James Brent on Spotlight Tonight

If he feels that breaking the wage cap is cheating then we may aswel get used to floating between League 2 and the conference!! Unbelievable!!

He must be the only chairman in the entire football league who won't bend the rules to ensure the safety of his team!

Here's to another decade of shite then!

The general fan base that use pasoti will have all this trust in Brent shite come back and bite them in the bum. The early Stapleton years were very much more open and honest than Brent has been so far. My average bill for Argo related activities with the family is between £500 and £1000 a year, am I allowed to ask questions like, are we keeping our heads above water? Am I Feck, I am a coward and troll, Grovey is a boring troll for going on about the same old stuff yet no one will answer the questions that matter, too many heads where the sun don't shine I am afraid.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

I don't see anyone actually wanting Argyle to be languishing in the lower reaches. Everyone without exception wants them back up the leagues to where most seem to think we belong.

Should have gone to Specsavers !

Iggy wrote:

The general fan base that use pasoti will have all this trust in Brent shite come back and bite them in the bum. The early Stapleton years were very much more open and honest than Brent has been so far. My average bill for Argo related activities with the family is between £500 and £1000 a year, am I allowed to ask questions like, are we keeping our heads above water? Am I Feck, I am a coward and troll, Grovey is a boring troll for going on about the same old stuff yet no one will answer the questions that matter, too many heads where the sun don't shine I am afraid.

Pasoti for me is now the official forum of PAFC and anything that doesn't tow the party line is now edited or removed.

Such a shame because just a few years ago pasoti was viewed as the anti-christ by the club because it did just what ATD does now, ask the questions they don't want to hear.

Pasoti has sold it's soul, but ATD is now here to pick up where it left off and we won't be fobbed off "Trust in Brent, enjoy the ride". We'll continue to question where needed.

Yea Man wrote:

Iggy wrote:

The general fan base that use pasoti will have all this trust in Brent shite come back and bite them in the bum. The early Stapleton years were very much more open and honest than Brent has been so far. My average bill for Argo related activities with the family is between £500 and £1000 a year, am I allowed to ask questions like, are we keeping our heads above water? Am I Feck, I am a coward and troll, Grovey is a boring troll for going on about the same old stuff yet no one will answer the questions that matter, too many heads where the sun don't shine I am afraid.

Pasoti for me is now the official forum of PAFC and anything that doesn't tow the party line is now edited or removed.

Such a shame because just a few years ago pasoti was viewed as the anti-christ by the club because it did just what ATD does now, ask the questions they don't want to hear.

Pasoti has sold it's soul, but ATD is now here to pick up where it left off and we won't be fobbed off "Trust in Brent, enjoy the ride". We'll continue to question where needed.

It's a great shame but it's now time to leave Pasoti behind to discuss the colour of the flag and how many are going to the next away match.

The important thing is that the fans have a place to voice an opinion, debate and argue the toss, ask questions and to be heard, we now have that once again and we can carry on where Pasoti left off all those years ago.

Iggy wrote:

The general fan base that use pasoti will have all this trust in Brent shite come back and bite them in the bum. The early Stapleton years were very much more open and honest than Brent has been so far. My average bill for Argo related activities with the family is between £500 and £1000 a year, am I allowed to ask questions like, are we keeping our heads above water? Am I Feck, I am a coward and troll, Grovey is a boring troll for going on about the same old stuff yet no one will answer the questions that matter, too many heads where the sun don't shine I am afraid.

And you hide behind a pseudonym, so says "The Nightfly"

So the gist of some of the arguments on here is 'We want him to be open, honest and operate with integrity with us but, with regard to the wage cap you want him to be devious, dishonest and operate with a lack of integrity'.

Have I got that right?

knecht wrote:

So the gist of some of the arguments on here is 'We want him to be open, honest and operate with integrity with us but, with regard to the wage cap you want him to be devious, dishonest and operate with a lack of integrity'.

Have I got that right?

Is it devious, dishonest and lacking integrity to offer a large signing on fee Knecht? Where in the rule book does it state that large signing on fees are not permitted?

knecht wrote:

So the gist of some of the arguments on here is 'We want him to be open, honest and operate with integrity with us but, with regard to the wage cap you want him to be devious, dishonest and operate with a lack of integrity'.

Have I got that right?

I think you have pretty much covered the bases there.

Boy you have got a lot of "I want it and I want it now" boys haven't you ?

