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

[Laughter My Ploy]

Clarity of purpose is all that we need to know with plan B at the moment and we are getting that in bucket loads....and there could come a point when we will be very very grateful for it

 

[Gary McGuire]

I'm more than a little angry at the premise set out in the OP .
I'll keep that to myself though .

A lot of good hearted people are merely giving freely of their time and putting in a lot of effort TO SAVE THE CLUB IF PLAN A FAILS .


I'll say this as well .


Plan A is as secretive as it can be . Its hidden behind layers and layers of deception but if it saves the Club so be it .

The Rescue Plan is as OPEN AS IT CAN BE . If those who are involved put forward all the details they would be accused (and rightly so ) of undermining and attempting to sabotage Plan A .





One is a secretive takeover bid .
One is a rescue plan if the above fails .
Tell me which bit of that you don't get . :twisted:

There are also some people that will gain from being involved. I'm not saying that this is the reason they are involved as i truly believe that they are doing it for the right reasons, but dont think for one minute GG that some of the atendees wont do very well if it all comes off and works well... good luck to them.

WHO can gain what Daz ?.......... What is to gain ?.......


Regards Gary

 

[tonycholwell]

Just out of interest - do you have a workable, funded Plan C ready to go should Plan A fail?*

Other than commenting on the irony of people moaning about "secrecy" whilst hiding behind a pseudonym, and without wanting to be alarmist, I can assure you that the club is on the brink financially.

The reasons for that are well documented, but the problems have been exacerbated by the fact that four months have now been lost through certain critical choices made by the administrator.

If plan A falls on or before August 5, it will require a serious effort and a fair wind even to make Plan B work.

There simply isn't time for a Plan C. Unless it's a long way down the track with its preparation. And there's no evidence of that being the case.

*edited to add: this post was a response to "oggyvale"'s further up the page

Peter, I'm sure that's right, but during this whole sorry saga have we have seen deadlines come and go, each apparently more fixed than the last.

If, and it seems to be a big if, the 5 August deadline passes without completion, will we see yet another extension, or will BG finally say to Heaney and Co, 'sorry lads, you've had your chance'.

Personally I think he WILL say thats it .You're out .

Agree with you there gg and thats if it goes that long.

 

[grovehill]

It all comes down to Brent = Good Guy, Heaney = Bad Gay.


No evaluation of the two bids can be made as , in both cases, there is insufficient information in the public domain.

In the case of Heaney's bid this is because he's secretive, devious and has something to hide.

In the Brent/Akeron bid this is because there are quite legitimate business reasons why lots of detail cannot be revealed..



Heaney's plan will result in one party owning the property and another party owning the football club whereas Brent/Akerons bid will result in one party owning the property and another party owning the football club.


Heaney's bid relies on investors who may not come up with the money.

Brent/Akeron's bid relies on investors (the Council) who have never said that they will come up with any money


Heaney already owns a football club that he has pumped money into to enable them to progress up the Leagues- this clearly makes him someone any self respecting football fan should steer clear of.

Brent keeps saying he only wants to get involved as a last resort-this clearly makes him someone any self respecting football fan would want running their club.

Heaney doesn't reply to letters or e-mails from the Trust.
Chris Webb likes Brent


And finally, the Brent/Akeron bid is better because some people are going to meetings about it in their own time and at their own expense always a sure sign of a right and proper, well thought out, sustainable plan that we mere mortals should all applaud.

 

[Laughter My Ploy]

What it comes down to is PBs complete or if the don't plan b hauls itself into action

At the end of the day this good guy/bad guy stuff is flim flam

 

[Green Rhino]

Some answers in green OV...

In today's Herald it says Brent sees Plan A as the best solution for Argyle.

I asked four questions earlier in the week,and not one Trust member or supporter answered those questions.

So here they are again.

