Has any football administrator ever (in effect) threatened to wind up a football club because of his personal grievance with the fanbase before now? This pathetic man is well beyond a joke. Get on with your job, stick to your word, and think of your fellow (unpaid) man, and you won't get any abuse, BG. We're hardly setting the behaviour bar at "saint" here, are we?

No football club in history has been saddled with so many malevolant figures. Mc666, Stapleton, Gill, Kagami, Synan, Campbell, Todd, Gardner, Ridsdale, Kassam, Heaney, BG - all card-carrying members of the "should never be allowed anywhere near a football club again" club, and all involved or linked with us at some point. What did we do to deserve this? It's brilliant to see a newly radicalised fanbase stand up to these, may we continue to scrutinise our future "custodians" with the same fervour forever more.

PROUD TO BE A GREEN!

Just wondered, Where does James Brent stand in all this?

Is he consulted by the trust in advance of these actions?

Is he behind our actions today? Does he see it as a help or a hiderence?

Now THAT, is a very good question.

The campaign does not sit comfortably with his quiet and professional means of doing business. I suspect the answers to that would be.........

a) shaking his head whilst looking at the floor
b) no
c) no
d) hinderence

I support the sentiment of taking it to P&A, they are worthy of abuse but i'd be surprised and disappointed if any of us sent any. But as someone said earlier it's a high stakes roll of the dice and they're still spinning. We'll see how it pans out.

Has anybody thought of the implications if P and A did actually resign from their appointment as Joint Administrators? According to their statement last month they, and their advisors, had only been paid something like £150k of their time costed charges of something around £700k. If they walk away on Monday how do they expect to recoup their losses and fee exposure. Just imagine the arguments they might have to justify in any Court Case they might pursue for non-payment and against who? Would they really expose themselves to such professional ridicule and immediate losses?

Should this move to the 'realisation of assets' phase (ie liquidation), the administrators become the primary secured creditor.

Arguably, it would suit P&A for this scenario to unfold.

The News of the World were an organization who operated appallingly with no morals,ethics or humane standards.They thought they were above it all and could do as they pleased without fear of any comeback as they were all powerful.Finally their lies were exposed.The masses were disgusted at their antics and decided enough was enough.Despite more lies and deceit they had nowhere to hide the strength of outrage amongst the masses was more powerful than they foolishly ever could have anticipated and they were brought down.
Moral of the story...when you upset the populace in the end you will be found out...you will be exposed...you will have nowhere to hide!!

Don't shoot the messenger!
The reason we can’t pay the wages is that we simply don’t have the surplus after deducting the costs we have to pay for running the club. These include VAT, match day expenses, utilities and maintenance costs, player accommodation and travel, insurance premiums and ancillary professional fees i.e. valuers and the PFA’s solicitors.

So they are saying that there is no surplus with which to pay the staff after deducting their costs.

This means they have used up all the gate money and proportion of season ticket income and have nothing left.

'Ancilliary professional fees' includes paying Hart and Ridsdale I presume after which there isn't a penny left to pay any of the players or staff.

If this is the case then where did the money come from to pay wages when the players threatened to strike? Did they use their own funds for that?

The Club is and has been for years operating at a loss-that means that the money taken is is less than the money going out.

Why do some people have such trouble grasping such a basic concept?

Don't shoot the messenger!
The reason we can’t pay the wages is that we simply don’t have the surplus after deducting the costs we have to pay for running the club. These include VAT, match day expenses, utilities and maintenance costs, player accommodation and travel, insurance premiums and ancillary professional fees i.e. valuers and the PFA’s solicitors.

So how come they managed to do just that with gate receipts that were a lot lower and still pay the staff some money.They didn't use that excuse then.

Are they treating the club as a cash cow and just milking it.

Don't shoot the messenger!
The reason we can’t pay the wages is that we simply don’t have the surplus after deducting the costs we have to pay for running the club. These include VAT, match day expenses, utilities and maintenance costs, player accommodation and travel, insurance premiums and ancillary professional fees i.e. valuers and the PFA’s solicitors.

So they are saying that there is no surplus with which to pay the staff after deducting their costs.

This means they have used up all the gate money and proportion of season ticket income and have nothing left.

'Ancilliary professional fees' includes paying Hart and Ridsdale I presume after which there isn't a penny left to pay any of the players or staff.

If this is the case then where did the money come from to pay wages when the players threatened to strike? Did they use their own funds for that?

The Club is and has been for years operating at a loss-that means that the money taken is is less than the money going out.

Why do some people have such trouble grasping such a basic concept?

I was under the impression Grovehill that we were/are operating at a loss, like most clubs, taking wages into account. What is surprising, given the % of wages to turnover, is that after our largest gate of the season + 1/23rd of the season ticket money is that here is still no money for wages. This was the case for previous home games. We really are in trouble if we cannot cover our basic costs before wages.


Cut price tickets increased the attendance, but not the income.

The Club is operating on a hand-to-mouth basis-such relatively minor events as, for instance, paying an electricity bill, or a quarterly VAT bill, can wipe out a cash surplus at a stoke
As you say, basic concepts.

Don't shoot the messenger!
The reason we can’t pay the wages is that we simply don’t have the surplus after deducting the costs we have to pay for running the club. These include VAT, match day expenses, utilities and maintenance costs, player accommodation and travel, insurance premiums and ancillary professional fees i.e. valuers and the PFA’s solicitors.

So how come they managed to do just that with gate receipts that were a lot lower and still pay the staff some money.They didn't use that excuse then.

Are they treating the club as a cash cow and just milking it.

C,mon Mods, surely this statement needs to be on "Jokes"

Has any football administrator ever (in effect) threatened to wind up a football club because of his personal grievance with the fanbase before now?

It's not the argyle "fanbase" responsible for this.

It's a small group of people who are overstepping the mark.

Their behaviour will be embarrassing for Brent, and he will want to distance himself from their escapades.

[Daz]

Has any football administrator ever (in effect) threatened to wind up a football club because of his personal grievance with the fanbase before now?

It's not the argyle "fanbase" responsible for this.

It's a small group of people who are overstepping the mark.

Their behaviour will be embarrassing for Brent, and he will want to distance himself from their escapades.

You reckon?

Has any football administrator ever (in effect) threatened to wind up a football club because of his personal grievance with the fanbase before now?

It's not the argyle "fanbase" responsible for this.

It's a small group of people who are overstepping the mark.

Their behaviour will be embarrassing for Brent, and he will want to distance himself from their escapades.

IF any fans overstepped the mark (and I don't believe anything P&A come out with) how is it embarrassing for JB?

He had nothing to do with it, he's not an Argyle fan, he's a businessman attempting to save our club.

Has any football administrator ever (in effect) threatened to wind up a football club because of his personal grievance with the fanbase before now?

It's not the argyle "fanbase" responsible for this.

It's a small group of people who are overstepping the mark.

Their behaviour will be embarrassing for Brent, and he will want to distance himself from their escapades.

IF any fans overstepped the mark (and I don't believe anything P&A come out with) how is it embarrassing for JB?

He had nothing to do with it, he's not an Argyle fan, he's a businessman attempting to save our club.

Don't be so sure about that Ian. Sparksy said he was listening to the commentry and on the edge of his seat.

Not JB mate, he's cool, calm and calculated and likes rugby!

Well, that's what he used to be like.