Is it possible that If/When PAFC enters administration that the youth trust could receive part/all of stadium? Could the charity then sell it on or develop a 'youth team' and call it, say Plymouth Argyle?
Mark_Smith wrote: More questions than answers on this one.
I think it is clear that T&DT can indeed legally do what it has done, given the superficially commercial nature of the loan.
(It would be flippant of me to suggest that this also secures the livelihood of the increasing numbers of under-18s we are being forced to pull up through the ranks, so I won't say that.)
Risk is usually carried in the interest rate and security is against a tangible asset. We don't know the interest rate (and it is probably not important) or how much security a multiple-mortgaged Home Park actually provides in the worst case scenario. Risk also depends on the term of the loan.
So my own guess is that the key lies in the words "short-term".
Is the following fanciful?
- PS+PR have investors waiting in the wings but more time is needed
- 300k "short-term" clears all debts, lifts the embargo, and cancels the court case (for now) giving breathing space. It is the short-term cash flow we needed
- investor negotiations conclude and the loan is repaid
- or administration is called for (by PS) once new investors are ready
- new people come in at a discount, and pay back T&DT as a pre-agreed priority
I don't see what other guarantees the Trust could have been given, if the bottom line is getting the money back in the short term.
Either that or the Trustees have well and truly had the wool pulld over their eyes, which I hope (and trust) is not the case.
So it all still boils down to finding these mystery investors...
Mark_Smith wrote: - PS+PR have investors waiting in the wings but more time is needed
- 300k "short-term" clears all debts, lifts the embargo, and cancels the court case (for now) giving breathing space. It is the short-term cash flow we needed
- investor negotiations conclude and the loan is repaid
John_Lloyd wrote: @ The Doctor:
I'm involved with PAST&DT as a member of the Advisory Committee, but I'm not a Trustee and had no part in this decision.
You'll forgive me, as I'm not normally shy of making comments on key issues like this, but I'm going Switzerland on this one.
Peter_Jones wrote: So let's get this straight.
A charity with a very specific published mission loans virtually all its cash to a commercial business recently described in public by a leading councillor as a "basket case", with little prospect of ever getting its money back.
One of the charity's trustees is also a shareholder in the failing business.
Interesting, to say the least.
John_Lloyd wrote:cheshiregreen wrote:John_Lloyd wrote: @ The Doctor:
I'm involved with PAST&DT as a member of the Advisory Committee, but I'm not a Trustee and had no part in this decision.
You'll forgive me, as I'm not normally shy of making comments on key issues like this, but I'm going Switzerland on this one.
Given today's Herald reports, this comment seems more significant now.
Once upon a time, I'd have liked to have claimed foresight and/or inside knowledge in this type of situation. But not any more.
I really don't want to know about what the carpet-baggers are up to.
Seriously.
The use of the Switzerland image was primarily to do with neutrality, with a subtle reference to secretive financial practices.
Woodward and Bernstein I ain't.
The Doctor wrote:Mark_Smith wrote: - PS+PR have investors waiting in the wings but more time is needed
- 300k "short-term" clears all debts, lifts the embargo, and cancels the court case (for now) giving breathing space. It is the short-term cash flow we needed
- investor negotiations conclude and the loan is repaid
Something like this seems the most likely scenario to me but I don't think this deal "clears all debts", rather it allows the club to stumble on for a few days more while the final deliberations regarding selling on the club take place.
If the Board know that none of them are going to put more money in now that the Japanese "promise" has been broken then they also know that selling on at a discount price is the only sensible option. But in the meantime money is needed to keep the club running and, as already been established, it's not coming from them so it can only come from outside sources (like PAST&DT).
esmer wrote:Mark_Smith wrote: More questions than answers on this one.
I think it is clear that T&DT can indeed legally do what it has done, given the superficially commercial nature of the loan.
(It would be flippant of me to suggest that this also secures the livelihood of the increasing numbers of under-18s we are being forced to pull up through the ranks, so I won't say that.)
Risk is usually carried in the interest rate and security is against a tangible asset. We don't know the interest rate (and it is probably not important) or how much security a multiple-mortgaged Home Park actually provides in the worst case scenario. Risk also depends on the term of the loan.
So my own guess is that the key lies in the words "short-term".
Is the following fanciful?
- PS+PR have investors waiting in the wings but more time is needed
- 300k "short-term" clears all debts, lifts the embargo, and cancels the court case (for now) giving breathing space. It is the short-term cash flow we needed
- investor negotiations conclude and the loan is repaid
- or administration is called for (by PS) once new investors are ready
- new people come in at a discount, and pay back T&DT as a pre-agreed priority
I don't see what other guarantees the Trust could have been given, if the bottom line is getting the money back in the short term.
Either that or the Trustees have well and truly had the wool pulld over their eyes, which I hope (and trust) is not the case.
So it all still boils down to finding these mystery investors...
Are they allowed to do that? I thought there was some law about not favouring a particular creditor.
argylelc wrote:
BUT, if PAST&DT was funded through general donations (money boxes in pubs was mentioned?) then it would be a disgrace if that money (for a charity) has been used in this way.
John_Lloyd wrote:cheshiregreen wrote:John_Lloyd wrote: @ The Doctor:
I'm involved with PAST&DT as a member of the Advisory Committee, but I'm not a Trustee and had no part in this decision.
You'll forgive me, as I'm not normally shy of making comments on key issues like this, but I'm going Switzerland on this one.
Given today's Herald reports, this comment seems more significant now.
Once upon a time, I'd have liked to have claimed foresight and/or inside knowledge in this type of situation. But not any more.
I really don't want to know about what the carpet-baggers are up to.
Seriously.
The use of the Switzerland image was primarily to do with neutrality, with a subtle reference to secretive financial practices.
Woodward and Bernstein I ain't.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 57 guests
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group