The Mankover all action Thread.

Work starts in a few weeks time according to his lordship in his paper.

Angry wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Greenlander wrote:

I'm led to believe that our beloved leader gave a speech to assembled business gurus on Thursday evening (along with representatives from Sutton Harbour re: airport and lock gates - short story they're skint and Dan Macauley's Drakes Island dreamers short story pie in the sky) and two things stand out:

1) He implied that he's not an altruistic owner and is running Argyle as a business (no surprise there) and that...
2) Championship clubs lose on average £10 million a season so if he ran Argyle at that level for 10 years he'd lose £100 mill (no shit sherlock) so will not run Argyle as Championship side.

Apparently the Sutton Harbour guy got all the grief so Potter got off easily. He as good as said he's in it for the money and won't spend anything unless he can turn a profit.

He's taking the piss now, standing in front of a Plymouth audience and saying this shite.

To be fair to Brent he has never said anything different so this is hardly news. In fact I wouldn't even criticise him for it. What sticks in the craw is that any profit is obviously intended to go directly into his pension fund whereas I'd like to see it reinvested into the club.

This is where he and I diverge: for me it is all 100% about Argyle; for Brent it is all 100% about his bottom line.

No matter who might say what the two are not the same thing.

The difference between a businessman and the likes of Brent is that the businessman purs up a bit of his capital in the hope he makes a profit. Brent has invested feck all in this club and when the club has turned a profit it has gone into his pension pot with no risk taken whatsoever. He’s the lowest of the low

Id make it a criminal offence to refer to him as a businessman.

best just to refer him as a parasite

Angry wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Greenlander wrote:

I'm led to believe that our beloved leader gave a speech to assembled business gurus on Thursday evening (along with representatives from Sutton Harbour re: airport and lock gates - short story they're skint and Dan Macauley's Drakes Island dreamers short story pie in the sky) and two things stand out:

1) He implied that he's not an altruistic owner and is running Argyle as a business (no surprise there) and that...
2) Championship clubs lose on average £10 million a season so if he ran Argyle at that level for 10 years he'd lose £100 mill (no shit sherlock) so will not run Argyle as Championship side.

Apparently the Sutton Harbour guy got all the grief so Potter got off easily. He as good as said he's in it for the money and won't spend anything unless he can turn a profit.

He's taking the piss now, standing in front of a Plymouth audience and saying this shite.

To be fair to Brent he has never said anything different so this is hardly news. In fact I wouldn't even criticise him for it. What sticks in the craw is that any profit is obviously intended to go directly into his pension fund whereas I'd like to see it reinvested into the club.

This is where he and I diverge: for me it is all 100% about Argyle; for Brent it is all 100% about his bottom line.

No matter who might say what the two are not the same thing.

The difference between a businessman and the likes of Brent is that the businessman purs up a bit of his capital in the hope he makes a profit. Brent has invested feck all in this club and when the club has turned a profit it has gone into his pension pot with no risk taken whatsoever. He’s the lowest of the low

Id make it a criminal offence to refer to him as a businessman.

Whilst perusing the Western Morning News this afternoon in the Cider Bar I noticed in the inevitable Brent pushing article he was referred to as
the "Argyle supremo".

Greenlander wrote:

I'm led to believe that our beloved leader gave a speech to assembled business gurus on Thursday evening (along with representatives from Sutton Harbour re: airport and lock gates - short story they're skint and Dan Macauley's Drakes Island dreamers short story pie in the sky) and two things stand out:

1) He implied that he's not an altruistic owner and is running Argyle as a business (no surprise there) and that...
2) Championship clubs lose on average £10 million a season so if he ran Argyle at that level for 10 years he'd lose £100 mill (no shit sherlock) so will not run Argyle as Championship side.

Apparently the Sutton Harbour guy got all the grief so Potter got off easily. He as good as said he's in it for the money and won't spend anything unless he can turn a profit.

He's taking the piss now, standing in front of a Plymouth audience and saying this shite.

This is just the sort of thing that is killing this football club in the eyes of a lot of supporters. No matter how well the club does on the pitch, there is always Brent in the background working out how to make money out of the club's success, and out of the fans. Whilst he's here the club will never be successful, he's said he doesn't want to get to the CCC, he's happy to milk 10,000 supporters every fortnight, as well as all the nice unbudgeted income which seems to mysteriously disappear.

