How many more...

tonycholwell wrote:

I think Im right it was PCC who identified JB as a potential buyer. It was the contingency planners who kept him onside after the "Irish" bid was given preffered bidder staus.

Well, that's your way of looking at it, and indeed the convenient line put out by those concerned to tickle the fancy of ceretain egos... as Ridsdale has always advised regarding football club administrations, it's imperative to keep the 'fans' on your side.... and the stroking ceretainly worked to purrrrrrrfection in this case ... some people are suckers for buttering up.

In my mind, the reluctant bid was always in effect a joint adventure with PCC should 'a full private sector deal' not be concluded, was always trailed that way, and as such, always, always, always, a fall back... it never went away. It was PCC that kept Brenty interested all along. It was also stated many times that 'Milbay' was somewhere in the mix. Can't some people add up ?

I appreciate and respect Tony's views but I question if his views are representative of the general fan base. I think there is some distance between Tony's views and the majority of views of ATD users. If this gulf is throughout the fan base then any position with representation could be questionable.

GOB wrote:

I appreciate and respect Tony's views but I question if his views are representative of the general fan base. I think there is some distance between Tony's views and the majority of views of ATD users. If this gulf is throughout the fan base then any position with representation could be questionable.

Firstly Gob I never worry if what I say will be supported, nice if it does, but not essential.

Secondly, on this occasion I think most Argyle fans couldn't give a toss, Argyle is saved and they have a club to support still. They will worry more about car parking, pasties and buses than if JB owns or was offered Millbay. I think that smacks of ludicrous, even for Penz. The fact he now has the Pavillions seems a point of celebration, not least for the Council and CT payers of Plymouth.

The oft quoted Fan Fests are a barometer of fans thoughts and opinions, but then so are Supporters Clubs , the FPC and the Business Lounge. I frequent all and hopefully get the drift of opinion.

I may be out of kilter with most ADT users but not with the majority of paying Argyle fans.

I haven't really read much on pasoti for over a year now, but do understand Tony is quite 'anti Trust' and has been right from the start, which makes it all the more surprising that he has thought of standing for election to some sort of Gas Board. That position certainly isn't in tune with most fans I've spoken to.

I just don't get how Tony can be up for standing for a Gasboard elected body, but not a Trust elected body that could be employed to do exactly the same thing, and of course be one hell of a lot more accountable, holding elections every 12 months as they intend, as opposed to years and years for this Gasboard thing if I'm not mistaken. What is it about the Trust compared to a gas board in simple terms. What is it that is different enough to make Tony run for the hills when the Trust come a calling ?
Why the difference Tony ? Is it just simple 'political' bias ? I'm only asking.
For my part, I can give a thousand reason why a Trust would be far more acceptable to me than a cobbled GasBoard with no historical shape whatsoever. Both bodies would have committee style approaches I would assume, so why the problem ?

Edited to add: I have no problem whatsoever with Brenty taking over the pavillions and look forward to his ideas ... he can't make a worse job of it than the council did. I'm also happy for him to build an hotel down there as well, that's exactly where it should be.

Penz wrote:

I haven't really read much on pasoti for over a year now, but do understand Tony is quite 'anti Trust' and has been right from the start, which makes it all the more surprising that he has thought of standing for election to some sort of Gas Board. That position certainly isn't in tune with most fans I've spoken to.

I just don't get how Tony can be up for standing for a Gasboard elected body, but not a Trust elected body that could be employed to do exactly the same thing, and of course be one hell of a lot more accountable, holding elections every 12 months as they intend, as opposed to years and years for this Gasboard thing if I'm not mistaken. What is it about the Trust compared to a gas board in simple terms. What is it that is different enough to make Tony run for the hills when the Trust come a calling ?
Why the difference Tony ? Is it just simple 'political' bias ? I'm only asking.
For my part, I can give a thousand reason why a Trust would be far more acceptable to me than a cobbled GasBoard with no historical shape whatsoever. Both bodies would have committee style approaches I would assume, so why the problem ?

Edited to add: I have no problem whatsoever with Brenty taking over the pavillions and look forward to his ideas ... he can't make a worse job of it than the council did. I'm also happy for him to build an hotel down there as well, that's exactly where it should be.

We clearly talk to different people Penz:)

On the original construct of the Trust it is no secret I was not in favour of, simply put because there was an air rof defeat and rebirth with a pheonix club. There was in my view too much rhetoric of what by then was history and no clear path forward. There was too much fantasy about fans owning a club but without a bean between them.

The Trust have fully supported the PASB and been fully inclusive in discussions to date and helped to create the framework for the future. The election process will also be healthily fought with people committed to the idea of holding tthe Board to account for the bettterment of all. This will be a proper election, daresay it, more eagerly contested than the Trust one with a greater range of candidates.

