Was Wrathal at HP today

penzancepirate wrote:

Interesting thoughts there Dougie, and who gives the fans' opinion a tweak before it gets to the boss man.
Let's not forget Ridsdale was still on the scene when the President's invite to Wrathall was given. And it is good to remember through all this process of the last year, only one man was charged with looking after everyone's long term interests, including Tony Wrathall, and that was Ridsdale. It is also quite clear that Ridsdale has often relied on my favourites, the green taverners, to guage fan opinion as with their rather ludicrous questionaire back at the start of the season.
As for our friend Ian Newell, I suspect he is playing a canny game now, what Tringy rightly refers to as low cunning.
He has schooled and encouraged Mr Webb to take over the biggest mouth reputation, as he himself, newly scrubbed up for his interview, diligently works away in the background, saying nothing, just auctionneering and more to the point electioneering for a more official position at the club that he things is rightly his. Let's not forget, no boss man likes a blabber mouth, He's gone on record in fact to say he won't be telling anything

So are you coming to Torquay or not PP?

If the Wrathall thing is sorted to my satisfaction by then, yes. I have family and friend pressures to attend.

penzancepirate wrote:

If the Wrathall thing is sorted to my satisfaction by then, yes. I have family and friend pressures to attend.

Put it this way - I don't think what happened yesterday will take place ever again.

Tickets are going well for this one! Hopefully get at least 3 points out of the next two games then it will set things up nicely.

Is he still welcome as a paying punter?

I still think thats wrong. He has proved himself incapable of using the trust placed in him either as a director or an Argyle supporter. He should lose even his consumer rights after yesterdays episode. Argyle bring a private entity and solely owned by James Brent should make it known that he is not welcome. Via his friends and associates if necessary as he seems unable or unwilling to speak or argue for himself.

Yesterday match sponsors were apparently Devon Furnture Company who are a Green Taverners partner and whose owner is involved with the organisation of the Green Taverners

http://www.greentaverners.co.uk/partners/

http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/Argyle-fans-step-help-team-travel-costs/story-11667097-detail/story.html

Now what with the Taverners being approached by Wrathall in the first place and them in turn being the catalyst for The Presidents original Wrathall post it's all getting to be a bit incestuous

I somehow think that is why the fairly simple question of who was sponsoring the game and who's guest Wrathall was was so hard to get an answer to

I can clear up some of the details of what happens when a match is sponsored having been a guest of match sponsors myself recently.

The match sponsor gets given a table in the business lounge as part of the sponsorship package. I think each table seats 10 diners. Each of those people gets issued with 2 tickets which includes a grandstand seat and a pass to the business lounge. These tickets are held at reception until collected by a named person as arranged in advance between the club and the sponsor. So you can't just stroll in. Imagine that I was the named person. I would go to reception explain that I was Frankie collecting the tickets on behalf of DEVON FURNITURE COMPANY who were yesterday's match sponsors as named on the cover of the programme. I would then divvy the tickets out to the other guests in the car park and we would enter through the palyers entrance. The club wouldn't have any idea at all as to who the sponsors guests might be. There is no vetting at all. The club simply trusts the sponsor not to invite Gary Glitter, Robert Mugabe etc and why wouldn't they trust the sponsors?

Once in then the sponsors package includes a tour of the changing rooms, a pitchside reception for the players as the leave the tunnel, a 3 course meal, free programme, choice of the Man of the Match and the chance to meet the MotM for a presentation. That is it I think. Drinks are not included but the sponsor picked up the tab when I went so the booze was free. There was also a champagne toast which might have been a part of the package but I'm not sure.

So Wrathall's presence yesterday would probably have been a huge surprise to the club and there is no reason at all that anybody would have known in advance other than the sponsors themselves.

I can see no reason why Wrathall should not have been there on the pitch and all the rest of it yesterday. If he is welcome to buy a ticket and take a seat in a stand like anybody else is then he should be welcome to be the guest of a sponsor and to enjoy all that goes with it which includes the pitch side bit.

I can see no reason at all as to why he shouldn't eat the food served to him by staff that he shafted so cruelly. And no reason why they should not have served him. He was a paying customer, of sorts as he enjoyed his freebie but let us not forget that somebody somewhere did pay for him, and the more of them that there is the sooner the club can pay back the money owed to the staff.