What are the rest of the board doing? Wrathall's a fan, surely he must see through him - and Hallett, supposed long time Argyle supporter with more nous (it seems) than Brent will ever have, is he just sitting back and letting it happen?

We've all known it for a long time, but Brent is something very rotten at the heart of this football club, and when he can make no more money he'll let the club die and move on to his next devious scheme.

Thoroughly depressing......some truth perhaps in the age old rumour spouted by generations of battle weary Argyle bheys that the club has always been purposely held back by the fear of too much success costing money.

The shyster is clearly saying if we have further success e.g promotion to the Championship (totally possible with investment and ambition) then it will cost TOO much money.
In which case just feck off Brent and let someone else take the club forward because it aint you.

akagreengull wrote:

The shyster is clearly saying if we have further success e.g promotion to the Championship (totally possible with investment and ambition) then it will cost TOO much money.
In which case just feck off Brent and let someone else take the club forward because it aint you.

He will leave as soon as some coont cuts the ribbon to open his clusterfucks, its a certainity. He will have no reason to stay put as he is only here for hte property theclub is an unwanted red head step child who cant hide the fact he has destain for it.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Greenlander wrote:

I'm led to believe that our beloved leader gave a speech to assembled business gurus on Thursday evening (along with representatives from Sutton Harbour re: airport and lock gates - short story they're skint and Dan Macauley's Drakes Island dreamers short story pie in the sky) and two things stand out:

1) He implied that he's not an altruistic owner and is running Argyle as a business (no surprise there) and that...
2) Championship clubs lose on average £10 million a season so if he ran Argyle at that level for 10 years he'd lose £100 mill (no shit sherlock) so will not run Argyle as Championship side.

Apparently the Sutton Harbour guy got all the grief so Potter got off easily. He as good as said he's in it for the money and won't spend anything unless he can turn a profit.

He's taking the piss now, standing in front of a Plymouth audience and saying this shite.

To be fair to Brent he has never said anything different so this is hardly news. In fact I wouldn't even criticise him for it. What sticks in the craw is that any profit is obviously intended to go directly into his pension fund whereas I'd like to see it reinvested into the club.

This is where he and I diverge: for me it is all 100% about Argyle; for Brent it is all 100% about his bottom line.

No matter who might say what the two are not the same thing.

Sir Francis. Has Brent got his money back yet?

Roll up roll up ! come see ex banker in his next bottom trawling financial escapade. See how he pushes and pushes to get extra permissions and bits of parkland for his own concrete use. Will he build it himself, or will he take the middle term uplift. Will he succeed in keeping the local football club from any recompense ? Will he invite compliant fans into the boardroom ? Enhanced Sim City play patterns for the parochially challenged. Watch paint dry utilising the latest algorithms. All this and more if you subscribe now.
More fun than a poke in the eye with a hot poker. Football is just soooooo yesterday. Footfall is the next big thing.

Made me larf so it did 'parochially challenged'

akagreengull wrote:

Angry wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Greenlander wrote:

I'm led to believe that our beloved leader gave a speech to assembled business gurus on Thursday evening (along with representatives from Sutton Harbour re: airport and lock gates - short story they're skint and Dan Macauley's Drakes Island dreamers short story pie in the sky) and two things stand out:

1) He implied that he's not an altruistic owner and is running Argyle as a business (no surprise there) and that...
2) Championship clubs lose on average £10 million a season so if he ran Argyle at that level for 10 years he'd lose £100 mill (no shit sherlock) so will not run Argyle as Championship side.

Apparently the Sutton Harbour guy got all the grief so Potter got off easily. He as good as said he's in it for the money and won't spend anything unless he can turn a profit.

He's taking the piss now, standing in front of a Plymouth audience and saying this shite.

To be fair to Brent he has never said anything different so this is hardly news. In fact I wouldn't even criticise him for it. What sticks in the craw is that any profit is obviously intended to go directly into his pension fund whereas I'd like to see it reinvested into the club.

This is where he and I diverge: for me it is all 100% about Argyle; for Brent it is all 100% about his bottom line.

No matter who might say what the two are not the same thing.

