Page 7 of 8

Re: Notes From Meeting with Brendan Guilfoyle et al

Posted: 08:08 08 Jul 2011
by storming
We wouldn't be in this position if BG hadn't accepted a bid from an anonymous consortium, with a letter from a solicitor. There was always a chance that a consortium, who wished to remain anonymous, was doing so because at least one of their members was going to be unacceptable to the FL. He should have insisted on names at that point or disallowed the bid.

How much money was promised in that solicitor's letter (aren't we talking about £5 million)? Where is it now, and, if it's not there, can the solicitor be sued?

Re: Notes From Meeting with Brendan Guilfoyle et al

Posted: 08:10 08 Jul 2011
by jimbo_the_green
my concern is that BG will allow the deal to go through in 4-6 weeks even if KH doesn't have all the money up front. The track record of moved goalposts is clear for everyone to see.

A scenario where the money that should be put down in full on completion is drip fed over time is one that I believe they will take to save face. This approach will not see the staff paid and despite the blind loyalty of some (which they are fully entitled to and I don't have a problem with), season ticket sales will be some of the poorest figures ever.

Has a club ever come out of administration and re entered it within 12 months? Could this be the next shameful record to be set?

Re: Notes From Meeting with Brendan Guilfoyle et al

Posted: 08:15 08 Jul 2011
by Laughter My Ploy
cheshiregreen wrote: Just 2 quick questions for clarity.

The Herald reporter - did they ask question or merely scribe?

Are they (Herald) running the story of the meeting? Not seen on-line this morning.


Bit of a mention here

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/Plymout ... story.html

The Magnificant 3 and DL

Image

Re: Notes From Meeting with Brendan Guilfoyle et al

Posted: 08:34 08 Jul 2011
by Mark_Smith
Thanks to Chris and everyone who attended the meeting, more valuable insights.

At least efforts have been made on all sides to keep the communication channels open. Repeated overtures to meet the fans have been accepted by people who could have simply dug themselves in like the last lot. We might not all like or believe what they say, but at least they are saying something and in so doing are giving people a lot of ammunition to use against them.

Some thoughts from me:

- still a lot of speculation on here that the PBs do not have the cash, while BG has said it is all there, according to best practice. Either drop the speculation or just call him a liar because you know better. And as for the "delay", well when I bought my house I didn't march up to the previous owner with a briefcase of notes, demand the keys and move in the next day.

- I have said it before, but at the moment I tend to think Ridsdale's interests, at least in the medium term, coincide with those of the football club - bums on seats and success on the pitch.
- I wonder if Ridsdale's business plan is actually based on 5,500 STs - would be pretty naive if so...
- I wonder, any news from Ridsdale's investor hunt? Maybe we won't know until he has handed over his quid.

- Objectively I'm not sure there is reason to celebrate paying a rent lower than the previous mortgage, I'd rather be a homeowner than a tenant, but needs must.

- It has been the case from an early stage that the FC would be operating at a loss for one if not two years, this is not a new thing.

- I'm not sure Truro should be asked to waive their match fee, I think it is disrespectful to request it, this is our problem, they have their own bills to pay. However, I say "they" in the broadest sense. If you think it is tantamount to asking Heaney personally, then this comes down to demanding that he personally transfer x pounds into the PAFC staff fund.

- It has been raised before, but how can the new bunch of players be paid? Will some be able to walk away before they have even kicked a ball?

Re: Notes From Meeting with Brendan Guilfoyle et al

Posted: 08:37 08 Jul 2011
by cheshiregreen
Thanks LMP.

Re: Notes From Meeting with Brendan Guilfoyle et al

Posted: 10:20 08 Jul 2011
by X Isle
Thanks Chris and the Trust team (Taverners etc) for all you are doing.

Your involvement is key as effectively you are now my club, the values I need from a club now being absent from AFC Heaney/Ridsdale. They might have a football team but you have the club :huddle:.

Re: Notes From Meeting with Brendan Guilfoyle et al

Posted: 12:00 08 Jul 2011
by storming
BG has also met two "Irish" advisors / representatives from Bishop International LTD


Why does he need to meet more "advisors". He can talk to Heaney. He should be meeting the other members of the consortium, if there are any?

Re: Notes From Meeting with Brendan Guilfoyle et al

Posted: 12:08 08 Jul 2011
by Quintrell_Green
Mark Smith makes some good points. However I think it should be recognised that a lot of Truro's squad come from the Plymouth area anyhow. Truro will save on the travelling claims by those players in a game at Home Park and therefore a request to forego the match fee in favour of the Staff Fund, may be no great demand financially.

Re: Notes From Meeting with Brendan Guilfoyle et al

Posted: 12:18 08 Jul 2011
by Chris Dennis
Chris Webb wrote: Notes from Supporters meeting with Administrator.

