oggyale wrote: Heaney is only advising though,so the FL will not be able to touch him. And if he can prove that he is only advising,then case closed.
That's what I'm getting at - the herald story implies that Mr Heaney IS the prefered bidder (or part of bishop int anyways)so it will be HIS money that PR will get, but as you say if he can proove he is only advising they can't touch him but after that story Bishop Int would have to disclose who are on their board - which is not required by gib law, hence why it was set up over there - to keep that a secret. Hence one of my previous questions - can the football authorities force the herald to reveal their source, or can they force Bishop Int to say who they are & if no to either who's word do they go with - if the heralds. they will block the deal anyway
No implication, it says as much in the opening line..................(with all due reference to the link at the beginning of the thread)"KEVIN Heaney is part of the secretive consortium poised to do a deal for administration-hit Plymouth Argyle, according to well-placed sources. The Herald can reveal an offshore company called Bishop International Limited is the preferred bidder for the club. Insiders claim the firm, based in tax haven Gibraltar, is a joint venture between Truro City Football Club owner Mr Heaney and business associates".
The football league is a private organisation, they can insist the preferred bidders present themselves in the b*llocky-buff if they so wish. You would hope that a governing body, when presented with this set-up that's as fishy as a haddocks bathing costume, would insist on knowing what was going on. Even WITHOUT confirmation from Gibraltars equivilent of companies house and on purely face value...........you have an owner of one club (who's overseen a company liquidation already) "advising" in the purchase of another club, the proposed owners of which don't want anyone to know who they are so are "selling" the football side to someone on bail for football related fraud who has had, shall we say, an already 'colourful' history with football governance.
That in itself looks dreadful, they SHOULD see that. Throw in the fact that Heaney is a joint investor in the company giving the '£1 PAFC' a break from rent and the working capital for a season and it's a no-brainer for the football league - they have however previously demonstrated that they have no brains
I think it'd be telling to know who the "insider" was. Rival bidders are one thing, could just be muddying the waters, albeit they are factualy correct. However were, say, it to be becoming blatantly obvious that the PB was struggling big style as he's way out of his depth, it also makes it less controversial for the administrator to pull the plug on him if that information was to find it's way into the public domain, just a thought.
Now, another observation for you. Say this article was factually incorrect, it would present massive ramifications for the chances of the (alleged) "consortium" getting the football league share. They would wish to clear the matter up, publicly and quickly, wouldn't they. They might even wish to dispense with their "advisor" ASAP to make it clear and unequivocal to the footballing authorities that this wasn't a football owner aquiring a second club (he's been about as incompetent an "advisor" as it's possible to get anyway having no idea about football creditors rulings and having made burger-all headway with PCC). But the article hasn't been challenged has it, why not?, think about that for a while because there is an obvious answer