Page 4 of 5

Posted: 17:10 11 Feb 2011
by The Doctor
The decription of this loan as having kept Argyle afloat is interesting me. Is it possible that if the loan had not been made part of the HMRC debt would not have been paid and the club would have been put into liquidation by the court on Wednesday? Or is this just lazy/inaccurate journalism?

Posted: 17:24 11 Feb 2011
by Quintrell_Green
boletus edulis wrote:
esmer wrote: 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.


Yes they are liable but should PAFC fail, it does not mean the Trust has lost all the money they loaned as an improved 'investment' if the Trustees were canny enough to take third party security like personal guarantees [preferably supported] from the Directors.

Posted: 18:08 11 Feb 2011
by esmer
Quintrell_Green wrote:
boletus edulis wrote:
esmer wrote: 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.


Yes they are liable but should PAFC fail, it does not mean the Trust has lost all the money they loaned as an improved 'investment' if the Trustees were canny enough to take third party security like personal guarantees [preferably supported] from the Directors.

Do you think the local directors may have done just that?

Posted: 18:29 11 Feb 2011
by The Doctor
The Doctor wrote: The description of this loan as having kept Argyle afloat is interesting me. Is it possible that if the loan had not been made part of the HMRC debt would not have been paid and the club would have been put into liquidation by the court on Wednesday? Or is this just lazy/inaccurate journalism?


... or maybe someone in a position of influence simply told the rest of the Trustees that if they didn't make the loan the club was going down the pan, regardless of whether that was actually true or not. Who knows eh?

Posted: 18:34 11 Feb 2011
by Ian Newell
Cynic! :)

Posted: 11:50 12 Feb 2011
by PL2 3DQ
I've just seen the legal document between PAST&DT and PAFC, it's dated 25th January.

The loan is for £330,000, PAST&DT gives its address in Lostwithiel, Cornwall, the charge is behind Lombard but in front of Mastpoint and Gardner.
Paul Stapleton has signed the document on behalf of PAFC.

Posted: 11:56 12 Feb 2011
by Laughter My Ploy
PL2 3DQ wrote: I've just seen the legal document between PAST&DT and PAFC, it's dated 25th January.

The loan is for £330,000, PAST&DT gives its address in Lostwithiel, Cornwall, the charge is behind Lombard but in front of Mastpoint and Gardner.
Paul Stapleton has signed the document on behalf of PAFC.


Does it indicate any guarantees or payment terms?

Posted: 11:59 12 Feb 2011
by The Doctor
PL2 3DQ wrote: I've just seen the legal document between PAST&DT and PAFC, it's dated 25th January.

The loan is for £330,000, PAST&DT gives its address in Lostwithiel, Cornwall, the charge is behind Lombard but in front of Mastpoint and Gardner.
Paul Stapleton has signed the document on behalf of PAFC.


The date is interesting as that's quite a while before the court hearing last Wednesday and would be consistent with this loan money being part of the funding that paid off the HMRC debts (not just the petition debts but the more recent HMRC payments accrued since the winding up orders were instigate)d.

Posted: 12:03 12 Feb 2011
by PL2 3DQ
Laughter My Ploy wrote:
PL2 3DQ wrote: I've just seen the legal document between PAST&DT and PAFC, it's dated 25th January.

The loan is for £330,000, PAST&DT gives its address in Lostwithiel, Cornwall, the charge is behind Lombard but in front of Mastpoint and Gardner.
Paul Stapleton has signed the document on behalf of PAFC.


Does it indicate any guarantees or payment terms?


To be honest it's full of legal speak beyond me, if anyone wants a copy PM me with your email address.
It would have wise to have another Director sign the document and not Stapleton.

I heard the money was actually handed over on the 15th January.

Posted: 12:13 12 Feb 2011
by blenks
For those who are interested this is what the procedure of the Charity Commission is and what they will be looking at and through.

Charity Commission

Posted: 12:17 12 Feb 2011
by blenks
D. The Charity Commission and complaints
D1. What issues does the Commission want to know about?
The short answer

We need to know where there is a serious risk of significant harm to or abuse of a charity, its assets, beneficiaries or reputation.
In more detail

The issues we consider to be serious or significant and unacceptable for any charity, its trustees, employees or agents to be engaged in are set out in the list below. The issues are not listed in any order of priority:

- significant financial loss to the charity;
- serious harm to beneficiaries and, in particular, vulnerable beneficiaries;
- threats to national security, particularly terrorism;
- criminality within or involving a charity;
- sham charities set up for an illegal or improper purpose;
- charities deliberately being used for significant private advantage;
- where a charity's independence is seriously called into question;
- serious non-compliance in a charity that damages or has the potential to damage its reputation and/or the reputation of charities generally;
- serious non-compliance in a charity which, left unchecked, could damage public trust and confidence in the Charity Commission as an effective regulator.

Posted: 12:43 12 Feb 2011
by blenks
Under section 175 Companies Act 2006 charity trustees have a duty to avoid conflict of interest situations.

Although the legislation permits the directors of non-charitable companies to pass a resolution to authorise any particular conflict, section 181 of the Companies Act 2006 provides that, in the case of a charitable company, conflicts can only be authorised by the board of trustees/directors if the company's constitution (its Memorandum and Articles) expressly allows them to do so. Otherwise the conflict would need the express consent of the Charity Commission.

So under section 181 the board can only authorise conflicts specifically mentioned in the charity's constitution. There are often provisions in a charity's Memorandum which permit the trustees to authorise certain specified conflict arrangements. For example, a charity trustee may receive expenses; be paid for the supply of goods or services to the charity other than for acting as a trustee; receive interest on money loaned to the charity at a reasonable rate; and receive rent for premises which are let by him to the charity. These provisions are in accordance with the Charity Commission's own model provisions on trustee benefits.

We are now advising charitable companies to review their constitutions, and if thought appropriate to adopt provisions in their Articles which under s.181 will permit boards to authorise other specific conflict situations affecting individual trustees, such as multiple trusteeships or other roles with third party organisations. This would allow the "conflicted" trustee to remain in post on the board.

However, the board of trustees/directors should still only authorise such conflicts of interest where they consider that it would be in the best interests of their charity to do so.

LINK

Posted: 13:55 12 Feb 2011
by Andy_Lannie
PL2 3DQ wrote:
Laughter My Ploy wrote:
PL2 3DQ wrote: I've just seen the legal document between PAST&DT and PAFC, it's dated 25th January.

The loan is for £330,000, PAST&DT gives its address in Lostwithiel, Cornwall, the charge is behind Lombard but in front of Mastpoint and Gardner.
Paul Stapleton has signed the document on behalf of PAFC.


Does it indicate any guarantees or payment terms?


To be honest it's full of legal speak beyond me, if anyone wants a copy PM me with your email address.
It would have wise to have another Director sign the document and not Stapleton.

I heard the money was actually handed over on the 15th January.

Scary if you ask me.