I assme legally Brenda is oblidged to maximise return for the secured creditors?

If he can legally get a better return to his company by liquidating us than selling to Brent, we're in deep poo.

If it comes to liquidation, it will mean he got it wrong with the PB's - he'll never work in this industry again, and so it should be!!

Wouldn't help us though. The way he's handling it so far who can predict how he'd react to the PB pulling out / FA rejecting the proposals?

I would be surprised if he's at the top of the list at the next club that gets into trouble whatever happens between now and the conclusion

I assme legally Brenda is oblidged to maximise return for the secured creditors?

If he can legally get a better return to his company by liquidating us than selling to Brent, we're in deep poo.

If it comes to liquidation, it will mean he got it wrong with the PB's - he'll never work in this industry again, and so it should be!!

This is what worries me. I have this sneaking suspicion that ego is a primary driver in the administration process now. Anything but completion with Heaney will be a significant blow to Brenda's credibility. I'm convinced that even if he saw the benefits of the contingency plan that he'll flog the Heaney horse to the end in a desperate attempt to save face.

I assme legally Brenda is oblidged to maximise return for the secured creditors?

If he can legally get a better return to his company by liquidating us than selling to Brent, we're in deep poo.

If it comes to liquidation, it will mean he got it wrong with the PB's - he'll never work in this industry again, and so it should be!!

This is what worries me. I have this sneaking suspicion that ego is a primary driver in the administration process now. Anything but completion with Heaney will be a significant blow to Brenda's credibility. I'm convinced that even if he saw the benefits of the contingency plan that he'll flog the Heaney horse to the end in a desperate attempt to save face.

Liquidation is an awful lot worse to his credibility with a contingency in the background! Having to use the contingency, would be a slight admission of a mistake but one he would need to take to preserve the little credibility he has left as a football administrator.

This is what worries me. I have this sneaking suspicion that ego is a primary driver in the administration process now. Anything but completion with Heaney will be a significant blow to Brenda's credibility. I'm convinced that even if he saw the benefits of the contingency plan that he'll flog the Heaney horse to the end in a desperate attempt to save face.[/quote]

I think that could well be near the truth Paulysalz. Liquidation would be worse for his credibility for sure and the fact that he knows he has the back up from JB means he can risk the Heaney bid completing.

I assme legally Brenda is oblidged to maximise return for the secured creditors?

If he can legally get a better return to his company by liquidating us than selling to Brent, we're in deep poo.

If it comes to liquidation, it will mean he got it wrong with the PB's - he'll never work in this industry again, and so it should be!!

Wouldn't help us though. The way he's handling it so far who can predict how he'd react to the PB pulling out / FA rejecting the proposals?

I would be surprised if he's at the top of the list at the next club that gets into trouble whatever happens between now and the conclusion

Only if it comes to it - I think it will go through somehow, god knows why!!

We are left to the whim's & ego's of people that have no allegiance to our club - makes me sick!!

I think we're on a knife edge.

We have to keep Brenda onside and hope, IF Heaney's bid fails, he has the climbdownability to take up the Contingency Plan.

If it comes to pass that the PBs cannot fulfill the terms and conditions of the Sale and Purchase Agreement then Guilfoyle will have two options, either liquidate the football club or, in the interests of securing the best return for the all the creditors, he would have to look at other alternatives.

Remember, he is in an 'unfunded administration' in as much as no creditor or interested party has funded him since the end of June to continue as Joint Administrator. His Partnership will be putting him under severe pressure to ensure his fees are recovered and to ensure, that if another party is given the opportunity to purchase the Football Club and its assets, there is a reasonably swift conclusion to any sale. I would put that at no more than one month.

If the PBs are unable to complete the Sale and Purchase Agreement for any reason Guilfoyle will be under enormous pressure to complete another sale to avoid him presiding over the biggest Football League club failure in history. We may all have our views over his performance to date but we should remember that to conclude a swift purchase we will need him as much as he needs us. We will have to work with him and embrace him with one focus only - what is necessary to save the club. We should all reflect upon that if the need arises.

We will have to work with him and embrace him......

Would that mean that everyone would have to take back anything bad said about BG and start puckering up to his backside?

That would be a turn of events.....

"No Mr Guilfoyle, we've never had a bad word to say about you"

"Of course we never took any legal advice out regarding your position or work"

"I've never seen or heard of any hurtful comments, what's this Pasoti you speak of?"

No, what it means is, that we change our collective tack.

We, Argyle fans, concentrate on the important stuff, which is saving our football club, not winning points off name calling and pi$$ taking.

We can all give our true feelings a rest, until we (he and us) have secured PAFC by whaetevr route.

When that is set in concrete, we can all get back to slagging people off, as, that is what this site does best.

Until then, let's try to remember, PAFC. The team and club we all love.

We will have to work with him and embrace him......

Would that mean that everyone would have to take back anything bad said about BG and start puckering up to his backside?

