Greg Clarke article - bit on Argyle / JB

Thought this was a decent read...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

So James Brent, the man who loves the club and has been hooked, along with his family, refused to pay a bond to the Football League which could have resulted in us folding.

Without a billionaire backer, as at Chelea/Man City, the word 'sustainable', is now oft heard in football and indeed at Home Park.

I have absolutely nothing against the basic principles of sustainability but if you want to reach for the stars , rather than be happy with eternal mediocrity, opportunities must be seized when they present themselves.

Take Argyle under Holloway, who himself had built on the Pulis legacy of a trimmed down and lean squad, that was diffiicult for other teams to break down.
When , in the Autumn of 2007 Holloway asked Stapleton to back a promotion push by retaining players and maybe bringing in a couple of additions. Stapleton, I have on good authority, refused, despite suggesting otherwise. The consortium of wealthy Argyle fans had been offering investment but were not even entertained.Stapes had other plans in place.
Had Stapes welcomed investment, the potential fanbase would have seen the cash backed intent and one hell of a run in towards the play offs would have ensued. Home Park would have been packed had we still been 'up there'.
The effects of these selfish decisions are still being felt at the club now and are likely to continue for many years.

Compare with Blackpool, on gates less than ours. They kept their players, they allowed Holloway to bring in some more decent loan signings, they reached the play offs and were promoted.

It could and should have been us.

ps You said it was a good read Chris, so what is your personal take on it and what is your view on my comments ?

Whilst we can all learn from the lessons of history that particular article is a salutory reminder that we live in different times.

That said I still think there is a place for "investors" to have a sensible punt in the football industry, and the lower down the pile you start the more potential there is to make lots of luverly lolly.

As usual, sadly, plenty of statements but no answers.

Just pay up, for the man who doles out silly hats and creates jobs for the boys.

Tringreen wrote:

Without a billionaire backer, as at Chelea/Man City, the word 'sustainable', is now oft heard in football and indeed at Home Park.

I have absolutely nothing against the basic principles of sustainability but if you want to reach for the stars , rather than be happy with eternal mediocrity, opportunities must be seized when they present themselves.

Take Argyle under Holloway, who himself had built on the Pulis legacy of a trimmed down and lean squad, that was diffiicult for other teams to break down.
When , in the Autumn of 2007 Holloway asked Stapleton to back a promotion push by retaining players and maybe bringing in a couple of additions. Stapleton, I have on good authority, refused, despite suggesting otherwise. The consortium of wealthy Argyle fans had been offering investment but were not even entertained.Stapes had other plans in place.
Had Stapes welcomed investment, the potential fanbase would have seen the cash backed intent and one hell of a run in towards the play offs would have ensued. Home Park would have been packed had we still been 'up there'.
The effects of these selfish decisions are still being felt at the club now and are likely to continue for many years.

Compare with Blackpool, on gates less than ours. They kept their players, they allowed Holloway to bring in some more decent loan signings, they reached the play offs and were promoted.

It could and should have been us.

ps You said it was a good read Chris, so what is your personal take on it and what is your view on my comments ?

Tring, not meaning to cause offence but I won't bother replying to your comments because I have done so on more than one occasion and it is basically the same post / line that you have been pedalling for x amount of time. The moment has past. I live for now and the future, not the past.

On my opinion, I think it shows exactly what a skilled negotiator James Brent is. He had a pot of money to do the deal and the tough negotiations Greg Clarke eludes to were also played out with the PFA, Lombard, Mastpoint and other key stakeholders. I firmly believe he is the only person capable of delivering the deal to save the Club. Before somebody jumps in to argue that I will simply say don't raise Heaney etc (if they had the money they would have done it) and don't say 'someone would have turned up' - nobody did.

A bit like IP addresses then, they just don't turn up.

swampy wrote:

A bit like IP addresses then, they just don't turn up.

Neither do straight answers

The "what if" question is pretty much ancient history now and to be frank has no bearing on Argyle now with it's new owner. That was then and we have to live with the now. Raking up the "Holloway would have taken us up" as a use for every argument is pointless. We should be interested in the "what now" question. History is something that has happened and nobody can change. When a new opportunity presents itself then perhaps it is relevent and worth remembering but until that day arrives it should stay exactly where it is in the history books.

Mr President wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Without a billionaire backer, as at Chelea/Man City, the word 'sustainable', is now oft heard in football and indeed at Home Park.

I have absolutely nothing against the basic principles of sustainability but if you want to reach for the stars , rather than be happy with eternal mediocrity, opportunities must be seized when they present themselves.

Take Argyle under Holloway, who himself had built on the Pulis legacy of a trimmed down and lean squad, that was diffiicult for other teams to break down.
When , in the Autumn of 2007 Holloway asked Stapleton to back a promotion push by retaining players and maybe bringing in a couple of additions. Stapleton, I have on good authority, refused, despite suggesting otherwise. The consortium of wealthy Argyle fans had been offering investment but were not even entertained.Stapes had other plans in place.
Had Stapes welcomed investment, the potential fanbase would have seen the cash backed intent and one hell of a run in towards the play offs would have ensued. Home Park would have been packed had we still been 'up there'.
The effects of these selfish decisions are still being felt at the club now and are likely to continue for many years.