1) Is Brent willing to invest more into the club should the Council reject the idea of buying back the ground,with Trust finacial backing. Mr Brent has a bid on the table, where it has been since March. An important element is a partnership with the Council. Cross bridges if and when will be the mantra I imagine. The issue of Trust financial backing is not a part of James Brent's bid

2) If the rescue plan comes to fruition,how many Trust members are likely to have seats on a new Board. No discussion has been held with the Trust about representation on the Board, should the Rescue Plan be needed. The Trust itself has not got a position on this isue (whoever the new owner is) and won't until the new Society Board is elected. There are pros and cons for such representation and they need to be worked out in a democratic way.

3) Is the Trust aiming to make the club a ''not for profit club'',where all monies gained/raised will go straight back into the club. Long term decisions of that nature are to be taken by Trust members when the new Society Board is elected over the next three months. It has not been an issue in the discussions with Mr Brent about what would happen IF the sale and purchase agreement isn't completed. What has been mentioned is that supporters would like some role in what happens at the club (this is the case with any owner of course) and he is happy that this wil be the case.

4) Will the Trust in the future be able to purchase the club themselves and if they do will (3) still apply. As in the answer to 2, this is a future decision

 

[Anonymous]

If, and it seems to be a big if, the 5 August deadline passes without completion, will we see yet another extension, or will BG finally say to Heaney and Co, 'sorry lads, you've had your chance'.

We don't just have to worry about what BG says, we have to worry more about what the FL says; we kick off the next day. What a stupid deadline for the deal to complete.

That is the very reason why the Rescue Plan is being pursued. You may recall that Peter Ridsdale was telling both the Football League and the PFA that 'there is no alternative' in an effort to secure their respective approvals. This was backed up by Brendan Guilfoyle in his initial statement but he has backtracked from this position as it becomes more apparent that for what ever reason the Sale and Purchase Agreement may not be completed.

Since meeting Kevin Heaney personally earlier in the week he has had a meeting with the Council and provided both the Council and the Rescue Plan group, as he confirmed in the Herald, with an updated financial position of the club. This was supplied on a 'strictly private and confidential' basis so it is fanciful for anyone to expect publication of any of those details. Correctly so.

So, in short, had the Sale and Purchase Agreement failed to complete on 5th August, in the absence of a any deliverable Rescue Plan, the administrator would have had a very difficult call to make to the Football League to try and convince them that the club could fulfill its fixtures for the forthcoming season. If the Football League wanted too make an example of a football club is these difficult financial times. Argyle are an easy target for them being geographically distant and being demonstrably the worst run football club in the last year or so accumalting horrendous debt levels and ducking and diving with HMRC. Sympathy is not a given particularly when the preservation of their 'football creditor rule' is legally at stake with a Court case in the Autumn.

However, with a prospective owner with proven funds, a willing Council and the collective will of supporters I am sure the Football League will be much more comfortable with the prospect of not only the club fulfilling its fixtures but that it could move forward proper and sustainable basis.

 

[pilgrimmike1]

Just out of interest and not having a go but who are we talking about here and where is the evidence that anyone is doing anything for " personal gain". Could it not be that the trust is just doing what a trust should do and look after OUR interests and that of OUR club.

There are a lot of accusations and slurs on other peoples integrity going on here and even some moaning about certain posters questions not being answered on this message board so how about these posters answering my question !!

 

[lostinleeds]

It all comes down to Brent = Good Guy, Heaney = Bad Gay.


No evaluation of the two bids can be made as , in both cases, there is insufficient information in the public domain.

In the case of Heaney's bid this is because he's secretive, devious and has something to hide.

In the Brent/Akeron bid this is because there are quite legitimate business reasons why lots of detail cannot be revealed..



Heaney's plan will result in one party owning the property and another party owning the football club whereas Brent/Akerons bid will result in one party owning the property and another party owning the football club.


Heaney's bid relies on investors who may not come up with the money.

Brent/Akeron's bid relies on investors (the Council) who have never said that they will come up with any money


Heaney already owns a football club that he has pumped money into to enable them to progress up the Leagues- this clearly makes him someone any self respecting football fan should steer clear of.

