Page 32 of 34

Re: Update "Contingency" Plan Meeting 1/8/11 (Q&A pages 18,1

Posted: 16:00 04 Aug 2011
by Lord Tisdale
JonB wrote: 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



While what you are saying cannot be argued with from a purely legal standpoint the reality is that Guilfoyle can still do basically whatever he likes.

Post the Heinous blow out he has two issues, his firm's fees and Lombard, Lombard will deal, the money involved isn't enough for them to care much especially as they have personal guarantees, although again I would have thought that they would have been keen just to get out without losing the lot, so it will come down to who is prepared to pay the most for the ground, the club is worth far less than the one pound the Riddler is contracted to pay under the current deal, you may well find that someone is prepared to pay good money for the land free of the club to bank it for some point in the future when we get another asset bubble, money being worth pretty much nothing at all at the moment. As long as slippery Sid can cover the two and half to three million for fees and Lombard he might well feel inclined to follow the path of least resistance.

I still think you boys are failing badly in the making of noise, particularly the absence of anything much in the national media, nobody beyond the peninsula is taking any notice of you, you have probably got at most a month to change that.

There is of course always the remote possibility that Heaney will come up with the readies, failing that, and there really is so little chance that a man with a ccj for 18 grand can come up with five million pounds, you need to be making this effort into a widely recognised alternative, a bit more support for the idea from the nay sayers on here would help but what you really need is national media attention, a lot of it, and now.

My apologies to Tony C for causing him yet more anguish.

Re: Update "Contingency" Plan Meeting 1/8/11 (Q&A pages 18,1

Posted: 16:06 04 Aug 2011
by Graham Clark
Quintrell_Green wrote:
Graham Clark wrote: 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?


In the light of Brendan Guilfoyle's press release this afternoon fees for funding the administration will still have to be found. It would be a matter of judgement for him whether he is prepared to wait a few more weeks for an alternative agreement to be completed so he recover some of them. During that period he will of course be able to rely on income from the four home matches at Home Park during August that will assist in cash flow and fee exposure.

I agree with you it would be most inequitable if he is seeking some payment to cover his fee exposure over the last three months when it is possible the agreement he ends up doing is very similar in nature to the one before him as an alternative back in May.

Re: Update "Contingency" Plan Meeting 1/8/11 (Q&A pages 18,1

Posted: 16:33 04 Aug 2011
by Moist_Von_Lipwig
Graham Clark wrote:
Quintrell_Green wrote:
Graham Clark wrote: 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?


In the light of Brendan Guilfoyle's press release this afternoon fees for funding the administration will still have to be found. It would be a matter of judgement for him whether he is prepared to wait a few more weeks for an alternative agreement to be completed so he recover some of them. During that period he will of course be able to rely on income from the four home matches at Home Park during August that will assist in cash flow and fee exposure.

I agree with you it would be most inequitable if he is seeking some payment to cover his fee exposure over the last three months when it is possible the agreement he ends up doing is very similar in nature to the one before him as an alternative back in May.


Bearing that in mind and the more likely looking contingency plan kicking in, I'd say we need as many POTDers as possible for all four games. By doing so, it might make any contingency takeover that much easier.

Re: Update "Contingency" Plan Meeting 1/8/11 (Q&A pages 18,1

Posted: 16:57 04 Aug 2011
by Ian Newell
That's about £500k short of where the estimate is of the last week mate. :shock:

Re: Update "Contingency" Plan Meeting 1/8/11 (Q&A pages 18,1

Posted: 17:04 04 Aug 2011
by StaddyGreen
IJN wrote: That's about £500k short of where the estimate is of the last week mate. :shock:


In the Administrators report from the Portsmouth saga, the administrators claimed £117,500 a month.

Re: Update "Contingency" Plan Meeting 1/8/11 (Q&A pages 18,1

Posted: 17:06 04 Aug 2011
by Ian Newell
I think that ended about about £1.25m didn't it?

Not bad work, when you can get it.

Re: Update "Contingency" Plan Meeting 1/8/11 (Q&A pages 18,1

Posted: 17:13 04 Aug 2011
by StaddyGreen
Looked into it a bit further and the administrators claimed on average £58,000 a month to cover their legal fees.

Re: Update "Contingency" Plan Meeting 1/8/11 (Q&A pages 18,1

Posted: 17:42 04 Aug 2011
by Chancellor
Graham Clark wrote: we WILL have to embrace him. That's all.


Could'nt we just shake him by the hand ?

Re: Update "Contingency" Plan Meeting 1/8/11 (Q&A pages 18,1

Posted: 17:46 04 Aug 2011
by X Isle
StaddyGreen wrote:
IJN wrote: That's about £500k short of where the estimate is of the last week mate. :shock:


In the Administrators report from the Portsmouth saga, the administrators claimed £117,500 a month.


So, pick a duffer and string the process out for several months longer than you needed to would be a lucrative option, hypothetically of course.

Re: Update "Contingency" Plan Meeting 1/8/11 (Q&A pages 18,1

Posted: 18:35 04 Aug 2011
by Shane Harris
Bump :whistle:

Re: Update "Contingency" Plan Meeting 1/8/11 (Q&A pages 18,1

Posted: 18:40 04 Aug 2011
by bandwagon
SCH wrote: Bump :whistle:

Hell, Shane I might be back sooner than I thought!!

Re: Update "Contingency" Plan Meeting 1/8/11 (Q&A pages 18,1

Posted: 18:44 04 Aug 2011
by Shane Harris
bandwagon wrote:
SCH wrote: Bump :whistle:

Hell, Shane I might be back sooner than I thought!!


Fingers crossed Andy, all of this has been too bad to be true, maybe it will all turn out to be an horrific nightmare and morning is coming. :thumbup:

Re: Update "Contingency" Plan Meeting 1/8/11 (Q&A pages 18,1

Posted: 21:38 04 Aug 2011
by Ian Newell
My oh my Graiser, you talk some crap.

Now I'm a red am I? :lol:

If Heaney's bid comes to a conclusion, I'll continue to support my team as I have for 40 odd years, home and away.

I just won't buy a season ticket.

All the questions that have been asked ahem been answered, what more do you want, Risdale's inside leg measurement?