I should have thought that after what you had been through you boys might have had a little humility, done your time, then come back rehabilitated, bit like that crew from up the road.

GOB wrote:

knecht wrote:

So the gist of some of the arguments on here is 'We want him to be open, honest and operate with integrity with us but, with regard to the wage cap you want him to be devious, dishonest and operate with a lack of integrity'.

Have I got that right?

Is it devious, dishonest and lacking integrity to offer a large signing on fee Knecht? Where in the rule book does it state that large signing on fees are not permitted?

Sorry, I was responding not just to your comment but to lots of others put more strongly on here in the past.

I actually don't know if large signing-on fees are permitted or would count towards the 55%. I also don't know what would constitute a "large" signing on fee in Div 2.

Greenjock wrote:

Iggy wrote:

The general fan base that use pasoti will have all this trust in Brent shite come back and bite them in the bum. The early Stapleton years were very much more open and honest than Brent has been so far. My average bill for Argo related activities with the family is between £500 and £1000 a year, am I allowed to ask questions like, are we keeping our heads above water? Am I Feck, I am a coward and troll, Grovey is a boring troll for going on about the same old stuff yet no one will answer the questions that matter, too many heads where the sun don't shine I am afraid.

And you hide behind a pseudonym, so says "The Nightfly"

I did laugh at that comment from nightfly, say Iggy cannot be taken seriously for posting behind a pseudonym yet does so himself!!

knecht wrote:

GOB wrote:

knecht wrote:

So the gist of some of the arguments on here is 'We want him to be open, honest and operate with integrity with us but, with regard to the wage cap you want him to be devious, dishonest and operate with a lack of integrity'.

Have I got that right?

Is it devious, dishonest and lacking integrity to offer a large signing on fee Knecht? Where in the rule book does it state that large signing on fees are not permitted?

Sorry, I was responding not just to your comment but to lots of others put more strongly on here in the past.

I actually don't know if large signing-on fees are permitted or would count towards the 55%. I also don't know what would constitute a "large" signing on fee in Div 2.

Large signing on fees are permitted as are sponsorship deals that make the wage cap a recognised waste of space and are frequently used by clubs in the lowest division to gain players and overcome the wage cap. I agree that it stinks but we either join the rat race or we seek contentment in the lower leagues, Brent's views seem to suggest that we seek contentment in the lower leagues.

knecht wrote:

GOB wrote:

knecht wrote:

So the gist of some of the arguments on here is 'We want him to be open, honest and operate with integrity with us but, with regard to the wage cap you want him to be devious, dishonest and operate with a lack of integrity'.

Have I got that right?

Is it devious, dishonest and lacking integrity to offer a large signing on fee Knecht? Where in the rule book does it state that large signing on fees are not permitted?

Sorry, I was responding not just to your comment but to lots of others put more strongly on here in the past.

I actually don't know if large signing-on fees are permitted or would count towards the 55%. I also don't know what would constitute a "large" signing on fee in Div 2.

ANYTHING ABOVE 17 SAVING STAMPS AND A BUCKET OF DAIRY OFFAL... DON'T WORRY YOU'LL BE DOWN THERE LONG ENOUGH FOR IT ALL TO REGISTER, HOWEVER BY READING SOME ON HERE, THAT COULD STILL BE A VERY LONG TIME... SEE LORD TISDALES POST & DO TAKE NOTE, IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOODS, HONEST

Lord Tisdale wrote:

knecht wrote:

So the gist of some of the arguments on here is 'We want him to be open, honest and operate with integrity with us but, with regard to the wage cap you want him to be devious, dishonest and operate with a lack of integrity'.

Have I got that right?

I think you have pretty much covered the bases there.

Boy you have got a lot of "I want it and I want it now" boys haven't you ?

I should have thought that after what you had been through you boys might have had a little humility, done your time, then come back rehabilitated, bit like that crew from up the road.

I have never once demanded that Brent operates the club outside it's means, breaks or bends the wage cap, I just want to have some questions on the financial state of the club answered, once bitten twice shy an all that.

Iggy wrote:

The general fan base that use pasoti will have all this trust in Brent shite come back and bite them in the bum. The early Stapleton years were very much more open and honest than Brent has been so far. My average bill for Argo related activities with the family is between £500 and £1000 a year, am I allowed to ask questions like, are we keeping our heads above water? Am I Feck, I am a coward and troll, Grovey is a boring troll for going on about the same old stuff yet no one will answer the questions that matter, too many heads where the sun don't shine I am afraid.

