Parish on BBS

[fosters headband]

I am saying that Palace had no intention of going into administration. Agilo's action was a bolt from the blue as it was never envisaged by Jordan that they would go for the jugular.

Posters on here have stated that Palace used administration as a handy way of avoiding debt and implied that it was deliberate.

What!!
Jordon borrowed money from Agillo using the player’s contracts as collateral and when he started selling them and not giving Agillo their share they got understandably nervous

 

[Del Fenner]

Where in my posts did I talk about anyone being embarrassed? But if you want to reply to one of my posts I would be interested on your or any Palace fan's view of post 223 in this thread.

Tried to quote post 223, but editor window complained.

CPFC2010 have always made it clear that they are not free to discuss wages and contracts. I don't see that what you have posted is inconsistent with this.

 

[upthealbion1970]

I think that we are talking at cross purposes. Please tell me which part of my post you do not understand.

Think my question was simple enough, did palace go into administration for a second time?

Yes or no

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

I'd be far more embarrassed if those representing my team were in all the papers because of being xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and racist sympathisers. Just a thought.

Shown your true colors there mate. What a distasteful comment. You seem to lack any sort of embarrassment.

 

[Working class pride]

I don't follow why you think it is relevant that palace in its second insolvent situation, did not want to go into administration. They owed a debt and failed to pay it. The creditor then had every right to enforce recovery by forcing administration. Why on earth do you think there is anything wrong with that. Pay the debt and you avoid the insolvency. Fail to pay it, you don't. The issue I have is how you managed to keep playing assets worth Millions in that insolvency. Bottom line is palace bumble along with around 8000 -12000 paying punters, plus freebies and away fans. With revenue like that you should not be paying wages that you do and your natural level is bottom half of the Championship or the division below.

Del, just wondered your thoughts?

 

[Triggaaar]

I think that we are talking at cross purposes. Please tell me which part of my post you do not understand.

The words

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

In the unlikely possibility that you are interested in accuracy, I will quote this:
And it was Agilo not Palace that brought about the administration as most on here conveniently forget.

OK , it was virtually £27M although press reports said in excess of £30M at the time. Remind me again , how much did Palace offer to pay back to the creditors ? Was it 2p in the £ ?

 

[Del Fenner]

I don't follow why you think it is relevant that palace in its second insolvent situation, did not want to go into administration. They owed a debt and failed to pay it. The creditor then had every right to enforce recovery by forcing administration. Why on earth do you think there is anything wrong with that. Pay the debt and you avoid the insolvency. Fail to pay it, you don't.

What is wrong with it is that going into administration lost most of the creditors money.

At the time Jordan was trying to sell the club to get new finance in place, and was attempting to raise the money to pay the creditors by selling players. Maybe he was clutching at straws, but he was trying to do the right thing. Agilo pulling the plug f***ed themselves and everyone else up, it was an insane thing to do.

 

[upthealbion1970]

What is wrong with it is that going into administration lost most of the creditors money.

At the time Jordan was trying to sell the club to get new finance in place, and was attempting to raise the money to pay the creditors by selling players. Maybe he was clutching at straws, but he was trying to do the right thing. Agilo pulling the plug f***ed themselves and everyone else up, it was an insane thing to do.

What is wrong is a football club not learning from its first administration that you cannot live beyond your means indefinitely

 

[Working class pride]

What is wrong with it is that going into administration lost most of the creditors money.

At the time Jordan was trying to sell the club to get new finance in place, and was attempting to raise the money to pay the creditors by selling players. Maybe he was clutching at straws, but he was trying to do the right thing. Agilo pulling the plug f***ed themselves and everyone else up, it was an insane thing to do.

Agilo did not pull the plug. They asked to be paid back. That is their absolute right and they do not have to listen to people who say "please wait whilst I sell to someone else". I expect they were concerned and they demanded their cash back. The have done absolutely nothing wrong. You blame the wrong people. The reality is that you should not have been paying the wages that created the debt to be in a false position for a club on your gates in the first place.

