Plan B.....Just as secretive as Plan A?

[Green_1979]

Just my opinion of course, but we, as fans (and trust members) seem to be just as in the dark with the nicey nicey/family run/community run/plan B as plan A. We hear about these meetings between the select few, but never hear the ins and outs so as not to upset anybody from plan A!
I'd like to know how does the reluctant bidder....sorry, James Brent plan on keeping mobey coming into the club. The council (for whom he was previously employed?) seem to have done a u turn on buying the ground. Is this at mates rates so that he can build one of his hotels on site?
Why are internet message board posters needing to be so close to the preparation of a plan B? Surely if James Brent is half the superhero he is being portrayed as, then he doesn't need keyboard warriors to help him....or is it more a ploy of these people to try and get a place on any new board. A board full of 'yes men' would be just brilliant.
Personally I dont actually want the little ginger one to come within a mile of our club, having already had one business go mammaries up because of him I don't want to see my football club go the same way.
Both bids have too many unanswered questions for my liking, and this site seems to have certain posters who are trying to de rail one bid for personal gain, which doesn't sit right with me.

 

[ogwellmike]

Well said.
:iagree:

 

[Rush Goalie]

Every 'Plan B' meeting has been reported on here, with a full list of those in attendance. Press releases have been issued, too. Given that, Heaney aside, we still have no idea who's behind 'Plan A', I'd say that there's already a lot more openness about Plan B than we'be ever had from the PB's. And to suggest that we don't know enough about the detail of Plan B is just wrong. Brent set out his thoughts quite early on in the process.

Anyone expecting full disclosure of plans and process from the Plan B camp is living in Cloud-Cuckoo land. In any takeover there has to be elements of confidentiality and non-disclosure. It's the nature of such transactions.

Well said.

The differences between Plan B and Plan A are so obvious I'm surprised it needs documenting. The simple fact that the major protagonists at the meetings are listed every time one is held should be illustration enough of the differences in approach.

 

[esmer]

I quite understand the need for confidentiality for both plan A and plan B but I too am suspicious that some who are involved with plan B hope to end up in some shape or form running the club and that constitutes a clear conflict of interest. The Trust have shown clear bias against the PB's and some of the dream team now working with Brent have been virulently opposed to the PB's. It could easily be construed they have done so in self-interest. Would it not be appropriate for those now involved to make it clear, publicly, that they would not be involved in the future running of the club and if it came to pass they would stand aside for other fans to take on that task.

If we are to have a brave new world we don't want to start it mired in controversy, do we?

 

[TCM]

Every 'Plan B' meeting has been reported on here, with a full list of those in attendance. Press releases have been issued, too. Given that, Heaney aside, we still have no idea who's behind 'Plan A', I'd say that there's already a lot more openness about Plan B than we'be ever had from the PB's. And to suggest that we don't know enough about the detail of Plan B is just wrong. Brent set out his thoughts quite early on in the process.

Anyone expecting full disclosure of plans and process from the Plan B camp is living in Cloud-Cuckoo land. In any takeover there has to be elements of confidentiality and non-disclosure. It's the nature of such transactions.

at last a bit of agreement pops up on pasoti,confidentialy has to part of both bids,and whats with the name calling andy?on the left?left of the school play ground :lol:

 

[PL2 3DQ]

Just my opinion of course, but we, as fans (and trust members) seem to be just as in the dark with the nicey nicey/family run/community run/plan B as plan A. We hear about these meetings between the select few, but never hear the ins and outs so as not to upset anybody from plan A!
I'd like to know how does the reluctant bidder....sorry, James Brent plan on keeping mobey coming into the club. The council (for whom he was previously employed?) seem to have done a u turn on buying the ground. Is this at mates rates so that he can build one of his hotels on site?
Why are internet message board posters needing to be so close to the preparation of a plan B? Surely if James Brent is half the superhero he is being portrayed as, then he doesn't need keyboard warriors to help him....or is it more a ploy of these people to try and get a place on any new board. A board full of 'yes men' would be just brilliant.
Personally I dont actually want the little ginger one to come within a mile of our club, having already had one business go mammaries up because of him I don't want to see my football club go the same way.
Both bids have too many unanswered questions for my liking, and this site seems to have certain posters who are trying to de rail one bid for personal gain, which doesn't sit right with me.

You've seen the names involved - names that can be trusted.

There are legal and confidentiality issues as to why every minute detail from the meetings cannot be discussed on an internet messageboard but there's a statement released within hours of each meeting ending and there's also some comment from those who were at the meeting.

