'Consultancy fees', thought to have been paid to three people, including acting club chairman Peter Ridsdale, total £50,500.

Thought Ridsdale said he had not been paid?

Ridsdale, it was said had been paid at the same rate as all the other members of staff (ie 40% etc)

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.

As far as I can remember From what was written on here - my only source of information, so just rumour rather than fact), Heaney did prove that he had the funds and was given PB status. Then one of his backers pulled out and then Heaney had to try and get the money from someone else?

I'm sure that someone with better information can confirm/deny this?

So Guilfoyle took the task on and took it on unfunded. This has never happened before. Might never happen again. If we come out of this his tenure will be seen as an unprecedented, spectacular success in business insolvency circles across the country.

While we have all been close to the process and know the exact details of each of Guilfoyle's mistakes in the wider world of business and insolvency he will be looked upon as some kind of hero.
As you say, an unfunded administration has never happened before but that's only because the Argyle staff and players have deferred their wages for months, they have effectively saved the club and enhanced Guilfoyle's reputation in his insolvency circle. expect.

Playing Devil's Advocate (yet again), perhaps Brenda HAS played a blinder..... A (largely) unfunded administration in which he has managed to keep a company's staff performing while not paying them.... whilst personally charging (& being guaranteed to get) near-one million pounds.

Objectively, it could be viewed as a tremendous bit of business.

As far as I can remember From what was written on here - my only source of information, so just rumour rather than fact Heaney did prove that he had the funds and was given PB status. Then one of his backers pulled out and then Heaney had to try and get the money from someone else?

That's close enough. Former Goldman Sachs banker Koichiro Abe, part of the Mastpoint group of investors who had previously invested money in Argyle, was the initial source of funds for Bishop International Ltd, as reported in the Herald/WMN back in March. We subsequently learned that Heaney later failed to match 'Mastpoint' money with funds of his own or from Ireland or elsewhere, so his Japanese partner left him to it. The rest is history. But, yes, at some point in the saga, BIL did have promised access to funding.

So Guilfoyle took the task on and took it on unfunded. This has never happened before. Might never happen again. If we come out of this his tenure will be seen as an unprecedented, spectacular success in business insolvency circles across the country.

While we have all been close to the process and know the exact details of each of Guilfoyle's mistakes in the wider world of business and insolvency he will be looked upon as some kind of hero.
As you say, an unfunded administration has never happened before but that's only because the Argyle staff and players have deferred their wages for months, they have effectively saved the club and enhanced Guilfoyle's reputation in his insolvency circle. expect.

Playing Devil's Advocate (yet again), perhaps Brenda HAS played a blinder..... A (largely) unfunded administration in which he has managed to keep a company's staff performing while not paying them.... whilst personally charging (& being guaranteed to get) near-one million pounds.

Objectively, it could be viewed as a tremendous bit of business.

JonB, what a cynical thought but probably entirely accurate.

[Andy_S]

, BIL did have promised access to funding.

Which in fact is only a shade over a million miles away from actually HAVING the funding, which is what Guilfoyle outfit have been saying all along!

It's even further than that from actually having the funding placed in an escrow account.

THAT'S the thing about Guilfoyle that really is pi$$ing people off!

On page 12, under 8.3.3, it states that

To date the Joint Administrators have been paid the sum of £150,000 which equates to an average hourly rate of £61.98.

However the total incurred time costs to 3 September are £675,756. So to that point, PandA have received 22% of their costs.

Club employees have been paid 100% of their May salaries, 50% of June's salaries and 24% of July's salaries. The total payment (inc PAYE/NIC) is listed as £623,296. I have estimated that the average full monthly wagebill is approx £360,000, therefore over the 6 month period of the administration, club employees have been paid 29% of their total salary. This is slightly more in percentage terms than PandA have paid themselves.

Football agency fees totalling £18,500 have been paid, presumably to Hart.

PandA have not been siphoning off all the income generated by the club, in the period under administration, to pay their own costs first. I'd imagine the purchaser of the club has to come to an agreement with PandA to settle on their outstanding fees.