The image of plymouth argyle

My understanding was that Brent was fully aware of the FC rule when he first made noises about buying the club out of administration and was going to pay all the FC debts in full.

By the time the deal was completed he was in a much stronger position and made it clear that he was not prepared to pay the FC debts in full.

The sum that he was apparently willing to pay to settle all the FC debts at the start of the process was a heck of a lot more than he forked out when the deal was finalised.

He parted with as little cash as he could and a lot less than he was going to in the first place. The staff (and other FC creditors) are having to wait up to five years for their money. He has sold around 2 million pounds worth of assets and is now shedding crocodile tears while talking about "not breaking the rules" and "that's not the way it's done"

I don't blame him, I blame those that created the situation where he was able to manipulate the rules and create a situation where he could "put pressure" on the vulnerable to accept his terms.

We all know who those people are, they've been rewarded with meaningless titles and seat in the Directors Box. And one of them still has the gall to claim to be a representative of "the workers"

[quote="Grovehill"]We've been through this before on another website Tony, I don't know whether you are being deliberately obtuse, or you really fail to understand or are merely being mischievous (or are you an official spokesman for the unacceptable face of capitalism) May thoughts on your comments are bold & underlined

tonycholwell wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

Couple of points.

Whatever the wage budget is, it can only be 55% of gate income, if we have a bigger wage budget than Accrington, it's simple because we have better attendances.

Yes the staff will still get their money, that means they still have to wait over four years for half of what they are owed to be paid.

I suggest that they'll hardly be going to work with a spring in their step when they seen builders knocking up a several hundred thousands of pounds worth of hotel and football stand when they are still paying off overdrafts that they ran up to keep the club afloat.

How many of you would accept a payrise that gives you nothing for 5 years because the boss wants to build a new factory first?

Hi Grovehill, just a couple of points

The wage bill is 55% of turnover, not gate receipts, there is a big difference and initiatives like the new Grandstand and attracting more people to become members through conventional routes (season ticket) or bringing back old favourites like White memberships. I am sure the club are also keen on tapping into greater share of revenue from the business community which at the moment gives Albion a freeish run[b].It's still the same principle isn't it, we have a bigger budget because we have bigger crowds which either bring money in at the gate or are more valuable to advertisers sponsors etc-not because the owner is pumping more cash in.
[/b]
As far as the staff goes, words seem pretty ineffectual to convey the debt all of us owe them. But, to a man or woman they are Argyle fans which is why they stayed and saw Argyle through until the Brent purchase was finalised. I have no doubt many would have loved to had every penny owed, immediately, but they also knew the terms of the purchase and most I speak to are happy they are back to being paid in full and on time as well as receiving the installments as time goes on. It should not be forgotten either the accelerated staff payments, they are very much in the mix and people will not have to wait the full 4 and a half years to be paid off. I am not suggesting this makes up for having to wait but these are enot ordinary wage slaves! Can you, or anyone else guarantee that all staff debts will be cleared in full before the end of the five year period-no of course not. In fact, if the team don't do well on the field PDQ, it's possible that the club could fall into Administration again-hence the League's "leap of faith" I'm not surprised the staff are keeping quite about how they really feel about the money they are owed by JB-they were coerced into accepting a poor deal and those that declined it were threatened with public humiliation for scuppering the deal. The sum that JB was allegedly willing to put towards paying the FC debt when he first became involved was substantially greater than the amount he finally paid out at takeover. Given that he has sold club assets for a couple of million quid since then, I really do wonder why apparently intelligent people like you are still happy to support a bucket rattling campaign to pay of JB's liabilities. With a mindset like that, I expect you would support an increase in the civil list to compensate the Windsor family for having to work over the holiday weekend

[b][b][u][b]Again, most of the staff I speak to are excited about the direction the club is going in and want the Grandstand built as soon as all of us. To be honest, I had hoped the ground would be completed, corners and all giving us a capacity of about 25k, but that is not to be at this development. So be it.[/[/b]quo[/b]te][/u][u]

Grovehill, I'll have to ignore what you were planning on my last paragraph as it clearly did not come out as you expected.

