So talk of Tony Wrathall coming back onto the PAFC Board with a 5% holding....why now at this moment. I personally have no problem with this ...he was probably the least tainted of the pre-Admin gang ....a genuine fan who still goes to matches and sponsored a match last season....you would have thought he would have not got so involved having had his fingers burnt badly financially before. The other Directors have no shares....have they ?.....other than Brent. What do you locals in Plymouth think about this development ?
How does everyone feel about this .... I personally am seething, he was one on the unmagnificent 7 ...... Shame on Brent for allowing this in my opinion !
What a time for this to happen when things are looking good.....hope it doesn't distract more fans turning up. I suppose a cash injection is ok as long as he gets no power on the run of the club.
The main question that seems to be coming up over this .......is Tony Wrathall's 5% injection of cash required because we need the money to cover our loses this season....I hope that isn't the case......with Nikkk's cash possibly tied up whilst he sorts out his finances at present there might be a cash flow problem....James Brent has said many times that the club must live within it's budget....and that he will only LEND money to HIS club and nothing beyond that...lets hope there isn't a dark cloud on the horizon.
I'm still seething .... what a smack in the face to all the countless fans who put money in the buckets to keep the club alive ... and all the local businesses who lost money for that scumbag to be allowed back in by that snake in the grass Brent (at least he is now showing his true colours) ..... just when things were looking up for us, this happens .... I am absolutely disgusted !
this is a really stupid time to allow him back on the board isn't it? why would Brent want to rock people's opinions (including the fans) when we are pushing toward the final position that we are? wait till the end of the bloody season!
Thing is Gat, people like Brent don't see anything wrong with an ex coming back onboard if they still have cash to spare. I do agree with you 100% that it is immoral for somebody to leave owing millions or part there of and not paying any of it only to resurface as if nothing was wrong with that. It more than stinks it's disgusting. If he has cash to spare then it should be paid to the people who lost virtually everything. Then again when did morality ever come into it with money folk. It's only the great unwashed like us who worry about paying their debts. There should be something in th FA rules to stop anyone who has gone bust and caused an Administration ever being allowed to get involved with football again let alone the same club. But, they are as weak livered as the financial set up. Brent probably hasn't even considered the insensitivity of any of this and even if it did cross his mind he probably doesn't much care anyway. I think the talk on pasoti a while back about his attendance at games and sponsorship of a match was setting the way forward for this to happen. This calls into question the morality of El Pres who backed it along with super fan Newell. It has been complained about for a long time on ATD that both Webb and Newell are Brent's puppets in the community and I have to say this sort of proves the theory somewhat. I hardly ever look at pasoti these days but I'd bet Newell will be on the case telling everyone what a good thing this is with his merry band of followers all agreeing. Decent posts disappearing as they are posted. The other thing I would ask is how come the Herald didn't get wind of this. That would be The Herald (Brent Echo). It's all so spineless by virtually everyone these days. What next I ask, Stapleton back in the Box maybe.....
Funny you should mention Staplewallet because on Pasnottie there is currently a poll about what do the fans think if he turned up to watch a match ..... you could be right Sensible he could be on his way back to the boardroom too ....... the man who when the **** hit the fan and the players and staff weren't getting paid from his holiday in Dubai made a statement to the press that "he hadn't been in the sea yet" ..... I will always follow Argyle but I am seriously considering never setting foot inside Home Park again as I am absolutely disgusted by this, Staplewallet coming back would be the final straw as far as I am concerned.
Oh dear I expect I will be in a minority of one again but, I don't really have much of a problem with this. Not sure I follow the logic of it being a smack in the face for those who contributed to keeping the club afloat in the darkest of days. If he stayed away then no one will benefit, at least this way the club will see some financial gain. I see El president has threatened to resign, no loss say I. I have no insider info about the actual details of who made the various flawed decisions leading to administration but it seems to me that he (Tony Wrathall) has been found guilty simply by association. Emotions clearly running high but I am a firm believer in looking forward and doing what is best for the future of the club instead of dwelling on the mistakes of the past.
So your the great unwashed then sensible......I'm glad your 200 miles down wind then......at least Wrathall is a fan.......more than you can say about Jones these days. I am not so entrenched regarding Wrathall....ok I can understand your feelings Gat/sensible about the infamous seven.....all I will say is that he lent the club money with no guarantees or safeguards to get it back because he lent from his heart not his head to help to try and ward off administration ....as a teenager he was in the club as a player...and will be involved with the academy....which he should be good at.....remember when administration came along the system took over and not one of them could have done otherwise.....just my view.....although I haven't said that on ATD.......easier life on the ignore button.
Thanks Plym! Don't get me wrong i do think he needs to accept his share of the blame (preferably by paying some of the debt/wages off) but I also think he was pretty powerless to stop the near destruction of the club- a minority shareholder was never going to be heard when the big 5 were in charge and by all accounts he also lost a size able chunk of money- though clearly he could afford to far more than the staff. At risk of further alienating others on here , I also have a similar opinion about Stapes. Both huge fans who got way out of depth. As I have said in the past, there is nothing worse than getting aspiration and ability confused. Rather than raking over what happen and the morality of allowing him back in the boardroom, I am far more interested in why? and why now? is his money being used for a specific purpose or are we generally short of cash? To be critical of JB (for once) if ever there was a need for some clear leadership it is now and JB ought to issue a statement clearly explaining the rationale behind the decision and what the appointment brings to the table.