Compare with Blackpool, on gates less than ours. They kept their players, they allowed Holloway to bring in some more decent loan signings, they reached the play offs and were promoted.

It could and should have been us.

ps You said it was a good read Chris, so what is your personal take on it and what is your view on my comments ?

Tring, not meaning to cause offence but I won't bother replying to your comments because I have done so on more than one occasion and it is basically the same post / line that you have been pedalling for x amount of time. The moment has past. I live for now and the future, not the past.

On my opinion, I think it shows exactly what a skilled negotiator James Brent is. He had a pot of money to do the deal and the tough negotiations Greg Clarke eludes to were also played out with the PFA, Lombard, Mastpoint and other key stakeholders. I firmly believe he is the only person capable of delivering the deal to save the Club. Before somebody jumps in to argue that I will simply say don't raise Heaney etc (if they had the money they would have done it) and don't say 'someone would have turned up' - nobody did.

Thanks for replying Chris. The question I was trying to ask was, if the same or 'similar' people to the London Consortium offered to invest in Brent's Argyle on the playing side, do you think he would entertain cash backed directors ? And should he, in your opinion ?

Don't get me wrong Chris, I admire your attempts to whip up support and even the fund raising efforts of your chum but IMO it will take far too long to enthuse enough people to 'buy in' and for the club to get on a roll playing wise, through being able to fund the playing side sufficiently to make a difference.

If , after all your efforts we do eventually get back up the leagues, it still won't be 'our club' as you have claimed, it will still be Brent's and he could cash in personally. In which case, why not seek out investment now ? Let the people see that the club means business and inspire the potential but sceptical fanbase to 'buy in'.
That is what could and should have happened at least 5 years ago.

Tringreen wrote:

Mr President wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Without a billionaire backer, as at Chelea/Man City, the word 'sustainable', is now oft heard in football and indeed at Home Park.

I have absolutely nothing against the basic principles of sustainability but if you want to reach for the stars , rather than be happy with eternal mediocrity, opportunities must be seized when they present themselves.

Take Argyle under Holloway, who himself had built on the Pulis legacy of a trimmed down and lean squad, that was diffiicult for other teams to break down.
When , in the Autumn of 2007 Holloway asked Stapleton to back a promotion push by retaining players and maybe bringing in a couple of additions. Stapleton, I have on good authority, refused, despite suggesting otherwise. The consortium of wealthy Argyle fans had been offering investment but were not even entertained.Stapes had other plans in place.
Had Stapes welcomed investment, the potential fanbase would have seen the cash backed intent and one hell of a run in towards the play offs would have ensued. Home Park would have been packed had we still been 'up there'.
The effects of these selfish decisions are still being felt at the club now and are likely to continue for many years.

Compare with Blackpool, on gates less than ours. They kept their players, they allowed Holloway to bring in some more decent loan signings, they reached the play offs and were promoted.

It could and should have been us.

ps You said it was a good read Chris, so what is your personal take on it and what is your view on my comments ?

Tring, not meaning to cause offence but I won't bother replying to your comments because I have done so on more than one occasion and it is basically the same post / line that you have been pedalling for x amount of time. The moment has past. I live for now and the future, not the past.

On my opinion, I think it shows exactly what a skilled negotiator James Brent is. He had a pot of money to do the deal and the tough negotiations Greg Clarke eludes to were also played out with the PFA, Lombard, Mastpoint and other key stakeholders. I firmly believe he is the only person capable of delivering the deal to save the Club. Before somebody jumps in to argue that I will simply say don't raise Heaney etc (if they had the money they would have done it) and don't say 'someone would have turned up' - nobody did.

Thanks for replying Chris. The question I was trying to ask was, if the same or 'similar' people to the London Consortium offered to invest in Brent's Argyle on the playing side, do you think he would entertain cash backed directors ? And should he, in your opinion ?

Don't get me wrong Chris, I admire your attempts to whip up support and even the fund raising efforts of your chum but IMO it will take far too long to enthuse enough people to 'buy in' and for the club to get on a roll playing wise, through being able to fund the playing side sufficiently to make a difference.

If , after all your efforts we do eventually get back up the leagues, it still won't be 'our club' as you have claimed, it will still be Brent's and he could cash in personally. In which case, why not seek out investment now ? Let the people see that the club means business and inspire the potential but sceptical fanbase to 'buy in'.
That is what could and should have happened at least 5 years ago.

Bump !

Tring.perfectly good question.Over to you El pres.

Mr President wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Without a billionaire backer, as at Chelea/Man City, the word 'sustainable', is now oft heard in football and indeed at Home Park.

I have absolutely nothing against the basic principles of sustainability but if you want to reach for the stars , rather than be happy with eternal mediocrity, opportunities must be seized when they present themselves.