The reason I have supported JB rather than castigate him is because to date he has done what he agreed to do and his plans so far declared seem to be realistic, honestly proposed and will set the club up in the right direction. Should he deviate from that and go back on his word I will be the first to join you in protest, but since completion theres has been no sign of that. Only onward and upward.

His decision to sell the ground back to PCC was well received at the time and I still cant gauge opposition to it now. His decision to fund senior players to stave off the threat of relegation had a similar outcome. His decision to build the Grandstand at no cost to Argyle was another good act and well received by all. I like some others would wish the stand to adjoin the other sides of the ground and give a capacity of 25k so we finally look complete and can handle decent crowds, but its difficult to get too upset if he stops short of that. And a word of caution, lets wait until we finally see the plans as they go to the planning authority. It is clear from public announcments that he is prepared to fund team strengthening. I do not expect large if any fees to be paid, they are rare in this division, but salaries up to the 55% I should imagine will be expected. And yes, however defined we will clearly have a larger playing budget than most other clubs in this division.

Which brings us back to the staff. You may have talked to ones I have not, but I can only repeat what has been said to me; they, to a man/woman are fans of Argyle and are delighted to see we are still alive and kickiing. The lump sum up front was a great sign of faith but whats really important is the fact that the monthly transfer goes ahead with no cock ups and amounts paid are correct. The mindset as you put it is not to absolve JB of his responsibilities or liabilities, he knows those better than most and I am confident he will meet them 100%. But your perception that the staff are unhappy with the Brent era is plaiin wrong from my chats with those people you refer to, the staff.

Innuendo sounds great in a hypothetical arguement, but the reality is that Argyle staff helped saved the club and have stayed because they believe they and the club have a future.

So to say " don't know whether you are being deliberately obtuse, or you really fail to understand or are merely being mischievous (or are you an official spokesman for the unacceptable face of capitalism) is very much wide of the mark. Probably closer is we have 2 different viewpoints which on this particular subject we can find no common ground.

I am by nature an optimist and see JB as a positive influence on our club whilst retaining a sense of caution. You do not trust him and seem to think he is the devil incarnate.

As I say, 2 different opinions.

"11th April 2011 JB to put his cards on the table and all set to buy the club" according to minutes of the Trust Meeting of 9th April. This would have included settlement IN FULL of all FC debts-staff, players and other football creditors.

By the time the deal was done, "in full" became less than 10% up front.

Even allowing for the growth in the FC debt in the intervening months, that's a paltry sum to offer the staff etc.

If the FC debt increased by 25% in the intervening months, that still means he went from offering 100% to paying 12.5%of his first offer! Christ, if Webb got a deal like that for his members, they'd lynch him-you can just imagine him saying "Well members, the Management offered a 5% pay rise at the start of negotiations, but since then I've managed to beat them down to just over half a percent!"

Didn't any of the CPers ask if he was still going to pay the staff (who they professed to care so much about) in full? Was he still able to pay the FC debt in full and chose not to? Or did his finances take a massive tumble in the time between offering and signing?

Or were some people so bamboozled by a guy in a sharp suit that they never asked questions?

Did you look into his eyes Tony?

Did I look into his eyes? Only wearing Aviators:)

As I have said Grovey, we will not probably ever agree but I ought to say JB will be paying the debt in full, he can not escape ethat obligation. So what he said (or was reported) was correct as it was at time of completion. The fact it is spread does not alter the fact it will be paid in full.

Not being a CPer I can not comment on what they we or were not told.

I think most people were happy after all the problems brought about by Heaney and the "Irish" to deal with someone who had the funds and desire to complete.

The more I think about it, the more I am unhappy about the failure to develop the corners of the ground and thereby link the new grandstand to the rest of the ground. It smacks of a way of doing things on the cheap. We will find ourselves in a few year's time, when we are soaring up the divisions with that necessary development as an additional cost. If it had been done now, it would have been part of the 'deal' to put in the new grandstand for 'free'.

I don't see it as an issue to do with our potential crowd size - I see it as an issue of expenditure.

