Reality check. Brent's abuse.

Was it unwarranted? Maybe a bit of the worst stuff but generally the abuse I gave him was for siding with Nool and actively encouraging the split in the fanbase, being primarily concerned with assett stripping the club and property ventures for his own personal gain and just being a shite owner the current shit heap of a team we have at present kinda vindicates these views. I think Brent has got off very lightly indeed.

Having spent his entire reign in a directors box atop an empty terrace I'd say he's got off very lightly indeed.

Most other chairmen of Argyle have had plenty off abuse hurled up at them from the Mayflower at one time or another.

He didnt get it hard enough

As Greeny says others have had far worse. Macauley got dogs abuse for ages.

Seven years of crap six spent in the basement, i would say it was the fans that were abused.

If other fans, and the AFT in particular, haven't made enough waves, boycotted, or whatever people do, that's their lookout.
Usually brent's sort build castles with thick walls to keep the arrows out. He couldn't afford to build one, so created a demilitarised zone in the Mayflower terrace. It does work to  a certain extent on match days, but the internet does help in breaching these old fashioned defences, despite the freak and weirdo portrayals. Considering my distaste for the modern Argyle project aligned with my internet presence, community dissing and 95% consumer boycott,  I'm quite happy with my input. If every previous regular had done the same, brent would have long gone, so my conscience is clear. I suspect Sir Frank is not reassessing his revisionist stance, but then he's a revisionist, and probably quite suited to the AFT policy of pointless and counter-productive "engagement". Each to their own.

Now the manager and owners have been forced to mingle with the customers, I'm sure the ire will increase, and so it should. You match goers owe it to your club.

All rather Depraved and Poisonous wasn't it ?

For running the club into the ground what brent got was nothing. If he'd been at, say, Cardiff then he'd have something to make his lip wobble.

BRENT 100% OUT NOW

As far as I can see, he screwed the staff at the club by not paying any part of their back wages when he took over and sticking to the letter of the Football creditors rule. Reidy was also pushed out (and lost money) on the basis of "you don't agree the club will fold and it'll be YOUR fault," same with some players and other staff apparently. Used a couple of scumbags to give the far from true impression that his takeover was the only way the club would survive, and has spent the last seven years running the club on a shoestring and threatening PCC with "the club will fold if you don't help out" every time he needed cash for anything, despite top six attendances, transfer and cup tie income-as far as I'm aware Blisset at £15k is the top transfer fee of his term at the helm.

The question should be "how the feck did he get such an easy ride?"

Allowing Chris the throbbing loverod to run off with a players wife during his tenure was weak to say the least.

deserved it all apart from when someone called him a nonce

Jethro wrote:

deserved it all apart from when someone called him a nonce

I think most people would agree with that especially Nool or Conehead who were probably the agent provocateurs responsible.

Brent has escaped with far too easy a ride in my opinion and doubtless to say he'll be walking away with the club still in mess, a Grandstand in bits and with a shitload of readies.

Never agreed with personal abuse to Brent or anyone else. Criticisms and campaigns- no problem with that at all but, apart from being wrong,there would be an argument that dishing out abuse can be counter productive in getting,shall we say, less committed people to see your point of view.Very frustrating at times and must admit to having the odd lapse here and there but as a general rule of thumb then personal stuff would not be the recommended way to go IMHO.

When I first read the tittle of this thread, I thought it referred to brent's behaviour. I agree with Punchy, actual "abuse" toward the chairman has been very rare indeed, unless one thinks it's abusive to call a greedy banker, a greedy banker.... pardon me for being so rude while someone asset strips the community club I've followed for 50 years. Dear oh dear LOL.
Change in anything has never been won by the "less committed", for a myriad of reasons, they just go along with whatever status quo presents itself.
Ejecting people from stadiums for contrived reasons is far more abusive. Going along with people contacting fans' employers for legally held views is FAR MORE abusive, and as for hacking peoples' internet addresses and sendign white feathers to dying souls, I despair. The "abuse" description needs to be aimed straight where it started, and where it has been condoned and encouraged for years.