The ATD Q&A Final Write-up

Here's the final write-up of the ATD/James Brent/Peter Jones Q&A session. Apologies for the protracted delay in getting it online, but Rick has been extremely busy at Home Park over the last week or so; anyway, here it is, I hope it meets with everyone's approval.


The much-anticipated ATD meeting with Argyle owner James Brent and Board member Peter Jones took place on Wednesday 2nd May at the Cherry Tree pub in Plymouth.

This report is not a word-for-word transcription, rather it is intended to give a broad picture of the discussions. Hopefully any failings in my reporting or competence can be dealt with by subsequent contributions from others that attended.

Peter Jones opened the meeting by making a brief statement about what he and Mr Brent hoped to get out of the meeting. It was made clear that neither man was interested in being drawn into any conflict between ‘two small websites’ (ATD and Pasoti).

Charlie Wood asked the first question, about the GAS Board, and whether the stronger personalities who may come to the fore will accurately represent the wider fanbase. In reply, Mr Brent said that it was always a danger in any democratic process that those elected may not necessarily be representative of all views. A discussion about the merits of the GAS Board versus the Trust then ensued, but Mr Brent made it clear that he felt that the GAS Board stood to be more representative than the Trust, which, he stated, had a membership of 1500 at its peak.

Other Trust related questions related to the 20% share offer –Mr Brent was asked what the cash figure would be. To general amusement he said ‘£400,000’ and then quickly checked himself, and asked if he should have said that. The consensus was that it was too late to be worrying about that now! The benefits to the Trust would be a 5% pa return until their investment was converted to Ordinary Shares and then up to 20% of the ordinary share capital, but there would be no guaranteed seat on the Board for a Trust representative.

On finance, Mr Brent reported that next years anticipated turnover would be between £4million and £4.5million. He stated that, even with the additional £200k in back – payments to staff, we would still have one of the largest wage budgets in the League, and also that part of that wage budget was for ‘a rainy day’, for example if a key player was injured and needed to be replaced for a significant period of time.

GreenSam’s question about Argyle Player showing matches in full was put, but Rick Cowdery stated that Argyle could only show what was allowed by the Football League, and he felt that full matches would not be possible, but he would look into it.

Moving onto matters concerning the ground, questions were asked about the lobby for safe standing, and whether the club would consider having a standing area if the lobby was successful. The short answer was ‘Yes’.

The closure of Zoo Corner was raised and created much debate. The club is currently zero-policed, mainly because of the closed corner. Mr Brent made the point that Policing costs swallow up any financial benefits from much larger crowds. A figure of £350 was given as the cost to the club of having one Police Officer on duty; to put this into context, the average wage of a League 2 player is in the region of £750 per week.

Also raised was the development of the Hotel – Mr Brent is fully intending to have rooms in the Hotel named after Argyle personalities. My suggestion of the ‘Sean McCarthy All-You-Can-Eat Buffet’ was sensibly ignored.

Mr Brent is also happy for Greens On Screen to document the development in the same way the installation of the new Pitch was documented.

On the football debt, the final figure of £2million to be repaid in year 5 is already lower, and it is anticipated that it will continue to fall as 50% of unbudgeted income is used to reduce the debt more quickly.

Mr Brent refused to be drawn on questions relating to individuals at the club, so questions relating to John Deehan, and Carl Fletcher’s future were not answered; however Mr Brent did make the point that Carl had been acting under one instruction from the Board – to keep Argyle in the Football League by whatever means necessary, provided lawful and sporting, which was why a somewhat defensive and attritional style of play was employed. The point was made that Carl had come from Bournemouth and West Ham, two teams that have a tradition of playing attractive football, so it is felt that the fayre on offer next season will be more attractive. Mr Brent was also dismissive of the culture of sacking Managers if a team hits a rough patch. He said it took more toughness and balls to resist the calls to change Manager than it did to bow to pressure and dismiss the Manager, and he had every confidence the CF was the right man to lead the team to promotion.

This report is not exhaustive, but is designed to give anyone who was unable to attend a flavour of what was discussed. I have tried to cover as much of the discussion as is possible without writing a report of such length that people give up reading it.

If anyone would like to have the verbatim response to their particular question, please contact me and I’ll do my best to oblige. I can assure everyone who submitted questions that they were asked exactly as they were worded.