Brent keeps saying he only wants to get involved as a last resort-this clearly makes him someone any self respecting football fan would want running their club.

Heaney doesn't reply to letters or e-mails from the Trust.
Chris Webb likes Brent

Heaney had liquidated a company with significant debts, Brent hasn't.
Heaney plans to sell the FC to a man with a fraud charge hanging over him, who has also liquidated companies in the recent past, and who has been involved in disastrous financial dealings at other football clubs in the past.
Heaney potentially brings the problem of being involved in two clubs at the same time, Brent doesn't.
Under Plan B the council would own the ground, whose leader are voted by the people of Plymouth. Under Plan A the ground goes to an anonymous group of individuals who may well have no interest in the performance of the FC, and may involve former members of the board.

 

[grovehill]

It all comes down to Brent = Good Guy, Heaney = Bad Gay.


No evaluation of the two bids can be made as , in both cases, there is insufficient information in the public domain.

In the case of Heaney's bid this is because he's secretive, devious and has something to hide.

In the Brent/Akeron bid this is because there are quite legitimate business reasons why lots of detail cannot be revealed..



Heaney's plan will result in one party owning the property and another party owning the football club whereas Brent/Akerons bid will result in one party owning the property and another party owning the football club.


Heaney's bid relies on investors who may not come up with the money.

Brent/Akeron's bid relies on investors (the Council) who have never said that they will come up with any money


Heaney already owns a football club that he has pumped money into to enable them to progress up the Leagues- this clearly makes him someone any self respecting football fan should steer clear of.

Brent keeps saying he only wants to get involved as a last resort-this clearly makes him someone any self respecting football fan would want running their club.

Heaney doesn't reply to letters or e-mails from the Trust.
Chris Webb likes Brent

Heaney had liquidated a company with significant debts, Brent hasn't.
lots of businesses go bust, especially in a recession-that's the way of business, it doesn't automatically follow that the people who ran the businesses are bad people

Heaney plans to sell the FC to a man with a fraud charge hanging over him, who has also liquidated companies in the recent past, and who has been involved in disastrous financial dealings at other football clubs in the past.
Brent's original plan was to have PR run the club, is that still his plan?
Heaney potentially brings the problem of being involved in two clubs at the same time, Brent doesn't.
But you've just said he would hand the club over to PR! damned if he does, damned if he doesn't?
Under Plan B the council would own the ground, whose leader are voted by the people of Plymouth. Under Plan A the ground goes to an anonymous group of individuals who may well have no interest in the performance of the FC, and may involve former members of the board.

The Council have made no commitment to putting money into PAFC in any way. Wooly statements such as "looking at options" mean absolutely nothing. You get a legally binding statement from PCC that they will buy the ground and what rent they will charge (and get Lombard to agree 'cos they aren't going to let the ground be sold for a fraction of it's worth) and I'll back you bid.

 

[Daz]

I'm more than a little angry at the premise set out in the OP .
I'll keep that to myself though .

A lot of good hearted people are merely giving freely of their time and putting in a lot of effort TO SAVE THE CLUB IF PLAN A FAILS .


I'll say this as well .


Plan A is as secretive as it can be . Its hidden behind layers and layers of deception but if it saves the Club so be it .

The Rescue Plan is as OPEN AS IT CAN BE . If those who are involved put forward all the details they would be accused (and rightly so ) of undermining and attempting to sabotage Plan A .





One is a secretive takeover bid .
One is a rescue plan if the above fails .
Tell me which bit of that you don't get . :twisted:

There are also some people that will gain from being involved. I'm not saying that this is the reason they are involved as i truly believe that they are doing it for the right reasons, but dont think for one minute GG that some of the atendees wont do very well if it all comes off and works well... good luck to them.

WHO can gain what Daz ?.......... What is to gain ?.......