Take Argyle under Holloway, who himself had built on the Pulis legacy of a trimmed down and lean squad, that was diffiicult for other teams to break down.
When , in the Autumn of 2007 Holloway asked Stapleton to back a promotion push by retaining players and maybe bringing in a couple of additions. Stapleton, I have on good authority, refused, despite suggesting otherwise. The consortium of wealthy Argyle fans had been offering investment but were not even entertained.Stapes had other plans in place.
Had Stapes welcomed investment, the potential fanbase would have seen the cash backed intent and one hell of a run in towards the play offs would have ensued. Home Park would have been packed had we still been 'up there'.
The effects of these selfish decisions are still being felt at the club now and are likely to continue for many years.

Compare with Blackpool, on gates less than ours. They kept their players, they allowed Holloway to bring in some more decent loan signings, they reached the play offs and were promoted.

It could and should have been us.

ps You said it was a good read Chris, so what is your personal take on it and what is your view on my comments ?

Tring, not meaning to cause offence but I won't bother replying to your comments because I have done so on more than one occasion and it is basically the same post / line that you have been pedalling for x amount of time. The moment has past. I live for now and the future, not the past.

On my opinion, I think it shows exactly what a skilled negotiator James Brent is. He had a pot of money to do the deal and the tough negotiations Greg Clarke eludes to were also played out with the PFA, Lombard, Mastpoint and other key stakeholders. I firmly believe he is the only person capable of delivering the deal to save the Club. Before somebody jumps in to argue that I will simply say don't raise Heaney etc (if they had the money they would have done it) and don't say 'someone would have turned up' - nobody did.

Sounds to me like you're in love with James Brent.

There's a Proclaimers song about falling in love, and how we "fall in love" with the one person in the world that's meant for us, and how that "one person in the world" usually lives in the same street or works at the same place.

To you there's only one person who could save Argyle-what utter tosh.

There was only one person who utilised a gullible group of people to support his bid to get his hands on an attractive property development opportunity, and used these same people to scare off other potential bidders (Yes Chris, if most of the supporters believe it, if the Administrator believes it and only a handful of people deny it, it's probably true)

There's only one person who has now stripped PAFC of all its tangible assets.

There's only one person who ended up giving the staff less money when he took over the club than he offered in the first place (full settlement of FC debts was offered at the start of the process, yet a derisory sum was actually paid out at the time of the takeover)

You make think it's a sign of a "skilled negotiator" to say "take this paltry amount I am offering or I'll let the club fold" while others not so "in love" as you might take a different view.

If any other owner of PAFC had done to the club and it's staff what JB has done, you Chris, would have been at the forefront of the vocal opposition, setting up Alternative Democratic Talksites to lead the opposition to a repressive, dictatorial owner.

The fact that you're so apparently "in bed" with JB can only be because you are in love with him.

Unless it's just because he gave you a silly, meaningless title.

I've got nothing against JB. I admire him as a businessman who got the best deal he could for himself. He was greatly helped in this by some people who are easily dazzled by a smart suit and a flash car. I just don't believe he was,is or ever will be the best option for the football club.


PS. If you don't like this Chris, I'm sure you'll threaten to run telling tales to my employers, 'cos that's the way people like you work isn't it?

Tringreen wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Mr President wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Without a billionaire backer, as at Chelea/Man City, the word 'sustainable', is now oft heard in football and indeed at Home Park.

I have absolutely nothing against the basic principles of sustainability but if you want to reach for the stars , rather than be happy with eternal mediocrity, opportunities must be seized when they present themselves.

Take Argyle under Holloway, who himself had built on the Pulis legacy of a trimmed down and lean squad, that was diffiicult for other teams to break down.
When , in the Autumn of 2007 Holloway asked Stapleton to back a promotion push by retaining players and maybe bringing in a couple of additions. Stapleton, I have on good authority, refused, despite suggesting otherwise. The consortium of wealthy Argyle fans had been offering investment but were not even entertained.Stapes had other plans in place.
Had Stapes welcomed investment, the potential fanbase would have seen the cash backed intent and one hell of a run in towards the play offs would have ensued. Home Park would have been packed had we still been 'up there'.
The effects of these selfish decisions are still being felt at the club now and are likely to continue for many years.

Compare with Blackpool, on gates less than ours. They kept their players, they allowed Holloway to bring in some more decent loan signings, they reached the play offs and were promoted.

It could and should have been us.

ps You said it was a good read Chris, so what is your personal take on it and what is your view on my comments ?

Tring, not meaning to cause offence but I won't bother replying to your comments because I have done so on more than one occasion and it is basically the same post / line that you have been pedalling for x amount of time. The moment has past. I live for now and the future, not the past.

On my opinion, I think it shows exactly what a skilled negotiator James Brent is. He had a pot of money to do the deal and the tough negotiations Greg Clarke eludes to were also played out with the PFA, Lombard, Mastpoint and other key stakeholders. I firmly believe he is the only person capable of delivering the deal to save the Club. Before somebody jumps in to argue that I will simply say don't raise Heaney etc (if they had the money they would have done it) and don't say 'someone would have turned up' - nobody did.

Thanks for replying Chris. The question I was trying to ask was, if the same or 'similar' people to the London Consortium offered to invest in Brent's Argyle on the playing side, do you think he would entertain cash backed directors ? And should he, in your opinion ?

