On the Brink of admin ??

GOB wrote:

punchdrunk wrote:

GOB wrote:

Bandwagon wrote:

If any of those  arselicking sell outs are anywhere near a new group - forget it!!

This.

x 1000

x 2000   

x 3000   

Plus, I for one still don't know how some of the members of the original contingency group came to be on it (although I've got a few ideas). If we have another one - and I certainly think we should - there needs to be transparency. The obvious approach would be for the AFT leadership to take the lead in forming it and - as was the case with the grandstand working group - issue invitations on the basis of proven relevant expertise.

Yes Peggy.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Graham, the track record of the James and the Board in answering any questions of a financial nature is not good. The questions were never answered in 'better' times - now the proverbial seems to be hitting the fan there is not a hope in hell of any questions being answered in an open and transparent manner. I have never been comfortable with the financials, the football creditor 'balloon' payment has always been my major worry. The answer to our questions has always been 'the new stand'.

The balloon payment will be in excess of £2million and is only two and a half years away. At the outset JB stated that the new stand would provide between £1-2million 'extra' revenue per annum. This was later restated as £1million. Let us for a moment believe that the stand starts at the end of this season and is fully operational by September 2015. That leaves just one year of additional income (£1million). But nothing I hear from official sources convinces me that there is any actual plan for achieving this target.  At the Senior Greens meeting on Thursday a questio was asked about what would be inside the new stand to help the football club. After the usual spiel about the necessity to utilise a club 365 days a year Martyn said the club had spoken to the Chamber of Commerce and there was a need for conference and training facilities, the club would also look to bring in some music acts (?) and 'whatever else you might think we need'. Let us not forget that in the last week Exeter Chiefs actually commenced work on building their state of the art conference and training facilities. A million extra income is most unlikely, but even that would be less than half the necessary amount to pay the football creditor debt and ensure continuation of our 'golden share'.

The loss of Nikk's income, the administration of part of Akkeron's hotel chain, the new 'begging bowl' strategy of investment (Martyn Starnes 'James asked whoever would listen') that has led to an abandonment of 'no previous directors' policy, the refusal of current directors tofund the club, the current debt level (£1.6 - 2 million to Akkeron) and the outstanding footballcreditor debt are the facts we know. Looked at logically even the staunchest Brent apologist must be worried. We have no land left to sell. Our 'intangible assets' are worthless in a forced sale. If ever there was time for a Contingency Group to form, it is now.

Graham, throughout our past troubles and since tere has only really been one man who has stood above the personalities, one man who has the respect of all sides. I hope above hope that your work and family circumstances will allow you to take a lead in the upcoming struggle. It maybe a lot closer than people think.

Damon, there is no need for a Contingency Group or anything like it. The situation the football club faces is very different from that controlled by Brendan Guilfoyle in our extended administration period.

The short term position has been covered and can be covered by the addition of Tony Wrathall to the Board. However, unwelcome to many it is apparent that his involvement has stabilised matters. Under the new rules of the 55% SCMP debt to HMRC and the like cannot be built up without sanction. The debt is principally to the parent company (James Brent and his wife) through loans (up to £2m by expressed consent) and whatever arrangements exist with Tony Wrathall. There is no evidence to suggest that the club are not meeting it's agreed football creditor obligations and through accelerated payments the staff are all but paid (less than £30,000 outstanding I believe). The football creditor debt is being paid back at £200,000 per year over five years with a balloon payment at the end of the balance outstanding. For unbudgeted income such as from increased attendances, cup runs and any income from transfers 50% is set aside as a contribution for reducing the football creditor debt. So it is quite possible that within the next 30 months the ballon payment will be of more manageable proportions.

There are many examples in the Football League where owners have loans that provide the means of existence. The critical point is for Argyle is that relatively the extent of those loans is modest and less than half of annual turnover. Compare that to others. The important thing is to maintain a positive cash flow and manage your debt levels and ability to repay as necessary.

My advice to you, Damon, is to keep calm, avoid alarmist remarks and conjecture and base comment on facts. Hopefully, those elected supporter representatives of the AFT and the PASB can elicit from the club any necessary comfort. If the club refuse to engage well that may be a different matter. It is then for both bodies to consult their constituency if that happens. Wider issues relating to other projects in the City are for the politicians and executive to deal with.

At a time when the team have genuine play off hopes and have just produced the best home performance in over 10 years I would rather give and encourage support for the team in the next 13 games rather than wasting my time on a needless contingency group, formed without justification or authorisation. You can count me out of such nonsense.

Graham Clark wrote:

Wider issues relating to other projects in the City are for the politicians and executive to deal with.

