a price."

Integrity
Honesty
Financial stability - in doubt but looking rocky at present.

Transparency

Openness

When is the club going to start being straight with us?

Sits in Spion Kop bit - sort of put him out of my mind now as he sits as a fan only, not sure about coming back though. I would suggest the more relevant issue is why does Brent need the cash - this building lark will never be finished, hope it doesn't start!!

Tringreen wrote:

Hitch wrote:

Wrathall will have minority shareholder's rights. He will also have one vote on the board along with his co-directors. From memory, I believe we were told at the time of Brent's takeover that, Brent aside, the new directors were 'not walleted'.

And that 'we' [meaning the Windsor Boys and chums], would be allowed to help run the village show, in return for keeping the natives quiet.

"How would you feel if Stapleton came back? I personally saw him at Kidderminster in 1999 wearing a green scarf, and just happened to be watching on youtube when the thought occurred to me" etc.

Baggo Bullshit

So now we have a new 7. Brent, Felwick, Halliday, Sexstone, Starnes, Jones and Wrathall. Only two who have paid up though.

“After taking over the club, we very rapidly got to the bottom of what had gone on in the period leading up to administration. It became abundantly clear that Tony was in no way responsible for the meltdown."

Er, I'm not really sure that's how it works, is it?

I have to say that, personally, I'm far more comfortable with a contrite, walleted and genuine green like Wrathhall on the board than a devious, divisive, main-chancing, what's-in-it-for-me, snake in the grass like Jones involved. Weird innit?

The true story may one day come out. There is always 'fact' and 'internet fact'. Tony Wrathall may or may not carry less responsibility for our near demise as Mr Brent has claimed on more than one occasion. We actually don't know. One day a book may be written about it. If that book is written & absolves him of responsibility I would have little reluctance to have him back on board. But until that is demonstrated then the conjecture about the degree his culpability remains.

But it is certainly an own-goal by the current board and should stand - along with all that has gone before - in condemnation of their empty intent to work with the fans and maintain open-ness & transparency. The contempt that the fans, the PASB & the Trust are held in is palpable.

Tony Wrathall's wish to help in the resurrection of the club may be an honourable one. Again, on a number of occasions I've read positive comments about the man and his being a true supporter. I just happen to think that his first move should have been to pay off any outstanding debts to the staff.

Hitch wrote:

Han Solos Other Ship wrote:

Why has he done this as opposed to paying towards the debt he helped to create?

If the money he has paid for his shares actually goes into the club and not the pocket of the person (Brent) who is selling him the shares then there is an argument to say that at least part of that money will actually be going toward the repayment of historic debt.

I'm guessing here that the money was paid to Jimmy and then put into the club by way of a loan, further increasing the debt????
Can anyone clear this up?

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

Gareth Nicholson wrote:

“After taking over the club, we very rapidly got to the bottom of what had gone on in the period leading up to administration. It became abundantly clear that Tony was in no way responsible for the meltdown."

Er, I'm not really sure that's how it works, is it?

He was one of seven director's who oversaw the worst era in the club's history.

He is jointly responsible for it.

So if Argyle signed a 2 million pound striker who banged in 50 goals and got us promoted but only one director put the cash forward for the transfer would it be soley that director who got us up then?

More bullshit from Brent and co.

Well I actually asked TW in person, in front of about a dozen witnesses, what the feck he thought was happening back then and the reply came that they (along with Stapleton and Dennerley) were both in the dark about the true financial situation because Todd wouldn't tell them anything important and powerless to do anything about it had they known because Todd and SRG had Kagami's proxy and so would out-vote them if they tried to interfere.

They also admitted that they had "taken their eyes off the ball" because they were in limbo awaiting Kagami to exercise his option to buy their shareholding.

So, basically, by accepting a "your cheque is in the post" promise they relinquished all influence and hence in their own minds all responsibility, I'm sure.

Moist_Von_Lipwig wrote:

Hitch wrote:

Han Solos Other Ship wrote:

Why has he done this as opposed to paying towards the debt he helped to create?

If the money he has paid for his shares actually goes into the club and not the pocket of the person (Brent) who is selling him the shares then there is an argument to say that at least part of that money will actually be going toward the repayment of historic debt.

I'm guessing here that the money was paid to Jimmy and then put into the club by way of a loan, further increasing the debt????
Can anyone clear this up?

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

Thanks for that link reminder Moist, have ensured the others are reminded too.

Argyle are loosing money, Brent only loans Argyle money (he will want it all back) he gets Wrathall's money and it saves him loaning more, he rides off with the millions in profit from the developement and without ever spending a single penny of his own money he is seen as the man who saved Argyle!

He 'buys' the Pavillions for £1, which the council tax payers owned and then trousers £900,000 into his pension fund, he's nothing if not clever.............

It's noice ter see a prapper mullet back on the board. Foook short back an sides; Brent's non descriptness an Iddesleigh's sliminess was beginning to fookin grate on me an my fellow retro hair aficionados. Just need Webb to grow a mustash an we're flyin'.

Moist_Von_Lipwig wrote:

Chris Webb wrote:

Hi All
James Brent has been completely adament that no ex-director would be allowed onto the Board or as an investor whilst he is in charge. This remains the case.
Chris

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

 
That comment from Webb hardly squares with Brent's latest quote, does it?
 
"After taking over the club, we very rapidly got to the bottom of what had gone on in the period leading up to administration. It became abundantly clear that Tony was in no way responsible for the meltdown."

Geddon the Moist..........Damon!!!   

Moist_Von_Lipwig wrote:

Chris Webb wrote:

Hi All
James Brent has been completely adament that no ex-director would be allowed onto the Board or as an investor whilst he is in charge. This remains the case.
Chris

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

So Brent is also a liar then?

Yea Man wrote:

Moist_Von_Lipwig wrote:

Chris Webb wrote:

Hi All
James Brent has been completely adament that no ex-director would be allowed onto the Board or as an investor whilst he is in charge. This remains the case.
Chris

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

So Brent is also a liar then?

Or Webb, or both, or Brent has changed his mind - again. I can almost hear the terrace chorus of "you don't know what you're doing" ringing loud - although I rather suspect he knows precisely what he's doing.