12 million pounds were attributted to "miscellaneous spending" in the 3 years leading up to the administrators being called in.
Brenda's fees seem a snip compared to the past boards extravagances.

[PL2 3DQ]

The full report from Guilfoyle, an interesting read and might take a while so grab a coffee.

The report dated 03/10/11 http://www.pafc.pandareports.com/

Mason sold for £150,000 and Bolasie for £20,000 on the advice of Jamie Hart! We've been seen off!

The club employees received 100% of their May wages, 50% for June and 24% for July.

[PL2 3DQ]

Heaney couldn't even pay the full £300,000, he still owes £64!

Thanks Ian.

I won't have time to properly read the documents until Thursday.

I have had a quick glance at the first document though.

Ceratinly an eye opener and some real transparency at last!!

Talk about being ripped off in the transfer market (though could we expect any different). Good to see the value of the payments from B&HA and QPR.

Postage and Stationary £9380??????

Can we use this new info as a new thread please (and delete this post after you've done it, if of course you do that is)?

So, the freehold is now valued at £2.25M, if I read this part correctly.

Not £7M, or £10M, but £2.25M.

Correct, albeit 'estimated'. That stems from a valuation inspired by P&A's negotiations with Mastpoint back in March. The council is getting its own valuation as part of the stadium buy-back option. Amazing how they can vary so much though, eh...?

Can anyone explain the money owed to ST holders?

Looking at that list of creditors is a truly depressing experience.

What an absolute mess!

To add - I'm a touch surprised at the astonishment being shown about these fees...

Distasteful or not, administration was always going to cost 'us' in the region of a million pounds & I'm pretty sure we discussed this sort of figure when, at least some of us on here, were clamouring to take the administration route.

That the legal profession has a licence to print money isn't breaking news.

I agree. A point I tried making earlier on in this thread Jon.

Agreed. It was always going to cost a lot. That's the price that has had to be paid for keeping the club afloat this long (and, yes, I'm not overlooking the wrong turns taken which have extended the administration process).

With regards to the notion of legal action against P&A, I do suspect that the firm would have faced the risk of a law suit if it had picked Akkerron instead of Bishop International Ltd back in early July. At that time, BIL had (somehow) provided proof of funding and the major secured creditors would have had cause for complaint if a bidder offering them a much lower amount had been picked instead. Proving in a court of law that P&A has subsequently infringed administration legislation in its conduct of the case would, I suspect, be very difficult.

Can we use this new info as a new thread please (and delete this post after you've done it, if of course you do that is)?

definitely worthy of it's own thread.

Postey - thank you very much, as always.

To add - I'm a touch surprised at the astonishment being shown about these fees...

Distasteful or not, administration was always going to cost 'us' in the region of a million pounds & I'm pretty sure we discussed this sort of figure when, at least some of us on here, were clamouring to take the administration route.

That the legal profession has a licence to print money isn't breaking news.

I agree. A point I tried making earlier on in this thread Jon.

Agreed. It was always going to cost a lot. That's the price that has had to be paid for keeping the club afloat this long (and, yes, I'm not overlooking the wrong turns taken which have extended the administration process).

With regards to the notion of legal action against P&A, I do suspect that the firm would have faced the risk of a law suit if it had picked Akkerron instead of Bishop International Ltd back in early July. At that time, BIL had (somehow) provided proof of funding and the major secured creditors would have had cause for complaint if a bidder offering them a much lower amount had been picked instead. Proving in a court of law that P&A has subsequently infringed administration legislation in its conduct of the case would, I suspect, be very difficult.

Unless the extended deadlines that were given to BIL were wrongly given? Proving that PandA had seen proof of funding which was clearly not there should have made PandA think twice about giving BIL more time.

Petty in the extreme, I know, but given the huge hourly rates they charge, you'd have thought that basic grammar would be easily achievable.

They are paid £300 per hour yet still have the cheek to charge 16p per address label