Don't get me wrong Chris, I admire your attempts to whip up support and even the fund raising efforts of your chum but IMO it will take far too long to enthuse enough people to 'buy in' and for the club to get on a roll playing wise, through being able to fund the playing side sufficiently to make a difference.

If , after all your efforts we do eventually get back up the leagues, it still won't be 'our club' as you have claimed, it will still be Brent's and he could cash in personally. In which case, why not seek out investment now ? Let the people see that the club means business and inspire the potential but sceptical fanbase to 'buy in'.
That is what could and should have happened at least 5 years ago.

Bump !

Shall we take that as a 'no' then ?

So even if wealthy Argyle fans wanted to buy in , you'll still prefer the 'ever so humble' bucket rattling for the Lord of the Manor.

How very parochial but at least you get a silly hat

Has Windsor Boy responded?

The Red Star wrote:

Has Windsor Boy responded?

He's to busy getting the bucket's ready for the forza massive's bucket rattling collection shite.

The Red Star wrote:

Has Windsor Boy responded?

Not yet-probably doing his bit for the downtrodden masses.

I refer of course to his day job.

When he's not at work, he's happy to see the exploitation of the underprivileged (those that went months without pay) continue.

Sorry, that's unfair, happy is the wrong word, grateful is more appropriate.

Forze whatever should be singing:

"The working class can kiss my ass, I've got the President's job at last"

I always feel you have to state your lack of love on here before you say anything positive about anyone so here is mine. I am not now nor have I ever been in love with James Brent.

All I can see in these posts is "if this" "if that". There isn't one solitary proposition that anyone actually "has" offered anything or indeed the name of one person who is waiting to make an offer. As far as I'm aware there were 3 offers on the table. Butivant, Heaney and Brent. I didn't follow every twist and turn in the Administration so that could be wrong but personally I'm not aware of others. I don't know why Butivant was never really entertained. At a guess I'd say his offer was backed by nothing of substance. Heaney's bid was never backed by anything real and therefore the only other offer was Brent's. He completed therefore I'm assuming his was in reality the only possible offer made that could complete. Not being privy to all the financial bits and promises made I have no idea whether that offer changed or didn't as the other options dropped out. The parties concerned accepted his terms. No doubt there were two options of either take it or leave it so there may not have been much choice. Had Argyle been liquidated then none of the people involved would have received anything at all. At least being paid in stages is better than liquidation and nothing however much I would have liked to have seen them get their dues if full up front.

Tringreen wrote:

Mr President wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Without a billionaire backer, as at Chelea/Man City, the word 'sustainable', is now oft heard in football and indeed at Home Park.

I have absolutely nothing against the basic principles of sustainability but if you want to reach for the stars , rather than be happy with eternal mediocrity, opportunities must be seized when they present themselves.

Take Argyle under Holloway, who himself had built on the Pulis legacy of a trimmed down and lean squad, that was diffiicult for other teams to break down.
When , in the Autumn of 2007 Holloway asked Stapleton to back a promotion push by retaining players and maybe bringing in a couple of additions. Stapleton, I have on good authority, refused, despite suggesting otherwise. The consortium of wealthy Argyle fans had been offering investment but were not even entertained.Stapes had other plans in place.
Had Stapes welcomed investment, the potential fanbase would have seen the cash backed intent and one hell of a run in towards the play offs would have ensued. Home Park would have been packed had we still been 'up there'.
The effects of these selfish decisions are still being felt at the club now and are likely to continue for many years.

Compare with Blackpool, on gates less than ours. They kept their players, they allowed Holloway to bring in some more decent loan signings, they reached the play offs and were promoted.

It could and should have been us.

ps You said it was a good read Chris, so what is your personal take on it and what is your view on my comments ?

Tring, not meaning to cause offence but I won't bother replying to your comments because I have done so on more than one occasion and it is basically the same post / line that you have been pedalling for x amount of time. The moment has past. I live for now and the future, not the past.

On my opinion, I think it shows exactly what a skilled negotiator James Brent is. He had a pot of money to do the deal and the tough negotiations Greg Clarke eludes to were also played out with the PFA, Lombard, Mastpoint and other key stakeholders. I firmly believe he is the only person capable of delivering the deal to save the Club. Before somebody jumps in to argue that I will simply say don't raise Heaney etc (if they had the money they would have done it) and don't say 'someone would have turned up' - nobody did.

Thanks for replying Chris. The question I was trying to ask was, if the same or 'similar' people to the London Consortium offered to invest in Brent's Argyle on the playing side, do you think he would entertain cash backed directors ? And should he, in your opinion ?

Don't get me wrong Chris, I admire your attempts to whip up support and even the fund raising efforts of your chum but IMO it will take far too long to enthuse enough people to 'buy in' and for the club to get on a roll playing wise, through being able to fund the playing side sufficiently to make a difference.

If , after all your efforts we do eventually get back up the leagues, it still won't be 'our club' as you have claimed, it will still be Brent's and he could cash in personally. In which case, why not seek out investment now ? Let the people see that the club means business and inspire the potential but sceptical fanbase to 'buy in'.
That is what could and should have happened at least 5 years ago.

