Page 8 of 8

Re: Guilfoyle: "Rescue Group don't understand the situation"

Posted: 02:24 26 Aug 2011
by Bermudian Green
Phenom wrote: Too right he is milking the club for as much as he can. i wonder if her was like this at palace as their administration period didnt last this long :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:


I thought that the Palace administration period went right to the wire too?

Maybe Lundan cabbie would know.

Re: Guilfoyle: "Rescue Group don't understand the situation"

Posted: 06:22 26 Aug 2011
by cheshiregreen
Two hundred percent

The Committee have been in extensive, constructive correspondence with Guilfoyle ever since. And the idea that they “don’t understand the situation” doesn’t gain much credence from their regular public statements on the matter. Indeed, as contingency plan committee member Graham Clark said this (very early!) morning on the forum of the lively supporters’ website ‘Plymouth Argyle Supporters on the Internet’ (PASOTI): “I can assure everyone that we all fully understand the situation that he has left the club (in) should the BIL/PAFC 125 deal not complete tomorrow (Friday) or before the end of the month. His contractual obligation to extend the deadline to 26th August has left little or no time for any alternative acquisition to take place, or the liability position to be resolved.”

In response to comments suggesting that the CPC were ill-prepared, especially financially, Clark added: “It is not a question of funding being in place. He (Brent) has the necessary funding for his offer without borrowing. It is a question of securing all the necessary legal agreements with the administrator, the secured creditors, the Football Creditors etc… within a reasonable timescale. He has been legally excluded from the process to achieve these agreements since the beginning of May.” That last sentence remains the key problem with Guilfoyle’s attitude. Whatever he may say about his preferred bidders BIL and PAFC (125) having exclusivity, they have not, even now, paid the full £1m for that right – the £1m Ridsdale said was required back on the fourth of June.

Guilfoyle could, at any time, have engaged with the CPC to assist them in meeting their mission statement. He has actively chosen not so to do. On August 1st, the same day they publicised their mission statement and manifesto, the CPC reported on their correspondence with Guilfoyle. Whether this is the correspondence to which Guilfoyle referred yesterday is not clear. But the CPC’s understanding of “the situation” appeared very clear. The CPC reported that Chris Webb, the AFT chair who impressed many on-lookers with his handling of a lively supporters forum attended by Guilfoyle and Ridsdale in late June, had received a letter from the lead administrator on July 22nd, just over a month ago.

In it, Guilfoyle “(focused) solely on the level of funding required if a contingency plan was to be put in place.” Webb’s response, the following day, detailed the CPC’s “conditions that needed to be met, who was responsible for meeting each of them and the timetable for completing the (plan) and funding the club.” Had there been any misunderstanding of “the situation,” this was surely the time for any administrator (or at least one serious about having a proper contingency plan in place) to provide understanding. And, as it has turned out, there was plenty of time to provide it. Yet Guilfoyle merely “stated that he wished to focus on completing the sale to the preferred bidder and that he ‘cannot currently engage’ with the (CPC).”


Re: Guilfoyle: "Rescue Group don't understand the situation"

Posted: 06:33 26 Aug 2011
by Green Rhino
esmer wrote: It should be pointed out that the FC liability hasn't increased.


At the time of bids going in, the historic debt to football creditors was around £700k. The TUPE liabilities looking forward were very significant but had the contract been signed up at that time could have been negotiated down or otherwise dealt with.

The fact that the Administration has (unecessarily) dawdled along so long has had the impact that many future liabilities (which could have been reduced) are now historic debts. So that is at the heart of the problem esmer.

Re: Guilfoyle: "Rescue Group don't understand the situation"

Posted: 06:45 26 Aug 2011
by esmer
Peter Ryan wrote:
esmer wrote: It should be pointed out that the FC liability hasn't increased.


At the time of bids going in, the historic debt to football creditors was around £700k. The TUPE liabilities looking forward were very significant but had the contract been signed up at that time could have been negotiated down or otherwise dealt with.

The fact that the Administration has (unecessarily) dawdled along so long has had the impact that many future liabilities (which could have been reduced) are now historic debts. So that is at the heart of the problem esmer.

I understand what you're saying Peter but I'm not too sure I see the difference between unpaid historic debt and a future contractual liability, still hopefully things work out today and it's all academic.

Re: Guilfoyle: "Rescue Group don't understand the situation"

Posted: 06:53 26 Aug 2011
by grovehill
Glad to see that you all agree with my view that the Brent bid is NOT a rescue attempt, it's a completely new business deal that needs to be negotiated as such..