Well I for one after 49 years of supporting Argyle through thick and thin am going to sleep on it as to whether I want to be associated with a club with such low morals and standards ..... I hope Wethrall chokes on the food served up to him by the staff who went upaid due to him along with 6 other bastards helped them lose their homes, break up marriages and gave them untold hardships for them to cope with ..... hope he rots in hell, I wont forgive him or the Derriford crap either !
Guilty by association?????? How the **** can anyone excuse any of the old Board for that. He was associated. They were all associated. They were collectively the Board and by that fact alone are all as guilty as each other for what happened. I'm not any kind of financial expert or even half expert. What led to Argyle's fall into the chasm I have no real idea. Well some of the general idea but none of the actual details. You will never convince me in a million years that any single member of the then Board did not know what was going on. If they didn't then they had no place on the Board of anything. There are main players in matters of course. But there are also the bit part players who at the very least see what is happening and say nothing and do nothing to stop it. They are as guilty as the main parties in my book. In my opinion ALL of the old Board who ran up the debts should not have any money left for themselves to be able to buy into something else. They should have paid their debts that they incurred just as I do and millions of others. I believe Webb has actually come out and condemned this in writing. Good for him.
Yes sensible, but my point is that once the true fans on the board (who turned out eventually to be completely out of their depth) had made the mistake of bringing outsiders in (who couldn't care less about the club) to chase a pipe dream, they were completely powerless to stop us going under. By the time the tipping point was reached, I think the locals were minority shareholders and had lost the ability to stop the outsiders on their chosen path. yes they should have tried to stop it and should have said something (maybe they did). Are you really saying that minority shareholders in an organisation that goes bust are liable for the debts of the whole business when a) they have already lost considerable sums, b) the other shareholders are protected (in law via the admin process). By your logic anyone who has a stake in a company would have all their personal assets taken away to pay the accrued debt. To form an unbiased view on this we all need to separate the financial aspects of the business from the emotional side of supporting a football club that nearly went completely down the pan. Yes, the two are linked but if something similar had happened (and it happens all the time) in a non football environment i doubt we would be in the middle of this furore.
Well Mrs LaLa....have you or Beau a view on all this ??? Sitting on the fence or in Beau's case the perch isn't goodenough.
No lyndhurst what I'm saying is that they should all be turned upside down and shook until the last penny has dropped out of all of their pockets and the debts paid. I don't care if they are minority anything and none of them should be protected in any way shape or form whatever their status. Appeasment has a lot to answer for in this world and those that practice it are as condemned as those that cause the problem. Nobody heard a squeak until it was too late and please don't tell me the minority share holders knew as little as we did. I actually do not agree that any business is exempt the furore if they go bust owing millions and retire temporarily to their mansions only to resurface a while later with a load of pennies to invest in something else. Being able to keep ones fortune at the expense of others is immoral in anyone's book and should not be allowed under any circumstances. Having a second and third go and doing the same should also not be possible.
What's happening on the pitch is more important guys.....sure Wrathall would never show up if he was so guilty, and for Staplewallet, hope he has more sense not to come back for his sake. He probably goes to Helston market or somewhere to get his hair cut as not to be recognized lol! Maybe it's time for the whole truth to arise what happened in THOSE YEARS! Time to back the players and hoping for an 8K gate for tomorrow! COYG.
I started to post about this yesterday and then thought better of it as I know very little about the internal workings of the Argyle board. I'd respectfully suggest I'm not the only one..... I will however agree with Lyndhurst that once the Big Beasts of Gardener and Co got involved, Stapleton & Wrathall will have been pretty similar to passengers on a runaway train: headed for destruction but with no way to prevent it. I will also correct a couple of errors in this thread: 1) According to what I've read, Wrathall has bought 5% of the club FROM BRENT. If that's the case, no money has gone into the club, it's passed between Wrathall & Brent. That raises the question of why Brent wants to dilute his ownership: the answers range from Brent beginning to head for the exit to Brent believing it's important to have an independent Green-tinted voice on the club board. It knocks out the question of whether Brent has had to do it because the club is heading for the rocks again: the money hasn't gone into the club (and anyway, as the club has little or no value, it's presumably 5% of naff all). 2) The whole of the capital system in the free world is based on some thing which the Victorians named the "Veil of Incorporation". That means that the shareholders are not responsible for the losses of the companies they invest in and neither are the directors except in well defined cases of gross mismanagement or outright fraud. I would agree that many football club owners skate pretty close to gross mismanagement in order to keep the fans happy but very few cases seem to be provable in court. The second part of it is that people trading with limited companies should be well aware of the Veil of Incorporation. If they aren't, then they aren't fit to be running their own businesses. Unless we want to go back to a pre-Victorian economy, the directors and shareholders of PAFC were not and should not be held responsible for repaying its creditors' losses. Can I also say that if Wrathall comes onto the board and Webb departs, then that can't be all bad!