Tringy,

Sorry for the delay in replying. A mixture of workload but also knowing I would have to see that profile picture of yours in order to reply have kept me away

I have no problem answering your question but I think that it has many answers dependent on the levels of investment that we are talking about and the individuals concerned.

James Brent has said from the start that if the right person with the right values and a huge chequebook came in and offered to take Argyle to the next level then he would not stand in their way and I am sure we would all support this.

What I would never support though is the view that any investment is good and warrants immediate acceptance. I won't name names because its been done but it is clear that amongst the M7 there were people who had 'bought' their way onto the board. Their investments were small in terms of being able to help Argyle progress but their cash paid for a seat at the table nonetheless. What we then saw was that they didn't know how to run a football club and made some frankly, clueless decisions.

So in short, yes investment into the Club I love would be a positive to me but unless we get a rich Saudi to fall in love with Argyle and throw silly money at it then matching that investment must be the morals, skills and drive needed to help the Club move forward.

I take issue with your claim that Argyle isn't our Club. It is always our Club. Any owner is a custodian. We are here for the duration.

Change that pic. It's just wrong

Chris

Mr President wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Mr President wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Without a billionaire backer, as at Chelea/Man City, the word 'sustainable', is now oft heard in football and indeed at Home Park.

I have absolutely nothing against the basic principles of sustainability but if you want to reach for the stars , rather than be happy with eternal mediocrity, opportunities must be seized when they present themselves.

Take Argyle under Holloway, who himself had built on the Pulis legacy of a trimmed down and lean squad, that was diffiicult for other teams to break down.
When , in the Autumn of 2007 Holloway asked Stapleton to back a promotion push by retaining players and maybe bringing in a couple of additions. Stapleton, I have on good authority, refused, despite suggesting otherwise. The consortium of wealthy Argyle fans had been offering investment but were not even entertained.Stapes had other plans in place.
Had Stapes welcomed investment, the potential fanbase would have seen the cash backed intent and one hell of a run in towards the play offs would have ensued. Home Park would have been packed had we still been 'up there'.
The effects of these selfish decisions are still being felt at the club now and are likely to continue for many years.

Compare with Blackpool, on gates less than ours. They kept their players, they allowed Holloway to bring in some more decent loan signings, they reached the play offs and were promoted.

It could and should have been us.

ps You said it was a good read Chris, so what is your personal take on it and what is your view on my comments ?

Tring, not meaning to cause offence but I won't bother replying to your comments because I have done so on more than one occasion and it is basically the same post / line that you have been pedalling for x amount of time. The moment has past. I live for now and the future, not the past.

On my opinion, I think it shows exactly what a skilled negotiator James Brent is. He had a pot of money to do the deal and the tough negotiations Greg Clarke eludes to were also played out with the PFA, Lombard, Mastpoint and other key stakeholders. I firmly believe he is the only person capable of delivering the deal to save the Club. Before somebody jumps in to argue that I will simply say don't raise Heaney etc (if they had the money they would have done it) and don't say 'someone would have turned up' - nobody did.

Thanks for replying Chris. The question I was trying to ask was, if the same or 'similar' people to the London Consortium offered to invest in Brent's Argyle on the playing side, do you think he would entertain cash backed directors ? And should he, in your opinion ?

Don't get me wrong Chris, I admire your attempts to whip up support and even the fund raising efforts of your chum but IMO it will take far too long to enthuse enough people to 'buy in' and for the club to get on a roll playing wise, through being able to fund the playing side sufficiently to make a difference.

If , after all your efforts we do eventually get back up the leagues, it still won't be 'our club' as you have claimed, it will still be Brent's and he could cash in personally. In which case, why not seek out investment now ? Let the people see that the club means business and inspire the potential but sceptical fanbase to 'buy in'.
That is what could and should have happened at least 5 years ago.

Tringy,

Sorry for the delay in replying. A mixture of workload but also knowing I would have to see that profile picture of yours in order to reply have kept me away

I have no problem answering your question but I think that it has many answers dependent on the levels of investment that we are talking about and the individuals concerned.

James Brent has said from the start that if the right person with the right values and a huge chequebook came in and offered to take Argyle to the next level then he would not stand in their way and I am sure we would all support this.

What I would never support though is the view that any investment is good and warrants immediate acceptance. I won't name names because its been done but it is clear that amongst the M7 there were people who had 'bought' their way onto the board. Their investments were small in terms of being able to help Argyle progress but their cash paid for a seat at the table nonetheless. What we then saw was that they didn't know how to run a football club and made some frankly, clueless decisions.

So in short, yes investment into the Club I love would be a positive to me but unless we get a rich Saudi to fall in love with Argyle and throw silly money at it then matching that investment must be the morals, skills and drive needed to help the Club move forward.

I take issue with your claim that Argyle isn't our Club. It is always our Club. Any owner is a custodian. We are here for the duration.