I guess it is possible that there may be some positive issue to do with allowing future expansion more easily but I would need convincing.

knecht wrote:

The more I think about it, the more I am unhappy about the failure to develop the corners of the ground and thereby link the new grandstand to the rest of the ground. It smacks of a way of doing things on the cheap. We will find ourselves in a few year's time, when we are soaring up the divisions with that necessary development as an additional cost. If it had been done now, it would have been part of the 'deal' to put in the new grandstand for 'free'.

I don't see it as an issue to do with our potential crowd size - I see it as an issue of expenditure.

I guess it is possible that there may be some positive issue to do with allowing future expansion more easily but I would need convincing.

Thank you.... pure comedy gold... another new pair of trouser needed

tonycholwell wrote:

Did I look into his eyes? Only wearing Aviators:)

As I have said Grovey, we will not probably ever agree but I ought to say JB will be paying the debt in full, he can not escape ethat obligation. So what he said (or was reported) was correct as it was at time of completion. The fact it is spread does not alter the fact it will be paid in full.

Not being a CPer I can not comment on what they we or were not told.

I think most people were happy after all the problems brought about by Heaney and the "Irish" to deal with someone who had the funds and desire to complete.

JB has not/will not pay the debt in full as the bucket rattlers have paid some of it for him. That "obligation" would of course be null and void if the club goes into Administration again within the next 4.5 years.

By not paying the debt in full at once, Brent has cleverly changed the situation hasn't he. Rather than personally paying the debt, he has created a situation where it will be paid by income from the football club. Quite a clever piece of leverage there, buying a bankrupt business on the basis that that business pays the purchase price. BIL couldn't provide proof of funding, JB got round that by not providing any funding! Under normal circumstances a business comes out of Administration with no debts, JB has created a situation were the business has come out of Administration still liable for the majority of debts that sent it into Administration in the first place! Excellent for him, but not quite so good for the long term future of PAFC (which has now been asset stripped in a way that would delight get-rich-quick merchants everywhere)

Grovehill wrote:

tonycholwell wrote:

Did I look into his eyes? Only wearing Aviators:)

As I have said Grovey, we will not probably ever agree but I ought to say JB will be paying the debt in full, he can not escape ethat obligation. So what he said (or was reported) was correct as it was at time of completion. The fact it is spread does not alter the fact it will be paid in full.

Not being a CPer I can not comment on what they we or were not told.

I think most people were happy after all the problems brought about by Heaney and the "Irish" to deal with someone who had the funds and desire to complete.

JB has not/will not pay the debt in full as the bucket rattlers have paid some of it for him. That "obligation" would of course be null and void if the club goes into Administration again within the next 4.5 years.

By not paying the debt in full at once, Brent has cleverly changed the situation hasn't he. Rather than personally paying the debt, he has created a situation where it will be paid by income from the football club. Quite a clever piece of leverage there, buying a bankrupt business on the basis that that business pays the purchase price. BIL couldn't provide proof of funding, JB got round that by not providing any funding! Under normal circumstances a business comes out of Administration with no debts, JB has created a situation were the business has come out of Administration still liable for the majority of debts that sent it into Administration in the first place! Excellent for him, but not quite so good for the long term future of PAFC (which has now been asset stripped in a way that would delight get-rich-quick merchants everywhere)

I think thats as close to genius as I have ever read on a website.

James Brent was a merchant banker for over 20 years.He is an expert in gearing and leverage "its what he does"..actually James Brent did provide proof of funding to BG...but lets not spoil a good story.

Grovehill wrote:

tonycholwell wrote:

Did I look into his eyes? Only wearing Aviators:)

As I have said Grovey, we will not probably ever agree but I ought to say JB will be paying the debt in full, he can not escape ethat obligation. So what he said (or was reported) was correct as it was at time of completion. The fact it is spread does not alter the fact it will be paid in full.

Not being a CPer I can not comment on what they we or were not told.

I think most people were happy after all the problems brought about by Heaney and the "Irish" to deal with someone who had the funds and desire to complete.

JB has not/will not pay the debt in full as the bucket rattlers have paid some of it for him. That "obligation" would of course be null and void if the club goes into Administration again within the next 4.5 years.