The difference between a businessman and the likes of Brent is that the businessman purs up a bit of his capital in the hope he makes a profit. Brent has invested feck all in this club and when the club has turned a profit it has gone into his pension pot with no risk taken whatsoever. He’s the lowest of the low

Id make it a criminal offence to refer to him as a businessman.

Whilst perusing the Western Morning News this afternoon in the Cider Bar I noticed in the inevitable Brent pushing article he was referred to as
the "Argyle supremo".

Supremo? Embarrassing.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Greenlander wrote:

I'm led to believe that our beloved leader gave a speech to assembled business gurus on Thursday evening (along with representatives from Sutton Harbour re: airport and lock gates - short story they're skint and Dan Macauley's Drakes Island dreamers short story pie in the sky) and two things stand out:

1) He implied that he's not an altruistic owner and is running Argyle as a business (no surprise there) and that...
2) Championship clubs lose on average £10 million a season so if he ran Argyle at that level for 10 years he'd lose £100 mill (no shit sherlock) so will not run Argyle as Championship side.

Apparently the Sutton Harbour guy got all the grief so Potter got off easily. He as good as said he's in it for the money and won't spend anything unless he can turn a profit.

He's taking the piss now, standing in front of a Plymouth audience and saying this shite.

To be fair to Brent he has never said anything different so this is hardly news. In fact I wouldn't even criticise him for it. What sticks in the craw is that any profit is obviously intended to go directly into his pension fund whereas I'd like to see it reinvested into the club.

This is where he and I diverge: for me it is all 100% about Argyle; for Brent it is all 100% about his bottom line.

No matter who might say what the two are not the same thing.

This is the thing. I remember listening to him talk in the Pyramid Lounge before the takeover, and he basically said that he didn't have much money, the club would have to wash its own face, any promotions would be achieved on free transfers and loans, and he'd sell on if we ever reached the Championship. Given all that, I've always found it tough to criticise him for not pumping money in, because he told us about it up front.

The thing that gets me is that he also said that the club would be run openly and transparently, with genuine fan involvement, and profits reinvested. Have any of those things happened? Not from where I'm standing.

I don't think they'll want to actively avoid promotion. It should be possible for an enterprising soul to sell some foreign consortium on a city the size of Plymouth, and club the size of Argyle, once they are one step removed from the silly money of the top flight. However, I don't see them speculating to accumulate when the club ticks over nicely, and we have a team and manager who seem to be out-performing their budget.

Elias wrote:

akagreengull wrote:

Angry wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Greenlander wrote:

I'm led to believe that our beloved leader gave a speech to assembled business gurus on Thursday evening (along with representatives from Sutton Harbour re: airport and lock gates - short story they're skint and Dan Macauley's Drakes Island dreamers short story pie in the sky) and two things stand out:

1) He implied that he's not an altruistic owner and is running Argyle as a business (no surprise there) and that...
2) Championship clubs lose on average £10 million a season so if he ran Argyle at that level for 10 years he'd lose £100 mill (no shit sherlock) so will not run Argyle as Championship side.

Apparently the Sutton Harbour guy got all the grief so Potter got off easily. He as good as said he's in it for the money and won't spend anything unless he can turn a profit.

He's taking the piss now, standing in front of a Plymouth audience and saying this shite.

To be fair to Brent he has never said anything different so this is hardly news. In fact I wouldn't even criticise him for it. What sticks in the craw is that any profit is obviously intended to go directly into his pension fund whereas I'd like to see it reinvested into the club.

This is where he and I diverge: for me it is all 100% about Argyle; for Brent it is all 100% about his bottom line.

No matter who might say what the two are not the same thing.

The difference between a businessman and the likes of Brent is that the businessman purs up a bit of his capital in the hope he makes a profit. Brent has invested feck all in this club and when the club has turned a profit it has gone into his pension pot with no risk taken whatsoever. He’s the lowest of the low

Id make it a criminal offence to refer to him as a businessman.

Whilst perusing the Western Morning News this afternoon in the Cider Bar I noticed in the inevitable Brent pushing article he was referred to as
the "Argyle supremo".

Supremo? Embarrassing.

It actually said 'club supremo' to be factually correct which I think is even worse.

