The image of plymouth argyle

At the time we signed Barry Jones, Francis Lee was dissapointed because it was not him

oddball wrote:

james brent aint going to spend a penny of his own money and will rely on organic growth as the way forward.

Organic growth ~ Do you mean treating the fans like mushrooms, keeping them in the dark and feeding them shit...............that's what your last ownership gave you wasn't it?

It's the spin that the Brent fan club put on things that riles me.

Spin: Brent gives Fletcher competitive budget/Fletcher has money to spend thanks to Brent
Reality: Like all clubs in this Division PAFC can spend up to 55% of income on player wages, Brent isn't contributing a penny to this, it's the standard share of gate receipts etc.


Spin: Brent to give Argyle new stand
Reality; Brent will make a profit on the land he sold to his own development company (largely because it was sold at a bargain price) A part of this windfall profit will be used to build a stand. Again, this is not money Brent is giving away, it's merely a share of the profit he will make on a prime site that used to belong to the football club.

Spin; Brent supported the signing of experienced players to avoid relegation
Reality; As per the budget question, it's money the club has generated through gate receipts etc. Brent has made it clear he will not be a "sugar daddy"

Spin: Brent has done everything he said he would
Reality: This is true. He said he wouldn't pump money into the football club and he hasn't. However, given that he made no promises, there's not a lot to celebrate.

Grovehill wrote:

It's the spin that the Brent fan club put on things that riles me.

Spin: Brent gives Fletcher competitive budget/Fletcher has money to spend thanks to Brent
Reality: Like all clubs in this Division PAFC can spend up to 55% of income on player wages, Brent isn't contributing a penny to this, it's the standard share of gate receipts etc.


Spin: Brent to give Argyle new stand
Reality; Brent will make a profit on the land he sold to his own development company (largely because it was sold at a bargain price) A part of this windfall profit will be used to build a stand. Again, this is not money Brent is giving away, it's merely a share of the profit he will make on a prime site that used to belong to the football club.

Spin; Brent supported the signing of experienced players to avoid relegation
Reality; As per the budget question, it's money the club has generated through gate receipts etc. Brent has made it clear he will not be a "sugar daddy"

Spin: Brent has done everything he said he would
Reality: This is true. He said he wouldn't pump money into the football club and he hasn't. However, given that he made no promises, there's not a lot to celebrate.

Grovey, Im as questioning as the next man, but to date, as you concede, JB has done exactly what he said he woul;d do.

However, you still attempt to mis represent him and the situation.

It is not 55% of gate receipts, it is 55% of turnover, big differrence.

Fletcher will have a bigger budget than all bar about 4-5 other teams because our turnover is bigger. Come on, its not rocket science.

Simple fact is brent could have saddled the club with debt to build the new stand. he isnt!

JB has been honest he will not be a sugar daddy. Iim sorry, this is no revelation, its what he has said all along.

You finally agree he has done what he said he would do. Hooray:)

And you beef is?

You're right Tony, but being right doesn't mean that you are not pushing the spin button. Brent could have saddled the club with the debt of the new stand but then, he would not have gained support from PCC if he did.

A fine example of spin if ever I saw one.

GOB wrote:

You're right Tony, but being right doesn't mean that you are not pushing the spin button. Brent could have saddled the club with the debt of the new stand but then, he would not have gained support from PCC if he did.

A fine example of spin if ever I saw one.

I accept what you say Gob, although Im not quite sure how much support he needed from PCC. Mind, in saying that, I accept that being an exile I dont read everything in the Herald or local TV so may have missed something.

My reasoning is quite simple, he was PCC preferred bidder because they knew he had the means to make a difference and was "friendly" towards the City. Dont get me wrong, he also did it because he could make money, but in itself I have no problem with that. His purchase/interest in the Pavillions has also done PCC a huge favour and freed them from liability. So when it came to the car park, which is already a brownfield site and he didnt propose anything to the detriment of the park as a whole he must of seemed like Santa Claus. And he had dual party support.

As I say, Im not so sure there was a trade off here.

Oh and to answer you directly; I dont do spin and have no financial interest in JB or Akkeron or any associate company. If I have something to say for good or ill I will say it. And I say it with only one screen name here or on Pasoti. I had hoped to put an alternate view to Grovehill and correct some factual errors. I will clearly be aware in future that some may see this as spin.