Regards Gary

There will be positions available on the board if Plan B comes in to effect that would not have been available if plan A comes in.

I've clearly treaded on some toes with the above post with the pm's that i have had, but it is just my opinion.

 

[lostinleeds]

Heaney had liquidated a company with significant debts, Brent hasn't.
lots of businesses go bust, especially in a recession-that's the way of business, it doesn't automatically follow that the people who ran the businesses are bad people
No, but it suggests they can't run a business successfully.


Heaney plans to sell the FC to a man with a fraud charge hanging over him, who has also liquidated companies in the recent past, and who has been involved in disastrous financial dealings at other football clubs in the past.
Brent's original plan was to have PR run the club, is that still his plan? I don't know, but Ridsdale wouldn't be owning the club under the Plan B. I've seen no confirmation of PR being involved in Plan B.

Heaney potentially brings the problem of being involved in two clubs at the same time, Brent doesn't.
But you've just said he would hand the club over to PR! damned if he does, damned if he doesn't? Because Heaney would be involved in owning the ground, and therefore have a financial influence in both Truro and Plymouth - The FA rules state you can't have financial influence over two clubs. The risk is that they will reject the Heaney bid because of his involvement in the financial aspects of the club. That risk would not exist with the Brent bid

Under Plan B the council would own the ground, whose leader are voted by the people of Plymouth. Under Plan A the ground goes to an anonymous group of individuals who may well have no interest in the performance of the FC, and may involve former members of the board.[/quote]
The Council have made no commitment to putting money into PAFC in any way. Wooly statements such as "looking at options" mean absolutely nothing. You get a legally binding statement from PCC that they will buy the ground and what rent they will charge (and get Lombard to agree 'cos they aren't going to let the ground be sold for a fraction of it's worth) and I'll back you bid. . The meetings around Plan B are working on that, at the moment Plan A

Plan A still also rests on council approval which has not yet been forthcoming. In fact the council's position doesn't look any better on Plan A than it does on Plan B.

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/rescue-plan-ready-save-Argyle/story-12954042-detail/story.html

On Plan A
The Gibraltar-based firm, led by Truro City Football Club owner Kevin Heaney, would retain land assets but sell the club itself to acting Argyle chairman Peter Ridsdale for £1. But they have paid just £300,000 for ten weeks' exclusivity and are still in embryonic talks with the council over key plans to develop in Central Park.

On Plan B
The rescue package would see the council buy Home Park – for a knock-down-price – as part of a deal that promises to be favourable for Argyle's back office staff, barely paid this year. Mrs Pengelly is understood to have vowed, if necessary, to try and push the decision through before Argyle kick off their season on August 6. "We will look at all the options open to us," she said. "It is inconceivable that a city of Plymouth's stature will be without a club playing in the Football League".

I struggle to see why people are protesting so much about the back up plan. If Plan A fails, and there are many uncertainties about it - some of which are detailed above, then without a Plan B Argyle would be liquidated. Would you rather have no Plan B and risk liquidation?

 

[Tavypilgrim]

I struggle to see why people are protesting so much about the back up plan.

It beggars belief that they can. I am just glad that a group of people have been proactive enough to put together this backup.

The only logical reason I can see for someone disliking the idea of a backup plan, is that they are involved with the PB's in some way.

 

[Anonymous]

All this, from a post started by someone with an axe to grind.

 

[storming]

I'm just glad that there is a contingency plan in place. The League starts on 6 August. Plan A is due to complete on 5 August. There are concerns about the suitability of Heaney, the buy-back clause and finance from the FL. There are concerns that the consortium has problems with planning permission. If all goes well, on 15 August, the FL will approve Plan A. If they don't, it's a choice between the contingency plan or liquidation.

The first priority is for Argyle to survive. The people involved in Plan B are known to be open and honest, which cannot be said about some of those involved in Plan A. If they cannot divulge all of their plans at this moment, I can live with that. They are doing all they can to save the club in a very short time span. Let's support them.