I'm a Praaaaaaaper Fan and I post on ATD

You don't trouble me - and I am not your good chap.

I don't listen to people who consider themselves infallible. They rarely are.

Merv Plummer

pafcineurope wrote:

You don't trouble me - and I am not your good chap.

I don't listen to people who consider themselves infallible. They rarely are.

Merv Plummer

Don't think I've ever claimed to be infallible Merv but don't let that stop your bleatings.

Andrew Brooks

You surprise me - you saw it all coming for PAFC, and keep on about it. However, yet to hear how you would have done/would do things differently or better. You've been asked several times but the answer is usually silence.

It's your bleatings that piss people off. Same old, same old. Enjoy your site - you'll be driving people away.

Can't be bothered with you anymore.

Merv Plummer

The answer pafcineurope is that none of the bleaters would have done it better because not one of them has a pot to piss in when it comes to the money. Always willing for somebody else to spend theirs of course and there is always this imaginary consortium to fall back on who pop up in most explanations. The people with the biggest ideas are the ones who don't spend a bean of their own cash even to attend if they can.

It is a fact of life that business people do NOT hand out flysheets giving details of all of their business. Brent is no different and there is no way he is going to give everyone chapter and verse. Why should he it is absolutely none of their business in the first place. We would all like to know the ins and outs of the dealings but that is about as close as we will ever come to the answer and any right minded person would know that.

I suspect I'm in the dull and ignorant category but I prefer to be there than in the arrogant asshole group.

Sitting on the fence again sensible......just tell them the truth.....they wont recognize it anyway.

I've had a groove fitted ZYPH so it doesn't hurt anymore.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

The answer pafcineurope is that none of the bleaters would have done it better because not one of them has a pot to piss in when it comes to the money. Always willing for somebody else to spend theirs of course and there is always this imaginary consortium to fall back on who pop up in most explanations. The people with the biggest ideas are the ones who don't spend a bean of their own cash even to attend if they can.

It is a fact of life that business people do NOT hand out flysheets giving details of all of their business. Brent is no different and there is no way he is going to give everyone chapter and verse. Why should he it is absolutely none of their business in the first place. We would all like to know the ins and outs of the dealings but that is about as close as we will ever come to the answer and any right minded person would know that.

I suspect I'm in the dull and ignorant category but I prefer to be there than in the arrogant asshole group.

I've already said I'm probably in the dull and ignorant category Greenskin. I can't compete with rivetting scyntilating contributions like your's. Not quite intelligent though, there is definately another Z in zZZ. You missed the usual retort which is "they just don't get it". Not that anyone has ever explained exactly what it is "they" just don't get.

If you want pasoti style responses of everyone singing from the same hymn sheet then just rename this site pasoti II and we will all start with "lets now all sing hymn No......".

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

I've already said I'm probably in the dull and ignorant category Greenskin. I can't compete with rivetting scyntilating contributions like your's. Not quite intelligent though, there is definately another Z in zZZ. You missed the usual retort which is "they just don't get it". Not that anyone has ever explained exactly what it is "they" just don't get.

If you want pasoti style responses of everyone singing from the same hymn sheet then just rename this site pasoti II and we will all start with "lets now all sing hymn No......".

Well,the consortium wasn't imaginary,was it?

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

I suspect I'm in the dull and ignorant category but I prefer to be there than in the arrogant asshole group.

I suspect you may well be right on the dull front Sensible, but lets hope the ignorance is a joke.
There are other groups we can belong to .. it ain't just one or the other.

I find it hard to understand why Tringy has invoked such ire on here ... he just rams home the same point, no more than that, as many many posters do, in fact Sensible and 125 have been as irrepressibly consistent from their barracades.... perhaps it's the style that irritates some, and maybe it is intended to, but that's life.

I would hate for this place to become another Pasoti. Rounding on an individual just for being a one trick pony. The next thing will be folk clamouring for an ignore button and it being accepted as the way forward.

Was it real though Greenskin? Who were they? How much was on the table? What were their terms? How much was their combined worth? Please feel free not to answer because people normally don't. They just point out there was a Consortium as if that explains everything.

It was real enough SG, ask our current Peter Jones, he led it at the time.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

Was it real though Greenskin? Who were they? How much was on the table? What were their terms? How much was their combined worth? Please feel free not to answer because people normally don't. They just point out there was a Consortium as if that explains everything.

The details were reported thoroughly at the time.Plympton Pilgrim was involved and could provide much greater detail than i could but Peter Jones was definitely involved,as was Kevin Ball,aka McLondonG,a wealthy Argyle supporter [he used to post as Spagmybol on the old Argyletalk] self evidently based in London.I seem to remember that their proposal involved the removal of 2 directors who were on the board at the time and it was rejected,seemingly on a point of etiquette,but PP would be able to put the flesh on the bones better than i-he was very much involved,apparently due to his desire for a car parking space at HP.

So what do you think Sensible ? Brenty shouldn't give any details of the REAL financial make up of the club to any fans but then ask the Argle Fans Trust to try and get together hundreds of thousands of investment in a vulnerable share holding ?
You really do seem as you are there for the taking and a customer from heaven .. can I interest you in a product or two ? I've got loads of deals and I've even a great line in how I run a selling footballclub nursery, it's worked a treat over in Japan, but then I was dealing with financial advisors who didn't know their assets from their liabilities.

Penz wrote:

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

I suspect I'm in the dull and ignorant category but I prefer to be there than in the arrogant asshole group.

I suspect you may well be right on the dull front Sensible, but lets hope the ignorance is a joke.
There are other groups we can belong to .. it ain't just one or the other.