Right, Church Fete to MC:)

Right, Church Fete to MC:)


Yo yo yo this is MC Tony C, in the house of God. Rocking the aisles with the songs of praise.

tonycholwell wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

It's the spin that the Brent fan club put on things that riles me.

Spin: Brent gives Fletcher competitive budget/Fletcher has money to spend thanks to Brent
Reality: Like all clubs in this Division PAFC can spend up to 55% of income on player wages, Brent isn't contributing a penny to this, it's the standard share of gate receipts etc.


Spin: Brent to give Argyle new stand
Reality; Brent will make a profit on the land he sold to his own development company (largely because it was sold at a bargain price) A part of this windfall profit will be used to build a stand. Again, this is not money Brent is giving away, it's merely a share of the profit he will make on a prime site that used to belong to the football club.

Spin; Brent supported the signing of experienced players to avoid relegation
Reality; As per the budget question, it's money the club has generated through gate receipts etc. Brent has made it clear he will not be a "sugar daddy"

Spin: Brent has done everything he said he would
Reality: This is true. He said he wouldn't pump money into the football club and he hasn't. However, given that he made no promises, there's not a lot to celebrate.

Grovey, Im as questioning as the next man, but to date, as you concede, JB has done exactly what he said he woul;d do.

However, you still attempt to mis represent him and the situation.

It is not 55% of gate receipts, it is 55% of turnover, big differrence.

Fletcher will have a bigger budget than all bar about 4-5 other teams because our turnover is bigger. Come on, its not rocket science.

Simple fact is brent could have saddled the club with debt to build the new stand. he isnt!

JB has been honest he will not be a sugar daddy. Iim sorry, this is no revelation, its what he has said all along.

You finally agree he has done what he said he would do. Hooray:)

And you beef is?

As I said, my beef is with the spin being put on things.

Some people are portraying JB as a saviour who is doing wonderful things for PAFC as in "Brent gives Fletcher competitive budget" when he's "given" nothing, he's just allowed the manager to spend the permitted share of club's income/turnover.

In the same vein you say that he hasn't "saddled the club with debt to build the new stand" as if that's very generous of him. The reality of course, is that to all intents, Brent IS the club as he owns the vast majority of the shares. So all he has done is to agree that part of the profit he makes out of developing the land he bought for a song (a part of the buyout deal) will be spent within the club, he is not personally putting any money in (in fact I suspect he's avoiding a bit of tax) but people portray him as a benefactor to the club.

So, make a lot of money out of the land that used to belong to the club, give a bit of it back and get praised for doing so....sorry, I don't get it. As the land belonged to the club, why didn't he keep it within the ownership of the club and then the club would have got ALL the profit from it?

More of a question than anything else ..... the statement was that Mr Brent's company paid the market rate for the adjoining land. If that is true, how is that buying the land 'for a song'?

Very true Groovey, and as Gob has said, there ain't half been some spin over the whole process from the contingency hats and following cabal.
The clues were quite clearly spelled out by the City Council a long time ago now. The Council said they were disappointed that the Ridsdale/Guilfoyle process had 'failed to find a private sector solution'.... it couldn't have been more clear.... the council have since bought the stadium, and the football club have most of the debt rescheduled against it.... and in one way, that is morally correct, it being considered a going concern.... so basically, if anyything, I see the football side of things in the medium term future will be paying for the much of the grandstand and back wall to the main dish on the plate.

All along it has been well trailed that the whole property side of this distasteful episode has included 'Derriford and Millbay', and now we know that Jamesy is also involved in hoped for developments down at Milbay where there is much Council land. I don't know how much clearer it has to be for some people.

So, if anyone thinks our rich ex banker is going to spend millions of his own money out of his 'pension fund' building a grandstand for a sporting club he said he didn't want, they really do need a grip on reality, and I'm sure most people aren't that daft. So why big up the latest squire when he isn't investing much into the club, iwhilst doing down anything to do with the nearest thing to an elected grass root Argyle constituency ? That's a serious question.

knecht wrote:

More of a question than anything else ..... the statement was that Mr Brent's company paid the market rate for the adjoining land. If that is true, how is that buying the land 'for a song'?

