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?

Has most of the money been spent to pay the taxman; it was reported at the end of last week that we had re-paid the remaining money (£275,000 I believe) - was this the source of the repayment? Peter Ridsdale stated in his radio interview that the 'investors' required to purchase shares in our club; who is selling, our Japanese friends? In his telephone link to Japan, why were the lawers present at the other end? Maybe the sale of the club is not that far away, if this is the case the money could be re-paid quite quickly.

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...

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.

- 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).

@ 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.

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.

Does the words 'conflict of interest' come to mind, I wonder? I would love to fully read the objectives within the original Trust Deed.

I think it worth mentioning that should Trustees stray outside the objectives of the Trust, they are jointly and severally liable for any pecuniary loss achieved.

@ 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.

Fair enough John.

Says everything about the state we are in now that even the most innocent comments can be open to misinterpretation.

Let's hope the next 48 hours sees some kind of closure to this distasteful chapter in our history. (There is no knowledge on my part either and 48 hours just used because of the Court date )

- 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).

Yes, "clears all debts" was a bit loose
I only meant in the context of HMRC and the court case.

Can someone clarify who and how the PAST&DT are/were funded?

I understand they sold the hotel, but that hotel must have been paid for before that happened. Were these funds from the Trustees or from donations made by the public/fans?

If 100% of the funds controlled were through private donations and those members voted, then I guess the rest of us have no valid comment on what they do with the money.

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.

This all just highlights the fears I have with the new TRUST. What will happen with the money they raise? The new trust lacked a clear mission statement which concerned me, yet here PAST&DT seems to have a clear mission, yet is able to use its money on something outside of that regardless!!

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.

True - probably the hope is that these investors will have enough to repay all the preferential creditors. And they could always make a charitable donation of 300k (tax free!).

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.

I don't know where all the money the PAST&DT came from, maybe the club put some money into it. But I know several people who donated either one off sums or via direct debit. If I remember right, Mark Colling helped set those up, and is a poster on here. I don't for one moment suggest he's involved in this decision, but he may have a better insight. I haven't noticed him post in this thread yet.

Personally I have donated a few hundred quid over the years. I may even have a direct debit still open on it.

Note that PAST&DT may not have had £300k in donations - it's possible the property was bought many years ago and much of that sum has accrued with house price rises.

@ 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.

Is that where the assumption that one of the three investors was Swiss came from?