I’d like to conclude by thanking everyone who made this evening happen – Anne Smith, James Brent’s PA, whose help and good humour was invaluable, James, Peter and Rick for daring to step into the Lion’s Den – and emerging unscathed. All the ATD posters who attended or took the time to submit questions , and lastly the staff at the Cherry Tree for their hard work on the night.

Great report Andy! Well done to everyone who made it happen and to those who attended.

Sorry... But I don't think it is a good report at all!

Frankly, I find it kind of embarrassing.

Can you tell me the answer to my question - the supposed first one?

It went....

The final P &A report disclosed that a “trust account” was set up and used to facilitate the sale of season tickets for this past season. The report stated that this money would be given to the buyer of the club.

My question is..? How much was collected and how much was paid to you, and what has that money been used for?

Rickler wrote:

Sorry... But I don't think it is a good report at all!

Frankly, I find it kind of embarrassing.

Can you tell me the answer to my question - the supposed first one?

It went....

The final P &A report disclosed that a “trust account” was set up and used to facilitate the sale of season tickets for this past season. The report stated that this money would be given to the buyer of the club.

My question is..? How much was collected and how much was paid to you, and what has that money been used for?

i think you'll find andy has addressed this,

'If anyone would like to have the verbatim response to their particular question, please contact me and I’ll do my best to oblige. I can assure everyone who submitted questions that they were asked exactly as they were worded. '

Embarrassing, WTF?

Anyway....


"Charlie Wood asked the first question, about the GAS Board, and whether the stronger personalities who may come to the fore will accurately represent the wider fanbase. In reply, Mr Brent said that it was always a danger in any democratic process that those elected may not necessarily be representative of all views. A discussion about the merits of the GAS Board versus the Trust then ensued, but Mr Brent made it clear that he felt that the GAS Board stood to be more representative than the Trust, which, he stated, had a membership of 1500 at its peak."

Brent acknowledges that not all views will be represented yet he seems content to understand that this isn't a significant issue? Then what's the point of it Mr Brent?

Brent seems almost dismissive of the Trust 1500 membership yet conveniently dismisses the fact that the Trust membership figure is approximately 1500 more then his other chums and the closest thing to his request for a "fan representation" - Bizarre!

He just as well continue to dish out the car park passes and insincere titles and pick his own GAS, but one thing seems to be growing in it's obviousness, this is a Brent hand picked jobby.

Oi!

He also stated that his intention was to put up a new grand-stand within the short term- ie within a two year period.

Re the safe-standing areas - he stated that he would not be supportive if it applied to leagues 1 & 2 only.

Future signings would always have relegation clauses in their contracts.

I thought his statement about fans' representation on the statutory board was an absolute 'not in my tenure'.

Oggy Oggy Oggy?

Sorry Jon and I mean no disrespect to you, you provide a lot of information, but as far as I am concerned to date this GAS thing seems nothing more than a justification for Brent's comments of wanting fan representation without actually meaning a word of it!

Meanwhile, and I hope it's just coincidental, one or two or more of his chums have gone about attempting to dismantle the only true fans representatives, the Trust and, at a time when his president is being linked to 'questionable' behavior and seems unable or unwilling to deny it. The same president that is supposed to be organising this mockery!

Meanwhile again, the press statements to attract more interest seem to have been forgotten and the leaflets were used to mop of toilet spillage!

GAS, my ass!

JonB wrote:

Oi!

The only bright spot in the whole process...arse lick...arse lick.

Best of luck Jon, but you have your vision, I'm not convinced it's shared by the other participants and with no disrespect to anybody I would worry that some members of the board might only be up to the job in their own minds and that won't be good enough. I make this point with no factionalism or about any particular personalities.

To be fair Gob, someone representing longstanding organisations such as the Senior Greens, PASCA, the Plymouth Branch and PASALB for instance should have a presence as much as the newly formed Trust .... BUT, they should still stand for election along with everyone else ... but with the advantage of standing on the 'ticket' of that particular organisation.... interested fans aren't daft. I would be inclined to vote for a candiadate from all the above long standing bodies. New unknown quantities to the mix, I would not.

