Letter from the Football League - IMPORTANT | PASOTI
  • Welcome to PASOTI. Sponsored by Lang & Potter

Letter from the Football League - IMPORTANT

A

Anonymous

Guest
Hi All

Received 30 seconds ago............

Chris

Chris,

Thank you for your letter.

We note what you say on the matter but at present The League can only deal with applications from the preferred bidders selected by the administrator, as the administrator controls the assets of the Club. If that bid meet our requirements then we will proceed in line with our established practice. If the bid does not meets our requirements the administrator will be notified and he will then have to determine his next steps. It is at the discretion of the Administrator who to position as its next preferred purchaser.

Since receipt of your letter we have also spoken with the City Council who expressed the view that whilst they do not entirely agree with the position you attribute to them in your letter, they do recognise the need for a ‘plan B’ to be considered should the current bid fail.

At this time The Football League has met with the current proposed purchasers of the Club but has not approved any application for membership of The League going forwards. Whilst there has been a lot of discussion in the local press about the third party purchaser, we have made it absolutely clear in all discussions with the administrators that we will expect full transparency on all aspects of the exit from administration and we await further updates in that respect.

Any proposed transaction of the club will be examined closely against our requirements before being submitted to the Football League Board for its consideration. Where the proposal is that the assets of the club, including its League membership, should be transferred to a new owner (which is the standard way in which a football club emerges from administration), then the Articles again give The League absolute control over that proposed transfer of The League share to a new owner, allowing it to refuse to permit such transfer, or to permit it but only on such conditions as The League sees fit. Unless The Football League Board is satisfied that the exit arrangements provide the Club with a firmer footing going forwards it is unlikely that it will be in a position to approve any exit from administration as a continuing member of the Football League. It has refused permission in other cases, it reserves the right to do so again if the circumstances are appropriate.

We thank you for contacting The Football League on this matter, however we cannot provide a running commentary on this process and are unable to add further at this time. Updates that we do give will be made available on http://www.football-league.co.uk and you should check there for any further updates.


Regards,


Andy Williamson

Chief Operating Officer

The Football League Limited
 
Jan 5, 2011
114
0
Guildford
mrrapson":2m3b16aq said:
So in short the fl still haven't received the info that they require with regards to ownership? Yet another slack response from the pb.

The sooner the people in charge realise that this bid is dead in the water the better.

That seems to be twisting words slightly, it says they are awaiting further updates regarding the exit of administration.
That could be information from BG for all we know.

Interesting that the football league has met with the PB's though, shame they can't give us some names.
 
G

GreenMill

Guest
LSGreen":fumd00nl said:
mrrapson":fumd00nl said:
So in short the fl still haven't received the info that they require with regards to ownership? Yet another slack response from the pb.

The sooner the people in charge realise that this bid is dead in the water the better.

That seems to be twisting words slightly, it says they are awaiting further updates regarding the exit of administration.
That could be information from BG for all we know.

Interesting that the football league has met with the PB's though, shame they can't give us some names.
They've met the 'proposed purchasers of the Club' i.e. Peter Ridsdale and perhaps David Jones - they are not the Preferred Bidders, it seems the FL do not know who the PB are yet...

One thing we should all remember about this process is that when any of the 'official' parties (BG, PR, FL etc) involved says anything, then their words are extremely carefully chosen...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
lee_wsm":187iw2qp said:
same email i got last week they are not going to let us fans know anything

Lee

It is not the same as the standard letter. There are some similar lines etc but this is a direct reply to our letter a couple of weeks ago.

Chris
 
LSGreen":3345ggim said:
mrrapson":3345ggim said:
So in short the fl still haven't received the info that they require with regards to ownership? Yet another slack response from the pb.

The sooner the people in charge realise that this bid is dead in the water the better.

That seems to be twisting words slightly, it says they are awaiting further updates regarding the exit of administration.
That could be information from BG for all we know.

Interesting that the football league has met with the PB's though, shame they can't give us some names.
Whilst there has been a lot of discussion in the local press about the third party purchaser, we have made it absolutely clear in all discussions with the administrators that we will expect full transparency on all aspects of the exit from administration and we await further updates in that respect.


