Was Wrathal at HP today

penzancepirate wrote:

Chris Webb wrote:

I will back my judgement against anyone.

Good luck on that one Chris. I remember a very naive friend of mine going to Jamaica with that very thought in his mind. He never came back... he took a wrong turn.
You have received all your 'facts' from one little cabal who basically facilitated the sale and bought the club.
I don't believe the Brent Gill hijack ruse at all. Who told you this Chris ? Ridsdale ? You obviously don't think he might have been playing you. That's your call.
I personally think there wasn't a chance in hell that there was any substance behind that. Can you not conceed the likes of Ridsdale is quite capable of making up a ruse to cover other things ... or is that just another negative conspiracy ?
Heaven forbid people should be clever enough to out wit you.

The Gill call was absolutely nothing to do with Ridsdale. Still as per normal don't let the facts get in the way PP.

I certainly won't let 'your' dodgy facts get in the way of my understanding of what's gone down, that's for sure.
My nose is a good one, far better than my head judgement. I don't care about irrelevant specifics, it's shape that interests me, that's where the 'truth' is.
As someone once famosly said ...."Follow the money"

Cerbera wrote:

Who's Bentley GT is in the players car park each home game?

Can't remember the reg plate.

Jake Cole.

Dougie wrote:

I wonder what the press is going to make of this. It's very newsworthy after all (isn't it). If you linked it with The Presidents assertion that Tony Wrathall has both asked for a place on the board (why oh why would he do that) and offered to invest (despite associates letting it be known how much he's been hurt financially) you have a very interesting story for those who don't inhabit the internet day and night.

(Has the same information ever been revealed on Pasoti about the board request and investment offer. It seems like a little bit of pushing and probing by posters on here have produced a little result)

You would expect the press to be all over this, but no, not according to Rupert.

Quote :

.I'm with those who say it wasn't a wise decision, but I also think there are probably more important issues at the club to worry about.

Whilst I recognise that there are other pressing issues what can be more important then one of the ex directors wanting to re-invest and return to the club, given the sensitivity involved?

This has been the stand from the local press since day one of this mess and it seems there will be no change of agenda from a weak and submitting local press.

penzancepirate wrote:

I certainly won't let 'your' dodgy facts get in the way of my understanding of what's gone down, that's for sure.
My nose is a good one, far better than my head judgement. I don't care about irrelevant specifics, it's shape that interests me, that's where the 'truth' is.

Hopefully that 'nose' will find its way to Torquay.

Come on PP, Frank made it and I am sure enjoyed (minus the match). Come on down. Nobody bites.

So the line seems to be 'Nobody knew nothing' which surely means somebody knew something.

Imagine the scene and furore if a little oink with a banning order got on the pitch as the guest of sponsor. I doubt whether he would have touched the ground once it had been noticed.

Chris Webb wrote:

penzancepirate wrote:

I certainly won't let 'your' dodgy facts get in the way of my understanding of what's gone down, that's for sure.
My nose is a good one, far better than my head judgement. I don't care about irrelevant specifics, it's shape that interests me, that's where the 'truth' is.

Hopefully that 'nose' will find its way to Torquay.

Come on PP, Frank made it and I am sure enjoyed (minus the match). Come on down. Nobody bites.

I've already invited PP as my guest . It won't cost him a penny .

We can guarantee mood music was listened to and acted upon. i would imagine the president's comments of a couple of weeks ago didn't help. I didn't hear anything public from Brent or anyone else on Wrathall. Strange that eh. perhaps it was felt the 'discussion' on Pasoti had served it's purpose.

It all reminds when I flew into Otopen airport a few years back.
Cameras, journalist, thousands of people ... pandemonium, chaos, and possibly hairy.
Someone in Romania thought it would be a good idea to let the booted out monarchy back in, and King ( Prince/Princess/dauphin whatever ) Michael had flown in, SUPPOSEDLY unknown to the authorities.
Only vigilance stopped the guy and his supporters from inserting themselves into the vacuum created by the wall coming down. There's always people who know, but nobody admits it until success is achieved and the gongs and property handed out.
He was told to turn around and fly the f**k out toute suite on the end of a serious threat.

