Page 10 of 11

Re: Today's the day (Heaney/Ridsdale given 26th Aug deadline

Posted: 19:44 20 Aug 2011
by grovehill
Coming out of Administration is part of a process that has to be done within well defined legal guidelines.

Everyone's investing the whole thing with too much emotion, which clouds their judgement.

Re: Today's the day (Heaney/Ridsdale given 26th Aug deadline

Posted: 20:44 20 Aug 2011
by Shane Harris
If we did get liquidated will i owe Zebra the full whack even though i will only have seen two games using our season tickets?

Re: Today's the day (Heaney/Ridsdale given 26th Aug deadline

Posted: 22:58 20 Aug 2011
by HC Green
This has all been a cunning plan to get Argyle liquidated so that all the Cornish that make the journey up to follow Argyle will have the shorter trip to Truro, this ensuring the newly named Cornwall United can fill their new Stadium for Cornwall.

Re: Today's the day (Heaney/Ridsdale given 26th Aug deadline

Posted: 11:03 21 Aug 2011
by grovehill
Bodmin Tew wrote:
grovehill wrote: Coming out of Administration is part of a process that has to be done within well defined legal guidelines.

Everyone's investing the whole thing with too much emotion, which clouds their judgement.


How can you be a lifelong supporter of the club yet look at things so clinically?



Because I know, understand and accept that the future ownership of Argyle will be decided by the outcome of the Administration process within a legal framework.


Am I happy that the malignant seven might get back more than they should, that the Club will probably belong to and be run by Ridsdale, that a property developer (Brent or Heaney) will decide the future of the football club, that staff have worked unpaid for far too long, that it'll take years for the football club to recover?

No, but I accept that there's nothing I can do about it.

I'm also unhappy that when the football club looks like being sold for a quid, it looks likely that there won't be any supporter involvement in the future ownership of the club, because (in my opinion) most supporters & supporter's groups have totally ballsed up how they should have dealt with the Administration process and the people involved in it.

The only thing that i am happy about is that the football club will be totally isolated from the ownership of the ground and it's environs, meaning that in the future, when the club changes hands , it might once again be affordable to people who only want it as a FOOTBALL CLUB

Re: Today's the day (Heaney/Ridsdale given 26th Aug deadline

Posted: 13:08 21 Aug 2011
by Rupert
grovehill wrote:
Bodmin Tew wrote:
grovehill wrote: Coming out of Administration is part of a process that has to be done within well defined legal guidelines.

Everyone's investing the whole thing with too much emotion, which clouds their judgement.


How can you be a lifelong supporter of the club yet look at things so clinically?



Because I know, understand and accept that the future ownership of Argyle will be decided by the outcome of the Administration process within a legal framework.


Exactly. There's nothing wrong with emotion and anger about the situation Argyle find themselves in, but there has to be an appreciation of legal process as well.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Guilfoyle should not be blamed for some of the things he has done which have led to so much unwarranted criticism. It seems he is being treated by some as a football club director, with the freedom to make almost any sort of decision he wishes to make, swayed by nothing more than a whim. He is not. His role is totally different, and he has strict legal guidelines which have to be followed. Given the circumstances he faced at the time, he had little choice when it came to the selection of a preferred bidder - as the Guardian newspaper noted earlier this month:

Digger

And don't blame Guilfoyle for Brent not being picked as the preferred bidder. Blame Brent, for not coming up with a financial package which would have made him the option that best fitted the legal requirements. As Brent himself said more than once, he was only the standby option if there was no alternative. That was his choice.

Re: Today's the day (Heaney/Ridsdale given 26th Aug deadline

Posted: 13:27 21 Aug 2011
by esmer
grovehill wrote:
Bodmin Tew wrote:
grovehill wrote: Coming out of Administration is part of a process that has to be done within well defined legal guidelines.

Everyone's investing the whole thing with too much emotion, which clouds their judgement.


How can you be a lifelong supporter of the club yet look at things so clinically?



Because I know, understand and accept that the future ownership of Argyle will be decided by the outcome of the Administration process within a legal framework.


Am I happy that the Magnificent seven might get back more than they should, that the Club will probably belong to and be run by Ridsdale, that a property developer (Brent or Heaney) will decide the future of the football club, that staff have worked unpaid for far too long, that it'll take years for the football club to recover?

No, but I accept that there's nothing I can do about it.

I'm also unhappy that when the football club looks like being sold for a quid, it looks likely that there won't be any supporter involvement in the future ownership of the club, because (in my opinion) most supporters & supporter's groups have totally ballsed up how they should have dealt with the Administration process and the people involved in it.

The only thing that i am happy about is that the football club will be totally isolated from the ownership of the ground and it's environs, meaning that in the future, when the club changes hands , it might once again be affordable to people who only want it as a FOOTBALL CLUB

That is a very good point and if there is another catastrophe the debt will a lot more easier to deal with as there will be nothing to secure it against.

Re: Today's the day (Heaney/Ridsdale given 26th Aug deadline

Posted: 15:26 21 Aug 2011
by Mr. Brightside
[quote="mrrapson"]Well, this is it, this is the day that guilfoyle originally said the he gave Ridsdale as the deadline for satisfying the football league.
Will we hear a statement from the FL? Heaney? Ridsdale? Will we hear anything at all?

Anyone have any thoughts of their own about today and what could happen?[/quote

The deal will be completed next week no doubt! Or possibly the week after, or maybe the week after that. That's all we ever bloody hear!!!!! Its so boring now.

