Board Meeting Yesterday

there must be a price for his departure, maybe this is it.

It's almost as if he saved us to make himself money...

In effect, he, and any other large shareholder, have been pocketing at least half of unbudgeted income and needlessly restricted playing budgets for 7 years, . That's before we even think of "professional fees", insider sales of part of HHP, and other little numbers learned from the great Citi swindle. Not a bad return for 4 hours a week. As a bonus, the promotion topped it all up. I don't have a problem with that bit, although it would have been charitable and sustainable to leave that value in the club for future use, rather than cashing it in . Clearly sustainability is a temorary convenient morality for some to be trashed as soon as time is called. Anybody who thinks Brent champions sustainability need just look at Citi group after he cashed in as many chips as they would allow him.
That's how his sort work, they really think they're entitled to scrape any wealth they can from any community, for a few hours of their time. Hopefully the continued and incessant complaints about this man have had twopence worth of input in his decision to scarper up East. Community pressure can be very effective. They use such tactics amongst themselves

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

The meeting was to discuss the height of the Brent Statue, i believe a compromise 100 metres was agreed in the end.

I didn't know you could pile shit that high

beesrus wrote:

In effect, he, and any other large shareholder, have been pocketing at least half of unbudgeted income and needlessly restricted playing budgets for 7 years, . That's before we even think of "professional fees", insider sales of part of HHP, and other little numbers learned from the great Citi swindle. Not a bad return for 4 hours a week. As a bonus, the promotion topped it all up. I don't have a problem with that bit, although it would have been charitable and sustainable to leave that value in the club for future use, rather than cashing it in . Clearly sustainability is a temorary convenient morality for some to be trashed as soon as time is called. Anybody who thinks Brent champions sustainability need just look at Citi group after he cashed in as many chips as they would allow him.
That's how his sort work, they really think they're entitled to scrape any wealth they can from any community, for a few hours of their time. Hopefully the continued and incessant complaints about this man have had twopence worth of input in his decision to scarper up East. Community pressure can be very effective. They use such tactics amongst themselves

Thats been my theory for a long time however it's a hard one to prove with the accounts being limited to a fag packet.

Earwegoagain wrote:

beesrus wrote:

In effect, he, and any other large shareholder, have been pocketing at least half of unbudgeted income and needlessly restricted playing budgets for 7 years, . That's before we even think of "professional fees", insider sales of part of HHP, and other little numbers learned from the great Citi swindle. Not a bad return for 4 hours a week. As a bonus, the promotion topped it all up. I don't have a problem with that bit, although it would have been charitable and sustainable to leave that value in the club for future use, rather than cashing it in . Clearly sustainability is a temorary convenient morality for some to be trashed as soon as time is called. Anybody who thinks Brent champions sustainability need just look at Citi group after he cashed in as many chips as they would allow him.
That's how his sort work, they really think they're entitled to scrape any wealth they can from any community, for a few hours of their time. Hopefully the continued and incessant complaints about this man have had twopence worth of input in his decision to scarper up East. Community pressure can be very effective. They use such tactics amongst themselves

Thats been my theory for a long time however it's a hard one to prove with the accounts being limited to a fag packet.

And by awarding the willing Derek an improved personal contract and increased responsibilities, he shifted all things football onto him and sits back with pockets bulging and more to come, should SH find the investment to take the club on an upward trajectory, on and off the pitch.

Personal profit has always been his raison d'etre and the way he used the Windsor Boys to shield him and create the bucket rattling, wannabe culture, was as obvious from day one as it still is today.

What the "club critical" Windsor boys? Lol.

Earwegoagain wrote:

beesrus wrote:

In effect, he, and any other large shareholder, have been pocketing at least half of unbudgeted income and needlessly restricted playing budgets for 7 years, . That's before we even think of "professional fees", insider sales of part of HHP, and other little numbers learned from the great Citi swindle. Not a bad return for 4 hours a week. As a bonus, the promotion topped it all up. I don't have a problem with that bit, although it would have been charitable and sustainable to leave that value in the club for future use, rather than cashing it in . Clearly sustainability is a temorary convenient morality for some to be trashed as soon as time is called. Anybody who thinks Brent champions sustainability need just look at Citi group after he cashed in as many chips as they would allow him.
That's how his sort work, they really think they're entitled to scrape any wealth they can from any community, for a few hours of their time. Hopefully the continued and incessant complaints about this man have had twopence worth of input in his decision to scarper up East. Community pressure can be very effective. They use such tactics amongst themselves

Thats been my theory for a long time however it's a hard one to prove with the accounts being limited to a fag packet.