Chris Webb wrote:

Cerbera wrote:

Chris, why would I look stupid when TW doesn't get on the board?

I have never stated that he will get on the board. I have made it perfectly clear that I don't agree with what went on yesterday. I asked you if you will be taking this up with JB. You haven't answered. You are under no obligation to. It would just be nice to know. I already have.

You have more to lose than me by being taken for a ride by JB. Your credibility is at stake here. Who sanctioned Wrathall going on the pitch yesterday? The sponsors are asked to provide 6 people to go onto the pitch. Nothing to do with the Club. Don't you feel a little bit snubbed after all your hard work securing the future of the club and not being informed before hand that a morally bankrupt former director was going to rub everyone's noses in the centre circle mud? Well since nobody knew it would have been pretty hard for them to tell me wouldn't it. When you sponsor a game you get a set of places and passes. These are then allocated by the sponsor NOT the Club. It would appear that you weren't told because you are unimportant. Thats fine and joining me on that list will be James Brent, Martin Baker and everyone else who didn't know. Nice try Cerbera.

You for got to answer the first question. So just in case you missed it here it is again:

Why would I look stupid when TW doesn't get on the board?

And what do you mean/infer by 'nice try Cerbera'? I am grateful that you addressed the points I raised. I haven't played rugby since I was at school so haven't scored a try in 35 years.

Perhaps the sponsors need to bear closer examination and their judgement called into question. I might have missed it, but who were the sponsors responsible for letting that tw@t onto the pitch yesterday?

Chris Webb wrote:

argyledj wrote:

Pete1886 wrote:

The sponsors don't provide a guest list. They pay their money get the tickets and invite who they want. They then choose which 6 will be guard of honour on the pitch.

i find that incredible surely the club must know who will be attending whats to stop somebody with a banning order turn up as a sponsors guest and even if they did have no idea until he turned up surely there was enough time for a decision to be made that it would be inappropriate for him to go pitchside... a couple of weeks ago a thread about him returning to games and now this if anyone belives its a coincidence then they must be living in cloud cukoo land somebody at argyle has an agenda to see him return the question is why?.

What agenda could that be then? He's lost most of his money so offers nothing in that way. Oh so that means that James Brent must want him onboard for his incredible judgement??............not everything requires a conspiracy theory argyledj.

the story about him being exempt of most of the blame,then the should he return and watch a mate debate and a few weeks later maybe its not jb but somebody somewhere wants him back in the circle why? hopefully as president you can talk to james brent and find out who in the club let him go on the pitch surely the sponsors would of agreed to him keeping a lower profile if asked.

Actually Cerbera, there seems to be a bit of a disagreement on Pasoti as to who the sponsors were. We may even find out that it was a business connected to Wrathall himself.

How many times does that happen ... not publishing anywhere who the sponsors were ... surely that's the whole point of sponsorship. Surely Argyle always publish the name. Something smells very badly here.

penzancepirate wrote:

Actually Cerbera, there seems to be a bit of a disagreement on Pasoti as to who the sponsors were. We may even find out that it was busness connected to Wrathall himself.

How many times does that happen ... not publishing anywhere who the sponsors were ... surely that's the whole point of sponsorship. Surely Argyle always publish the name. Something smells very badly here.

Whomever they are they wont see a penny of my money .

Indeed.

Certainly the idea of sponsorship is to increase your company exposure and hopefully increase business. However, my experience is usually sponsorship does little to enhance business but does create a useful expense on the P+L come year end.

I don't have a recent Argyle programme to hand, but the ECFC one in my bedside drawer (useful for insomnia ) has all the sponsors along the bottom of the front cover.

