PASOTI

mrrapson wrote: Ian, it wasn't the best deal though was it?

No?

All it needed from Brenda, was the minimum of due diligence.

Carve up I reckon, I really do.

I remember Hinchcliff saying he had seen a solicitor's letter as proof of funding, so where's that gone that.

As Postey has said, if/when Argyle 'go', Brenda, P&A, Hinchliff and every other person involved with this disaster will not get away with this.

they better look over their shoulders if we do get liquidated, never cross a janner...

EVER!

rich wrote: they better look over their shoulders if we do get liquidated, never cross a janner...

EVER!

Been known to give you earache!!

SCH wrote: I can see a scenario where James Brent goes from hero to zero here.

But the trust have been working on a contingency plan with him.

Remember at the last meeting. Chris Webb's rousing speech about how Argyle will never die.

Lets hope these words don't come back to haunt him.

Chris's words are true.

Argyle can never die, but this poxy club, as it stands, could.

What's caused this situation is the continual extending of the 'deadlines' by Brenda, not James Brent.

and how much has Brenda racked up in fees since?

FFS! I hope to God these bar stewards are investigated thoroughly when this debacle is over one way or tother!

cornishbob wrote: brent says he may not be able to do a deal, maybe he is just a vulture like the rest,and not the knight in shinning armour we were led to belive. this is getting very hard to stomach now.

Get to the absolute summit of f**k will ya

If you can't see what Guilfoyle is doing by setting an unachievable timescale and a prohibitive cost you want your noggin checked.

In this whole sorry saga James Brent is the only one whose motive has been noble, whose actions have been transparent, whose word has been trustworthy and whose business practices have been professional and honest.

Brenda has added MILLIONS to the debts through his prevaracation and blind inexplicable loyalty to Kevin Heaney and Peter Ridsdale, is it right that James Brent should pick up the bar tab for their three month p1ss up?.

You would seek to blame HIM if we were liquidated?.

Par?, that's well below par .

If we are liquidated it will be the three amigos and their mismanagement of the process that is to blame, with a nod to the NWO who ran up the original debts of course, although a significant proportion has now been run up by the inglorious 3. The LEAST culpable is James Brent. His motives have been the preservation of football representation on the peninsula, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if he got involved in the inevitable Resurgam Argyle............whereas the three assassins of Plymouth Argyle will scurry away into the night behind the 'magnificent' seven. That will show you what his motivations are, not personal gain.

John Petrie wrote:

grovehill wrote:

oggyale wrote: The fact that Brent says that he thinks he will be unable to seal a deal in the time BG will give him,says it all really.

I'm curious as to why JB says he might be unable to seal the seal in BG's timeframe?

When I have previously questioned whether Brent has the funds or needs the City Council to be involved, Brent's groupies have asserted that he has all the money needed and it's readily available.

That being the case, and all things being equal, I fail to see why Brent needs more time. Surely if BIL's bid fails, Brent just steps in and takes it over. To the creditors, the only change would be the name on the cheque.

However, I have a suspicion that all things are not equal, and Brent is still trying to do deal for less money than BIL are willing to pay (which is why Guilfoyle went with BIL in the first place...better deal for the creditors)


So, is the knight in shining armour just another property developer in disguise?

Grovehill, for the man who knows everything, I am surprised that you haven't yet managed to grasp that by being the under bidder it has meant all along that Brent offered less than Heaney. That is why he was the next best bidder, rather than an equal bidder.

Having read your posts for quite some time it has become apparent to me that you know more than anyone else about every situation that has ever arisen, and ever will arise, and that you also seem to have the utmost confidence that if you'd been doing any of the things that others have been that you would have done a far better job, because of your superior understanding of everything that has been, and ever will be. It is with this in mind, that I ask you, when you can take the time out from running the world as a man of your obvious talent and intellect must be doing, can you please please help us mere mortals out of this bind that we find ourselves in, and save our football club. Surely with your superior knowledge and skills you must be able to offer more than the ability to constantly pour scorn on the endeavours of others, or do I misunderstand your gifts?

