Update from today's rescue plan meeting. | Page 6 | PASOTI
  • Welcome to PASOTI. Sponsored by Lang & Potter

Update from today's rescue plan meeting.

G

grovehill

Guest
Chris Webb":30pn06al said:
tonycholwell":30pn06al said:
IJN":30pn06al said:
Pack it up Tony. :stir:

We're all in this together, there's no time for such trivia.

But Ian, I was only trying to help Loyal 1970.

So I pointed out to and for him what the fats were ashe appeared to have missed them. "Oh Lord please dont let me be this misunderstood"

Im a regular little helper me.

Regular little what?

Vivien couldn't make it so no view from her. The herald will publish a statement from the Council tomorrow though.

James Brent was happy with the statement but felt no need to add a quote.

Ian as he has stated many times attends so that he can feed back to / contribute on behalf of pasoti but not as a representative.

The GTs are a non political body so try not to get involved in press releases.

Everyone else attends on a individual basis.

The above means it makes perfect sense for the Trust to comment on behalf of supporters.

You are right about one thing Tony we don't have much money. Come on throw in your £10. At least then I could find your friendly assassin approach tolerable :)


It's clear that the Trust does not (and cannot) represent the views of ALL supporters, so please, Mr Webb, make it clear in all future communications that you speak on behalf of the supporters Trust not all supporters.
 
G

grovehill

Guest
If I want to object to the League about a takeover bid, I'm perfectly capable of doing so, I don't need some publicity hungry wannabees to do it on my behalf.

I, like everyone else, don't know enough about Heaney's bid to make a judgement. I certainly don't know enough to say it's bad for the club.

The Trust has a mandate from it's 1200 or so members, they do not constitute the majority of fans and so should not claim to.

A Trade Union with only 12% of the workforce as members does not represent everyone.
 
Jan 31, 2005
1,829
0
Tavistock
grovehill":2ep86b2f said:
I, like everyone else, don't know enough about Heaney's bid to make a judgement. I certainly don't know enough to say it's bad for the club.

So would you say the bid has been good for the club so far?

We certainly know enough to make that judgement one way or the other.
 

greenpig27

Jam First
Aug 16, 2005
812
373
68
plymouth
dbgreen":2s8188km said:
I have a fear that the penny has just dropped for me, i cant believe i have been quite so slow, tell me i am very wrong, please.
Am I right in thinking that Plan B isn't being revealed, or even being called Plan B but a rescue plan, because all involved don't know how quite to break the terrible news that Ridsdale will still be thoroughly involved? Thus, it's not a Plan B at all, merely more of the same. The group know this will devastate very many supporters! Please tell me I am wrong on both counts and that this is a rescue plan for the survival of the club in a pure Ridsdale-free future. Anything else is merely a short term smoke screen!
I truly have never wanted to be more wrong in all my life.
So.....????

Don't give me this 'But he'd make a good football CEO as long as he doesn't hold the purse strings' crap. I know there are some intelligent, experienced people on here and that won't wash.


I rather think you are overestimating any bad feeling towards Peter Ridsdale dbgreen.
There are a few here that shout loud and often about their hatred of the man, but that's what it is, a few.

I feel that your average Argyle supporter may well feel similar to me, that is that Ridsdale, with his knowledge of the business, contacts and, IMO, enthusiasm would make a very good chairman or CEO. Especially if plan B came to fruition and Mr. Brent were holding the purse-strings !

Anyone who claim that they will end their support of the club if PR is involved is just being a drama queen imho. You will be able to count on your fingers the number of people that will actually carry out that "threat". The man has just had some bad press and (perhaps) dodgy dealings at other clubs. He's not a rapist or murderer FFS ! But he has also had some success as well. He may not have the greatest CV in the business but I believe he can add a lot to PAFC to help drag us back to a better level.
 
Apr 4, 2004
1,374
709
grovehill":365aqome said:
If I want to object to the League about a takeover bid, I'm perfectly capable of doing so, I don't need some publicity hungry wannabees to do it on my behalf.

I, like everyone else, don't know enough about Heaney's bid to make a judgement. I certainly don't know enough to say it's bad for the club.

The Trust has a mandate from it's 1200 or so members, they do not constitute the majority of fans and so should not claim to.

A Trade Union with only 12% of the workforce as members does not represent everyone.

That's a great point. I guess that is why they are inviting all fans to join. Firstly to strengthen any mandate they have. But also giving all fans the chance to have a voice rather than a minority. Can you make a suggestion for you choice of fans rep who represents a bigger slice of the fans. I don't think there is anyone else. Maybe you should join then you can put forward you points to them.
 
Oct 24, 2010
4,594
10
dbgreen":icjoqac9 said:
And suddenly Esmer welcomes the James Brent 'alternative'! Please God, NO!
Nothing suddenly about it, been supportive of plan B all along.
 
Oct 24, 2010
4,594
10
Sagacity":1cl86920 said:
So plan b is the same as plan a with the exception that it is brent rather than Bishop International, and the ground will still be sold, for less than plan A, there will still be an asset strip, so why the support?