When I say there is no reason at all that is in the context of who he is and the role he has had at the club. Personally I would not have gone if I was him and if I was the sponsor I would not have invited him but he was invited and he did choose to go. His presence at pitchside follows on from there.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I can clear up some of the details of what happens when a match is sponsored having been a guest of match sponsors myself recently.

The match sponsor gets given a table in the business lounge as part of the sponsorship package. I think each table seats 10 diners. Each of those people gets issued with 2 tickets which includes a grandstand seat and a pass to the business lounge. These tickets are held at reception until collected by a named person as arranged in advance between the club and the sponsor. So you can't just stroll in. Imagine that I was the named person. I would go to reception explain that I was Frankie collecting the tickets on behalf of DEVON FURNITURE COMPANY who were yesterday's match sponsors as named on the cover of the programme. I would then divvy the tickets out to the other guests in the car park and we would enter through the palyers entrance. The club wouldn't have any idea at all as to who the sponsors guests might be. There is no vetting at all. The club simply trusts the sponsor not to invite Gary Glitter, Robert Mugabe etc and why wouldn't they trust the sponsors?

Once in then the sponsors package includes a tour of the changing rooms, a pitchside reception for the players as the leave the tunnel, a 3 course meal, free programme, choice of the Man of the Match and the chance to meet the MotM for a presentation. That is it I think. Drinks are not included but the sponsor picked up the tab when I went so the booze was free. There was also a champagne toast which might have been a part of the package but I'm not sure.

So Wrathall's presence yesterday would probably have been a huge surprise to the club and there is no reason at all that anybody would have known in advance other than the sponsors themselves.

I can see no reason why Wrathall should not have been there on the pitch and all the rest of it yesterday. If he is welcome to buy a ticket and take a seat in a stand like anybody else is then he should be welcome to be the guest of a sponsor and to enjoy all that goes with it which includes the pitch side bit.

I can see no reason at all as to why he shouldn't eat the food served to him by staff that he shafted so cruelly. And no reason why they should not have served him. He was a paying customer, of sorts as he enjoyed his freebie but let us not forget that somebody somewhere did pay for him, and the more of them that there is the sooner the club can pay back the money owed to the staff.

When I say there is no reason at all that is in the context of who he is and the role he has had at the club. Personally I would not have gone if I was him and if I was the sponsor I would not have invited him but he was invited and he did choose to go. His presence at pitchside follows on from there.

I can think of 17 million reasons why he shouldn't have been on the pitch yesterday, and I can think of 10 reasons, equal to the number of months staff went without full pay, why he shouldn't have eaten the food served to him by staff that he so cruelly shafted.

But then yesterdays events have just proved that he is a first class c**t and I hope that he has read all of the comments on here and on PASOTI and now he has had his 5 minutes of fame again, he crawls back into the woodwork and never shows his face anywhere near Home Park again.

Those are just about the same reasons that would have led me to make the decision not to attend. Wrathall obviously thought differently.

My point was that the sponsors pay good money to invite who they please and it is very little to do with the club. Wrathall is not banned from Home Park and he is not, so far as I know, a convicted criminal with a banning order.

In terms of legality and the relationship between club and sponsor there is no reason why he shouldn't have done what he did. The morality of it is a different thing altogether. I would not have invited him. If I was him I would have declined the invitation.

I think the point of real interest here is the link between the sponsors, Wrathall and the GTs. I wonder how those sponsors thought this would be received?

Quote :

I hope that he has read all of the comments on here and on PASOTI and now he has had his 5 minutes of fame again, he crawls back into the woodwork and never shows his face anywhere near Home Park again.

I think there is little chance of that. The man is so thick/naive (delete as appropriate) and has prominent individuals around Home Park betting for him that he will be back forthwith. Even if it's a paying punter. I think he has even foregone that right now and sholud be told in unequivocal terms lest it doesn't sink in. Just wait for another campaign suggesting he's been wronged once again and is seen curing up for a ticket because it's his right to.

Have I got this right?

1) Chris and pasoti spokesman, Ian, are happy that no part of the clubs situation can be linked to Wrathal and they were happy for him to return to Home Park.

2) Despite Wrathel's "innocence" regarding the clubs dire fortunes and after stating that he should return to HP, Ian and Chris do now not want Wrathal returning to Home Park and their change of opinions has nothing to do with the negative response from the majority.

3) Chris was approached by a GT member and asked to invite Wrathal to HP. I assume that Chris was also told that Wrathel played no part in the fiasco.

