What can we expect to hear from the Football League today.. | Page 6 | PASOTI
  • This site is sponsored by Lang & Potter.

What can we expect to hear from the Football League today..

M

marin(er)

Guest
Quintrell_Green":135pdvzg said:
northroadwest1":135pdvzg said:
Heaney is a victim of the corporate world just like we are. He is a locally based business man trying to buy a local football club.... A dying breed (hooray I hear you cheer). The Akkeron group is a corporate brand run by suits. I always try and spend my money in the independents as opposed to the globalised corporates and thats why I have an affiliation to heaneys bid. Warts and all he is just a locally based business man. The Akkeron group are the suits.

Right enough is enough, mods can you delete mariner. He has been entitled to his opinion in previous posts but this is just complete lies, that is posted purely to aggravate other members. Heaney is in no way, shape, or form a local man trying to buy a local football club. He is buying the club to seperate it from the land, build on the land and sell it for profit FACT. He already owns a club and is fully aware of the FL rules regarding ownership of 2 clubs. AND HE IS NOT LOCAL HE IS FROM ESSEX

I read what you are trying to say, but believe me there is no chance of Heaney acquiring Argyle in his sole name. It will be a corporate acquisition just like the Akeron Group. The difference being that we know who is behind the Akeron Group as opposed to anonymous directors behind a Gibraltar based company. It is interesting to read William Hill plc's trading figures in todays paper. That is a Gibraltar based company too, as it avoids some of the rigours of corporate governance in the UK, as well as benefiting from a more relaxed tax regime. To generalise, it suits a major company whose business involves gambling. Let's hope the Heaney consortium know what they are doing and not gambling with the fate of a 125 year old professional football club.[/quote]

Delete me for expressing an opinion? If you read my post properly you see it says 'locally based' not 'local man'.. Big difference don't you think?

You are the equivalent of a footballer calling for another to be sent off... Bad form QG.

I was actually responding to another poster who referred to there being no room for suits in football. I agree but as suits go the Akkeron group represents suits more so than Heaney.
 
Dec 7, 2006
2,688
0
And why's that, I wonder? Possibly because Akeron are a reputable, transparent organisation not some shady, spiv-run lash up that Heaney brings to mind. :roll:
 
Jun 23, 2011
2,411
0
Plymouth
Unless heany's consortium is made up of locally based businessmen, then he represents suits just as much as brent. There is no local millionaire lifelong fan waiting to rescue us, the suits are a necessity.
 
Jul 22, 2011
4
0
Quintrell_Green":1ng7sen9 said:
That is a Gibraltar based company too, as it avoids some of the rigours of corporate governance in the UK, as well as benefiting from a more relaxed tax regime. To generalise, it suits a major company whose business involves gambling. Let's hope the Heaney consortium know what they are doing and not gambling with the fate of a 125 year old professional football club.

:banghead:

I work in the offshore finance industry and the rubbish people think abut what goes on, 'there's a bookies offshore, therefore it suits gamblers' ?

Really? :roll:

The main point of an offshore fund is to stop the fund getting additional taxes, as in the same money taxed twice..

for example a cornish and a saudi businessman want to buy argyle, they get taxed in saudi & cornwall separately when they earn the money, if they then put it together into an english fund to buy the club, they'd get taxed on the same money again when it goes into the fund.... Not the case offshore...

i'm not saying people wont use the anonymity for being a bit naughty, i'm well aware they will, but it doesn't mean the offshore industry is the immoral hotbed everyone thinks it is because they half watched a program on tv or sort of read something in a tabloid they didn't really understand.
 
M

marin(er)

Guest
FordGreen":w3e68m5d said:
And why's that, I wonder? Possibly because Akeron are a reputable, transparent organisation not some shady, spiv-run lash up that Heaney brings to mind. :roll:

Akkeron are no more transparent than your hand FG. They are a corporate business just like a lot of other businesses are these days. All designed to extract money from the masses, nothing more nothing less.
There is nothing complicated about Heaney. He is a business man raising capital to do a business deal. The fact he chose to keep his cards close to his chest does not make him dodgy. The fact he has a failed business behind him doesn't make him dodgy. In fact there is a saying that states that a millionaire is not a true millionaire until he has made and lost a million twice.
 

Andy S

Administrator
Staff member
🇳🇿🇳🇿🇳🇿🇳🇿🇳🇿🇳🇿
🏆 Callum Wright 23/24
✅ Evergreen
Jade Berrow 23/24
✨Pasoti Donor✨
🌟Sparksy Mural🌟
Sep 15, 2003
6,801
3,274
73
There is nothing complicated about Heaney.

That HAS to be the statement of the Millenium.
 
Jan 4, 2005
8,830
1,054
NEWQUAY
MarkSchema":1eijep3m said:
Quintrell_Green":1eijep3m said:
That is a Gibraltar based company too, as it avoids some of the rigours of corporate governance in the UK, as well as benefiting from a more relaxed tax regime. To generalise, it suits a major company whose business involves gambling. Let's hope the Heaney consortium know what they are doing and not gambling with the fate of a 125 year old professional football club.

:banghead:

I work in the offshore finance industry and the rubbish people think abut what goes on, 'there's a bookies offshore, therefore it suits gamblers' ?

Really? :roll:

The main point of an offshore fund is to stop the fund getting additional taxes, as in the same money taxed twice..

for example a cornish and a saudi businessman want to buy argyle, they get taxed in saudi & cornwall separately when they earn the money, if they then put it together into an english fund to buy the club, they'd get taxed on the same money again when it goes into the fund.... Not the case offshore...

i'm not saying people wont use the anonymity for being a bit naughty, i'm well aware they will, but it doesn't mean the offshore industry is the immoral hotbed everyone thinks it is because they half watched a program on tv or sort of read something in a tabloid they didn't really understand.

I take on board some of what you say as being correct but I am sure you will know there are inter country tax agreements negotiated, whereby the tax levy on a company abroad is arranged such that they do not get subject to double taxation. I may know a tad more about this than what you think. I agree that Gibraltar is not specifically a haven for those in the gambling industry but like you I am sure you do not want PAFC's land assets to be a corporate 'plaything'.
 
M

Marcus The Green

Guest
marin(er)":3l8lg6ac said:
FordGreen":3l8lg6ac said:
And why's that, I wonder? Possibly because Akeron are a reputable, transparent organisation not some shady, spiv-run lash up that Heaney brings to mind. :roll:

Akkeron are no more transparent than your hand FG. They are a corporate business just like a lot of other businesses are these days. All designed to extract money from the masses, nothing more nothing less.
There is nothing complicated about Heaney. He is a business man raising capital to do a business deal. The fact he chose to keep his cards close to his chest does not make him dodgy. The fact he has a failed business behind him doesn't make him dodgy. In fact there is a saying that states that a millionaire is not a true millionaire until he has made and lost a million twice.

So all the failure's to meet deadlines is a sign of a good businessman is it?

It's is clear that you will remain adamant that Heaney's bid is kosher & his is the only bid that will save the club. Well done for sticking to your guns. If things go sour, it will interesting to see if you hold your hands up and say "sorry, I was wrong". You atrtack Akkeron, James Brent & the contingency plan but if you looked at the bigger picture with the same scrutiny, you'd see your argument of non-transparency & reliance on others money/help is more relevant to the preferred bidders.
We know more about the contingency plan in 3 weeks than 3 months of the preferred bidders plan. Also most of what we know about the preferred bidders....is what people have found out for themselves because of the lack of information coming from Heaney & co....alot of it is information that Heaney/Ridsdale/Guilfoyle didn't really want us knowing.