I can understand why you think the way you do, but that is the joy of a free society, you have to accept others may not agree with you.

You will have many chances to have your voice heard; The trust AGM particularly you will discover as a Trust member how you can influence their position on the PASB or even why they decided to partake. You may also decide to stand either in the supporters club section if tthe Trust members support you or the general ballot and see if club members support you.

As a non PCC tax payer its probably not for me to comment on contrracts the PCC make, but as an outsider they have a good partner in JB. But it is clear the "car park" will be built on as it is in line with PCC policy underr both parties.

You could say, more bang less buck.

But perhaps you wouldnt.

Tringreen wrote:

We could argue this for ever. I believe the administration process was a carve up from start to finish, with Ridsdale in the middle of it all and I also believe that had Stapleton and co. been prepared to relinquish some control to the consortium , or better still actively promoted the undoubted [imo] potential of England's 13th largest city club far and wide, a buyer would have been found with enough cash backed ambition to make a difference. They got greedy.
It will be some time before this latest model possibly gets us back to the second tier,with attendance figures of about 16k for a club that has never been to the top flight, then we should find out, as Brent has said he'll pass on the baton.So he clearly thinks there will be buyers available.
He just doesn't want to pay anything to get us there,

I recently asked Webby whether he thought this 'sustainable progress' was it, full stop. Or whether , if walleted directors could be found to actually invest in the playing side and get the club and latent support on a roll again,whether he thought it should happen.
He has still refused to comment.
What do you think Tony ?

If investment were to be offered, should/would Brent give up some/all control, or does he prefer those with silly hats and non walleted directors to chug along, while he gets on with his real business, keeping his fingers crossed that a miracle might happen and he can pass on the baton and receive a nice little earner for his lack of trouble ?

I doubt very much if any investment would be forthcoming with Brent having siphoned off the interesting bits. Who do you think would be interested?

All of which makes me even more mad that Wallet and his chums were allowed to get away with what they did with no dissent. They have ruined it for everyone.

Bogsider wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

We could argue this for ever. I believe the administration process was a carve up from start to finish, with Ridsdale in the middle of it all and I also believe that had Stapleton and co. been prepared to relinquish some control to the consortium , or better still actively promoted the undoubted [imo] potential of England's 13th largest city club far and wide, a buyer would have been found with enough cash backed ambition to make a difference. They got greedy.
It will be some time before this latest model possibly gets us back to the second tier,with attendance figures of about 16k for a club that has never been to the top flight, then we should find out, as Brent has said he'll pass on the baton.So he clearly thinks there will be buyers available.
He just doesn't want to pay anything to get us there,

I recently asked Webby whether he thought this 'sustainable progress' was it, full stop. Or whether , if walleted directors could be found to actually invest in the playing side and get the club and latent support on a roll again,whether he thought it should happen.
He has still refused to comment.
What do you think Tony ?

If investment were to be offered, should/would Brent give up some/all control, or does he prefer those with silly hats and non walleted directors to chug along, while he gets on with his real business, keeping his fingers crossed that a miracle might happen and he can pass on the baton and receive a nice little earner for his lack of trouble ?

I doubt very much if any investment would be forthcoming with Brent having siphoned off the interesting bits. Who do you think would be interested?

All of which makes me even more mad that Wallet and his chums were allowed to get away with what they did with no dissent. They have ruined it for everyone.

I thought there might still be those who are interested in the potential, playing wise, of this eternally under achieving football club.

Is everything about Argyle/ football now centred around property development ?

If that is the case, prepare yourselves for lower league pleasures for a long, long time.

At least we've still got our club

Who's goin Fleetwood ?

I will be

The Gasboard was gifted by Brent because in his view the Trust didn't represent enough of the 20000 stakeholders. Yet how many of those stakeholders will vote in this cobbled together 'election' ('election' because the supporters groups - membership numbers and financial status/probity unknown, important to know when they are holding others to account - can nominate). Also the universally accepted notion of one person one vote is ridden roughshod over if you are a member of more than one grouping.

How many votes are needed to be cast to give it more legitimancy than the Trust? 10% of that 20000. 2000 voting participants. Anyone think we'll get to that. That'll be a huge turnout amongst the 3000 - 4000 membership. In any case it will have to be more than the Trusts 1000 - which by the way requires an active opt in and a membership fee.

As for the Trust being involved in the gasboard. They would be fools not to and would have been sidelined and marginilised even further if they didn't participate. I suspect they wished the gasboard wasn't around. And all the timings around the Gasboard formation ie before Trust elections certainly took the wind out of the sails of a fledging peacetime Trust.

I've mentioned on other threads it would have been so much simpler to recognise the Trust as the supporters body. Tie club memberships in with membership of the Trust (with opt outs for Trust refusniks) and have done with it. At the same time Brent could have said i'll take your money for a share of the club and give you place on the board. As it is he says I'll take your money whcih i really don't need and you'll get a piece of paper to frame while I'll take a lesser amount from some of my directors who keep a seat on the board very warm.

