Just a thought, but if some of the old board came forward to save us would this be acceptable to you? The alternative being liquidation.
-
This site is sponsored by Lang & Potter.
Old Board Members or Liquidation?
- Thread starter pilgrimage
- Start date
C
charlee
Guest
B
bandwagon
Guest
charlee":1i5r181s said:
You don't generally accept liquidation; it is usually more of a forced resolution.
Liquidation. I could not support a club owned by the people responsible for the suffering of staff, players and businesses, liquidation would hurt terribly but we could start again, that Argyle would be feel far closer to the one we know than any club owned by the old board and far more deserving of our support.
Maybe just maybe this is why anonymity was required and all this distress and heartache was designed to make us welcome them back rather than run them outof town.. Such a cynic I know !
D
deanthegreenmachine
Guest
Be too painfull, rather see us start again from the bottom, were not far off that now in my opinion, we have a great ground, loyal fans, some loyal players, the trust etc, and maybe Brent would come on board....
I fear what some people may do if were liquidated tho,
I fear what some people may do if were liquidated tho,
If they could save us now, why couldn't they save us back at the start of the year?
If they had put funds in then....who knows if may have been a very different scenario today?
If they had put funds in then....who knows if may have been a very different scenario today?
- Feb 24, 2007
- 18,817
- 5,554
No.
It'll be like letting a repetitive drink driver take your car out for a pub lunch.
I've got principals and never again will i pay into any old board members idea of business and shame on anyone who does.
It'll be like letting a repetitive drink driver take your car out for a pub lunch.
I've got principals and never again will i pay into any old board members idea of business and shame on anyone who does.
I can't see them buying the club but maybe it's clutching at straws but there is a good argument for them funding the administration with say a £500,000 loan if they believe Brent's scheme is viable, which would buy the necessary time. Being secured creditors or personal guarantors of the Lombard loan it would be in their interests. Obviously they would have to believe that the Brent deal would be very likely to succeed.