Page 10 of 10

Re: Argyle takeover depends on separate property deal!

Posted: 12:43 02 Aug 2011
by Rupert
Andy_S wrote:
Andy_Symons wrote: So the promised funds are tied up an another, unrelated property deal. The question that needs to be answered by Guilfoyle, then, is precisely what was the 'proof of funding' that allowed Bilbo and his mates to gain exclusivity?

This whole thing stinks, as it always has.


That would be an identical "proof of funding" that Paul Buttivant submitted Andy. A solicitor's letter.



I was told that Buttivant's "proof of funding" amounted to nothing more than an overdraft arrangement.

Re: Argyle takeover depends on separate property deal!

Posted: 12:45 02 Aug 2011
by cheshiregreen
Is an overdraft much different to a "proof of funding" that seems to need another transaction to be completed before that funding is actually available?

Re: Argyle takeover depends on separate property deal!

Posted: 12:46 02 Aug 2011
by X Isle
Richard Blight wrote:
Tugboat wrote:
X Isle wrote: He's got a gun, he's got a gun, he's got a, Ronnie's got a gun :thumbup:.

I've had a brain wave.. Why don't we organise a Q&A with Heaney/ridsdale/Brendan on the moors in a nice secluded area of marsh land? It'll be a nice meeting with us as the fans having a real appealing back up plan if the answers to our questions fail to please us.

I'll bring a spade and a flask of tea.


As someone who takes a great interest in the conservation of Dartmoor,I would appreciate it,if you didn't contaminate Dartmoors blanket bog. It is also illegal to deliberately contaminate watercourses. Remember most of Devon's drinking water originates on Dartmoor. :scarf:


Good point. Only one thing for it then, under the patio it is.

Once installed you get an exclusive framed certificate recognising that you are a 'foundation father'............i'll get m'coat :oops:.

Re: Argyle takeover depends on separate property deal!

Posted: 13:00 02 Aug 2011
by Stonehouse Mike
X Isle wrote: Good point. Only one thing for it then, under the patio it is.

Once installed you get an exclusive framed certificate recognising that you are a 'foundation father'............i'll get m'coat :oops:.


Nice one :thumbup:

Re: Argyle takeover depends on separate property deal!

Posted: 13:14 02 Aug 2011
by Tugboat
Rupert wrote:
Andy_S wrote:
Andy_Symons wrote: So the promised funds are tied up an another, unrelated property deal. The question that needs to be answered by Guilfoyle, then, is precisely what was the 'proof of funding' that allowed Bilbo and his mates to gain exclusivity?

This whole thing stinks, as it always has.


That would be an identical "proof of funding" that Paul Buttivant submitted Andy. A solicitor's letter.



I was told that Buttivant's "proof of funding" amounted to nothing more than an overdraft arrangement.


More than Heaney has by the sounds of it!!

Re: Argyle takeover depends on separate property deal!

Posted: 13:50 02 Aug 2011
by Rupert
big-green wrote:

What happen to a report on Contingency Plan Meeting in today paper, or as riddler taken over
the local press? as the paper are Riddler here Riddler this Riddler that.


Coverage of that meeting is on pages 48 (the back page) and 46 of the Western Morning News today. It could hardly be more prominent. (Hopefully, the story makes total sense, too. Unlike your post).

:wave:

Re: Argyle takeover depends on separate property deal!

Posted: 13:55 02 Aug 2011
by Paul_Roberts
big-green wrote: I was told that Buttivant's "proof of funding" amounted to nothing more than an overdraft arrangement.

_________________
Head of content, Western Morning News/Western Daily Press sports desk


What happen to a report on Contingency Plan Meeting in today paper, or as riddler taken over
the local press? as the paper are Riddler here Riddler this Riddler that.



Riddler would be proud of that riddle...

Re: Argyle takeover depends on separate property deal!

Posted: 14:06 02 Aug 2011
by Rupert
John Petrie wrote: Rupert, do you know if anyone from the press has asked Mr. Guilfoyle why he requires immediate funding should a contingency plan be needed but doesn't require it from the PBs, and in fact hasn't for months? I'm sure the supporters of Plymouth Argyle would be very keen to know what his reasons are for allowing months without funding for one bidder, and then appearing to want immediate funding from another should those that he has given months to not manage to complete.


No idea - sorry. My job involves editorial management and copy editing. I don't write about Argyle, and nor do I attend any press briefings at Home Park. Best address your query to Edd Moore at the Herald. He writes about the Argyle takeover saga for the WMN as well as the Herald.