MikeWN wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Greenlander wrote:

I'm led to believe that our beloved leader gave a speech to assembled business gurus on Thursday evening (along with representatives from Sutton Harbour re: airport and lock gates - short story they're skint and Dan Macauley's Drakes Island dreamers short story pie in the sky) and two things stand out:

1) He implied that he's not an altruistic owner and is running Argyle as a business (no surprise there) and that...
2) Championship clubs lose on average £10 million a season so if he ran Argyle at that level for 10 years he'd lose £100 mill (no shit sherlock) so will not run Argyle as Championship side.

Apparently the Sutton Harbour guy got all the grief so Potter got off easily. He as good as said he's in it for the money and won't spend anything unless he can turn a profit.

He's taking the piss now, standing in front of a Plymouth audience and saying this shite.

To be fair to Brent he has never said anything different so this is hardly news. In fact I wouldn't even criticise him for it. What sticks in the craw is that any profit is obviously intended to go directly into his pension fund whereas I'd like to see it reinvested into the club.

This is where he and I diverge: for me it is all 100% about Argyle; for Brent it is all 100% about his bottom line.

No matter who might say what the two are not the same thing.

This is the thing. I remember listening to him talk in the Pyramid Lounge before the takeover, and he basically said that he didn't have much money, the club would have to wash its own face, any promotions would be achieved on free transfers and loans, and he'd sell on if we ever reached the Championship. Given all that, I've always found it tough to criticise him for  not pumping money in, because he told us about it up front.

The thing that gets me is that he also said that the club would be run openly and transparently, with genuine fan involvement, and profits reinvested. Have any of those things happened? Not from where I'm standing.

I don't think they'll want to actively avoid promotion. It should be possible for an enterprising soul to sell some foreign consortium on a city the size of Plymouth, and club the size of Argyle, once they are one step removed from the silly money of the top flight. However, I don't see them speculating to accumulate when the club ticks over nicely, and we have a team and manager who seem to be out-performing their budget.

He has no right to hold this club back cause he cant afford it. Sell up now and feck off is my message to him.

MikeWN wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Greenlander wrote:

I'm led to believe that our beloved leader gave a speech to assembled business gurus on Thursday evening (along with representatives from Sutton Harbour re: airport and lock gates - short story they're skint and Dan Macauley's Drakes Island dreamers short story pie in the sky) and two things stand out:

1) He implied that he's not an altruistic owner and is running Argyle as a business (no surprise there) and that...
2) Championship clubs lose on average £10 million a season so if he ran Argyle at that level for 10 years he'd lose £100 mill (no shit sherlock) so will not run Argyle as Championship side.

Apparently the Sutton Harbour guy got all the grief so Potter got off easily. He as good as said he's in it for the money and won't spend anything unless he can turn a profit.

He's taking the piss now, standing in front of a Plymouth audience and saying this shite.

To be fair to Brent he has never said anything different so this is hardly news. In fact I wouldn't even criticise him for it. What sticks in the craw is that any profit is obviously intended to go directly into his pension fund whereas I'd like to see it reinvested into the club.

This is where he and I diverge: for me it is all 100% about Argyle; for Brent it is all 100% about his bottom line.

No matter who might say what the two are not the same thing.

This is the thing. I remember listening to him talk in the Pyramid Lounge before the takeover, and he basically said that he didn't have much money, the club would have to wash its own face, any promotions would be achieved on free transfers and loans, and he'd sell on if we ever reached the Championship. Given all that, I've always found it tough to criticise him for  not pumping money in, because he told us about it up front.

The thing that gets me is that he also said that the club would be run openly and transparently, with genuine fan involvement, and profits reinvested. Have any of those things happened? Not from where I'm standing.

I don't think they'll want to actively avoid promotion. It should be possible for an enterprising soul to sell some foreign consortium on a city the size of Plymouth, and club the size of Argyle, once they are one step removed from the silly money of the top flight. However, I don't see them speculating to accumulate when the club ticks over nicely, and we have a team and manager who seem to be out-performing their budget.

Precisely - the shyster excuse for an owner has a vested interest in keeping it ticking over and his idea of transparency is inaccurate articles in the daily rag and Porky peddling biased crap on Pispotti.