The sponsors normally get some space in the match programme for an advert plus they get some advertising space pitchside. The perks are they form a guard of honour for the players entrance and name the man of the match. It used to better when they were entertained in the Chisolm Lounge instead of the Argyle Lounge, but it appears that the Chisolm is being used by a different group these days.

you have to admire the staff member who served him if it had been me he would of been wearing his dinner and ended up halfway down outland rd on his arse, it takes a lot to make me lose my temper but to have someone turn up and expect all the fine service when he had made my family suffer hardship for months would of been the straw that broke the camels back.

Chris has explained his side, fair enough, I'm sure he regrets raising the TW issue initially (on whoevers behest). One piece of advice I would offer him is not to feel such an obligation to respond to either queries or criticisms. Posting on Pasoti last night while out for a Xmas meal just makes me shake my head in despair. The world won't stop turning over any issues at this tinpot football club.

Chris Webb wrote:

Cerbera wrote:

Chris, why would I look stupid when TW doesn't get on the board?

I have never stated that he will get on the board. I have made it perfectly clear that I don't agree with what went on yesterday. I asked you if you will be taking this up with JB. You haven't answered. You are under no obligation to. It would just be nice to know. I already have.

You have more to lose than me by being taken for a ride by JB. Your credibility is at stake here. Who sanctioned Wrathall going on the pitch yesterday? The sponsors are asked to provide 6 people to go onto the pitch. Nothing to do with the Club. Don't you feel a little bit snubbed after all your hard work securing the future of the club and not being informed before hand that a morally bankrupt former director was going to rub everyone's noses in the centre circle mud? Well since nobody knew it would have been pretty hard for them to tell me wouldn't it. When you sponsor a game you get a set of places and passes. These are then allocated by the sponsor NOT the Club. It would appear that you weren't told because you are unimportant. Thats fine and joining me on that list will be James Brent, Martin Baker and everyone else who didn't know. Nice try Cerbera.

Chris,

In this day and age of heightened security etc, I find it very hard to believe that Argyle do not have a list of those attending as sponsor's guests.

Dougie wrote:

Cerbera wrote:

Who's Bentley GT is in the players car park each home game?

Can't remember the reg plate.

Think it's Plympton Pilgrim finally getting his parking space

If the rottweiler sees that he'll be patrolling the car park at the next home match.

This whole thing does no-one no favours. From the post a few weeks ago to Wrathall appearing at Home Park - surely it can't be a coincidence?

Charlie has it right - at the moment it's a tin pot club, with tin pot people and a tin pot President.

A valid point raised earlier, if the club is unaware/ uninterested in the sponsor's guest list it would be very easy for any potentially undesirable to gain access to the club, pitch and in this case personal contact with the players.

Security does seem a tad lax.

PlymptonPilgrim wrote:

Dougie wrote:

Cerbera wrote:

Who's Bentley GT is in the players car park each home game?

Can't remember the reg plate.

Think it's Plympton Pilgrim finally getting his parking space

If the rottweiler sees that he'll be patrolling the car park at the next home match.

This whole thing does no-one no favours. From the post a few weeks ago to Wrathall appearing at Home Park - surely it can't be a coincidence?

Charlie has it right - at the moment it's a tin pot club, with tin pot people and a tin pot President.

And I sold my car parking space for the staff fund......that must have hurt to see your dream slipping away....

Charlie Wood wrote:

Chris has explained his side, fair enough, I'm sure he regrets raising the TW issue initially (on whoevers behest). One piece of advice I would offer him is not to feel such an obligation to respond to either queries or criticisms. Posting on Pasoti last night while out for a Xmas meal just makes me shake my head in despair. The world won't stop turning over any issues at this tinpot football club.

