(A) Question of trust

[Tangled up in Blue]

Of course it isn't too early to say it at Plymouth. They went into Administration because they couldn't afford to pay their outgoings. Those outgoings don't reduce just because you're in Admin. Their wage and tax bill will be pretty much the same this month as it was last month and their income will likely be even.lower due.to the Administrator taking his sizeable slice.

Define mismanaged?
If you have money and fail to pay bills and run the business efficiently then yes thats mis management. Certainly we were mismanaged for a while paying Championship wages to players to League One level players.

However for the last season we have not, we have made cutbacks and done the right things, failure to pay bills isnt as far as I see it a result of poor management but of a lack of money. Doesnt matter how you manage a business, if your incomings fall short of outgoings you are screwed.

I dont see how administration will mean we are better off, we will be making no more money and paying the same bills.

I think we both know what mis-management means.Though we would appear to have rather different ideas as to what it consists of.

IMO we would have been better off if we'd gone into administration last summer only if new owners had been able to take over control not if the present owner had remained in charge.

 

[EastStandBlue]

I imagine though they will be better run by the Administrator than by their previous BOD and that snake Risdale.

Ridsdale has had very little to do with the management of Plymouth until very recently.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Ridsdale has had very little to do with the management of Plymouth until very recently.

I'm aware of that.But he was very much the public face of the BOD until very recently too.

 

[catshrimp]

The point here is abundantly clear.

The Guardian article is suggesting that Trust money should be lent to an administrator rather than to disappear into a bankrupt regime.

At least the Plymouth Trust obtained tangible security - SUFC Trust did not.

When is the seat on the Board arriving boys?

 

[Firestorm]

The point here is abundantly clear.

The Guardian article is suggesting that Trust money should be lent to an administrator rather than to disappear into a bankrupt regime.

At least the Plymouth Trust obtained tangible security - SUFC Trust did not.




When is the seat on the Board arriving boys?

But the Problem is that Plymouth's trust was a registered Charity and to hide financial supporting the club as "an investment" when the Club was not part of their charitable mission is against Charity Commission regulations.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

An open question.
Given the fact that the Trust could have supported attempts made by HMRC to put SUFC into administration last summer, but didn't, because it was unclear whether the present owner would remain in control or if new owners(ie the consortium) might have been able to take over, was this the right judgement call to make? If so,why? If not,why not?

 

[the_goat]

I think we both know what mis-management means.Though we would appear to have rather different ideas as to what it consists of.

IMO we would have been better off if we'd gone into administration last summer only if new owners had been able to take over control not if the present owner had remained in charge.

Bold words makes all the difference.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Bold words makes all the difference.

But don't actions speak louder than any bold words?

 

[Smiffy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-12961195

Why have Southend Council not stepped in with a loan of some sort?

 

[Cricko]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-12961195

Why have Southend Council not stepped in with a loan of some sort?

Yep, I just cannot understand why they would not loan RM any money, can you?