Page 8 of 9

Re: Herald re PBs

Posted: 13:46 26 Jun 2011
by oggyale
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.

If he says he will put money on the table somewhere between now and when the deal does get signed,then he would have to resign from Truro City asap.

The PB/s have said they will give PR some monies to see the club through to the end of the season. That should give him ample time to get other,much needed investment in.

If this deal goes to the wall,which it may very well do,i would be disappointed,as plan B does not look too great at the moment.

If the other two who sit on the sidelines were to suddenly be the PB,they would also have to put money into Argyle for the 2011-2012 campaign,but do they have the monies to do that ?.

Re: Herald re PBs

Posted: 14:05 26 Jun 2011
by bizzay1
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

Re: Herald re PBs

Posted: 15:01 26 Jun 2011
by X Isle
bizzay1 wrote:
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 :roll:.

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 :wink:.

Re: Herald re PBs

Posted: 15:54 26 Jun 2011
by bizzay1
X Isle wrote:
bizzay1 wrote:
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 :roll:.

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 :wink:.


:iagree: :appl: I think we are on the same side here, I am playing the "nice cop" ;)

Re: Herald re PBs

Posted: 07:49 27 Jun 2011
by Dave Stoneman
"Insiders claim"

Re: Herald re PBs

Posted: 08:02 27 Jun 2011
by Chill-Pil-Grim
jerryatricjanner wrote: Not at all, I think it would be the correct assumption.

And neither did I accuse you of saying a majority, I simply posed the question what did you consider a large portion to be out of curiosity as often a small minority can make more noise than a silent majority. And I don't consider myself a member of any silent majority.


Your'e in the minority on ere then ;-)

Re: Herald re PBs

Posted: 08:05 27 Jun 2011
by Graham Clark
daicactus wrote: "Insiders claim"


Part of the leaky sieve that operates at Home Park these days I am afraid. It would appear to be a purposeful and calculated release of information. The comments printed in the Herald would have been on the record though. Does give them some authenticity. For instance the name Bishop International Ltd wasn't plucked out of thin air!

Re: Herald re PBs

Posted: 08:21 27 Jun 2011
by Dave Stoneman
Graham Clark wrote:
daicactus wrote: "Insiders claim"


Part of the leaky sieve that operates at Home Park these days I am afraid. It would appear to be a purposeful and calculated release of information. The comments printed in the Herald would have been on the record though. Does give them some authenticity. For instance the name Bishop International Ltd wasn't plucked out of thin air!


Oh, good. So now we know the fascade of the consortium but not who's actually behind it. A question for tonight or is the confidentially clause going to be waved at us? I think we all have our suspicions, but few if any of us have the facts.

Re: Herald re PBs

Posted: 09:11 27 Jun 2011
by X Isle
daicactus wrote: "Insiders claim"


Suggesting you believe it to be false?.

As per my earlier point, if factually incorrect why has Heaney or Bishop International not mounted a challenge to it?. It tells the world that a football club owner involved in the purchase of a second club, it's damaging to the chances of PAFC receiving the golden share. If false they need to challenge it, they haven't.

Re: Herald re PBs

Posted: 09:22 27 Jun 2011
by Tim Chown
Graham Clark wrote:
daicactus wrote: "Insiders claim"


Part of the leaky sieve that operates at Home Park these days I am afraid. It would appear to be a purposeful and calculated release of information. The comments printed in the Herald would have been on the record though. Does give them some authenticity. For instance the name Bishop International Ltd wasn't plucked out of thin air!


Well, indeed, witness information leaked to people who post here in the full knowledge of where it will be used.

And posts by people who have just joined pasoti, but who seem to have quite sophisticted and informed views.

There's a ton of spin going on, and you need to think who is posting what and why.

Re: Herald re PBs

Posted: 09:37 27 Jun 2011
by Quintrell_Green
It has just amused me that having Googled Bishop International Ltd, up comes a web-site for a company who are international fraud investigators with offices in London and a small number of countries in Western Europe. I should imagine the Gibraltar based company must have an addition to its' registered name otherwise in the UK I can see confusion developing.

Re: Herald re PBs

Posted: 12:32 27 Jun 2011
by Dave Stoneman
X Isle wrote:
daicactus wrote: "Insiders claim"


Suggesting you believe it to be false?.

As per my earlier point, if factually incorrect why has Heaney or Bishop International not mounted a challenge to it?. It tells the world that a football club owner involved in the purchase of a second club, it's damaging to the chances of PAFC receiving the golden share. If false they need to challenge it, they haven't.


Not at all. I'm just curious about the sources and motivation. As I have said earlier in this thread the directors, shareholders and date of the establishment of Bishop International should be made known. That way we can see if the bid is Kosher or a vehicle for vested interests.

To be honest, I don't think there will be a challenge by Mr Heaney or Bishop International to what the Herald has said. There's no profit in shooting yourself in the foot, is there? Someone else has to prove the veracity of the Herald's claims and I think Mr Heaney and Bishop International will sit tight and wave two fingers at us. We can suspect what we suspect, but proof is altogether a very different animal.

But, in all honesty, I am becoming more and more cynical about the way in which this bid is being handled and the way info (or lack of it) is fed to the supporters. I have reached a point where I question everything. You never know, someone might actually be telling the truth but for me to believe, proof is all I'm asking.

Just for the record I get the distinct impression that Guilfoyle is saying the Irish/Mr Heaney/Bishop International bid is Hobson's choice. I see this as dangerous and if the Mr Heaney connection established perhaps even fatal to Argyle's existence.

Apologies to Mr Clark by the way, my response to him was a little snotty. I'm afraid its probably the worst period of supporting Argyle I can remember and I allowed my irritation to override my manners.

Re: Herald re PBs

Posted: 12:34 28 Jun 2011
by PL2 3DQ
I've discovered that the company Bishop International Limited was formed on 25th February 2011.

This was before Argyle went into administration, before Guilfoyle was appointed, before Brent and Buttivant were interested, before the Irish were involved and before a Preferred Bidder was announced.

Either an outsider was taking a keen interest and quickly set-up BIL to prepare to buy Argyle at some future date or someone or some group (Mastpoint or the Directors) close to the situation knew which way the whole process was heading.