 

[Del Fenner]

Shown your true colors there mate. What a distasteful comment. You seem to lack any sort of embarrassment.

On reflection, I agree with you. I apologise, I was out of order.

 

[Acker79]

Tried to quote post 223, but editor window complained.

CPFC2010 have always made it clear that they are not free to discuss wages and contracts. I don't see that what you have posted is inconsistent with this.

What does that have to do with Parish saying " “We have never discussed replacing George." then 9 days later saying "the decision to sack George Burley wasn't a sudden one, insisting that it was made after much deliberation over the past few weeks." as an example of him not being taken at his word?

 

[fosters headband]

Tried to quote post 223, but editor window complained.

CPFC2010 have always made it clear that they are not free to discuss wages and contracts. I don't see that what you have posted is inconsistent with this.

OK I will help you
Post 223

Can you believe what he tells you though?
Here is a good example of Parish keeping the fans in the picture .


Palace co-owner Steve Parish brushes off George Burley sack rumours
Thursday, 23 December 2010 09:21. | Written by James Daly.
Eagles co-chairman Steve Parish has denied the club are on the brink of sacking manager George Burley after reports ran through the night the Scot was on his way out of Selhurst Park.
Palace were humiliated 3-0 at Nottingham Forest at the weekend, but had previously put together a run of three wins at home to stem disappointing runs during October and December.
"I honestly don’t know where they get these stories from,” Parish told the Croydon Advertiser. “We have never discussed replacing George.

Five Year Plan Fanzine - Palace co-owner Steve Parish brushes off George Burley sack rumours | News - The alternative voice for Crystal Palace fans


9 Days later he says this

Steve Parish: Sacking Burley was no knee-jerk reaction
Saturday, 01 January 2011 22:51. | Written by Robert Sutherland.
Steve Parish has stated that the decision to sack George Burley wasn't a sudden one, insisting that it was made after much deliberation over the past few weeks.


Five Year Plan Fanzine - Steve Parish: Sacking Burley was no knee-jerk reaction | News - The alternative voice for Crystal Palace fans Reply Reply With Quote .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The post taken from your Palace site proves how Parish can be less than honest as LLCoolsteve implied.

Quote 1: “We have never discussed replacing George

9 Days Later


Quote 2:the decision to sack George Burley wasn't a sudden one, insisting that it was made after much deliberation over the past few weeks.


The post had nothing to do with wages or contracts.

 

[Del Fenner]

The employment of a manager is about a contract. CPFC2010 have been clear throughout that they are not at liberty to keep fans in the picture over managers positions.

 

[TheMajor]

The employment of a manager is about a contract. CPFC2010 have been clear throughout that they are not at liberty to keep fans in the picture over managers positions.

Why not? How long does it take to send 8 e-mails?

 

[Triggaaar]

On reflection, I agree with you. I apologise, I was out of order.

Good on you

 

[Hillian1]

On reflection, I agree with you. I apologise, I was out of order.

They weren't even your words, you copy and pasted them from Windsor Eagle on BBS.

 

[Del Fenner]

They weren't even your words, you copy and pasted them from Windsor Eagle on BBS.

Correct. It was a spur of the moment whim, which I regret.

 

[Hillian1]

On reflection, I agree with you. I apologise, I was out of order.

They weren't even your words, you copy and pasted them from Windsor Eagle on BBS.

 

[Acker79]

The employment of a manager is about a contract. CPFC2010 have been clear throughout that they are not at liberty to keep fans in the picture over managers positions.

There is a difference between "I'm not going to answer that because we do not speak about contracts" and "no, we're not even thinking about firing him, never have"

But even if not, by your definition "we have never discussed replacing george" is discussing his contract. Therefore, how can you say they have been clear about not discussing when they actually are discussing it?