Don't forget there's only been two meetings so far, so in effect the Rescue Plan has been in existence less than 10 days.

 

[esmer]

Every 'Plan B' meeting has been reported on here, with a full list of those in attendance. Press releases have been issued, too. Given that, Heaney aside, we still have no idea who's behind 'Plan A', I'd say that there's already a lot more openness about Plan B than we'be ever had from the PB's. And to suggest that we don't know enough about the detail of Plan B is just wrong. Brent set out his thoughts quite early on in the process.

Anyone expecting full disclosure of plans and process from the Plan B camp is living in Cloud-Cuckoo land. In any takeover there has to be elements of confidentiality and non-disclosure. It's the nature of such transactions.

I for one don't know who is behind plan B. James Brent or the Akkeron Group.

 

[Sue Pollard]

Every 'Plan B' meeting has been reported on here, with a full list of those in attendance. Press releases have been issued, too. Given that, Heaney aside, we still have no idea who's behind 'Plan A', I'd say that there's already a lot more openness about Plan B than we'be ever had from the PB's. And to suggest that we don't know enough about the detail of Plan B is just wrong. Brent set out his thoughts quite early on in the process.

Anyone expecting full disclosure of plans and process from the Plan B camp is living in Cloud-Cuckoo land. In any takeover there has to be elements of confidentiality and non-disclosure. It's the nature of such transactions.

Well said Andy :appl:

 

[esmer]

Every 'Plan B' meeting has been reported on here, with a full list of those in attendance. Press releases have been issued, too. Given that, Heaney aside, we still have no idea who's behind 'Plan A', I'd say that there's already a lot more openness about Plan B than we'be ever had from the PB's. And to suggest that we don't know enough about the detail of Plan B is just wrong. Brent set out his thoughts quite early on in the process.

Anyone expecting full disclosure of plans and process from the Plan B camp is living in Cloud-Cuckoo land. In any takeover there has to be elements of confidentiality and non-disclosure. It's the nature of such transactions.

I for one don't know who is behind plan B. James Brent or the Akkeron Group.

i don't see how, in your case, it would matter. You've been one of the main Cheerleaders for plan A so I don't see how your attitude would change if it were Brent, Akkeron or anyone else with the major financial commitment.

Your missing my point, no doubt deliberately. There has been heavy criticism over the fact we don't know who is providing the funding for plan A. To avoid accusations of double standards don't you think those behind plan B should make it clear who is providing funding?

 

[Shane Harris]

Esmer, declare your interest, go on, context is helpful.

 

[pilgrimmike1]

Why when good people and trusted fans do thier upmost to help us and the club do people feel the need to cry thier efforts down ? Why can you not just accept the fact that there is a need for a degree of secrecy and trust thier opinions?. What good of you knowing do when publication of all the facts may well do a lot of harm, just think about things before you criticise the brilliant efforts of others please as at the end of the day they are trying to ensure we have a club to support and doing a fantastic job. IMO of course.

 

[MylesPAFC]

I agree with the original poster, but also feel that the trust have provided as much information as they possibly can.

Is Brent going to be the owner under plan B or the trust?

I understand the councils role in the plan, but not the trusts and Brent's.

 

[Daz]

Esmer, declare your interest, go on, context is helpful.

Change the record will you. All YOU are doing at the moment is trolling.

 

[Daz]

Every 'Plan B' meeting has been reported on here, with a full list of those in attendance. Press releases have been issued, too. Given that, Heaney aside, we still have no idea who's behind 'Plan A', I'd say that there's already a lot more openness about Plan B than we'be ever had from the PB's. And to suggest that we don't know enough about the detail of Plan B is just wrong. Brent set out his thoughts quite early on in the process.

Anyone expecting full disclosure of plans and process from the Plan B camp is living in Cloud-Cuckoo land. In any takeover there has to be elements of confidentiality and non-disclosure. It's the nature of such transactions.

I'm certainly now a fan of plan B now, but i can see where people are coming from with the accusation of double standards. Knowing who is in the meetings and press releases saying we had a positive meeting doesn't actually give any 'meat on the bones' for the standard fan who does not have any contacts who were in the meeting.

 

[pilgrimmike1]

I agree with the original poster, but also feel that the trust have provided as much information as they possibly can.

Is Brent going to be the owner under plan B or the trust?

I understand the councils role in the plan, but not the trusts and Brent's.

Brent = money

Trust = a say in how the club is run, was not that the whole point in the trust being formed in the first place, or one of them should I say.