Interesting read ...... http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/dir...rency-Argyle/story-20745048-detail/story.html
I'll have to learn to do this posting thing myself but that Gat is precisely what I meant and who I meant. It could be of course that it is a sour grapes thing by a rebuffed ex director or it could be exactly true. Again we don't really know but it does lend weight to the "you lied" camp. Having read a lot of his posts on ATD I do actually think he is a tad bitter though and some of his offerings are loaded against.
In this sue everyone society we live in at the moment Sensible, if what he said was untrue I'm sure he would have received a writ for libel by now .... as I haven't read anything in any of the papers to that effect then one can only assume what he said was true !
Quite possibly Gat but he hasn't got any cash left having blown it when going bust. Bitter because he once had cash and status but now is the same as the rest of us plebs. Lets say at best his mutterings haven't been denied rather than he hasn't been sued. I find it quite funny when people start saying one was "less" to blame than another anyway. It's like saying somebody only sank the Titanic by hitting one iceberg whereas somebody else hit two so was more to blame.
With you on that one Sensible, in my eyes all 7 board members are too blame as not one of them spoke out to stop what was going on ...... Coming out with "I'm really sorry for the past" doesn't make you less guilty than the other 6 just perhaps a bit more calculating. Maybe he didn't have the money for somebody to sue him but there would have been at least a retraction for the story in the paper and I haven't seen that either.
You do get a shorter sentence for admitting your in the wrong.....although you did exactly the same as someone who deny any blame at all.....showing that you regret your actions does get taken into consideration. Wrathall got three years away from the boardroom....no sign yet that the others are on the way back....at the moment.
Well who cares about Wetherall or the rest of them.. all no good and lied all the way.. I think put this crap to sleep now and lets get on with the football. Let's hope we stuff Excretia tonight..
I'm sorry Sensible, that's another of those articles which is absolutely devoid of facts, other than the fact that Wrathall sat on several different boards. When you have a group structure, generally there is the top level board that holds the external finance and an operational level beneath it that does all the work. In our case the latter was PAFC which would have dealt with all the stuff to do with players wages & so. That's where the club went bust: it was bound to when the wage bill was several times gate income. Around that there may be a raft of other special purpose companies and it has been noted that the Argyle corporate structure became very complicated. These companies basically do diddly squat. They are there to shelter assets or for tax purposes. Most of their business is purely for form and often takes place as corridor meetings. They do exactly what the companies above them tell them to do and it's at those higher, more active levels that the decisions are made. Now I will accept that assets were passed around at speculative valuations which were later disputed. This was in preparation for the property dealings that would have gone with the World Cup bid or perhaps just the sort of thing Brent is doing now. Some of those valuations may not have stood the test of time once Argyle fell into League 2 and England's World Cup bid failed. Maybe the directors of those semi-dormants were negligent in taking assets on at inflated values. However, that isn't the reason Argyle went bust. This was all paper money: the real losses were in the football club which was haemorrhaging real cash by having too many rubbish players who were never going to get a game. The reason for saying all this is that the only 2 board seats that mattered were of the football club and whatever sat above it. The fact that Wrathall sat on other boards doesn't make him more culpable than others, including Lenszner because little or no decision making would have gone on there. Lastly, let's get the financial issue in perspective. I think Wrathall has paid £100k for his shares. That's small change when it comes to football finance. To end, I will reveal what Lyndhurst does once a year for Argyle, even if he's too shy. He's Pilgrim Pete when the real person goes on holiday.
Harrassing a mascot - you can get done for that. Luckily I suppose the the layer of padding means there was no real contact. And Pilgrim Pete's costume would have been some protection too.
No, not as glamorous as pilgrim pete's stunt double, although I do have the body shape to consider this as a future opening when my current contract comes to an end in a year or two......
Phew that's a relief. I was bought a PP doll some years ago when my kids could only ever think of Argyle stuff for birthdays and christmas for me. My grandkids have mostly been scared stiff of it and wouldn't go near. Says a lot about PP really doesn't it.....
Would be interested in some views posted on my article please people...http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/256255-Humility-and-integrity