That's because the majority of posters are dimwits and their leaders , are self promoting and calculating.

It's like history repeating itself, only this time, the farm thought police dare not ban for not being Aviva, as we vile scum would have a field day.

I just love the way Napoleon keeps on saying, through gritted teeth, that all opinions are welcome

Thanks to ATD things are changing. Sadly the overwhelming mentality of dull compliance, does not change.

knecht wrote:

So the gist of some of the arguments on here is 'We want him to be open, honest and operate with integrity with us but, with regard to the wage cap you want him to be devious, dishonest and operate with a lack of integrity'.

Have I got that right?

Yes. Open with those he wants to turn up and pay the bills. The other stuff can be fiddled, like everyone else does.

It's almost like the words "Trust in......" are somehow dirty and taboo. I haven't seen Brent do one thing yet that is not as he has said it would be. Just because one set of Board members shafted the club, that is the club not the supporters, then this means automatically anyone else that follows is untrustworthy and should be ridiculed? People continually talk of PAFC being a business. Well it is just like loads of other businesses that don't inform it's customers of everything they pay out for or what a tin of beans cost from the factory before they add on their profit etc. If PAFC is a business then we are only customers and actually are entitled to no more information than we would expect from any other. You may not like that and you may expect or want more but reality is there is no entitlement to it. The simple fact is that you can chose to either be a customer or not with the information you have. Numerous posters on here seem not to be a customer yet express a view about what they should be entitled to nonetheless. What actual right do you think you have to know all of Brent's financial dealings within PAFC. I would love to have some of the information people are asking for and can understand why the question is asked in the first place but I do not demand to know as a right as I don't have one.

I have said before that I neither trust nor distrust Brent. I have not been given any reason to doubt him particularly so far. I have no idea if he was the best deal in town or if some annonymous person was in the wings with a fat cheque book and was ignored. Neither has anyone else. As a customer all I can do is chose to continue with my patronage or not and hope things work out for the good. This makes me a customer (supporter) and no other name made up to sound patronising because I chose to pay my money. I would add one thing more. If another bidder was out there and the dogs of war had been released to see them off, we would have known about it as we did with Heaney for example. As there is no information about any of that I think it may be safe to assume there wasn't one. How the club was "marketed" is also an unknown and so people can make up anything they want to show how good it might have been without fear of challenge.

For those of you who can't find it on the farm, Grovehill's latest rant has been sidelined onto Terraces-presumably on the grounds that as it's questioning Brent it shouldn't be on the main board!


Sorry-can't do links

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

It's almost like the words "Trust in......" are somehow dirty and taboo. I haven't seen Brent do one thing yet that is not as he has said it would be. Just because one set of Board members shafted the club, that is the club not the supporters, then this means automatically anyone else that follows is untrustworthy and should be ridiculed? People continually talk of PAFC being a business. Well it is just like loads of other businesses that don't inform it's customers of everything they pay out for or what a tin of beans cost from the factory before they add on their profit etc. If PAFC is a business then we are only customers and actually are entitled to no more information than we would expect from any other. You may not like that and you may expect or want more but reality is there is no entitlement to it. The simple fact is that you can chose to either be a customer or not with the information you have. Numerous posters on here seem not to be a customer yet express a view about what they should be entitled to nonetheless. What actual right do you think you have to know all of Brent's financial dealings within PAFC. I would love to have some of the information people are asking for and can understand why the question is asked in the first place but I do not demand to know as a right as I don't have one.

I have said before that I neither trust nor distrust Brent. I have not been given any reason to doubt him particularly so far. I have no idea if he was the best deal in town or if some annonymous person was in the wings with a fat cheque book and was ignored. Neither has anyone else. As a customer all I can do is chose to continue with my patronage or not and hope things work out for the good. This makes me a customer (supporter) and no other name made up to sound patronising because I chose to pay my money. I would add one thing more. If another bidder was out there and the dogs of war had been released to see them off, we would have known about it as we did with Heaney for example. As there is no information about any of that I think it may be safe to assume there wasn't one. How the club was "marketed" is also an unknown and so people can make up anything they want to show how good it might have been without fear of challenge.

I'm miles away from being anti-Brent and agree with much of what you say. I do think I have the right to question though. I've earned it by chucking money into buckets and donating to the staff fund in various ways, by stumping up for a season ticket and by buying merchandise that I didn't want and could ill afford because I wanted to do my bit to keep the club going. So if out of my meagre resources I have contributed as much as I was able then I expect something similar from Brent.

