Was Wrathal at HP today

What I want to know is does Wrathall have an agenda to get back to power at Home Park, if he does who is supporting him? If we were told, perhaps we would welcome him back with clenched fists.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

I am sure Wrathall wanted to be there because he is an ARgyle fan who wanted to watch a match. Just why he would go corporate and accept an invite on the pitch I dont know.

Thanks GOB. I don't quite understand the hunger for name to be 'outed'. It was a corporate who over the years has spent many thousands of pounds on corporate entertaining, sponsorship and advertising at the Ground. A well known Plymouth company whose boss made a mistake. Should they be 'punished'? Will people boycott their product? Just what will be done with the information?

That doesn't stack up. Going onto the pitch is a very specific part of the matchday sponsorship package. The matchday sponsor was Devon Furniture and yet the Devon Furniture bloke did not invite Wrathall. So it was somebody else and that somebody was not the matchday sponsor but it was somebody with a similarly high profile within the corporate circle of regulars.

This does stack up because nobody working for the club would want to upset any of the lregular ocal businessman sponsors, whether they were actual GTs or not, for the obvious reasons that they would both be grateful for the fund-raising and support that the staff had received and that they would be expected to pander to more or less every whim on behalf of the club and to secure the chance of repeat sponsorship. Those thoughts would be exactly the same as the ones running through the head of the official that allowed Wrathall onto the pitch. There would have been no need for the "do you know who I am?" card to be played for the precise reason that all of the staff knew exactly who everybody was.

Just as all of those in the know know who issued the invitation to Wrathall but aren't saying.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

GOB - The reason I won't name names is because I will not be responsible for an over the top backlash against someone who for all his life has supported the Club, and in my time in Plymouth (12 years) has year after year been amongst the Top 5 corporate clients.

But its ok to do it if it is someone we don't like.

Like Guilfoyle or Stapes or Gill or Wrathall or anyone else who got in the way of Brent.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

GOB - The reason I won't name names is because I will not be responsible for an over the top backlash against someone who for all his life has supported the Club, and in my time in Plymouth (12 years) has year after year been amongst the Top 5 corporate clients.

That sounds a bit like somebody's dad telling them not to question their elders and 'betters'.

I've supported the club for over 35 years. When I can, I do my bit. If I made a mistake of this magnitude, I'd expect to hear about it. But then, I'm not rich.

Peggy, I was only trying to explain my reasons for not naming names. Believe me the person responsible is very aware of the magnitude of the mistake - but the biggest mistake of all was Tony's acceptance of the invite.

Frank Bullitt wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

GOB - The reason I won't name names is because I will not be responsible for an over the top backlash against someone who for all his life has supported the Club, and in my time in Plymouth (12 years) has year after year been amongst the Top 5 corporate clients.

But its ok to do it if it is someone we don't like.

Like Guilfoyle or Stapes or Gill or Wrathall or anyone else who got in the way of Brent.

Frank - I do not speak for anyone else. Others who have 'outed' in the past will have to speak for themselves.

What disappoints me rather more than Wrathall's ill-judged pitch visit is the fact that the close links forged between the GTs, Pasoti and the Trust which proved to be so successful when supporting the club in its darkest hours are in danger of being poisoned by some sort of bastardised Green freemasonry. Newell's sycophantic and unneccessary endorsement of Devon Furniture is proof that even if Pasoti is still truly independent then he is without question completely in the you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours business.

Family time now - Merry Xmas one and all - may I wish you all three points on Boxing Day.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Family time now - Merry Xmas one and all - may I wish you all three points on Boxing Day.

Merry Christmas Damon and thanks for coming on here.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

GOB - The reason I won't name names is because I will not be responsible for an over the top backlash against someone who for all his life has supported the Club, and in my time in Plymouth (12 years) has year after year been amongst the Top 5 corporate clients.

Why on earth would there be a backlash if Wathral is innocent in all this?

Why can't we be told the name and be given the evidence that shows Wrathal to be an innocent and move on? - The more this is hidden behind closed doors the higher the cynicism will grow. I just don't get it unless there really is something to hide.

It was threatened that the sponsor may not take up his sponsorship if questions are asked and now the latest is that there maybe some sort of terrorist backlash. It seems to me that there are just too many "if you ask questions this may happen" agendas.

What's the worst that can happen considering Wrathal has nothing to hide, one, maybe two people say something a bit "banterish" on an Internet football site? Jeez!

I tell you what Damon, if Wrathal is as innocent in this as some suggest and it can be showed to be the case, I'll support this mysterious character that invited Wrathal in every way that I can.

Anyway and yes, I have a ton of work to be doing for Christmas so have a great Christmas, one and all.

Wrathall is clearly NOT innocent. He was a director and member of the 7. That fact alone makes him culpable.

I don't understand why the person who invited him cannot be named, it's not like anyone is going to camp outside his gate and hurl abuse at him is it?

So if Wrathal isn't all that innocent in this mess, why would Chris Webb and Ian Newell want to misled the fans?

The 'crime' doesn't really bother me (though I can understand that the staff and others would be infinitely more offended), but the cover up going on is positively French, it stinks!