And me, I'm interested to know why despite all the unbudgeted income last season we only made a profit of £32,000.

Hugh Watt wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

beesrus wrote:

In effect, he, and any other large shareholder, have been pocketing at least half of unbudgeted income and needlessly restricted playing budgets for 7 years, . That's before we even think of "professional fees", insider sales of part of HHP, and other little numbers learned from the great Citi swindle. Not a bad return for 4 hours a week. As a bonus, the promotion topped it all up. I don't have a problem with that bit, although it would have been charitable and sustainable to leave that value in the club for future use, rather than cashing it in . Clearly sustainability is a temorary convenient morality for some to be trashed as soon as time is called. Anybody who thinks Brent champions sustainability need just look at Citi group after he cashed in as many chips as they would allow him.
That's how his sort work, they really think they're entitled to scrape any wealth they can from any community, for a few hours of their time. Hopefully the continued and incessant complaints about this man have had twopence worth of input in his decision to scarper up East. Community pressure can be very effective. They use such tactics amongst themselves

Thats been my theory for a long time however it's a hard one to prove with the accounts being limited to a fag packet.

And me, I'm interested to know why despite all the unbudgeted income last season we only made a profit of £32,000.

Hallett said that unbudgeted income had been spent on the training ground, the new roof and 'day to day running expenses'.

Earwegoagain wrote:

What the "club critical" Windsor boys? Lol.

Tbeyll fall into in line soon enough

Tringreen wrote:

Hallett said that unbudgeted income had been spent on the training ground, the new roof and 'day to day running expenses'.

I seem to remember there were a lot of those day to day running expenses under Todd and Gardner. All that expertise soon mounts up.
Just putting the Liverpool new roof money into the team in January of this year would have seen Argyle into the play offs and quite probably the championship. The original idea agreed by everyone was not to put day to day operating profits into the "new grandstand" that was supposed to be " free to the club". Brent, and maybe Hallett too, couldn't resist dipping, they'd never seen such easy immediate cash. Gotta look after the shareholders first and foremost, it's the law.

Tringreen wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

beesrus wrote:

In effect, he, and any other large shareholder, have been pocketing at least half of unbudgeted income and needlessly restricted playing budgets for 7 years, . That's before we even think of "professional fees", insider sales of part of HHP, and other little numbers learned from the great Citi swindle. Not a bad return for 4 hours a week. As a bonus, the promotion topped it all up. I don't have a problem with that bit, although it would have been charitable and sustainable to leave that value in the club for future use, rather than cashing it in . Clearly sustainability is a temorary convenient morality for some to be trashed as soon as time is called. Anybody who thinks Brent champions sustainability need just look at Citi group after he cashed in as many chips as they would allow him.
That's how his sort work, they really think they're entitled to scrape any wealth they can from any community, for a few hours of their time. Hopefully the continued and incessant complaints about this man have had twopence worth of input in his decision to scarper up East. Community pressure can be very effective. They use such tactics amongst themselves

Thats been my theory for a long time however it's a hard one to prove with the accounts being limited to a fag packet.

And me, I'm interested to know why despite all the unbudgeted income last season we only made a profit of £32,000.

Hallett said that unbudgeted income had been spent on the training ground, the new roof and 'day to day running expenses'.

So two so called top businessmen did a budget that didn't cover day to day expenses? Believe that, you'll believe anything.

beesrus wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Hallett said that unbudgeted income had been spent on the training ground, the new roof and 'day to day running expenses'.

I seem to remember there were a lot of those day to day running expenses under Todd and Gardner. All that expertise soon mounts up.
Just putting the Liverpool new roof money into the team in January of this year would have seen Argyle into the play offs and quite probably the championship. The original idea agreed by everyone was not to put day to day operating profits into the "new grandstand" that was supposed to be " free to the club". Brent, and maybe Hallett too, couldn't resist dipping, they'd never seen such easy immediate cash. Gotta look after the shareholders first and foremost, it's the law.

"Other Operating Costs"

Them other operating costs what like lending 150k of club money to the pavilions to start up that ticketing company Brent & Starnes ..still wonder if that went back to the club and what intrest did jim charge himself on that as it was on the club accounts the few that they did show...while all along the team starved of money...150k hmm!! That would have got us a decent L1 striker or a Centre back or even given Bradley & Thelkeld the extra £1000 wk