I'm delighted that he saved the club. I like the idea of Argyle being placed squarely into the heart of the local community, I like the ideas about supporter involvement, I like the idea that we will try to trade ethically and live within our means but what I don't have faith in is the delivery of these notions even if the intentions are noble. There's plenty I could add to that but we have been asked to respect a truce.

Like you Sir Francis I have paid my dues in cash and did what I could when the buckets were out etc. I do not and have not denied people have a right to ask their questions but I add that as much as we the paying public have that right to ask, Brent also has a right not to supply the answer if he doesn't want to. This demanding of answers is just a non starter whether people wish to withold their custom until they get one or not.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

People continually talk of PAFC being a business. Well it is just like loads of other businesses that don't inform it's customers of everything they pay out for or what a tin of beans cost from the factory before they add on their profit etc. If PAFC is a business then we are only customers and actually are entitled to no more information than we would expect from any other.

The problem with that argument is that increasing numbers of people are being more and more choosy about the businesses they hand their hard-earned over to. People do research the standards and business practices of major companies. It's why I tend to do my basic grocery shopping at the Co-Op; I know they do a bigger range of fairtrade goods than any other supermarket. Primark clothing is made in Far-eastern sweatshops using child labour. I don't shop there either. Coca Cola has an appaling record in industrial relations, even going so far as to have union organisers at their Central American plants killed by local gangs in their pay. So, if the club wishes to treat us as 'customers' or 'consumers' rather than supporters, then they should expect us to react as customers. If we, as customers, don't like what we see at Argyle, don't we have the right to say so?

Andy, with all due respect you are not reading my post in full. I have said twice now that people have the right to ask. They also have the right to choose to be a customer of any particular business. My point is that they do not have a right to be told how a business is conducted or what profit it makes or how money is spent within it. Ask yes but if the owner of that business does not want to share the information then that is as far as anyone can go. If you don't like it then fair enough don't give them your cash. I would also re-emphasise that if you aren't a customer you don't have that much right to demand answers in the first place and even less right to get them.

Greenman wrote:

There's the rub. The people who are frothing at the mouth and demanding answers to outrageous questions, like many on this website, will never be given the time of day. Ganging up never works.
However, those that seek answers in the right manner will be rewarded.

You seem certain they WILL be rewarded?

I do think that the best way is to go through the correct channels to get answers, and if those questions are evaded again then it might be time to get worried or ask more forcibly. For instance, if the full details of the 20% offer to the Trust are still not forthcoming on Saturday, when I'm sure that Wozzer will have already asked for them, then it would look like a piece of headline grabbing without any real substance.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

Andy, with all due respect you are not reading my post in full. I have said twice now that people have the right to ask. They also have the right to choose to be a customer of any particular business. My point is that they do not have a right to be told how a business is conducted or what profit it makes or how money is spent within it. Ask yes but if the owner of that business does not want to share the information then that is as far as anyone can go. If you don't like it then fair enough don't give them your cash. I would also re-emphasise that if you aren't a customer you don't have that much right to demand answers in the first place and even less right to get them.

I did read your whole post. Perhaps you should go back and re-read mine. As customers, we have every right to demand answers from the owners of businesses we choose to use. Who are you (or anyone else for that matter) to tell me what I can or cannot do in relation to my dealings with Argyle? It was the silent acquiesence of so many for so long that allowed the Stapleton/Todd/Gardner et al Board to get away with bringing this club to its knees.

If you ask questions of a business and they refuse to answer you, you may well choose to shrug your shoulders and walk away. I'm not that meek. If I want answers to something my first response to a refusal is to ask 'why don't they want me to know that?' I'll then redouble my efforts to find out whatever it is I want to know. I've never been one to go gently into the good night.

All of this, however, should be moot. Brent has promised us openess, honesty and transparency. So surely that's what we're going to get?

Who is trying to tell you what to do????? Not me that's for sure. I repeat again anyone has the right to ask a question or if you prefer demand. I also repeat again that Brent is just as entitled not to answer it if he doesn't want to and you nor anyone else has a right to the information. You would like it as probably would I but that is a world away from having a right to it.

Incidentally I don't agree with Greenman either. Brent isn't anyone's fool. If he doesn't want to answer questions made by the dissaffected then he is sure as hell not going to tell the love in ones either. He will tell everybody in equal measure what he wants to tell them and anything he doesn't he simply will not.