By not paying the debt in full at once, Brent has cleverly changed the situation hasn't he. Rather than personally paying the debt, he has created a situation where it will be paid by income from the football club. Quite a clever piece of leverage there, buying a bankrupt business on the basis that that business pays the purchase price. BIL couldn't provide proof of funding, JB got round that by not providing any funding! Under normal circumstances a business comes out of Administration with no debts, JB has created a situation were the business has come out of Administration still liable for the majority of debts that sent it into Administration in the first place! Excellent for him, but not quite so good for the long term future of PAFC (which has now been asset stripped in a way that would delight get-rich-quick merchants everywhere)

Grovey

As I have already said, you and I are unlikely to agree on anything Argyle related

However, you keep asserting JB will not pay the debt in full, well he has a legal obligation to. I think if you ask the GTs you will get a different story line to your own, what they hand over now JB will recompense them for later.

At the end of the day most people that I can gauge are happy with the Brent custodianship of Argyle and his plans for the future. He has done what many thought was impossible; he has got Pasoti and ATD raising money to sponsor players in common cause (or is that competition?) and many people, incliuding the staff are morethan happy to have their club going forward in safe hands. We may disagree with aspects of his tenure, although we know he aint no shark as far as our club is concerned.

tonycholwell wrote:

...........
However, you keep asserting JB will not pay the debt in full, well he has a legal obligation to. I think if you ask the GTs you will get a different story line to your own, what they hand over now JB will recompense them for later.

.......

I had forgotten that. I think you're right. Money collected now via auctions, events etc will be used to speed up the payments. It won't be used to reduce the amount paid by the 'new' club.

And the fund-raising of the GT's will be put on a more formal footing by giving them space in the new stand to create a longer-lasting Fans' Fest space. I think I remember hearing that.

knecht wrote:

tonycholwell wrote:

...........
However, you keep asserting JB will not pay the debt in full, well he has a legal obligation to. I think if you ask the GTs you will get a different story line to your own, what they hand over now JB will recompense them for later.

.......

I had forgotten that. I think you're right. Money collected now via auctions, events etc will be used to speed up the payments. It won't be used to reduce the amount paid by the 'new' club.

And the fund-raising of the GT's will be put on a more formal footing by giving them space in the new stand to create a longer-lasting Fans' Fest space. I think I remember hearing that.

And don't forget the investment in community projects (whatever that may be or when it starts) that JB promised as a quid pro quo for the GTs fundraising.

And don't forget the investment in community projects (whatever that may be or when it starts) that JB promised as a quid pro quo for the GTs fundraising

I thought that "woolly" commitment was the only mention of any kind of recompense for the fundraising. Has there been a promise to repay donated funds in a concrete way?

Sorry Dougie the quoting had a mind of it's own

Charlie Wood wrote:

And don't forget the investment in community projects (whatever that may be or when it starts) that JB promised as a quid pro quo for the GTs fundraising

I thought that "woolly" commitment was the only mention of any kind of recompense for the fundraising. Has there been a promise to repay donated funds in a concrete way?

Sorry Dougie the quoting had a mind of it's own

Morning Charlie

Im not a GT, but I am sure they would be only too happy to explain the arrangment.

Morning Tony,

The main thing I admire about the GT's is there avoidence of trotting their party line on fan's websites.

I'll have a look through their own site in search of enlightenment.

I have had a look and it seems some fans around League Two are spiteful of Argyle moving forward. Shame on them,and i hope their clubs have an awful season too. Some of those supporters of the League Two clubs just wish to stoke up the fires of resentment ahead of the new season,and i think they envy Argyle perhaps.

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

I can't see why they pick on Argyle. It's not as if the club will walk the League Two title this season (but it would be champion if they did of course ?),more like gain a standing in May that can be called a ''vast improvement''.

And this all depends on what Fletcher signs during the Summer. If anyone has seen today's Herald,he (Fletcher) is stating that any new players coming here should embrace the City and region,not come down here for one or two days,then drive back home again. That has always been the case though,players seem to feel they are out on a limb when they come to Plymouth Argyle,and eagerly try to seek out the exit door !!.

I see another so-so season ahead,but if Argyle can scrape in to the top 11 or 12 sides come May '13,then the many doubters of Fletcher (and i include myself in that catagory) may see the shell of a good side emerging.