Brent's off the cuff comments saying there was nothing to stop the Trust putting forward 4 or 5 candidates seems to have upset and almost surprised the contingency bunch, and hence their late in the day attacks on the Trust, now what some saw as 'their man' has sadly left the Trust under a cloud..... it is obvious to me that a wider electorate not knowing the candidates from Adam would vote in all candidates standing under a Trust banner... and I would imagine the odd contingency bod fretting seeing what he thought has his seat going elsewhere.
How candidates standing as independents and/or under the now dubious Pasoti banner would fare, nobody knows now given the recent disgrace.

As for Andy and Jon who have given due respect to this site, I hope they stand, and I would vote for both of them having read their comments over the years. However, I'm not sure I agree with Jon's assertion that this representation should be full of 'technically and appropriately skilled' people, I really do believe that is a recipe for an aloof representation more concerned with dealing with Brent's opinion than with the fans' opinion... that's how most technical operators are.

James Brent's life so far has in no way been a socialist and 'grass roots' life to date. So, I would imagine his new found idea of the headline 'community involvment' at Argyle was always going to be on the lines of the British raj in India and the East India Company .... ie. identify early on the local tribal leaders, shower them with honours and silly hats, and get them to keep the locals under control while the main profit point of the exercise is carried through without tiresome rejections.
The irony of what everyone is fighting for is not lost on me.

I'm not sure that any organised group outnumbers the Trust. However we won't know because the membership numbers aren't published. Nor their financial position. Something that Trust naysayers have been bleating about and demanding from the Trust. Go figure.

Also we have doubts cast on the Trust election but supporters groups can decide among themselves whether to hold election at all or just nominate a Gasboard member.

I would imagine the biggest group outisde the Trust will be full season ticket holders. Who seemingly have felt their views undervalued and unrepresented in the in the past. How easy would it have been to auto enrol season ticket holders (or even all 'members') as Trust members, with an opt out for the Chowellites, even collecting subs via the ticket price (with an opt out for the Chowellites and the club passing the money to charity or Brents community projects* instead). Thats representation for everyone who wants it. Plus money in the Trusts coffers.

You can have that idea for nothing Professor Wheeler and Mr President.

In addition I'd be interested to hear answer to Ricklers question.

*Do we know what these promised projects are in lieu of the Green Taverners fundraising.

Dougie wrote:

I'm not sure that any organised group outnumbers the Trust. However we won't know because the membership numbers aren't published. Nor their financial position. Something that Trust naysayers have been bleating about and demanding from the Trust. Go figure.

Also we have doubts cast on the Trust election but supporters groups can decide among themselves whether to hold election at all or just nominate a Gasboard member.

I would imagine the biggest group outisde the Trust will be full season ticket holders. Who seemingly have felt their views undervalued and unrepresented in the in the past. How easy would it have been to auto enrol season ticket holders (or even all 'members') as Trust members, with an opt out for the Chowellites, even collecting subs via the ticket price (with an opt out for the Chowellites and the club passing the money to charity or Brents community projects* instead). Thats representation for everyone who wants it. Plus money in the Trusts coffers.

You can have that idea for nothing Professor Wheeler and Mr President.

In addition I'd be interested to hear answer to Ricklers question.

*Do we know what these promised projects are in lieu of the Green Taverners fundraising.

Stop asking questions and' believe' you freak ! It's the Argyle way, don't you know

Penz wrote:

To be fair Gob, someone representing longstanding organisations such as the Senior Greens, PASCA, the Plymouth Branch and PASALB for instance should have a presence as much as the newly formed Trust .... BUT, they should still stand for election along with everyone else ... but with the advantage of standing on the 'ticket' of that particular organisation.... interested fans aren't daft. I would be inclined to vote for a candiadate from all the above long standing bodies. New unknown quantities to the mix, I would not.

Brent's off the cuff comments saying there was nothing to stop the Trust putting forward 4 or 5 candidates seems to have upset and almost surprised the contingency bunch, and hence their late in the day attacks on the Trust, now what some saw as 'their man' has sadly left the Trust under a cloud..... it is obvious to me that a wider electorate not knowing the candidates from Adam would vote in all candidates standing under a Trust banner... and I would imagine the odd contingency bod fretting seeing what he thought has his seat going elsewhere.
How candidates standing as independents and/or under the now dubious Pasoti banner would fare, nobody knows now given the recent disgrace.