If members of the Trust became GAS Board members then they would be acting as GAS Board not Trust members.They would yield no influence whatsoever.The Trust needs shares in the club to be able to have an input,(shareholders meetings for example)without that they are just another supporters group.

the trust HAVE to be serious about a stake in PAFC, if NOT then they may as well disband.

on the subject of new players we are highly unlikely to sign any until august so we dont have to pay them until then, problem is the best will have gone by then.

so it'll be loan signings until xmas............

GregCampbellFanClub wrote:

the trust HAVE to be serious about a stake in PAFC, if NOT then they may as well disband.

on the subject of new players we are highly unlikely to sign any until august so we dont have to pay them until then, problem is the best will have gone by then.

so it'll be loan signings until xmas............

I have a feeling you may well be let down then.

On the playing side Im still hopeful at least 3 players will be coming in based on the 4 we were indicated would happen and one in so far.

Serious about owning a stake in the club is one thing but buying it at any price is another altogether. My estimation of Brent sank when he proposed that £400,000 price. It's a ludicrous evaluation made even more ludicrous by the strings attached to it. Is there anybody anywhere who would pay that much money and yet have no place on the board? I suspect not. If it was a solitary lapse of judgement it would be excusable but when placed alongside the actions of the Deep Throaters and the rest of the Stepford Wives it begins to look like a strategy. Brent has some bridges to build and dropping that £400,000 price would be a great start as it is using this particular stick to bash the Trust is misguided. The problem here does not sit anywhere other than in the PAFC boardroom.

GregCampbellFanClub wrote:

the trust HAVE to be serious about a stake in PAFC, if NOT then they may as well disband.

on the subject of new players we are highly unlikely to sign any until august so we dont have to pay them until then, problem is the best will have gone by then.

so it'll be loan signings until xmas............

Fortunately the Trust are taking it very seriously and not rushing into any decisions. A vanity investment without representation is definitely a less preferable option to a place on the Board for your money. From recent dispatches further meetings with JB are planned and I for one applaud the Trusts softly softly approach. The speed with which Brent did a deal with his directors under terms that were acceptable to them is in marked contrast to this process. It points to Brent acting positively to get money which he obviously needed. Whereas with the Trust investment it was just hung out there with little meat on the bones and no real advantage to Trust in influencing the Board and with the Trust having to do a deal of chasing.

The Trust has to tread gently though. It has no other option unless it wants to be seen as an antagonistic pressure group and see itself perpetually marginalised. They are doing the right thing. I'm not the Trust and can say what I think and I think that Brent's "offer" is taking the piss. In fact it is so bad an offer it is barely even an offer at all.

The Trust can't, therefore won't, raise £400k to take the 20% stake of nothing offered by James Brent. Good.

No place on the Board, no assets left at the club other than the mid-table at best League 2 players we have.

The OP asked how many more players would we need to sign for a top half finish? I reckon another one or two. To finish in the top half of League 2. Right now we would probably be just below halfay in League 2 with the current squad. And James Brent wants £400k for a 20% slice of this pie with no filling?

I appreciate The Trust have to consider it and are meeting with JB again, but can anyone honestly see him reducing the figure or offering a place on the Board after negotiations?

I hope The Trust tell JB where to stick his offer, in the nicest possible way. And then start asking him some pertinent questions about this "competetive budget" Fletcher has at his disposal. Like how come plenty of other League 2 sides are able to make signings right now, and how many more players HE thinks are needed to be competetive in League 2.

Being competetive could be construed as being in the competetion, but not able to win it, or being on a par with about a third of the competitors, but not with the serious ones.

I may just be narky today following England sneaking it last night followed by being up all night with a restless baby, but I'm getting seriously pissed off with the whole thing at the moment.

We keep seeing stories about what James Brent is up to in other business ventures, which will make him more money that won't be anything to do with Argyle, and his statements that are nothing more than soundbites which can be taken any way you choose to hear them. The PASB bollocks and all the money it is costing to set this white elephant up, to the "lovely touch" personal certificates arriving on doorsteps this morning, yet still no news on any players in, while such giants as Fleetwood are seemingly more than a little more competetive financially than we are.

So anyway, in answer to the OP, probably 2 more players to be in the top half of League 2 That'll sell a few more "memberships"

If brent was serious about promotion fletcher would not be manager, with a few crap free transfers we should manage eighteenth next season.

tonycholwell wrote:

GregCampbellFanClub wrote:

the trust HAVE to be serious about a stake in PAFC, if NOT then they may as well disband.

on the subject of new players we are highly unlikely to sign any until august so we dont have to pay them until then, problem is the best will have gone by then.

so it'll be loan signings until xmas............