That would be a turn of events.....

"No Mr Guilfoyle, we've never had a bad word to say about you"

"Of course we never took any legal advice out regarding your position or work"

"I've never seen or heard of any hurtful comments, what's this Pasoti you speak of?"

No, what has been said is on the record. No-one, including me would wish to withdraw it. Many of the observations and criticisms will be deserved and well founded and he may hold his hand up to them. What it means is that we may well have to be pragmatic. The ability and willingness of any secured creditor to replace him will be severely constrained by the timescale and anticipated outcome. As difficult as it may be, if we are all called upon to unite to save the club we WILL have to work with him and embrace him. That's all.

If it comes to pass that the PBs cannot fulfill the terms and conditions of the Sale and Purchase Agreement then Guilfoyle will have two options, either liquidate the football club or, in the interests of securing the best return for the all the creditors, he would have to look at other alternatives.

Remember, he is in an 'unfunded administration' in as much as no creditor or interested party has funded him since the end of June to continue as Joint Administrator. His Partnership will be putting him under severe pressure to ensure his fees are recovered and to ensure, that if another party is given the opportunity to purchase the Football Club and its assets, there is a reasonably swift conclusion to any sale. I would put that at no more than one month.

If the PBs are unable to complete the Sale and Purchase Agreement for any reason Guilfoyle will be under enormous pressure to complete another sale to avoid him presiding over the biggest Football League club failure in history. We may all have our views over his performance to date but we should remember that to conclude a swift purchase we will need him as much as he needs us. We will have to work with him and embrace him with one focus only - what is necessary to save the club. We should all reflect upon that if the need arises.

And i believe that it will come to pass, what confuses me is how the league are sitting on their hands when the season starts in less than 48 hours.

If it comes to pass that the PBs cannot fulfill the terms and conditions of the Sale and Purchase Agreement then Guilfoyle will have two options, either liquidate the football club or, in the interests of securing the best return for the all the creditors, he would have to look at other alternatives.

Remember, he is in an 'unfunded administration' in as much as no creditor or interested party has funded him since the end of June to continue as Joint Administrator. His Partnership will be putting him under severe pressure to ensure his fees are recovered and to ensure, that if another party is given the opportunity to purchase the Football Club and its assets, there is a reasonably swift conclusion to any sale. I would put that at no more than one month.

If the PBs are unable to complete the Sale and Purchase Agreement for any reason Guilfoyle will be under enormous pressure to complete another sale to avoid him presiding over the biggest Football League club failure in history. We may all have our views over his performance to date but we should remember that to conclude a swift purchase we will need him as much as he needs us. We will have to work with him and embrace him with one focus only - what is necessary to save the club. We should all reflect upon that if the need arises.

Graham, just to add that Guilfoyle's discretion is quite severely limited by the courts when it comes to liquidating the club.

If an offer is on the table (should the PBs offer collapse) then as long as it offers more to the creditors than liquidiation would give them back, the Administrator would be unable to refuse it.

This is why it is so important that the Contingency Plan is ready to roll at a moment's notice (& why the work of the people working on its detail is so valuable).

Indeed we would have to work with Guilfoyle - certainly in the short term - however a legal challenge to any administrator's position by a group that can prove it is offering creditors the best return would be listened to carefully by the courts who ultimately the administrator works to (this is, for clarity to onlookers, a generic opinion on the sort of issue that may or may not be the case at Plymouth Argyle...).

Jon

If it comes to pass that the PBs cannot fulfill the terms and conditions of the Sale and Purchase Agreement then Guilfoyle will have two options, either liquidate the football club or, in the interests of securing the best return for the all the creditors, he would have to look at other alternatives.

Remember, he is in an 'unfunded administration' in as much as no creditor or interested party has funded him since the end of June to continue as Joint Administrator. His Partnership will be putting him under severe pressure to ensure his fees are recovered and to ensure, that if another party is given the opportunity to purchase the Football Club and its assets, there is a reasonably swift conclusion to any sale. I would put that at no more than one month.

If the PBs are unable to complete the Sale and Purchase Agreement for any reason Guilfoyle will be under enormous pressure to complete another sale to avoid him presiding over the biggest Football League club failure in history. We may all have our views over his performance to date but we should remember that to conclude a swift purchase we will need him as much as he needs us. We will have to work with him and embrace him with one focus only - what is necessary to save the club. We should all reflect upon that if the need arises.

Graham, you touch on fee recovery by the Administrator/Partnership to cover unfunded costs. Are you saying that this needs to be claimed from the Heaney/Consortium team because of failure by them to complete in line with the contracted original Agreement. Or, are you saying that the Contingency Team under the Brent name will be burdened with increased initial costs as they will be expected to pick up that tab.

If the latter, it is hardly equitable, and I would have thought that in law BG could pursue the Heaney/anonymous Consortium?