4) It was a member of the GT's that invited Wrathel, via sponsership, to HP on Saturday.

5) There is no agenda by anyone to have Wrathel return to Home Park

If he wants to buy a ticket then that is fine with me because the club needs all the money it can get. I wouldn't give him the steam off my proverbial though. Nor would I ban him. But if I was him I wouldn't go.

GOB wrote:

Have I got this right?

1) Chris and pasoti spokesman, Ian, are happy that no part of the clubs situation can be linked to Wrathal and they were happy for him to return to Home Park.

2) Despite Wrathel's "innocence" regarding the clubs dire fortunes and after stating that he should return to HP, Ian and Chris do now not want Wrathal returning to Home Park and their change of opinions has nothing to do with the negative response from the majority.

3) Chris was approached by a GT member and asked to invite Wrathal to HP. I assume that Chris was also told that Wrathel played no part in the fiasco.

4) It was a member of the GT's that invited Wrathel, via sponsership, to HP on Saturday.

5) There is no agenda by anyone to have Wrathel return to Home Park

?

Oooh the plot thickens

I'll tell you what is the case Gob.
Where Wrathallgate is concerned, everything links back to the Green Taverners.
I've been banging on about this bunch ever since they formed after a meeting with Ridsdale..... something isn't quite right, far too connected to the executives and some previous board members.

GOB wrote:

Have I got this right?

1) Chris and pasoti spokesman, Ian, are happy that no part of the clubs situation can be linked to Wrathal and they were happy for him to return to Home Park.

2) Despite Wrathel's "innocence" regarding the clubs dire fortunes and after stating that he should return to HP, Ian and Chris do now not want Wrathal returning to Home Park and their change of opinions has nothing to do with the negative response from the majority.

3) Chris was approached by a GT member and asked to invite Wrathal to HP. I assume that Chris was also told that Wrathel played no part in the fiasco.

4) It was a member of the GT's that invited Wrathel, via sponsership, to HP on Saturday.

5) There is no agenda by anyone to have Wrathel return to Home Park

[color=red]
?



[/c olor]

Nearly I think. Chris asserts he was only testing the water with regards Wrathalls safety. It was only when pushed that he came to say this though. His original post was a loud and proud invite to Tony to be his guest at a game. Partly based on evidence revealed to him by Brent that Wrathall wasn't the main culprit.

However it now appears Wrathall was a guest of a Green Taverners partner whose owner is a Green Taverner founder/leader (although I use these terms advisedly as it all seems quite loose). No one appeared to want to acknowledge who the sponsors were which seems a bit far fetched as it would have been an easy find for someone with presidential powers.

It stinks of closing ranks.

I always love to see the narrative that gets played out in these things, however small these things are in the whole scheme of things. But this is all being portrayed as a "silly mistake" or "an error of judgement" If heed was taken back in November none of this "silliness" would have come to pass. Some mistake. Some error.

wrathall is and was a fully fledge memeber of the M7 he played his part in our downfall just as much as the other 6. I wont accept this "he wasnt that involved" bollocks from those trying to defend him.

Whilst he is free to attend homepark if he pays for a ticket to watch the football he is not welcome back in any other capacity not even as a sponsor.

Of course Wrathal was involved, right up to his neck in it!

The only bemusing thing in this lot is that Chris and his mates actually believe they can pull the wool over everyone's eyes when it can't really be anymore obvious that there seem to be one or two "favours" involved. just like the favour that Chris needed to become Brent's bitch president!

My advise to Chris and Ian and Co. is find another flock, this one aint believing the bullshit!

GOB wrote:

Of course Wrathal was involved, right up to his neck in it!

The only bemusing thing in this lot is that Chris and his mates actually believe they can pull the wool over everyone's eyes when it can't really be anymore obvious that there seem to be one or two "favours" involved. just like the favour that Chris needed to become Brent's bitch president!

My advise to Chris and Ian and Co. is find another flock, this one aint believing the bullshit!

Grow up.

I've made it clear that I had nothing to do with yesterday.

If you can't accept that then fine but stick to the truth........oops forgot every one of your posts would be blank if you did that.

I don't accept it Chris, not a bit of it, nothing you state has added up.

Is Wrathal the innocent party as you have said, or not?

If he is innocent then why don't you want him back at HP?

If there's no agenda to have Wrathal back at HP is it just coincidental that a GT happened to ask you to clear the path for him yet the following week a GT invited him via sponsorship? No agenda?