I have a feeling you may well be let down then.

On the playing side Im still hopeful at least 3 players will be coming in based on the 4 we were indicated would happen and one in so far.

Hopeful or confident ?

'You're not getting inside information now are you Tony ?

Brent has already been talking about all the signings we have made since the end of the season, as if offering Robbie Williams a new one year deal justifies informing Sky Sports News of an imminent press conference at Home Park.

SufferedSince68 wrote:

If brent was serious about promotion fletcher would not be manager, with a few crap free transfers we should manage eighteenth next season.

Tis true !

However, be good Avivas, follow your tribal leaders blindly, spend, spend, spend ! You are the greatest fans. You all bleed green. The club that wouldn't die !

Give it a feckin rest ffs !

Tringreen wrote:

tonycholwell wrote:

GregCampbellFanClub wrote:

the trust HAVE to be serious about a stake in PAFC, if NOT then they may as well disband.

on the subject of new players we are highly unlikely to sign any until august so we dont have to pay them until then, problem is the best will have gone by then.

so it'll be loan signings until xmas............

I have a feeling you may well be let down then.

On the playing side Im still hopeful at least 3 players will be coming in based on the 4 we were indicated would happen and one in so far.

Hopeful or confident ?

'You're not getting inside information now are you Tony ?

Absolutely not, why would anyone tell me anything:)

But I do try to read what comes out of the club and keep count. We were told 4 and we have one. So, I take it 3 more, if its 2 that Jock suggests I wont be disappointed depending on the "who" rather than "how many". I am confident that what we have isnt good enough to challenge. We have a decent enough keeper and defence, with or without Williams, its the people in front collectively Im not so sure about.

Tringreen wrote:

Bogsider wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

We could argue this for ever. I believe the administration process was a carve up from start to finish, with Ridsdale in the middle of it all and I also believe that had Stapleton and co. been prepared to relinquish some control to the consortium , or better still actively promoted the undoubted [imo] potential of England's 13th largest city club far and wide, a buyer would have been found with enough cash backed ambition to make a difference. They got greedy.
It will be some time before this latest model possibly gets us back to the second tier,with attendance figures of about 16k for a club that has never been to the top flight, then we should find out, as Brent has said he'll pass on the baton.So he clearly thinks there will be buyers available.
He just doesn't want to pay anything to get us there,

I recently asked Webby whether he thought this 'sustainable progress' was it, full stop. Or whether , if walleted directors could be found to actually invest in the playing side and get the club and latent support on a roll again,whether he thought it should happen.
He has still refused to comment.
What do you think Tony ?

If investment were to be offered, should/would Brent give up some/all control, or does he prefer those with silly hats and non walleted directors to chug along, while he gets on with his real business, keeping his fingers crossed that a miracle might happen and he can pass on the baton and receive a nice little earner for his lack of trouble ?

I doubt very much if any investment would be forthcoming with Brent having siphoned off the interesting bits. Who do you think would be interested?

All of which makes me even more mad that Wallet and his chums were allowed to get away with what they did with no dissent. They have ruined it for everyone.

I thought there might still be those who are interested in the potential, playing wise, of this eternally under achieving football club.

Is everything about Argyle/ football now centred around property development ?

If that is the case, prepare yourselves for lower league pleasures for a long, long time.

At least we've still got our club

Who's goin Fleetwood ?

Brent's got money but Argyle won't be seeing any of it because that would be 'cheating'. No club can survive on gate money alone, trading players can help turn a profit but we have an extremely bad record at that. Last time we were in this division, we were lucky enough to get the right boss at the right time and we got in players that we wouldn't have dreamt of. However cheapskate Brent has saddled us with the worst manager in the football league, even though it was only ever supposed to be a temporary measure.

So the club is now little more than a social club for the anointed few and whilst the support becomes locked in a vicious circle of apathy/shit football/blamed for clubs lack of success.

Never mind, we've got a big flag.

We got some really good intelligent posters on this site, don't know why i post here, but you need a few twats i suppose would'nt be a football board else!

SufferedSince68 wrote:

We got some really good intelligent posters on this site, don't know why i post here, but you need a few twats i suppose would'nt be a football board else!

I think I fall into your second group SS68. And I'm proud of it

Cant wait to see which ageing pros (minimum age 37) or young injury prone journeymen aged 23 (with 7 different clubs already) we sign !!!!!!

We have all noted fleetwoods 'spree' with two decent players who at this level will keep them in the promotion hunt.

The danger for Brent/Fletcher is new players/signings need to be NEW not players from last season staying on a bit longer.
The way I see it we have 3 forwards who either cant score or are always injured.

I noticed the russians had a bigger flag than we have maybe thats on the list as a TOP priority ?????

And we did NOT get decent money for Gosling we were ripped off !!!!!!