As for Andy and Jon who have given due respect to this site, I hope they stand, and I would vote for both of them having read their comments over the years. However, I'm not sure I agree with Jon's assertion that this representation should be full of 'technically and appropriately skilled' people, I really do believe that is a recipe for an aloof representation more concerned with dealing with Brent's opinion than with the fans' opinion... that's how most technical operators are.

James Brent's life so far has in no way been a socialist and 'grass roots' life to date. So, I would imagine his new found idea of the headline 'community involvment' at Argyle was always going to be on the lines of the British raj in India and the East India Company .... ie. identify early on the local tribal leaders, shower them with honours and silly hats, and get them to keep the locals under control while the main profit point of the exercise is carried through without tiresome rejections.
The irony of what everyone is fighting for is not lost on me.

Or the Big Society, we must empower COMMUNITIES! No one mentioned whether he was aware of his text messages bein plastered all over the Internet but otherwise good work.

Well done to all concerned.

Penz wrote:

To be fair Gob, someone representing longstanding organisations such as the Senior Greens, PASCA, the Plymouth Branch and PASALB for instance should have a presence as much as the newly formed Trust .... BUT, they should still stand for election along with everyone else ... but with the advantage of standing on the 'ticket' of that particular organisation.... interested fans aren't daft. I would be inclined to vote for a candiadate from all the above long standing bodies. New unknown quantities to the mix, I would not.

Don't get me wrong Penz, I have respect for the groups you mention, but why should they have representation, they were not formed to have this type of representation and there seems to be no idea of who or how many they claim to represent.

The Trust however, were formed for exactly this reason and, are open with their membership numbers and should rightfully be the ones to represent.

Penz wrote:
To be fair Gob, someone representing longstanding organisations such as the Senior Greens, PASCA, the Plymouth Branch and PASALB for instance should have a presence as much as the newly formed Trust .... BUT, they should still stand for election along with everyone else ... but with the advantage of standing on the 'ticket' of that particular organisation.... interested fans aren't daft. I would be inclined to vote for a candiadate from all the above long standing bodies. New unknown quantities to the mix, I would not.

Brent's off the cuff comments saying there was nothing to stop the Trust putting forward 4 or 5 candidates seems to have upset and almost surprised the contingency bunch, and hence their late in the day attacks on the Trust, now what some saw as 'their man' has sadly left the Trust under a cloud..... it is obvious to me that a wider electorate not knowing the candidates from Adam would vote in all candidates standing under a Trust banner... and I would imagine the odd contingency bod fretting seeing what he thought has his seat going elsewhere.
How candidates standing as independents and/or under the now dubious Pasoti banner would fare, nobody knows now given the recent disgrace.

As for Andy and Jon who have given due respect to this site, I hope they stand, and I would vote for both of them having read their comments over the years. However, I'm not sure I agree with Jon's assertion that this representation should be full of 'technically and appropriately skilled' people, I really do believe that is a recipe for an aloof representation more concerned with dealing with Brent's opinion than with the fans' opinion... that's how most technical operators are.

James Brent's life so far has in no way been a socialist and 'grass roots' life to date. So, I would imagine his new found idea of the headline 'community involvment' at Argyle was always going to be on the lines of the British raj in India and the East India Company .... ie. identify early on the local tribal leaders, shower them with honours and silly hats, and get them to keep the locals under control while the main profit point of the exercise is carried through without tiresome rejections.
The irony of what everyone is fighting for is not lost on me.
................................................................................................................
About the way I view it all Pirate, particularly your last paragraph.

Nool.......... shirt wallah ! Webby...... flag wallah

That last bit is well worth highlighting!

Quote :

identify early on the local tribal leaders, shower them with honours and silly hats, and get them to keep the locals under control while the main profit point of the exercise is carried through without tiresome rejections.
The irony of what everyone is fighting for is not lost on me.

GOB wrote:

Penz wrote:

To be fair Gob, someone representing longstanding organisations such as the Senior Greens, PASCA, the Plymouth Branch and PASALB for instance should have a presence as much as the newly formed Trust .... BUT, they should still stand for election along with everyone else ... but with the advantage of standing on the 'ticket' of that particular organisation.... interested fans aren't daft. I would be inclined to vote for a candiadate from all the above long standing bodies. New unknown quantities to the mix, I would not.

Don't get me wrong Penz, I have respect for the groups you mention, but why should they have representation, they were not formed to have this type of representation and there seems to be no idea of who or how many they claim to represent.

