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

[grovehill]

The Secured Creditors (chiefly Lombard) would have to approve any plan to bring Argyle out of Administration.

Do you really believe that if that plan meant the Value of the secured asset was deemed to be half (for example) what Lombard value it at, that they would approve it?


Mrs Pengelly is understood to have vowed, if necessary, to try and push the decision through

So this confirms no decision has been made, ergo the funding for Plan B is not in place.

So plan be is at present, as lively as Monty Python's dead parrot.

I don't dislike a backup plan, but for the above reasons, I can't see a viable plan is in place.


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.

Or you could say that the only reason some people are backing plan B is because there's something in it for them,

"I'll get you a seat in the Directors box Chrissie old pal"

 

[lostinleeds]

The Secured Creditors (chiefly Lombard) would have to approve any plan to bring Argyle out of Administration.

Do you really believe that if that plan meant the Value of the secured asset was deemed to be half (for example) what Lombard value it at, that they would approve it?


Mrs Pengelly is understood to have vowed, if necessary, to try and push the decision through

So this confirms no decision has been made, ergo the funding for Plan B is not in place.

So plan be is at present, as lively as Monty Python's dead parrot.

I don't dislike a backup plan, but for the above reasons, I can't see a viable plan is in place.


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.

Or you could say that the only reason some people are backing plan B is because there's something in it for them,

"I'll get you a seat in the Directors box Chrissie old pal"

(Sigh) Yes, but they are trying to secure a viable "Plan B"- although you seem to be against them even trying. It hasn't been finalised because it being cobbled together at the last minute because it has become apparent that Plan A is in danger of collapsing. In such circumstances, without a Plan B, we get liquidated. So again, why the constant kicking of attempts to come up with a Plan B? Its main purpose is to save us from liquidation.

It is not 'dead' because the council haven't said they would not buy the ground. It actually seems that it has at least the same chance of council approval as Plan A - so your sniping is misguided.

 

[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?

Esmer. I am sure I can speak for all that attended the Rescue Plan meeting yesterday. To be clear should the Rescue Plan be required and the future of the football club is secured then James Brent's Akkeron Group will be the owners with a corporate governance structure in place that is directly answerable to him. So your statement that 'some who are involved with Plan B hope to end up in some shape or form running the club' needs to be robustly rejected.

If some of your barb is directed at members of the Trust ISC then I think you have conveniently forgotten that shortly there will be an election and no-one is certain of re-election. I have witnessed at first hand Chris's remarkable desire, will and commitment supported by other members of the ISC. Notwithstanding, he has correctly made sure that other supporters groups are fully represented in thre Rescue Plan and the group is all the stronger for that.

The 'dream team' as you call it are a group of like-minded individuals whose only mind set is to do all they can to safeguard the future of the football club. You may recall that Chris Webb called for assistance and people stepped forward to freely offer their time. Some take leave just to attend the meetings.. Led by Chris, and rightly so, the group has engaged with James Brent and the Council in an effort to ensure that a Rescue Plan can be delivered. James Brent's commitment is well documented and now the Council's statement in the Herald today has reinforced their will to do all they can to safeguard the future of the club.

I know it is a difficult concept for some to understand but safeguarding the future of the club is way, way beyond any self interest. If James Brent has the chance, working with the Council, to secure the future of the football club then I am sure that he will want to call upon the best talents to ensure that the club is maintained on a proper and sustainable footing.

For me, since you ask the question of members of the group, my only driving force since I became I stepped forward to assist the Trust ISC is to be sure that I had a season ticket in the Lyndhurst to watch my team try and secure a promotion back to League 1. That may be a difficult concept for some to grasp but it remains my overiding consideration. If I can do a little to help achieve that ambition, rather than sit on my hands, then I can sleep a little easier at night.

Esmer, finally I think we can agree that none of this should have been necessary. However, as I left the meeting yesterday I was overwhelmed by the goodwill, determination and passion of a group of individuals linked only by their absolute desire and common interest to secure the future of the football club. In saying that I must say your remarks are ill-judged and wide of the mark.

Thanks Graham that's cleared things up then. None of those who attended the meeting will be involved with running the club should James Brent take ownership.I think that is very wise.

 

[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?

This is bizarre logic. Why wouldn't people who are involved in setting up a back-up bid, also potentially want to help run the club if the bid came to pass. Are you suggesting that the Trust shouldn't be involved in running the club? If you are instead directing the question at a particular person, maybe you should discuss it with them directly. Presumably by this logic Ridsdale should step aside and refuse to own the club in Plan A, given that he's been 'involved' with setting up Plan A.

In terms of conflict of interest, how about the fact that Ridsdale appointed BG, BG then appoints Ridsdale as acting chairman, and subsequently chooses a bid that sees Ridsdale get the club for £1 - does that not represent a far greater conflict of interest?

Also interesting the the OP is a new user??

It's a dead issue, Graham has cleared it up they will not be involved with the running of the club.

 

[Green Matt]

It's true that neither Plan A nor Plan B have set out detailed lists of what will be done if/when they take over. One of the main differences though is that even though Plan A is the preferred bid, and has been fo a long time, it has continued to operate behind a veil of secrecy and has been stringing us along while club employees continue to work unpaid. We don't know for sure what the reasons are for this and we still don't really know who the individuals behind the scheme are.

Plan B, on the other hand, has been as open as possible with all parties and we know exactly which people constitute the driving force behind it. It's perfectly acceptable to ask questions of it, but at least you'll get answers.

 

[Pafcintheplace]

Baffles me why some people get so worked up and anti the Trust, to the point of being completely incoherent at times. As always desperate for something positive not to succeed.

I think the Trust is doing a fantastic job :huddle:

 

[esmer]

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.