No twisting required there really, it comments about speculationregarding the purchaser and the have reiterated their requirement for transparency on all aspects. I'm just not reading between the lines is all.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Remember as far as the football League are concerned PAFC (125) Ltd are the proposed purchasers of the club. They have not approved any application for membership of the League for that company.

With regard to the 'third party purchaser' that is Bishop International Ltd. It is clear from the League's statement that they are still 'awaiting full transparency on all aspects'. They are awaiting further updates in that respect from the administrator. The statement could be interpreted as though they have not met this 'third party purchaser;, otherwise why refer to that person separately from the purchasers of the club.

With Brendan Guilfoyle indicating that the 12th August is now an absolute deadline with no contractual extensions that leaves five working days for the PBs to meet the necessary transparency requirements and for the Football League to adjudicate as to whether the named individual(s) pass all their tests in respect of the Rules and Regulations. In all the circumstances that is a mighty challenge within a curtailed timescale.
 
Well done Chris for keeping us updated, however I am interested in the paragraph below contained within the F.L.'s reply.

quote - Since receipt of your letter we have also spoken with the City Council who expressed the view that whilst they do not entirely agree with the position you attribute to them in your letter, they do recognise the need for a ‘Contingency Plan’ to be considered should the current bid fail.

Does this need any clarification with the City Council to make sure they are not slipping & sliding a bit ?

Thank you for all the work you are putting into making sure we have a plan B in case Plan A fails.
 
Aug 26, 2009
249
0
Plympton
Chris - forgive me if I am being thick, but I have just heard what Brenda had to say on the radio this morning, and now I have just read the Football League's response to you.

Brenda specifically said that the deal with the PB's was conditional on the PBs getting the 'share' - so, they won't pay up until that share is there's! Ok, but the League is saying that it requires total transparency from the PB's on who will own the club (and they have yet to received that).

So, my reasoning is that -

1. The Football League is not able to move forward because of BIL's secrecy, and BIL appears in no rush to step down from its perch (why only they know);

2. BIL will not move forward until the Football League gives them the nod (which the League will not do until it gets the info it needs).

We therefore have a perfect stand-off!

Meanwhile, Heaney has apparently told Brenda he has other sources for the estimated £5M, but would rather use the sale of land (that has yet to go through).

Brenda tells us he is contracted to BIL, but surley BIL has killed that obligation already by failing to meet deadlines and failing to meet the fully agreed exclusivity payment.

What a complete and utter farce Brenda has created. Surely he is finished! He must be an extremely worried man!
 
Dec 2, 2010
272
5
Plymouth
GreenMill":3uhmqagb said:
They've met the 'proposed purchasers of the Club' i.e. Peter Ridsdale and perhaps David Jones - they are not the Preferred Bidders, it seems the FL do not know who the PB are yet...
quote]

They met with somebody very recently.
email reply for football league Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 6:48 am
The Football League has not met with the proposed purchasers of the Club

Letter from the Football League - IMPORTANT Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:42 pm
At this time The Football League has met with the current proposed purchasers of the Club
 
Jan 5, 2011
114
0
Guildford
mrrapson":zpcgx1ve said:
No twisting required there really, it comments about speculation regarding the purchaser and the have reiterated their requirement for transparency on all aspects. I'm just not reading between the lines is all.

Yes and they have asked for this transparency from the administrator.

It's not an issue worth splitting hairs over to be honest, just don't see how the PB's have given a slack repsonse (your words) to the league when in theory the PB's shouldn't have much liasons with the league.
 
Jan 27, 2006
625
854
Unless The Football League Board is satisfied that the exit arrangements provide the Club with a firmer footing going forwards it is unlikely that it will be in a position to approve any exit from administration as a continuing member of the Football League.

And therein lies the rub for me. The PB's proposal has them underwriting Argyle's trading loss of the upcoming season to the tune of £2m - or so we are led to believe. Unless this money is provided upfront then there is no credibility in Ridsdale's business plan because the PB has been shown to be unreliable in meeting agreed financial commitments.

The transfer of the league share to Ridsdale's company at this time just does not meet the criteria quoted above.