Re: Today's the day (Heaney/Ridsdale given 26th Aug deadline

Posted: 15:49 21 Aug 2011
by Rush Goalie
Rupert wrote:
grovehill wrote:
Bodmin Tew wrote:
grovehill wrote: Coming out of Administration is part of a process that has to be done within well defined legal guidelines.

Everyone's investing the whole thing with too much emotion, which clouds their judgement.


How can you be a lifelong supporter of the club yet look at things so clinically?



Because I know, understand and accept that the future ownership of Argyle will be decided by the outcome of the Administration process within a legal framework.


Exactly. There's nothing wrong with emotion and anger about the situation Argyle find themselves in, but there has to be an appreciation of legal process as well.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Guilfoyle should not be blamed for some of the things he has done which have led to so much unwarranted criticism. It seems he is being treated by some as a football club director, with the freedom to make almost any sort of decision he wishes to make, swayed by nothing more than a whim. He is not. His role is totally different, and he has strict legal guidelines which have to be followed. Given the circumstances he faced at the time, he had little choice when it came to the selection of a preferred bidder - as the Guardian newspaper noted earlier this month:

Digger

And don't blame Guilfoyle for Brent not being picked as the preferred bidder. Blame Brent, for not coming up with a financial package which would have made him the option that best fitted the legal requirements. As Brent himself said more than once, he was only the standby option if there was no alternative. That was his choice.


Fine, Rupert - most people who appreciate the legalities of the process understand that Guilfoyle had no choice but to go with the Heaney bid.

Does that, though, explain why the deadlines have had to be extended time and time again? Why couldn't the process be opened up once BIL failed to meet agreed funding requirements, or complete within the original timeframe? Perhaps you know the answers - I don't - but if you don't, aren't you curious as to why?

I think a lot of people have seen - from a long way outside the process, of course - a property speculator (Heaney), with a less than impressive business record (a man with a CCJ against his name, FFS) scrabbling around for finance and just do not understand why he has enjoyed such a long rope.

Re: Today's the day (Heaney/Ridsdale given 26th Aug deadline

Posted: 16:26 21 Aug 2011
by Rupert
Rush Goalie wrote: Why couldn't the process be opened up once BIL failed to meet agreed funding requirements, or complete within the original timeframe?


No, I don't know the answer to that. Curious? Yes, but 'only' as a concerned supporter. As a journalist, I have other matters to deal with now.

My guess, though, is that Guilfoyle feels obliged to wait as long as he possibly can for 'his' preferred bidder to deliver what has been promised. Also, remember Heaney's words. He has said that "everything the administrators have asked Bishop International to do has been done". Which suggests that the gap between what Guilfoyle has asked for and what Heaney has delivered so far might not be as wide as thought by many.

Re: Today's the day (Heaney/Ridsdale given 26th Aug deadline

Posted: 17:22 21 Aug 2011
by X Isle
Rupert wrote:
Rush Goalie wrote: Why couldn't the process be opened up once BIL failed to meet agreed funding requirements, or complete within the original timeframe?


No, I don't know the answer to that. Curious? Yes, but 'only' as a concerned supporter. As a journalist, I have other matters to deal with now.

My guess, though, is that Guilfoyle feels obliged to wait as long as he possibly can for 'his' preferred bidder to deliver what has been promised. Also, remember Heaney's words. He has said that "everything the administrators have asked Bishop International to do has been done". Which suggests that the gap between what Guilfoyle has asked for and what Heaney has delivered so far might not be as wide as thought by many.


............or he's 'speaking a mistruth', something all parties have not been bashful about so doing in this process.

Come on Rupes, you Journo's are supposed to be nasty suspicious 'diggers', not taking the words of liars at face value.

Re: Today's the day (Heaney/Ridsdale given 26th Aug deadline

Posted: 18:39 21 Aug 2011
by Rush Goalie
There is a difference between investigative journalism and reporting, of course.

Re: Today's the day (Heaney/Ridsdale given 26th Aug deadline

Posted: 18:44 21 Aug 2011
by mines a smooth
Rupert wrote:
Rush Goalie wrote: Why couldn't the process be opened up once BIL failed to meet agreed funding requirements, or complete within the original timeframe?


No, I don't know the answer to that. Curious? Yes, but 'only' as a concerned supporter. As a journalist, I have other matters to deal with now.

My guess, though, is that Guilfoyle feels obliged to wait as long as he possibly can for 'his' preferred bidder to deliver what has been promised. Also, remember Heaney's words. He has said that "everything the administrators have asked Bishop International to do has been done". Which suggests that the gap between what Guilfoyle has asked for and what Heaney has delivered so far might not be as wide as thought by many.


so your saying brenda as been fibby wibby telling to us all :shock:

Re: Today's the day (Heaney/Ridsdale given 26th Aug deadline

Posted: 18:54 21 Aug 2011
by Ian Coath
Rupert wrote:
Rush Goalie wrote: Why couldn't the process be opened up once BIL failed to meet agreed funding requirements, or complete within the original timeframe?


No, I don't know the answer to that. Curious? Yes, but 'only' as a concerned supporter. As a journalist, I have other matters to deal with now.

My guess, though, is that Guilfoyle feels obliged to wait as long as he possibly can for 'his' preferred bidder to deliver what has been promised. Also, remember Heaney's words. He has said that "everything the administrators have asked Bishop International to do has been done". Which suggests that the gap between what Guilfoyle has asked for and what Heaney has delivered so far might not be as wide as thought by many.


How wide does heaney have to be?! Not only has he not delivered the promised money, the money doesn't even exist!