Change that pic. It's just wrong

Chris

Chris,i wouldn't say that the "rich saudi" is an absolute necessity at all.All that Tring and myself have been saying for years is that adequate funding needs to be found if and when the club gets to second tier level again-it need not be billions,Swansea and Blackpool have shown that it can be done wiithout actually spending that much.Now this may be looking many years ahead but i do believe that James Brent has stated that under his stewardship,the club could trade successfully up to and including championship level but for further progress to be made thereafter,then extra help would be needed.Surely the only logical conclusion to be drawn is that additional investment must be sought pro-actively,rather than waiting for it? I don't disagree that the last "effort" at obtaining investment was a total disaster but it was done on a "nod and a wink,someone knows someone in Japan" basis and personally i'm not convinced that it was done with the best interests of Argyle in mind.I remain very sure that a professionally organised marketing and advertising campaign,with appropriate due diligence, could reap huge dividends for the club in terms of investment and lets hope that Peter Jones will use his influence on the board to spell out very clearly what will happen if this is not done-you don't have to go very far back to see the latest manifestation of the Argyle cycle in all its disappointment and inevitability.

Mr President wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Mr President wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Without a billionaire backer, as at Chelea/Man City, the word 'sustainable', is now oft heard in football and indeed at Home Park.

I have absolutely nothing against the basic principles of sustainability but if you want to reach for the stars , rather than be happy with eternal mediocrity, opportunities must be seized when they present themselves.

Take Argyle under Holloway, who himself had built on the Pulis legacy of a trimmed down and lean squad, that was diffiicult for other teams to break down.
When , in the Autumn of 2007 Holloway asked Stapleton to back a promotion push by retaining players and maybe bringing in a couple of additions. Stapleton, I have on good authority, refused, despite suggesting otherwise. The consortium of wealthy Argyle fans had been offering investment but were not even entertained.Stapes had other plans in place.
Had Stapes welcomed investment, the potential fanbase would have seen the cash backed intent and one hell of a run in towards the play offs would have ensued. Home Park would have been packed had we still been 'up there'.
The effects of these selfish decisions are still being felt at the club now and are likely to continue for many years.

Compare with Blackpool, on gates less than ours. They kept their players, they allowed Holloway to bring in some more decent loan signings, they reached the play offs and were promoted.

It could and should have been us.

ps You said it was a good read Chris, so what is your personal take on it and what is your view on my comments ?

Tring, not meaning to cause offence but I won't bother replying to your comments because I have done so on more than one occasion and it is basically the same post / line that you have been pedalling for x amount of time. The moment has past. I live for now and the future, not the past.

On my opinion, I think it shows exactly what a skilled negotiator James Brent is. He had a pot of money to do the deal and the tough negotiations Greg Clarke eludes to were also played out with the PFA, Lombard, Mastpoint and other key stakeholders. I firmly believe he is the only person capable of delivering the deal to save the Club. Before somebody jumps in to argue that I will simply say don't raise Heaney etc (if they had the money they would have done it) and don't say 'someone would have turned up' - nobody did.

Thanks for replying Chris. The question I was trying to ask was, if the same or 'similar' people to the London Consortium offered to invest in Brent's Argyle on the playing side, do you think he would entertain cash backed directors ? And should he, in your opinion ?

Don't get me wrong Chris, I admire your attempts to whip up support and even the fund raising efforts of your chum but IMO it will take far too long to enthuse enough people to 'buy in' and for the club to get on a roll playing wise, through being able to fund the playing side sufficiently to make a difference.

If , after all your efforts we do eventually get back up the leagues, it still won't be 'our club' as you have claimed, it will still be Brent's and he could cash in personally. In which case, why not seek out investment now ? Let the people see that the club means business and inspire the potential but sceptical fanbase to 'buy in'.
That is what could and should have happened at least 5 years ago.

Tringy,

Sorry for the delay in replying. A mixture of workload but also knowing I would have to see that profile picture of yours in order to reply have kept me away

I have no problem answering your question but I think that it has many answers dependent on the levels of investment that we are talking about and the individuals concerned.

James Brent has said from the start that if the right person with the right values and a huge chequebook came in and offered to take Argyle to the next level then he would not stand in their way and I am sure we would all support this.

What I would never support though is the view that any investment is good and warrants immediate acceptance. I won't name names because its been done but it is clear that amongst the M7 there were people who had 'bought' their way onto the board. Their investments were small in terms of being able to help Argyle progress but their cash paid for a seat at the table nonetheless. What we then saw was that they didn't know how to run a football club and made some frankly, clueless decisions.

So in short, yes investment into the Club I love would be a positive to me but unless we get a rich Saudi to fall in love with Argyle and throw silly money at it then matching that investment must be the morals, skills and drive needed to help the Club move forward.

I take issue with your claim that Argyle isn't our Club. It is always our Club. Any owner is a custodian. We are here for the duration.

Change that pic. It's just wrong

Chris

GS, the use of the Saudi was an example. My point is that not all investment is good if it comes from someone without any business or common sense.

In terms of the Club should proactively be seeking it....

1. We had the M7, Guilfoyle and Ridsdale desperately trying to at first gain investment and further down the line find a viable buyer. No queue formed.

