G
grovehill
Guest
Graham Clark":296cgo1o said:storming":296cgo1o said:Ed_Blackburn":296cgo1o said:- His PB was James Brent, but Brent's offer was not palatable to the administrator.
- Was unequivocal that Brenden's boss does not want the process to be reopened and as such would rather the club fold than expose his business any longer, hence the sliding deadlines - they're necessary to facilitate the Heaney deal.
.
Thanks for the report Ed. Some of Ridsdale's comments seem to conflict with statements from 5 April.
http://www.pafc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0 ... 12,00.html
Quote:
Akkeron's statement has been welcomed by Argyle's administrators, who promised the company "full assistance" and urged all parties to work with Mr Brent "to save Plymouth Argyle." "The Joint Administrators of Plymouth Argyle Football Club, Brendan Guilfoyle, Christopher White and John Russell, welcome the announcement today (April 5) from Akkeron Group LLP," the statement read. "The Administrators will give Akkeron full assistance in seeking to address the conditions that they have set, and would encourage stakeholders to support the Akkeron offer. "Brendan Guilfoyle said: "Akkeron's offer will provide a better solution to all PAFC's stakeholders than liquidation. "Time is running out for the club and I would encourage everyone to engage with Akkeron in a constructive and timely manner to save Plymouth Argyle Football Club."
The principal difference between James Brent and Kevin Heaney in terms of the secured creditors is that Heaney has allegedly offered substantially more money to both Lombard and Mastpoint. No prizes for guessing why?
Which confirms:
1. The Administrator is doing his job-getting the best deal for creditors. Legally, he could not accept a lower offer.
2. Brent, despite all the spin, was/is trying to get things "on the cheap" As his Akeron Group does when buying other businesses that are in trouble financially.