What convinces you that Wrathal played no part in the fiasco?

Can't believe I am posting this, but I am a fair minded bloke.

Chris has clearly stated on here that he was appalled by Wrathall turning up yesterday and going pitchside. He might have said more on Pasoti, but since I haven't had a taste for sycophantic bollocks today I haven't been over there.

Chris says he had no prior knowledge of yesterday's goings on, he also states that there is no agenda - well he's not aware of one regarding Wrathall.

For the time being, I am prepared to accept what he says on face value. I don't believe Chris is a bare faced liar. Unless he gives cause for any other opinion, I think we should cut him a bit of slack on this.

Of course, if he is lying through his teeth, then he's going to look very stupid and his position as President is going to become untenable.

There is definitely something happening with regard to the GT and what happened yesterday.

There is a direct lineage from a Brent absolution (reported by the President) to a very public invite back to the club by a Club President posting as a fan after discussion with a GTer to the post being whisked off to the Terraces when replies weren't wholly positive to Tony Wrathall standing on the pitch at the invite of a firm totally connected to the GTs

Of course if at any point someone with any clout made it clear that Wrathall wasn't welcome be it club president prominent fan the club owner or the Green Taverners none of this would have happened.

It has become increasingly farcical that no one knew anything and even the suggestions that Wrathall got onto the pitch without the sponsor knowing.

Of course it's all an error of judgement and a silly mistake.

I don't believe Chris is a bare faced liar either, but I do think he's being led a merry dance.

Someone, somewhere, isn't being as honest as they should be!

I would still like to know though, how Chris reached his conclusion that Wrathal played no part in the clubs demise?

Cerbera wrote:

Can't believe I am posting this, but I am a fair minded bloke.

Chris has clearly stated on here that he was appalled by Wrathall turning up yesterday and going pitchside. He might have said more on Pasoti, but since I haven't had a taste for sycophantic bollocks today I haven't been over there.

Chris says he had no prior knowledge of yesterday's goings on, he also states that there is no agenda - well he's not aware of one regarding Wrathall.

For the time being, I am prepared to accept what he says on face value. I don't believe Chris is a bare faced liar. Unless he gives cause for any other opinion, I think we should cut him a bit of slack on this.

Of course, if he is lying through his teeth, then he's going to look very stupid and his position as President is going to become untenable.

There is definitely something happening with regard to the GT and what happened yesterday.

I have to agree with Cerbera. The President says he knew nothing of yesterday and is appalled at Wrathalls front. Good, glad to hear it.

However, the link between GT's/President/Wrathall and the 'testing the water' thread is what's most uncomfortable for me.

They are two seperate issues.

Yesterdays issue has been cleared up.

The other issue hasn't.

GOB wrote:

I would still like to know though, how Chris reached his conclusion that Wrathal played no part in the clubs demise?

To be fair Chris, this is a valid question. Do you still believe it to be the case? If so, why are you so against what happened yesterday? I ask these questions only because you have apparently seen evidence that he wasn't involved and consequently you have had access to far more information than me.

GibGreen wrote:

Cerbera wrote:

Can't believe I am posting this, but I am a fair minded bloke.

Chris has clearly stated on here that he was appalled by Wrathall turning up yesterday and going pitchside. He might have said more on Pasoti, but since I haven't had a taste for sycophantic bollocks today I haven't been over there.

Chris says he had no prior knowledge of yesterday's goings on, he also states that there is no agenda - well he's not aware of one regarding Wrathall.

For the time being, I am prepared to accept what he says on face value. I don't believe Chris is a bare faced liar. Unless he gives cause for any other opinion, I think we should cut him a bit of slack on this.

Of course, if he is lying through his teeth, then he's going to look very stupid and his position as President is going to become untenable.

There is definitely something happening with regard to the GT and what happened yesterday.

I have to agree with Cerbera. The President says he knew nothing of yesterday and is appalled at Wrathalls front. Good, glad to hear it.

However, the link between GT's/President/Wrathall and the 'testing the water' thread is what's most uncomfortable for me.

They are two seperate issues.

Yesterdays issue has been cleared up.

The other issue hasn't.

I can't agree, there's just to many outstanding questions that are being avoided and the more they are avoided the deeper we should dig.

If he is being led up the garden path, I feel very sorry for him when it all comes out. If he thinks there's vitriol aimed at him now...........