There is nothing to suggest he thinks the original invite to Tony was wrong. Despite the opinion on that particular thread being in the majority against Wrathall. Further he's said he offered no feedback to Wrathall or Brent nor does know if anyone else advised them. If thats he case why ask in the first place (of course when pushed it was not just a personal invite but a testing of the waters after original speaking to Mark Mc and Ian)

You are right that it appears that every point and issue has to be fought over. Sometimes even on behalf of mates because thats what you do for "real life' mates (another view that maybe sometimes you tell your mates to wind their necks in).

Thankfully though in some respects its good he's posts so frequently otherwise we wouldn't know that Wrathall offered both himself and his money to Brent. It says buckets about him that he think that or his action yesterday is appropriate.

Chris Webb wrote:

penzancepirate wrote:

Thanks for the post Mr President.
Many people said you were backing the wrong horse with Wrathall a couple of weeks ago.
You didn't listen.
I would wager the Wrathall thing isn't the only thing that just might come back to bite you in the next couple of months when bones rise to the surface as they inevitably must given the probable deals done.. It's not your integrity that is at question here, that's irrelevant and would take a milenium to debate, it's your judgement.
What are you going to do about Wrathallgate thaen Mr President, or are you just a token post for branding and sales purposes. What of the fans at the centre of the club ?
Watch out for your friend James, or his worker, taking you aside for a quick matey word.

##

An opportunist post PP.

I will repeat AGAIN, my post a few weeks back was related to simply attending as a supporter and paying his way, not lording it in the business lounge and going on the pitch.

I will back my judgement against anyone. Was it right for me to out the ex directors trying to hijack James Brents bid? Yes. Was it right for me to promote the staff not taking another waiver on the last day of the takeover? Yes. Was it right to make Guilfoyle feel the heat at public meetings? Yes..........I could go on.

What am I going to do? I have already spoken to James Brent and relayed my feelings. He knows the supporters aren't happy. He has also received feedback from staff and will continue that this week. I guess you'll have to attend the next game see if there is a repeat of yesterday. I think not but then your judgement is so much better.

Wasn't Wrathall involved in a last minute bid to derail the James Brent bid, or have I got that totally wrong? Sorry if I have.

greenjock wrote:

Chris Webb wrote:

penzancepirate wrote:

Thanks for the post Mr President.
Many people said you were backing the wrong horse with Wrathall a couple of weeks ago.
You didn't listen.
I would wager the Wrathall thing isn't the only thing that just might come back to bite you in the next couple of months when bones rise to the surface as they inevitably must given the probable deals done.. It's not your integrity that is at question here, that's irrelevant and would take a milenium to debate, it's your judgement.
What are you going to do about Wrathallgate thaen Mr President, or are you just a token post for branding and sales purposes. What of the fans at the centre of the club ?
Watch out for your friend James, or his worker, taking you aside for a quick matey word.

##

An opportunist post PP.

I will repeat AGAIN, my post a few weeks back was related to simply attending as a supporter and paying his way, not lording it in the business lounge and going on the pitch.

I will back my judgement against anyone. Was it right for me to out the ex directors trying to hijack James Brents bid? Yes. Was it right for me to promote the staff not taking another waiver on the last day of the takeover? Yes. Was it right to make Guilfoyle feel the heat at public meetings? Yes..........I could go on.

What am I going to do? I have already spoken to James Brent and relayed my feelings. He knows the supporters aren't happy. He has also received feedback from staff and will continue that this week. I guess you'll have to attend the next game see if there is a repeat of yesterday. I think not but then your judgement is so much better.

Wasn't Wrathall involved in a last minute bid to derail the James Brent bid, or have I got that totally wrong? Sorry if I have.

No you are right. Wrathll was right in on that. Probably being naive again and just backing up his friend Stapleton. He too was to have the dogs unleashed on him unless he backed down from the action and publicly backed Brent. He must have backed down but certainly didn't publicly backed Brent. Though word must have got back to the CPers somehow without direct contact with Chris. Seems like Wrathall always does his work through intermediaries. (as an aside anyone ever seen the emails from Stapleton promised as evidence in the same incident but seemingly never forthcoming)

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