Christmas [or before ?] is being spoken as a good time to throw judgement on Fletcher and where Argyle are in the table.

VillageGreen wrote:

I have had a look and it seems some fans around League Two are spiteful of Argyle moving forward. Shame on them,and i hope their clubs have an awful season too. Some of those supporters of the League Two clubs just wish to stoke up the fires of resentment ahead of the new season,and i think they envy Argyle perhaps.

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

I can't see why they pick on Argyle. It's not as if the club will walk the League Two title this season (but it would be champion if they did of course ?),more like gain a standing in May that can be called a ''vast improvement''.

And this all depends on what Fletcher signs during the Summer. If anyone has seen today's Herald,he (Fletcher) is stating that any new players coming here should embrace the City and region,not come down here for one or two days,then drive back home again. That has always been the case though,players seem to feel they are out on a limb when they come to Plymouth Argyle,and eagerly try to seek out the exit door !!.

I see another so-so season ahead,but if Argyle can scrape in to the top 11 or 12 sides come May '13,then the many doubters of Fletcher (and i include myself in that catagory) may see the shell of a good side emerging.

Christmas [or before ?] is being spoken as a good time to throw judgement on Fletcher and where Argyle are in the table.

Interesting read.

Up here I am surrounded by Bristol fans of red and blue and my next door neighbour is a Bath City ST holder, a really rare breed. Yet, some of the negative comments I have just read do come as a surprise as they are not common amongst my neighbours at all and it is known by everyone who I support.

Most welcome the fact we are still in the league admittedly for a variety of reasons. The rest are plain indifferent:)

VillageGreen wrote:

I have had a look and it seems some fans around League Two are spiteful of Argyle moving forward. Shame on them,and i hope their clubs have an awful season too. Some of those supporters of the League Two clubs just wish to stoke up the fires of resentment ahead of the new season,and i think they envy Argyle perhaps.

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

I can't see why they pick on Argyle. It's not as if the club will walk the League Two title this season (but it would be champion if they did of course ?),more like gain a standing in May that can be called a ''vast improvement''.

And this all depends on what Fletcher signs during the Summer. If anyone has seen today's Herald,he (Fletcher) is stating that any new players coming here should embrace the City and region,not come down here for one or two days,then drive back home again. That has always been the case though,players seem to feel they are out on a limb when they come to Plymouth Argyle,and eagerly try to seek out the exit door !!.

I see another so-so season ahead,but if Argyle can scrape in to the top 11 or 12 sides come May '13,then the many doubters of Fletcher (and i include myself in that catagory) may see the shell of a good side emerging.

Christmas [or before ?] is being spoken as a good time to throw judgement on Fletcher and where Argyle are in the table.

I think a lot of fans,myself included will be looking for a much better finish than mid table.We have some experienced old pros in this team,who have played at a much higher level,and coupled with some up and coming youngsters,and an additional striker maybe,we should as a club be aiming for a play off position at the very least.I will for one will be most disappointed if we finish the season mid table.I would also like to think we will have a decent cup run or two,rather than the old tea bag scenario.With the short term deals that Argyle were offering its a bit much to expect players to move home and family for 12 months.

tonycholwell wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

tonycholwell wrote:

Did I look into his eyes? Only wearing Aviators:)

As I have said Grovey, we will not probably ever agree but I ought to say JB will be paying the debt in full, he can not escape ethat obligation. So what he said (or was reported) was correct as it was at time of completion. The fact it is spread does not alter the fact it will be paid in full.

Not being a CPer I can not comment on what they we or were not told.

I think most people were happy after all the problems brought about by Heaney and the "Irish" to deal with someone who had the funds and desire to complete.

JB has not/will not pay the debt in full as the bucket rattlers have paid some of it for him. That "obligation" would of course be null and void if the club goes into Administration again within the next 4.5 years.