Not sure exactly what Newell and Webb said publicly in support of Wrathall, so can't comment on that. What I can say is that Ian Newell described Wrathall as a 'c--t' in an email to me. So if there has been a change of position by Ian Newell, it has been fairly dramatic and something certainly smells a bit whiffy.

pepsipete wrote:

What I want to know is does Wrathall have an agenda to get back to power at Home Park, if he does who is supporting him? If we were told, perhaps we would welcome him back with clenched fists.

Indeed Pete. I don't know so much about the power thing, but it seems incredible to me that given what has transpired, he would want to go on the pitch at all, unless he has some sort of higher profile in mind. The cover up is far more interesting than who the actual person or persons known were, well, unless he is connected to other folk. I just can't see one person alongside Wrathall deciding this action. It smells as if the previous Webb olive branch and no doubt conversations had with many people, resulted in this action.... and they all got it wrong. It ain't just one person.

His action raises the question of what interest does he still have in the club. While all the staff and all the unsecured smaller creditors' details have been splashed all over the media, not a peep have we heard about the deals the main money men have got away with, not one peep, and it is that fact that ups the anti when any of the old bunch are found skulking around. Wrathall was a creditor of over a million pounds ... how much did he lose of that ? ... has some deal been done to put some of it against the future dealings of the club like it was reported Mastpoint had done with future TV money.
If they just published the sale details and had done with it, most of the crap would go away, especially if we saw these money men had taken the hit they deserved. People always go bust in business, and I don't have a problem with it. What I do have a problem with is owners saving most of their invested money while everyone else gets diddly.
If Wrathall had lost every last penny of his money, perhaps my suspicion of his motives might just change a tad.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Peggy, I was only trying to explain my reasons for not naming names. Believe me the person responsible is very aware of the magnitude of the mistake - but the biggest mistake of all was Tony's acceptance of the invite.

So the sponser was not responsible for the invite, there is obviously a cover up for some uknown reason.

The problem started with a very public exoneration of Wrathall by Brent published by The President. Why would any sponsor or Wrathall himself think that the issue was so poisonous after TW was said to have little blame attached to his actions on the previous board and been invited to share a little R&R courtesy of the Club President.

The sponsor and TW would have thought everything was hunky dory. It was a only a small step then to accepting the invite to the game and walking out on the pitch.

There is without doubt a cover up going on and the only reason I can think for that to occur is that a public figure or Internet public figure, could be painted in a very damning and condemning bad light. In the meantime the GT's will take the brunt of the scrutiny as will Brent's president Webb and self appointed fan rep, Ian Newell. The person/persons concerned can't have that many scruples if he's prepared to sit back and allow others to take the wrath for him!

The truth will come out in time, it always does, but for now I trust no one related to this latest PAFC fiasco!

Hi Damon!

Or should that be Hi Cockney Green?

The other thing is...

Damon's implied accusation that some of us are just not capable of behaving or controlling ourselves if we are told the truth, where as, him and his friends, such as Cockney Green are!

Cockney Green sure knew how to control himself. He didn't 'unleash the dogs' did he Damon?

It is all extreme kiddology, tar this site as accusers, namers etc, etc.

Mud sticks so GG and Damo fling it.

seadog wrote:

It is all extreme kiddology, tar this site as accusers, namers etc, etc.

Mud sticks so GG and Damo fling it.

That's exactly it SeaDog!

They'll wake up one day and realise that no matter what they do, we will always be here to ask questions!

greengenes wrote:

GOB wrote:

Surely GG, you're not happy with this situation and the covering up that is going on. If everything is so innocent then why not name names and move on, why not provide the evidence and give Wathal a clean sheet, etc etc etc?

Wrathall was an idiot to do what he did . An idiot . I couldnt care less if he attends HP as an ordinary fan . He owes everyone an apology . THERE IS NO COVER UP ! It wasn't The Match Sponsors fault at all . Accept that or,call me a liar .

Picture, It's your birthday and youve just made up with your wife after her having an affair.

Everything is going fine until your birthday cake is Being presented by the bloke yet wife has been shagging. But by logic it's his fault for accepting the invite. You don't need to know who invited him or why and your wife has decided she won't have sex with you if you kick up a stink.

You must like bein played for total mug!

Tiberius wrote:

Tiberius wrote:

greengenes wrote:

GOB wrote:

Surely GG, you're not happy with this situation and the covering up that is going on. If everything is so innocent then why not name names and move on, why not provide the evidence and give Wathal a clean sheet, etc etc etc?

Wrathall was an idiot to do what he did . An idiot . I couldnt care less if he attends HP as an ordinary fan . He owes everyone an apology . THERE IS NO COVER UP ! It wasn't The Match Sponsors fault at all . Accept that or,call me a liar .

Picture this, it's your birthday and youve just made up with your wife after her having an affair.

Everything is going fine until your birthday cake is Being presented by the bloke your wife has been shagging. But by logic it's his fault for accepting the invite. You don't need to know who invited him or why and your wife has decided she won't have sex with you if you kick up a stink.

You must like bein played for total mug!

What the f**k have you been drinking ? FFS !