There would be a lot involved in PCC buying the ground. Agreement would have to be reached with Lombards and the rest of the secured creditors and possibly the personal guarantors (I'm not sure if they are covered by the FL insolvency rules). This would all revolve around the administrator and when a figure has been established it has to be accepted by PCC. I hope action is already being taken, as we know time is of the essence.

 

[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 !!

Come on be a devil and have some back bone by putting a name to those you so wrongfully accuse of personal gain or is as I think and totally unfounded. More like some folk having an overwhelming need to know the ins and outs of a cats ass or just feeling left out of things. All I do know is I am as chuffed as a dog with two tails that there are people who care and are able to try and secure the existance of our club.

 

[Anonymous]

:lol:

Well done Martyn, ye another well thought out post.

Don't 'disclose' but Chris needs to open up a new thread and tell all readers of this site (no matter who they are) what the plans is, including all the planned pre negotiation elements in case Plan A falls through.

Do you not think, that could tip someone who needs to know for differing reasons, the wink?

Think about it man.

 

[Larry David]

Plan A is the preferred option of all involved even James Brent! Plan B is a great back up in the event that A fails. What's to argue about.

 

[Pafcintheplace]

:lol:

Well done Martyn, ye another well thought out post.

Don't 'disclose' but Chris needs to open up a new thread and tell all readers of this site (no matter who they are) what the plans is, including all the planned pre negotiation elements in case Plan A falls through.

Do you not think, that could tip someone who needs to know for differing reasons, the wink?

Think about it man.

what im getting at on this is it seems ok for everyone to moan that we have no transparency and all that crap but why should they tell us of the plans?
in return this has all been secret with plan b and we arent allowed transparency with this either!
so where exactly is the difference?
they are secret we demand answers, plan b is secret we are not allowed to dare ask for answers

Perhaps you should re-read the last two sentences of IJN's post?

 

[Anonymous]

<Sigh>

The secrecy behind the PB's is that we have no idea of who they are, if they have any money, where the money is coming from if they have it, why did Heaney lie about his involvement, why did they promise milestone payments and why were they missed etc etc etc.

The 'secrecy' behind the escape plan has been explained, and it's because we do not want to show our hand, should the escape plan be necessary.

Quite a bit of difference I'd say.

As for what people get out of it?

Me - nothing.

Postey - nothing.

Graham Clark - nothing

Chris Webb - nothing

Peter Ryan - nothing

Jamie Yabsley - nothing

Uncle Buck - nothing

Peter Jones - possibly a seat on the board (I don't know that by the way) and who the hell would disagree with that IF it happened??

James Brent - Far more hassle than it's worth, if truth be told.

 

[oggyale]

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

Thank you for your feed back. Some interesting comments you have made.

 

[KeithB]

I support plan B over plan A .. that is my personal view and happy to live with it and not bothered by others opinion on this.
All this talk of secrecy etc., is interesting, but a complete red herring.
Everyone involved with plan B have declared openly that they support the successful conclusion of plan A .. even if in private, they hope it fails (like me!).
The real issue here is the famous line from 'All the Presidents Men' ... "Follow the money".
Plan A (Heaney et al), declared they wanted to buy exclusivity.
Exclusivity was agreed, locking out all (or any) other bidders.
Having secured exclusivity, the 'A Team' have repeadedly failed to pay for what they have bought at the price they agreed!
The fact they are shrouded in secrecy just increases the level of concern.

If you agreed to buy a house, car or anything else of value and do not meet the agreed terms of the sale, do you expect the retailer to keep saying 'OK, take more time'?
The shifting deadline has moved that often, I have lost count. We now have to wait until the DAY BEFORE the new season starts!
So, debate secrecy all you want, but keep asking where the money is and why they have got this far without full payment.
I'm sure the staff who were made redundant (remember them?) are asking the same question.

 

[X Isle]

This thread has been a riotous hoot to behold, some absolute pearlers of tosh :lol:.

In order to faithfully compare to the AFC Heaney/Ridsdale truthfulness and transparency model those involved in plan B would have to have been on a (nudge nudge) walking holiday in the area, stayed for six months, met up at Lanhydrock Golf Club under the (wink wink) guise of making preparations for an Argyle friendly with a PASOTI/Trust X1. They'd then have to have been publicly outed as putting together a bid, only to announce a few days later they were withdrawing from the process due to adverse public reaction. They'd then have to move to Gibraltar and re-engage with Guilfoyle as a "mystery consortium" on the proviso that everyone agrees to lie, openly and barefacedly, to the fanbase on legal instruction. Then they'd have to be caught with their pants down having breakfast at McDonalds in the city centre with plans for Home Park and a neon light above their heads saying "we're planning to buy Plymouth Argyle" and sheepishly scurry out quicker than an MP at a dogging spot when the feds pull in. Only then would they confirm their interest but even half would claim to be an "advisory body" with no interest in football and the other half would say they were reluctantly putting themselves forward as a buyer for £1 because they haven't got anything else to do right now..........well, apart from go to court for season ticket frauds of course.

If those involved in putting plan B together (on behalf of the whole fanbase don't forget) had bevaved with that level of skullduggery then yes, a comparison would be fair. As they've had two meetings and fully disclosed the content of all discussions, the names of all involved and thus the interests of all parties, the comparison is akin to comparing the finest fillet steak to the brown stuff that came out of the same cows ar5e :roll:.

This is another thread where the staggering myopia of certain individual posters in defending the indefensible actions of openly dishonest people (admitted so publicly) yet rounding on the honest, transparent, integrity laden and unifying process of the Plan B model continues to highlight a big question mark on their motivations for so doing :wink:.