CW raised the issue of duel ownership and KH. PR replied stating that KH would be the landlord but would have no impact on the Football Club going forward for the following reasons
1. All monies from Kevin Heaney / the preferred bidder would be handed to the Club on day 1 of the sale thus in PRs view ending their involvement.
2. Despite being the prospective landlord of Argyle the terms of the lease would be agreed up front and not up for any future influence from KH. PR is looking for a minimum lease period of 25 years. The rent would only change based on what league we are in. I.e. set rates for League 2, League 1 and the Championship. It was also confirmed that the rental rates agreed for League 1 and 2 were lower than the previous mortgage payments to Lombard and even the previous rental payments to the City Council when the Ground was owned by them



Sorry to labour this point but the football league rules say an "interest" in another club its not about dual ownership. You can have an interest as defined by the rules below without being the owner of that club.

These are the relevant sections from the football league rules on Associations and Dual Interest.

86 Interests in More Than One Football Club

86.1 Except with the prior written consent of the Board a person, or any associate of that person, who is interested in a Club cannot at the same time be interested in any other football club.

86.2 A person shall be deemed to be interested in a football club if he, whether directly or indirectly:

86.2.1 holds or deals in (or has made any application to hold or deal in or underwrite any issue of) the securities or shares of that football club: or

86.2.2 is a member of that football club; or

86.2.3 is involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of that football club; or

86.2.4 has any power whatsoever to influence the financial, commercial or business affairs or the management or administration of that football club; or

In my opinion this rule has been broken already as the non payment of the outstanding 700k so far had has a profound direct influence on the financial, commercial and business affairs of the club.

86.2.5 has lent or gifted money to or guaranteed the debts or obligations of that football club, otherwise than in the ordinary course of banking.

They have obviously got round this one somehow but it seems to me that the PBs are guaranteeing our debts and obligations by handing over the money on Day 1.

This is not about dual ownership it's about 'interest' in another club and I can't see how this can possibly get past the above rules.

Re: Notes From Meeting with Brendan Guilfoyle et al

Posted: 12:42 08 Jul 2011
by storming
2. Despite being the prospective landlord of Argyle the terms of the lease would be agreed up front and not up for any future influence from KH. PR is looking for a minimum lease period of 25 years. The rent would only change based on what league we are in. I.e. set rates for League 2, League 1 and the Championship. It was also confirmed that the rental rates agreed for League 1 and 2 were lower than the previous mortgage payments to Lombard and even the previous rental payments to the City Council when the Ground was owned by them .

Very carefully worded. We were in the Championship when the Council last owned Home Park.

Re: Notes From Meeting with Brendan Guilfoyle et al

Posted: 12:49 08 Jul 2011
by Chris Dennis
storming wrote: 2. Despite being the prospective landlord of Argyle the terms of the lease would be agreed up front and not up for any future influence from KH. PR is looking for a minimum lease period of 25 years. The rent would only change based on what league we are in. I.e. set rates for League 2, League 1 and the Championship. It was also confirmed that the rental rates agreed for League 1 and 2 were lower than the previous mortgage payments to Lombard and even the previous rental payments to the City Council when the Ground was owned by them .

Very carefully worded. We were in the Championship when the Council last owned Home Park.


So he is not denying the current influence then?

Re: Notes From Meeting with Brendan Guilfoyle et al

Posted: 13:26 08 Jul 2011
by Ian Newell
Frank Bullitt wrote: Well done everyone for their efforts yesterday. The question I would ask to Ian, Chris and Mark is whether you believed them or not?


The answer from me is Frank (although, you must understand I'm not an elected representative, just a thick yob with a big ego, that is 'in it' for myself :) ) is that I don't know and I think all four of us are in the same boat.

What I do know is, PR really does care and wants this to happen, why I'm not quite sure, it could simply be the money he'll earn from it, but I have no doubt of his passion to make this work.

Re: Notes From Meeting with Brendan Guilfoyle et al

Posted: 13:52 08 Jul 2011
by warney
IJN wrote:
Frank Bullitt wrote: Well done everyone for their efforts yesterday. The question I would ask to Ian, Chris and Mark is whether you believed them or not?


The answer from me is Frank (although, you must understand I'm not an elected representative, just a thick yob with a big ego, that is 'in it' for myself :) ) is that I don't know and I think all four of us are in the same boat.

What I do know is, PR really does care and wants this to happen, why I'm not quite sure, it could simply be the money he'll earn from it, but I have no doubt of his passion to make this work.


And that is the only single thing that gives me hope we'll get out of this mess. Whatever his motives, the fact PR desparately wants this to succeed is the only positive I can find.
I'm more worried about our survival now, than at any time before.