So, ignoring the rant(which by the way I found both insightful and accurate), Brent didn't offer the best deal for creditors so Brendan HAD to go for the BIL bid.

And-- despite the rumoured impending liquidation of PAFC-- Brent will still take time (and risk the future of PAFC) trying to screw a better deal out of the creditors, rather than match BIL and get the deal done.

Which is exactly what I thought.

The only thing that puzzles me is why everyone seems to think Heaney is the Devil incarnate and Brent is our saviour.

They are both the same-businessmen trying to make a profit.

As such, they, and their deals, should both be treated the same.

When nothing gets paid to the creditors, we'll see if they think Heaney's was the best bid shall we?

Not rocket science is it?

grovehill wrote: As such, they, and their deals, should both be treated the same.

Not quite. Heaney has proved up to now that he has been unable to stump up the promised money, Brent hasn't been given the opportunity.

grovehill wrote: So, ignoring the rant (which by the way I found both insightful and accurate), Brent didn't offer the best deal for creditors so Brendan HAD to go for the BIL bid.

And-- despite the rumoured impending liquidation of PAFC-- Brent will still take time (and risk the future of PAFC) trying to screw a better deal out of the creditors, rather than match BIL and get the deal done.

Which is exactly what I thought.

The only thing that puzzles me is why everyone seems to think Heaney is the Devil incarnate and Brent is our saviour.

They are both the same-businessmen trying to make a profit.

As such, they, and their deals, should both be treated the same.

You really are a piece of work Grovehill, that stance is the worst kind of head burying.

Brent didn't see why certain creditors hands should be greased over all the others, I too find that odd, especially when those hands are the very people who helped contribute to this mess. So yes, Heaney offered more to creditors, but that doesn't make him the best deal for creditors if as Ian says the due dilligence on GUILFOYLE's part was so lacking in not researching thet Heaney couldn't do the deal he was offering.

Screw a better deal?, get to f**k, he wants the same deal he put on the table in March. Why should he pay more for the poor 'choices' Guilfoyle made (still feel it was a pre-pack - see the greasing of palms above) and the manner in which he has continued to flog this dead horse bid ever since. Between them the three amigos have added £2,000,000 to the overall debts since gaining PB status, why should anyone but they be liable for that, least of all the fella who made what was without doubt the most credible (if not the most financially lucrative for 'certain' creditors) bid on the table in the first place.

Had JB been given PB status, it'd all be sorted months ago and those costs would have been actively reduced, JB was unable to do that because of Guilfoyle's actions, that should come from Guilfoyles fee...........but no, for the priviledge of screwing him out of millions Guilfoyle wants a six figure fee. Presumably you see that as fair Grovehill?.

They are not the same, i'll give you some words and you pin them on one or other of James Brent or Kevin Heaney...........

Integrity,
Trust,
Honesty,
Transparency,
Unity.

JB City 5 v 0 Heaney Village.

Heaney is portrayed as the devil incarnate because he is, Brent is portrayed as the saviour because that is what he'll be..............if only Guilfoyle would give him the chance.

X Isle wrote:

cornishbob wrote: brent says he may not be able to do a deal, maybe he is just a vulture like the rest,and not the knight in shinning armour we were led to belive. this is getting very hard to stomach now.

Get to the absolute summit of f**k will ya

If you can't see what Guilfoyle is doing by setting an unachievable timescale and a prohibitive cost you want your noggin checked.

In this whole sorry saga James Brent is the only one whose motive has been noble, whose actions have been transparent, whose word has been trustworthy and whose business practices have been professional and honest.

Brenda has added MILLIONS to the debts through his prevaracation and blind inexplicable loyalty to Kevin Heaney and Peter Ridsdale, is it right that James Brent should pick up the bar tab for their three month p1ss up?.