Depends where the valuation came from. Let's face it, we all know that there is a valuation, and what something is worth. The old board certainly knew how to get the right valuation so I'm sure Mr Brent did too.

PCC are certainly very accommodating towards James Brent now and a partnership like that is like gold dust.

I know where Grovey is coming from when he talks about the spin being put on things. The average League 2 football supporter is under the impression that he has pumped millions into Argyle and will continue doing so. They see the announcement of a new grandstand as a slap in the face for the creditors who only a short time ago lost a great deal of money.

What makes me angry is seeing clubs like Fleetwood able to outspend us seemingly, when their average gates last season, when gaining promotion, must have been around 2,000. It would be interesting to know turnover and wages details for the whole league, as I can't see that we are able to compete with some clubs, despite our comparatively large gates. I know we have the handicap of the debt to throw into the mix, but it still doesn't seem to add up to me.

This topic has even made it onto the WSC football forum..

knecht wrote:

More of a question than anything else ..... the statement was that Mr Brent's company paid the market rate for the adjoining land. If that is true, how is that buying the land 'for a song'?

Brent bought the land as part of the deal to buy the club out of administration, a deal that cost him virtually nothing in terms of "cash up front" once PCC bought the rest of the property off him.

It was then transferred from one Brent company ( PAFC) to another (Akerron Pension Fund) at a valuation set by a Local Authority Valuations Officer in the depths of an economic slump- a true valuation would have been achieved by auctioning the site to the highest bidder.

If anyone thinks the valuation was correct, please explain how the developer will make so much money on the site that he will agree to bung in a grandstand for the football club out of his profits. As I have said, under this deal PAFC will benefit by just 50% of the profit that will be made on the site.

If the club continues to follow this business model, expect all players leaving PAFC to be sold to Preston North End for a valuation agreed between Ridders and Hotel man. Ridders will then use his business expertise to sell the players on for a whole lot more and donate 50% of his profit to PAFC.

Grovehill wrote:

knecht wrote:

More of a question than anything else ..... the statement was that Mr Brent's company paid the market rate for the adjoining land. If that is true, how is that buying the land 'for a song'?

Brent bought the land as part of the deal to buy the club out of administration, a deal that cost him virtually nothing in terms of "cash up front" once PCC bought the rest of the property off him.

It was then transferred from one Brent company ( PAFC) to another (Akerron Pension Fund) at a valuation set by a Local Authority Valuations Officer in the depths of an economic slump- a true valuation would have been achieved by auctioning the site to the highest bidder.

If anyone thinks the valuation was correct, please explain how the developer will make so much money on the site that he will agree to bung in a grandstand for the football club out of his profits. As I have said, under this deal PAFC will benefit by just 50% of the profit that will be made on the site.

If the club continues to follow this business model, expect all players leaving PAFC to be sold to Preston North End for a valuation agreed between Ridders and Hotel man. Ridders will then use his business expertise to sell the players on for a whole lot more and donate 50% of his profit to PAFC.

Grovey for someone that goes on about spin you do a pretty good job yourself with even less less justificatiopn it seems to me.

JB bought Argyle out of administration and accepted its liabilities.

He did not pretend to be the second coming of Mother Theresa.

He is a businessman who is well versed in buying companies from administrators and turning them around.

He sold the football ground back to the City Council. (To much applause) and leased it back.

He transfered the "car park" into another company.

He will provide Argyle with a Grandstand (although not completeing the stadium) at no charge to the football club.

He will develop the "car park" and make a handsome bonus (he hopes)

At the end of the day he was the only credible buyer from the Administrator.

If you consider any of these statements spin please let me know as I dont think they are, purely statement of the blinding obvious.

If you do not like Brent, that is fair comment if you give a reason. But because others disagree with you it is not in itself "spin" If people are spinning for him rather than supporting his ownership please indicate where that can be found.

Greenjock wrote:

Right, Church Fete to MC:)


Yo yo yo this is MC Tony C, in the house of God. Rocking the aisles with the songs of praise.

Hahaha

Loved that, especially as it was indoors due to flooded Rectory garden

Cheers GJ made I laff