2. James Brent has already accepted investment into the redevelopment - I think this is an example of how proactive he is/will be if the RIGHT opportunity arises.

Chris

Mr President wrote:

Mr President wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Mr President wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Without a billionaire backer, as at Chelea/Man City, the word 'sustainable', is now oft heard in football and indeed at Home Park.

I have absolutely nothing against the basic principles of sustainability but if you want to reach for the stars , rather than be happy with eternal mediocrity, opportunities must be seized when they present themselves.

Take Argyle under Holloway, who himself had built on the Pulis legacy of a trimmed down and lean squad, that was diffiicult for other teams to break down.
When , in the Autumn of 2007 Holloway asked Stapleton to back a promotion push by retaining players and maybe bringing in a couple of additions. Stapleton, I have on good authority, refused, despite suggesting otherwise. The consortium of wealthy Argyle fans had been offering investment but were not even entertained.Stapes had other plans in place.
Had Stapes welcomed investment, the potential fanbase would have seen the cash backed intent and one hell of a run in towards the play offs would have ensued. Home Park would have been packed had we still been 'up there'.
The effects of these selfish decisions are still being felt at the club now and are likely to continue for many years.

Compare with Blackpool, on gates less than ours. They kept their players, they allowed Holloway to bring in some more decent loan signings, they reached the play offs and were promoted.

It could and should have been us.

ps You said it was a good read Chris, so what is your personal take on it and what is your view on my comments ?

Tring, not meaning to cause offence but I won't bother replying to your comments because I have done so on more than one occasion and it is basically the same post / line that you have been pedalling for x amount of time. The moment has past. I live for now and the future, not the past.

On my opinion, I think it shows exactly what a skilled negotiator James Brent is. He had a pot of money to do the deal and the tough negotiations Greg Clarke eludes to were also played out with the PFA, Lombard, Mastpoint and other key stakeholders. I firmly believe he is the only person capable of delivering the deal to save the Club. Before somebody jumps in to argue that I will simply say don't raise Heaney etc (if they had the money they would have done it) and don't say 'someone would have turned up' - nobody did.

Thanks for replying Chris. The question I was trying to ask was, if the same or 'similar' people to the London Consortium offered to invest in Brent's Argyle on the playing side, do you think he would entertain cash backed directors ? And should he, in your opinion ?

Don't get me wrong Chris, I admire your attempts to whip up support and even the fund raising efforts of your chum but IMO it will take far too long to enthuse enough people to 'buy in' and for the club to get on a roll playing wise, through being able to fund the playing side sufficiently to make a difference.

If , after all your efforts we do eventually get back up the leagues, it still won't be 'our club' as you have claimed, it will still be Brent's and he could cash in personally. In which case, why not seek out investment now ? Let the people see that the club means business and inspire the potential but sceptical fanbase to 'buy in'.
That is what could and should have happened at least 5 years ago.

Tringy,

Sorry for the delay in replying. A mixture of workload but also knowing I would have to see that profile picture of yours in order to reply have kept me away

I have no problem answering your question but I think that it has many answers dependent on the levels of investment that we are talking about and the individuals concerned.

James Brent has said from the start that if the right person with the right values and a huge chequebook came in and offered to take Argyle to the next level then he would not stand in their way and I am sure we would all support this.

What I would never support though is the view that any investment is good and warrants immediate acceptance. I won't name names because its been done but it is clear that amongst the M7 there were people who had 'bought' their way onto the board. Their investments were small in terms of being able to help Argyle progress but their cash paid for a seat at the table nonetheless. What we then saw was that they didn't know how to run a football club and made some frankly, clueless decisions.

So in short, yes investment into the Club I love would be a positive to me but unless we get a rich Saudi to fall in love with Argyle and throw silly money at it then matching that investment must be the morals, skills and drive needed to help the Club move forward.

I take issue with your claim that Argyle isn't our Club. It is always our Club. Any owner is a custodian. We are here for the duration.

Change that pic. It's just wrong

Chris

GS, the use of the Saudi was an example. My point is that not all investment is good if it comes from someone without any business or common sense.

In terms of the Club should proactively be seeking it....

1. We had the M7, Guilfoyle and Ridsdale desperately trying to at first gain investment and further down the line find a viable buyer. No queue formed.

2. James Brent has already accepted investment into the redevelopment - I think this is an example of how proactive he is/will be if the RIGHT opportunity arises.

Chris

I would be very dubious indeed about the idea that Guilfoyle and Ridsdale looked for investment-i seem to recall that Guilfoyle made a public statement to the effect that there was no need to market the club as Ridsdale had already done the work for him.

Greenskin wrote:

Mr President wrote:

Mr President wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Mr President wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Without a billionaire backer, as at Chelea/Man City, the word 'sustainable', is now oft heard in football and indeed at Home Park.

I have absolutely nothing against the basic principles of sustainability but if you want to reach for the stars , rather than be happy with eternal mediocrity, opportunities must be seized when they present themselves.