You would seek to blame HIM if we were liquidated?.

Par?, that's well below par .

If we are liquidated it will be the three amigos and their mismanagement of the process that is to blame, with a nod to the NWO who ran up the original debts of course, although a significant proportion has now been run up by the inglorious 3. The LEAST culpable is James Brent. His motives have been the preservation of football representation on the peninsula, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if he got involved in the inevitable Resurgam Argyle............whereas the three assassins of Plymouth Argyle will scurry away into the night behind the 'magnificent' seven. That will show you what his motivations are, not personal gain.[/quote

apart from telling me to go somewhere, where did i say i would blame brent for anything. i mearly suggested that he may not be a knight in shinning armour and be no different than any other bidder. your so wrapped up in your own self unimportance and blinkered views you just come across as a very sad person. as for telling me where to go, im not a violent person but would make an exception for you. love and kisses

X Isle wrote:

grovehill wrote: So, ignoring the rant (which by the way I found both insightful and accurate), Brent didn't offer the best deal for creditors so Brendan HAD to go for the BIL bid.

And-- despite the rumoured impending liquidation of PAFC-- Brent will still take time (and risk the future of PAFC) trying to screw a better deal out of the creditors, rather than match BIL and get the deal done.

Which is exactly what I thought.

The only thing that puzzles me is why everyone seems to think Heaney is the Devil incarnate and Brent is our saviour.

They are both the same-businessmen trying to make a profit.

As such, they, and their deals, should both be treated the same.

You really are a piece of work Grovehill, that stance is the worst kind of head burying.

Brent didn't see why certain creditors hands should be greased over all the others, I too find that odd, especially when those hands are the very people who helped contribute to this mess. So yes, Heaney offered more to creditors, but that doesn't make him the best deal for creditors if as Ian says the due dilligence on GUILFOYLE's part was so lacking in not researching thet Heaney couldn't do the deal he was offering.

Screw a better deal?, get to f**k, he wants the same deal he put on the table in March. Why should he pay more for the poor 'choices' Guilfoyle made (still feel it was a pre-pack - see the greasing of palms above) and the manner in which he has continued to flog this dead horse bid ever since. Between them the three amigos have added £2,000,000 to the overall debts since gaining PB status, why should anyone but they be liable for that, least of all the fella who made what was without doubt the most credible (if not the most financially lucrative for 'certain' creditors) bid on the table in the first place.

Had JB been given PB status, it'd all be sorted months ago and those costs would have been actively reduced, JB was unable to do that because of Guilfoyle's actions, that should come from Guilfoyles fee...........but no, for the priviledge of screwing him out of millions Guilfoyle wants a six figure fee. Presumably you see that as fair Grovehill?.

They are not the same, i'll give you some words and you pin them on one or other of James Brent or Kevin Heaney...........

Integrity,
Trust,
Honesty,
Transparency,
Unity.

JB City 5 v 0 Heaney Village.

Heaney is portrayed as the devil incarnate because he is, Brent is portrayed as the saviour because that is what he'll be..............if only Guilfoyle would give him the chance.

There are none so blind as those that WILL NOT see.

As has been pointed out (repeatedly) Brendan has to go for the best deal for the creditors. BIL offered a better deal than Brent, so BRENDAN HAD TO GO FOR IT--HE DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE.

If BIL doesn't complete, Brent wants time to sort out a deal to his satisfaction, even though he knows the delay might result in liquidation. If Brent wants to save the club, he takes on the deal already agreed by BIL, Brendan and the creditors.

Do you really believe that when Brent says to Lombard "I'll give you 15% (or whatever) less than you've just agreed to accept" they'll
say "Yeah, we're fine with that 'cos everyone says you've got integrity"

Get real!

Brent's trying to do a business deal, just like Heaney. Fine, good luck to them both.

But don't label one the unacceptable face of capitalism and the other a "Rescue plan"