By not paying the debt in full at once, Brent has cleverly changed the situation hasn't he. Rather than personally paying the debt, he has created a situation where it will be paid by income from the football club. Quite a clever piece of leverage there, buying a bankrupt business on the basis that that business pays the purchase price. BIL couldn't provide proof of funding, JB got round that by not providing any funding! Under normal circumstances a business comes out of Administration with no debts, JB has created a situation were the business has come out of Administration still liable for the majority of debts that sent it into Administration in the first place! Excellent for him, but not quite so good for the long term future of PAFC (which has now been asset stripped in a way that would delight get-rich-quick merchants everywhere)

Grovey

As I have already said, you and I are unlikely to agree on anything Argyle related

However, you keep asserting JB will not pay the debt in full, well he has a legal obligation to. I think if you ask the GTs you will get a different story line to your own, what they hand over now JB will recompense them for later.

At the end of the day most people that I can gauge are happy with the Brent custodianship of Argyle and his plans for the future. He has done what many thought was impossible; he has got Pasoti and ATD raising money to sponsor players in common cause (or is that competition?) and many people, incliuding the staff are morethan happy to have their club going forward in safe hands. We may disagree with aspects of his tenure, although we know he aint no shark as far as our club is concerned.

As has been said of all the Argyle Chairmen I can recall in their early days.


Anyway, as you well know, under the terms JB "negotiated" he has a legal obligation to make sure the debt is paid in full (over five years) but the money will come out of income generated by the football club-as in sell a player for a million (I wish) half that money goes to pay off the debt that JB is "legally obliged" to pay.

As for the deal with the GT's-that's even woollier that the FC agreement-pay my debts for me now and I'll give you "something" in return at some time in the future.

The Football League were not over the moon with JB's plans for Argyle and took "a leap of faith" I for one am praying that in 5 years time that faith will have been repaid.


In terms of what he has done for the club, the reality is that he's denuded the football club of all realisable assets, loaded it with a great part of the debt that nearly killed it in the first place, saddled the team with a very inexperienced management and rewarded a couple of dubious characters with spurious job titles. In fact, apart from the jobs for the boys, he's done just what BIL said they would do and got castigated for.

People need to look at the hard facts, not the emotionally based fantasies advanced by most of his fan club.

MacCauley started out even more popular than JB-he threw money at the team and offered us Wilkins and Ardilles-we ended up with wobbly and arthritic players and our lowest league finish ever (up to last season)

As I say, lets judge JB at the end of his tenure.

Grovehill said:

"As I say, lets judge JB at the end of his tenure"

Amen to that

Grovehill wrote:

As I say, lets judge JB at the end of his tenure.

Most of your stuff is spot on Groovy, but the above seems straight out of the Contingency lexicon.
Do you believe in the efficacy of preventative medicine ? ...

oddball wrote:

James Brent was a merchant banker for over 20 years............

Where I live our rhyming slang suggests he's a right wanker then!

Argyle have a hundred pecent record since i started supporting them and robert daniels was chairmen, without fail each and every one of them have been uttershite smalltown tossers who could not run a bath let alone a football club, so uncle jim has not got much to beat.

when robert daniel was chairman argyle spent a british record fee of £45000 on a winger called barrie jones.the problem was the board at that time didn't carry on from there.james brent aint going to spend a penny of his own money and will rely on organic growth as the way forward.with the new stand and its associated corporate facilities not due for completeion until 2015 the organic growth model could take some time.

tonycholwell wrote:

Charlie Wood wrote:

And don't forget the investment in community projects (whatever that may be or when it starts) that JB promised as a quid pro quo for the GTs fundraising

I thought that "woolly" commitment was the only mention of any kind of recompense for the fundraising. Has there been a promise to repay donated funds in a concrete way?

Sorry Dougie the quoting had a mind of it's own

Morning Charlie

Im not a GT, but I am sure they would be only too happy to explain the arrangment.

Really? From my perspective there would be an aggressive 'don't you know what the GT's have done for the club' followed ridicule and sustained Internet abuse campaign. The fact is nobody knows what the 'arrangement' is, if there is one, because if there was you would have thought it would be set out clearly at the outset. Brent has somehow aquired a football club at virtually no expense to himself, moreover seems to have relieved the club of any obvious asset and transfer the bits he didn't want to the public sector.

The only I can see with him and Heaney is the involvement of the previous gang, but nobody really knows what is in place there either.