Have to disagree with you on that point, Graham. Those projects represent a huge outlay of local people's money, at a time when services are being cut, people are losing their jobs and everybody - including people on zero hours, minimum wage contracts and people on benefits - is being expected to pay a substantial amount of council tax. Judging by the results so far, the politicians can't be relied upon to get it right, and even the senior people in the council can only do what the politicians tell them to. It might not be a football matter per se, but it's certainly a matter of huge concern to residents - or it should be.

Peggy wrote:

Graham Clark wrote:

Wider issues relating to other projects in the City are for the politicians and executive to deal with.

Have to disagree with you on that point, Graham. Those projects represent a huge outlay of local people's money, at a time when services are being cut, people are losing their jobs and everybody - including people on zero hours, minimum wage contracts and people on benefits - is being expected to pay a substantial amount of council tax. Judging by the results so far, the politicians can't be relied upon to get it right, and even the senior people in the council can only do what the politicians tell them to. It might not be a football matter per se, but it's certainly a matter of huge concern to residents - or it should be.

Yes, I should have said held be to account for their individual and collective decisions.

All my points in the above post were based on fact Graham.
The conclusion drawn from them will differ according to how comfotable you are with this Board running the football club.
It may not be this week or this month, but a Contingency Group, led by the Trust hopefully, will be necessary.

I don't know how any residents can anymore "hold these local councillors to account".
In today's political reality, especially with the whip system doing it's worst, most councillors see their tenure as short term in any event and beyond their control, no matter what they do, and so are little better than the non elected technical officers. In other words, there's not a cigarette paper between them and there is a continuity of policy that makes a mockery of democracy. The incinerator was the latest example where Evans surfed the anti incinerator wave, knowing darn well it was going to go ahead.
These councillors now have the mind of a latter day tin miner or American defence worker. they don't expect to be in work all the time, just some of the time.  The idea of losing their seat no longer comes into the equation, it's just seen as part of the political season, nothing to do with them.

The problems that I have with the club have been created by the club so only the club can do anything about them.

James Brent was extremely naive when he made pledges (supporters at the heart of the club, openness and transparency etc) from the stage at the Guildhall that his actions since suggest he never had any genuine intention of honouring. Brent, at the time, was immensely (almost universally) popular and was being given the benefit of the doubt. The truth is he had the most golden of golden opportunities and he has either wilfully flushed it down the bog or carelessly squandered it.

So what do we do now we are here? Brent knows. Everybody knows. Quite simply either he has to leave or he genuinely needs to follow his own path of openness and transparency.

Anybody and everybody tainted by the dishonesty which has characterised Brent's tenure has to go. That includes all of the Deep Throaters for their part in the cowardly anti-Trust campaign which cost the club so much in trust; whoever it was that sanctioned the usage of such obviously bogus figures as the 8500 break-even crowd, 350 employees etc has to go too because you can't say and do these things if openness and transparency is the mantra; whoever coined the word "consultation" regarding the HHP plans because there was no meaningful consultation at all; whoever the coordinator of all of these PR disasters was has to go because they don't appear to know their inept arse from their incompetent elbow.

And do not tell us everything is fine when it is not.

Just genuinely consult us, listen to what we say, engage in dialogue, treat us like grown-ups and tell us the truth. No more "magnificent two-tiered stand" bullshit.

I bet Brent wouldn't treat a dog with the same contempt he has shown us.

Graham talks too much sense for my liking. I think he is a witch!

Cornish Rebel wrote:

Graham talks too much sense for my liking. I think he is a witch!

Ahem.

  

Does TW have the means to ensure Argyle's debt/salary obligations continue to be met?

So many unknowns but TW seems the best hope atm of being able to insulate against the cashflow problems in other parts of JB's Empire...

The other board members are a waste of gravity's effort, that seems clear enough.

Pafcintheplace wrote:

Does TW have the means to ensure Argyle's debt/salary obligations continue to be met?

So many unknowns but TW seems the best hope atm of being able to insulate against the cashflow problems in other parts of JB's Empire...

The other board members are a waste of gravity's effort, that seems clear enough.

I agree with the main thrust of this - Tony Wrathall is a major player in the future of our club. I just hope he is getting really good advice this time. He is walleted and loves the club, and is prepared to take big risks with HIS money.

Does anybody know roughly how wealthy he is and how he earns/earned his wedge ?

He sold three holiday parks.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

He sold three holiday parks.

£££ ?

So GC and the Superfans have been sworn to secrecy on all this?
To stop company suppliers getting the jitters etc. and give JB more time to get Akkerons shit together..

But are clearly openly talking about it with each other