The Trust however, were formed for exactly this reason and, are open with their membership numbers and should rightfully be the ones to represent.

I just said almost exactly that on a different thread. Except you said it better.

Andy_Symons wrote:

If anyone would like to have the verbatim response to their particular question, please contact me and I’ll do my best to oblige. I can assure everyone who submitted questions that they were asked exactly as they were worded.

FAO Andy!!!

Rickler wrote:

Can you tell me the answer to my question - the supposed first one?

It went....

The final P &A report disclosed that a “trust account” was set up and used to facilitate the sale of season tickets for this past season. The report stated that this money would be given to the buyer of the club.

My question is..? How much was collected and how much was paid to you, and what has that money been used for?

Thank you.

Come on Andy you are quick enough on here when you are jumping over others.

wozzer wrote:

Come on Andy you are quick enough on here when you are jumping over others.

Perhaps he's having problems with his dictaphone? It's a nightmare rewinding and fast forwarding those things!

Mrrapson wrote:

wozzer wrote:

Come on Andy you are quick enough on here when you are jumping over others.

Perhaps he's having problems with his dictaphone? It's a nightmare rewinding and fast forwarding those things!

That was pretty good, fairplay

wozzer wrote:

Come on Andy you are quick enough on here when you are jumping over others.

And you're quick enough to stir the brown stuff yourself Mr Bowden! I believe Andy asked you as a mate if you had anything to do with the Deep Throat shit and you denied it, just like you do to mates. Nice to know when you can rely on friends and colleagues to have your back as they say, wouldn't want to be stabbed in it would we?

Greenjock wrote:

wozzer wrote:

Come on Andy you are quick enough on here when you are jumping over others.

And you're quick enough to stir the brown stuff yourself Mr Bowden! I believe Andy asked you as a mate if you had anything to do with the Deep Throat shit and you denied it, just like you do to mates. Nice to know when you can rely on friends and colleagues to have your back as they say, wouldn't want to be stabbed in it would we?

I have friends that I can rely on that wouldn't have had a hissey because I was trying to find out what was happening before admitting anything. I also had a duty to confess to the rest of the Trust board first. Also my friends also wouldn't shake my hand out the back of the Cherry Tree then come on here and attack again and you call me a coward!!!!

wozzer wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

wozzer wrote:

Come on Andy you are quick enough on here when you are jumping over others.

And you're quick enough to stir the brown stuff yourself Mr Bowden! I believe Andy asked you as a mate if you had anything to do with the Deep Throat shit and you denied it, just like you do to mates. Nice to know when you can rely on friends and colleagues to have your back as they say, wouldn't want to be stabbed in it would we?

I have friends that I can rely on that wouldn't have had a hissey because I was trying to find out what was happening before admitting anything. I also had a duty to confess to the rest of the Trust board first. Also my friends also wouldn't shake my hand out the back of the Cherry Tree then come on here and attack again and you call me a coward!!!!

You may not be a coward per se, but your actions in posting as Deep Throat were utterly cowardly and deceitful (however misconceived they were). I certainly would not level those traits at Andy.

Just out of interest, why were you at the Cherry Tree before the ATD Q&A?

wozzer wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

wozzer wrote:

Come on Andy you are quick enough on here when you are jumping over others.

And you're quick enough to stir the brown stuff yourself Mr Bowden! I believe Andy asked you as a mate if you had anything to do with the Deep Throat shit and you denied it, just like you do to mates. Nice to know when you can rely on friends and colleagues to have your back as they say, wouldn't want to be stabbed in it would we?

I have friends that I can rely on that wouldn't have had a hissey because I was trying to find out what was happening before admitting anything. I also had a duty to confess to the rest of the Trust board first. Also my friends also wouldn't shake my hand out the back of the Cherry Tree then come on here and attack again and you call me a coward!!!!

A long winded way around saying yes you did deny it to Andy who was supposed to be your friend. Yes you had a duty to confess the the rest of the Trust Board you were fuc king over like a coward hiding behind a pseudonym, but you could have ignored Andy until you had confessed to being a completely untrustworthy human being to your other so called friends and colleagues, but don't let this get in the way of you now wanting to stick the knife into someone else, because it's been absolutely ages since you betrayed your friends and colleagues, surely your betrayal should be forgotten by now? That's also what Lee Jameson thought this week funnily enough.