Brent is not fit for purpose as owner. If he can't invest in the playing side - minimum requirement of being owner - then he needs to immediately sell up and piss off out of my club.

BRENT OUT NOW

Apparently tenders have been returned, no word when award will be or even who has bid the project.

Hugh Watt wrote:

Apparently tenders have been returned, no word when award will be or even who has bid the project.

The Brents on Screen nerds had better make the most of their Crane and Shed Jizzfest, because no actual work is going to happen anytime soon!

Angry wrote:

MikeWN wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Greenlander wrote:

I'm led to believe that our beloved leader gave a speech to assembled business gurus on Thursday evening (along with representatives from Sutton Harbour re: airport and lock gates - short story they're skint and Dan Macauley's Drakes Island dreamers short story pie in the sky) and two things stand out:

1) He implied that he's not an altruistic owner and is running Argyle as a business (no surprise there) and that...
2) Championship clubs lose on average £10 million a season so if he ran Argyle at that level for 10 years he'd lose £100 mill (no shit sherlock) so will not run Argyle as Championship side.

Apparently the Sutton Harbour guy got all the grief so Potter got off easily. He as good as said he's in it for the money and won't spend anything unless he can turn a profit.

He's taking the piss now, standing in front of a Plymouth audience and saying this shite.

To be fair to Brent he has never said anything different so this is hardly news. In fact I wouldn't even criticise him for it. What sticks in the craw is that any profit is obviously intended to go directly into his pension fund whereas I'd like to see it reinvested into the club.

This is where he and I diverge: for me it is all 100% about Argyle; for Brent it is all 100% about his bottom line.

No matter who might say what the two are not the same thing.

This is the thing. I remember listening to him talk in the Pyramid Lounge before the takeover, and he basically said that he didn't have much money, the club would have to wash its own face, any promotions would be achieved on free transfers and loans, and he'd sell on if we ever reached the Championship. Given all that, I've always found it tough to criticise him for  not pumping money in, because he told us about it up front.

The thing that gets me is that he also said that the club would be run openly and transparently, with genuine fan involvement, and profits reinvested. Have any of those things happened? Not from where I'm standing.

I don't think they'll want to actively avoid promotion. It should be possible for an enterprising soul to sell some foreign consortium on a city the size of Plymouth, and club the size of Argyle, once they are one step removed from the silly money of the top flight. However, I don't see them speculating to accumulate when the club ticks over nicely, and we have a team and manager who seem to be out-performing their budget.

He has no right to hold this club back cause he cant afford it. Sell up now and feck off is my message to him.

If he can't afford it doesn't that put the club at risk of what happened before him,

Maybe my overactive mind is taking it too far but if he took use to the wall wtf is he planning to do with the Stadium.....

Seven weeks have been and gone is the Mankover just a con ?

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

Seven weeks have been and gone is the Mankover just a con ?

apparently it had a cash boost of over £100,000 lately.

Angry wrote:

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

Seven weeks have been and gone is the Mankover just a con ?

apparently it had a cash boost of over £100,000 lately.

£125k, actually!

Jimmy gets his fifty!!! fifty days have now passed since the green light, so when is the start date and who is the Main Contractor?

Taken from Dec 2017 report

Discussions have been ongoing with one main contractor to oversee the stadium and ice arena projects while the plans have gone through the democratic process.

Therefore, the hope is work starts very quickly from here. Brent has encouraged that contractor, which remains confidential for now, to engage with a Plymouth supply chain.

“I should just caution it. The disappointment for me, or the public disappointment for me, is if we don’t start on site in a meaningful way in the first quarter of next year, so by the end of March,” said Brent.

Tgwu wrote:

Taken from Dec 2017 report

Discussions have been ongoing with one main contractor to oversee the stadium and ice arena projects while the plans have gone through the democratic process.

Therefore, the hope is work starts very quickly from here. Brent has encouraged that contractor, which remains confidential for now, to engage with a Plymouth supply chain.

“I should just caution it. The disappointment for me, or the public disappointment for me, is if we don’t start on site in a meaningful way in the first quarter of next year, so by the end of March,” said Brent.

A day of celebration is called for on March the thirty first, to celebrate the Non Mankover, Jimmy is preparing the devoted to be disappointed