Anyway, hopefully it will be academic and a deal will be finalised today.

Re: Guilfoyle: "Rescue Group don't understand the situation"

Posted: 06:58 26 Aug 2011
by BigburyBay
esmer wrote:
Peter Ryan wrote:
esmer wrote: It should be pointed out that the FC liability hasn't increased.


At the time of bids going in, the historic debt to football creditors was around £700k. The TUPE liabilities looking forward were very significant but had the contract been signed up at that time could have been negotiated down or otherwise dealt with.

The fact that the Administration has (unecessarily) dawdled along so long has had the impact that many future liabilities (which could have been reduced) are now historic debts. So that is at the heart of the problem esmer.

I understand what you're saying Peter but I'm not too sure I see the difference between unpaid historic debt and a future contractual liability, still hopefully things work out today and it's all academic.


What an inane post.

Re: Guilfoyle: "Rescue Group don't understand the situation"

Posted: 07:09 26 Aug 2011
by The Nightfly
grovehill wrote: Glad to see that you all agree with my view that the Brent bid is NOT a rescue attempt, it's a completely new business deal that needs to be negotiated as such..

Anyway, hopefully it will be academic and a deal will be finalised today.



Brent's input has always been a rescue attempt.

He negotiated everything to the point where Guilfoyle recommended that everyone should get behind him - back in April.

Then the fabled "Irish" appeared offering the administrators a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and they were off in the general direction of that very same rainbow. Which they still haven't found, 4 months on.

SInce then the football debts have gone up and up and up - and Brent's original negotiations have become invalid as they were replaced by Heaney's.

Brent's been locked out of the process ever since then. He has to start all over again, with a far bigger mountain to climb.
Brenda's position vis-a-vis Brent now seems to be: 'right - at last you can start this marathon. But you have just 20 minutes to complete it'.

Amusing how some people are always conned by men in suits. The adoration for, among others Stapleton and Toddie on these boards as they were sucking the club dry!

You, Grovey, are the chief dupe.

Re: Guilfoyle: "Rescue Group don't understand the situation"

Posted: 09:57 26 Aug 2011
by Green_Matt
grovehill wrote: Glad to see that you all agree with my view that the Brent bid is NOT a rescue attempt, it's a completely new business deal that needs to be negotiated as such..

Anyway, hopefully it will be academic and a deal will be finalised today.

I'm sure most (if not all) people behind the contingency plan would happily agree because we understand how real life works and that regulations must adhered to. Similarly, we'd recognise that considering the club is all but finished any sort of deal must be construed as a rescue plan. So what's your point? The unacceptable delays and the consequences of those delays are all to do with the administrator giving BIL far too much time to do what they need to do (and/or to play a dirty game of brinksmanship). If BG had stuck to his earlier so-called deadlines and not led us into the farce we now find ourselves in then I expect we'd be well down the road with Brent's bid by now, if not fully taken over.

Re: Guilfoyle: "Rescue Group don't understand the situation"

Posted: 12:53 26 Aug 2011
by esmer
BigburyBay wrote:
esmer wrote:
Peter Ryan wrote:
esmer wrote: It should be pointed out that the FC liability hasn't increased.


At the time of bids going in, the historic debt to football creditors was around £700k. The TUPE liabilities looking forward were very significant but had the contract been signed up at that time could have been negotiated down or otherwise dealt with.

The fact that the Administration has (unecessarily) dawdled along so long has had the impact that many future liabilities (which could have been reduced) are now historic debts. So that is at the heart of the problem esmer.

I understand what you're saying Peter but I'm not too sure I see the difference between unpaid historic debt and a future contractual liability, still hopefully things work out today and it's all academic.


What an inane post.

Didn't you understand it?

Re: Guilfoyle: "Rescue Group don't understand the situation"

Posted: 14:28 26 Aug 2011
by BigburyBay
Totally. Just didn't agree with it.

Re: Guilfoyle: "Rescue Group don't understand the situation"

Posted: 15:20 26 Aug 2011
by esmer
BigburyBay wrote: Totally. Just didn't agree with it.

What's not to agree with? It's a simple statement of fact. The FC liability is determined by the players contracts, as the unpaid wages figure increases month on month the ongoing contractual liability decreases by the same amount, overall the liability is unchanged.
Peter's point iss that he believes it is easier to negotiate down the future contractual liability than it is the unpaid wage amount. I can't say I can see the logic in that but it may be the case.