Take Argyle under Holloway, who himself had built on the Pulis legacy of a trimmed down and lean squad, that was diffiicult for other teams to break down.
When , in the Autumn of 2007 Holloway asked Stapleton to back a promotion push by retaining players and maybe bringing in a couple of additions. Stapleton, I have on good authority, refused, despite suggesting otherwise. The consortium of wealthy Argyle fans had been offering investment but were not even entertained.Stapes had other plans in place.
Had Stapes welcomed investment, the potential fanbase would have seen the cash backed intent and one hell of a run in towards the play offs would have ensued. Home Park would have been packed had we still been 'up there'.
The effects of these selfish decisions are still being felt at the club now and are likely to continue for many years.

Compare with Blackpool, on gates less than ours. They kept their players, they allowed Holloway to bring in some more decent loan signings, they reached the play offs and were promoted.

It could and should have been us.

ps You said it was a good read Chris, so what is your personal take on it and what is your view on my comments ?

Tring, not meaning to cause offence but I won't bother replying to your comments because I have done so on more than one occasion and it is basically the same post / line that you have been pedalling for x amount of time. The moment has past. I live for now and the future, not the past.

On my opinion, I think it shows exactly what a skilled negotiator James Brent is. He had a pot of money to do the deal and the tough negotiations Greg Clarke eludes to were also played out with the PFA, Lombard, Mastpoint and other key stakeholders. I firmly believe he is the only person capable of delivering the deal to save the Club. Before somebody jumps in to argue that I will simply say don't raise Heaney etc (if they had the money they would have done it) and don't say 'someone would have turned up' - nobody did.

Thanks for replying Chris. The question I was trying to ask was, if the same or 'similar' people to the London Consortium offered to invest in Brent's Argyle on the playing side, do you think he would entertain cash backed directors ? And should he, in your opinion ?

Don't get me wrong Chris, I admire your attempts to whip up support and even the fund raising efforts of your chum but IMO it will take far too long to enthuse enough people to 'buy in' and for the club to get on a roll playing wise, through being able to fund the playing side sufficiently to make a difference.

If , after all your efforts we do eventually get back up the leagues, it still won't be 'our club' as you have claimed, it will still be Brent's and he could cash in personally. In which case, why not seek out investment now ? Let the people see that the club means business and inspire the potential but sceptical fanbase to 'buy in'.
That is what could and should have happened at least 5 years ago.

Tringy,

Sorry for the delay in replying. A mixture of workload but also knowing I would have to see that profile picture of yours in order to reply have kept me away

I have no problem answering your question but I think that it has many answers dependent on the levels of investment that we are talking about and the individuals concerned.

James Brent has said from the start that if the right person with the right values and a huge chequebook came in and offered to take Argyle to the next level then he would not stand in their way and I am sure we would all support this.

What I would never support though is the view that any investment is good and warrants immediate acceptance. I won't name names because its been done but it is clear that amongst the M7 there were people who had 'bought' their way onto the board. Their investments were small in terms of being able to help Argyle progress but their cash paid for a seat at the table nonetheless. What we then saw was that they didn't know how to run a football club and made some frankly, clueless decisions.

So in short, yes investment into the Club I love would be a positive to me but unless we get a rich Saudi to fall in love with Argyle and throw silly money at it then matching that investment must be the morals, skills and drive needed to help the Club move forward.

I take issue with your claim that Argyle isn't our Club. It is always our Club. Any owner is a custodian. We are here for the duration.

Change that pic. It's just wrong

Chris

GS, the use of the Saudi was an example. My point is that not all investment is good if it comes from someone without any business or common sense.

In terms of the Club should proactively be seeking it....

1. We had the M7, Guilfoyle and Ridsdale desperately trying to at first gain investment and further down the line find a viable buyer. No queue formed.

2. James Brent has already accepted investment into the redevelopment - I think this is an example of how proactive he is/will be if the RIGHT opportunity arises.

Chris

I would be very dubious indeed about the idea that Guilfoyle and Ridsdale looked for investment-i seem to recall that Guilfoyle made a public statement to the effect that there was no need to market the club as Ridsdale had already done the work for him.

That is your view GS but whatever you think, you are wrong on this one. selling to JB meant he got a far smaller fee than he wanted. He would have searched everywhere, not for the benefit of Argyle directly but to maximise his fees - thats why we had the BIL fiasco.

It wasn't actually my view at all,Chris.With due acknowlegement to the Argyle Vital website,this is what he said ;


8th March:
When would the sale be completed? Guilfoyle replied: 'By the end of the season. In some respects it's relatively straightforward. A lot of the work has been done by Ridsdale and Hinchliffe.
'They have identified the purchasers so I don't think I have to go through marketing or produce an information memorandum.

Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Think that quoting the Administrators in anything is not a reliable argument. Wasn't it he who said there was no time to consider other bids when bigging up Heaney? Wasn't he saying it was Heaney or liquidation? I don't think that Brent is the man to take this club to the premiership or even perhaps Championship level. I cannot see anything wrong with seeking investment elsewhere to share the dream or even take it over completely. You never know whats under the bed until you look. However, I still am not convinced there are rich enough people out there who will think that Argyle is worth taking a punt on. Finding out one way or another for sure though would put the argument to bed for now so why not give it a shot.