Yes, it's just as likely the Commision found out on their own. I was just pointing out a hunch of mine that someone snitched - which could well be wrong.

I hope I am too, because I find that sort of thing really sneaky.

Bit pejorative isn't it? If someone had a legitimate concern with the transaction between a charity and a business, they'd be right to raise it with the body that regulates charities. Just because it's Argyle doesn't mean the regulations should be broken.

Yes, and and I would hope that if my hunch is correct, the individual concerned contacted the Trust in the first instance to raise their concerns with them.

The Trust could have avoided all this by answering the obvious concern over how the loan would be guaranteed when their press release was issued regarding the loan.

It's possible the existing board member creditors against the mortgage agreed to the trust loan being bumped up the queue to a position where the sale of the ground would give a very high probability the 'investment' was safe.

It's possible the trust has inside information about an imminent takeover of the club, which would see their loan as no more than a bridging loan. It may be that a very attractive rate of interest was offered for a (say) 4 week bridge loan to new ownership.

That's just two scenarios that would place the loan in a better light. But because we've heard nothing, it's natural to assume the worst from the limited facts available.

My £3500 from the TuTu walk went to them - GRRRRRRRR!

My £3500 from the TuTu walk went to them - GRRRRRRRR!

Just think, the money you raised could be helping pay for the directors and their guests lunch tomorrow.

So it wasnt a complete waste of time after all.

[PL2 3DQ]

My £3500 from the TuTu walk went to them - GRRRRRRRR!

Just think, the money you raised could be helping pay for the directors and their guests lunch tomorrow.

So it wasnt a complete waste of time after all.

Hopefully my Vital donations will cover the half-time nibbles for the entourage.

Makes me wonder why the Trustees or their legal advisors didn't approach the Charity Commission voluntarily for a ruling before committing its entire capital in such a sensitive and high-risk venture.

Some fans are possibly easily persuaded that time is of the essence and it needed to through quickly, wouldnt be the first time this club or assosciates have rushed headlong into something with there eyes shut.

At least we KNOW what happened to the £5k we raised.

It deffo went to the STAFF.

Novel idea eh?

I suppose if we do get new investors and the loan is quickly repaid then it will all blow over. If we go into administration and the money goes down the swanee then the Trustees are in big trouble. They deserve credit for taking a risk for which they, obviously, believed was the best interest of the club but if it backfires they have a real problem.

I suppose if we do get new investors and the loan is quickly repaid then it will all blow over. If we go into administration and the money goes down the swanee then the Trustees are in big trouble. They deserve credit for taking a risk for which they, obviously, believed was the best interest of the club but if it backfires they have a real problem.

Yup I agree. Not an an easy decision for them at all, and for that reason I would not criticise them. However, under the Trustees Act 2000 I believe that they have a duty of care, and I am pretty sure Trustees can be financially liable for losses though I assume that they are not technically making losses here.

I suppose if we do get new investors and the loan is quickly repaid then it will all blow over. If we go into administration and the money goes down the swanee then the Trustees are in big trouble. They deserve credit for taking a risk for which they, obviously, believed was the best interest of the club but if it backfires they have a real problem.

... which isn't what they should have been making a decision for ...

I suppose if we do get new investors and the loan is quickly repaid then it will all blow over. If we go into administration and the money goes down the swanee then the Trustees are in big trouble. They deserve credit for taking a risk for which they, obviously, believed was the best interest of the club but if it backfires they have a real problem.

... which isn't what they should have been making a decision for ...

Exactly.
They could be in trouble whatever happens to the loan. The trust has a charter and that charter outlines how the Trusts funds may be used. There is no provision for lending money, they are not a bank.

I suppose if we do get new investors and the loan is quickly repaid then it will all blow over. If we go into administration and the money goes down the swanee then the Trustees are in big trouble. They deserve credit for taking a risk for which they, obviously, believed was the best interest of the club but if it backfires they have a real problem.

... which isn't what they should have been making a decision for ...

Exactly.
They could be in trouble whatever happens to the loan. The trust has a charter and that charter outlines how the Trusts funds may be used. There is no provision for lending money, they are not a bank.

As all of this has taken since January 1st, are we assuming that every avenue hasn't been investigated.

I spoke to a Trustee quite a few weeks ago and he was insistant that everything had to be 'proper' before anything we decided.

I do hope they're not in the sh*t, as they did what they did with the best of intentions.

I put a fair bit in, and, as I say, imagine if PAFC has vanished, and then someone pops up with 'Oh we had £332k collected by Argyle fans, I wonder what we should do with it'.

That would have gone down well wouldn't it?

Perhaps it would make a good vote.

The question is a legal one , not an emotional one.
Somebody needs to get it sorted, one way or the other and stop all this conjecture.

Stapes is an acountant and a trustee? he should be extra careful!!!