Bit confused by the SECRECY and smoking mirrors. Would be a good idea to invite some of the more retisent posters to join this meeting as a way of reassuring the mass population that you are not just out to smash plan A.

Maybe it is time for a statement from the Trust that you all suppport plan A, look forward to working with the new owners as re-invigorating the club, and by the way if the worst happens and it falls through we could possibly help.

Anyway, what are the numbers, how much is likely to be raised, how much will you invest in the team, when the ground be re-developed, what Kit deal have you got? just a few questions I am sure will be answered, but in the meantime, let us know what you plan, then we may support you, but at the moment you are at risk of losing credibility on the secrecy front as you have all shouted down the PB and BG for their silence.
The asset strip is inevitable whatever the option we've huge debts to pay.
 
G

grovehill

Guest
Tavypilgrim":27su014t said:
grovehill":27su014t said:
I, like everyone else, don't know enough about Heaney's bid to make a judgement. I certainly don't know enough to say it's bad for the club.

So would you say the bid has been good for the club so far?

We certainly know enough to make that judgement one way or the other.




Here we go again, people reading what they what to read, not what's actually written.

Writing that I don't know enough to say it's bad for the club, does not equate to me thinking it's good for the club.

The same as you saying Heaney is secretive and hasn't told everyone what his plans are cannot equate to you knowing enough to make a judgement- you might as well say that you don't know anything but you do know it's a bad plan.

Oh, you just did.
 
Jan 31, 2005
1,829
0
Tavistock
grovehill":1thw0495 said:
Tavypilgrim":1thw0495 said:
grovehill":1thw0495 said:
I, like everyone else, don't know enough about Heaney's bid to make a judgement. I certainly don't know enough to say it's bad for the club.

So would you say the bid has been good for the club so far?

We certainly know enough to make that judgement one way or the other.




Here we go again, people reading what they what to read, not what's actually written.

Writing that I don't know enough to say it's bad for the club, does not equate to me thinking it's good for the club.

The same as you saying Heaney is secretive and hasn't told everyone what his plans are cannot equate to you knowing enough to make a judgement- you might as well say that you don't know anything but you do know it's a bad plan.

Oh, you just did.

I just asked you if you think the bid the bid has been good for the club so far?

I take it you are declining to answer...

I personally would say it has been bad for the club so far. It has divided our fanbase, harmed season ticket sales, staff still haven't been paid, we have had to continue selling players, deadlines have been missed and every day we creep closer to the start of the season, with no new signings having actually signed contracts.
 
G

grovehill

Guest
I don't know!!!

Good as in better than? What?

Bad as in worse than?


Given that any takeover would/will be property lead and not just a minted soccer fan buying a club to bankroll to the top, the fan base is bound to be divided.

I certainly feel that there is not enough information in the public domain to make a judgement on the merits of either plan, so it all comes down to personalities. As in I like MR X but hate Mr Y so Mr X's plan must be better.

What I do like is the idea of splitting the FC from the real estate, so that in the future, the FC could again be bought by a few local people, to be run solely as a football club.
 
Jan 31, 2005
1,829
0
Tavistock
grovehill":2mzapnkp said:
I don't know!!!

Good as in better than? What?

Bad as in worse than?



Given that any takeover would/will be property lead and not just a minted soccer fan buying a club to bankroll to the top, the fan base is bound to be divided.

I certainly feel that there is not enough information in the public domain to make a judgement on the merits of either plan, so it all comes down to personalities. As in I like MR X but hate Mr Y so Mr X's plan must be better.

What I do like is the idea of splitting the FC from the real estate, so that in the future, the FC could again be bought by a few local people, to be run solely as a football club.

I wasn't asking for a comparison against something else...just whether based on what we have seen so far, Have the personal bidders have been good for the club or not?

A bit like asking; Do you think the 5000 cigarettes you smoked last year were good for you?, the question doesn't require you to compare the effects of smoking to going tombstoning. Surely you have seen what has happened so far and been able to form an opinion of whether the PB's have been good for the club so far or not?
 
Nov 11, 2006
642
0
grovehill":24kx79s2 said:
What I do like is the idea of splitting the FC from the real estate, so that in the future, the FC could again be bought by a few local people, to be run solely as a football club.

What changed your mind Grovehill?

26th Jan:

grovehill":24kx79s2 said:
I don't believe there's a long term future for any football club who don't have the security (in every sense) of owning there own ground
 
G

grovehill

Guest
PAFC+":10x8zqnu said:
grovehill":10x8zqnu said:
What I do like is the idea of splitting the FC from the real estate, so that in the future, the FC could again be bought by a few local people, to be run solely as a football club.

What changed your mind Grovehill?

26th Jan:

grovehill":10x8zqnu said:
I don't believe there's a long term future for any football club who don't have the security (in every sense) of owning there own ground


The realisation that in most cases the prospect of "property profit" distracts the people in power from developing the football side of things.