I find it hard to understand why Tringy has invoked such ire on here ... he just rams home the same point, no more than that, as many many posters do, in fact Sensible and 125 have been as irrepressibly consistent from their barracades.... perhaps it's the style that irritates some, and maybe it is intended to, but that's life.

I would hate for this place to become another Pasoti. Rounding on an individual just for being a one trick pony. The next thing will be folk clamouring for an ignore button and it being accepted as the way forward.

Penz...quite agree with all that.I enjoy Tring's daily mutterings, they dont irritate me in the slightest.One trick maybe but as you correctly say,a lot of others on here are one trickers also. A Pasoti ignore button.how naff is that,I suppose as naff as PASOTI which is why many have left or indeed dont post on there anymore.The likes of Rupert Metcalf,Drew Savage,Tyhee Slim,John Loyd,Peter Jones,well known names appear to have given up.

Greenskin wrote:

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

Was it real though Greenskin? Who were they? How much was on the table? What were their terms? How much was their combined worth? Please feel free not to answer because people normally don't. They just point out there was a Consortium as if that explains everything.

The details were reported thoroughly at the time.Plympton Pilgrim was involved and could provide much greater detail than i could but Peter Jones was definitely involved,as was Kevin Ball,aka McLondonG,a wealthy Argyle supporter [he used to post as Spagmybol on the old Argyletalk] self evidently based in London.I seem to remember that their proposal involved the removal of 2 directors who were on the board at the time and it was rejected,seemingly on a point of etiquette,but PP would be able to put the flesh on the bones better than i-he was very much involved,apparently due to his desire for a car parking space at HP.

I used to have a 'copy' of the offer letter. It did put alot of flesh of the bones. There were alot of fun and games on Pasoti at the time. There was real money on the table for the team at the time not for the stadium etc. The thing that i found very positive was a goodly nod to community engagement (long before Brent promising a quid pro quo for The Green Taverners fundraising - what happening on that front btw and the Forza Verde yoof scheme) with a guy whose name I always forget but was involve dwith David James' Malawi charity.

Penz wrote:

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

I suspect I'm in the dull and ignorant category but I prefer to be there than in the arrogant asshole group.

I suspect you may well be right on the dull front Sensible, but lets hope the ignorance is a joke.
There are other groups we can belong to .. it ain't just one or the other.

I find it hard to understand why Tringy has invoked such ire on here ... he just rams home the same point, no more than that, as many many posters do, in fact Sensible and 125 have been as irrepressibly consistent from their barracades.... perhaps it's the style that irritates some, and maybe it is intended to, but that's life.

I would hate for this place to become another Pasoti. Rounding on an individual just for being a one trick pony. The next thing will be folk clamouring for an ignore button and it being accepted as the way forward.

I agree with this.Quite a few of us have posted on the same site as Tringy for a few years now and have never had any trouble in sharing the same cyberspace or enjoying his posts,which,if you look beneath the repitition,contain much truth about the Argyle syndrome and at least attempt to come to a logical understanding of why the club has underachieved rather than blind acceptance of permanent mediocrity.Tringy represents what ATD should be about IMHO,independent thinking,critical and justifiably cynical.If you think that he repeats himself too much,then why not just say "Ah,Tringy's repeating himself again" and move on,a sort of self imposed ignore button.Not the course of action that i would recommend,his posts contain too much truth to be ignored IMHO,but different strokes for different folks.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

It is a fact of life that business people do NOT hand out flysheets giving details of all of their business. Brent is no different and there is no way he is going to give everyone chapter and verse. Why should he it is absolutely none of their business in the first place. We would all like to know the ins and outs of the dealings but that is about as close as we will ever come to the answer and any right minded person would know that.

I find this quite surprising. If the whole of PAFC's traumatic years shows anything, it is that you can't just regard a football club as a business like any other. Supporting a football club is quite different from being the customer of a business. The lack of transparency during the years of irresponsible behaviour was arguably part of the problem. Therefore it seems to make absolute sense to insist on more transparency this time round; it would be a form of safeguard against further abuses. Aside from anything else, JB announced greater transparency in January and I honestly can't see what is wrong with holding him to this commitment.

charleymouse wrote:

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

It is a fact of life that business people do NOT hand out flysheets giving details of all of their business. Brent is no different and there is no way he is going to give everyone chapter and verse. Why should he it is absolutely none of their business in the first place. We would all like to know the ins and outs of the dealings but that is about as close as we will ever come to the answer and any right minded person would know that.

I find this quite surprising. If the whole of PAFC's traumatic years shows anything, it is that you can't just regard a football club as a business like any other. Supporting a football club is quite different from being the customer of a business. The lack of transparency during the years of irresponsible behaviour was arguably part of the problem. Therefore it seems to make absolute sense to insist on more transparency this time round; it would be a form of safeguard against further abuses. Aside from anything else, JB announced greater transparency in January and I honestly can't see what is wrong with holding him to this commitment.

This is why we want a strong, independent and vibrant trust, imho.

This was written by Posty on Vital in 2007 about the consortium (i've posted this recently)

Late last year a group of wealthy and committed Argyle fans formed a consortium and approached Argyle chairman Paul Stapleton with an offer of £5 million. The consortium comprised of Kevin Ball, Julian Seaward, Chris Garden, Peter Jones and Di Thompson, three of the consortium would have contributed their own personal money towards the £5m on offer but part of the plan was that three current directors would have to leave the club.

Of course Argyle fans will recognise Jones from his successful time as Vice-Chairman at Argyle and would be happy to see him back at the club. It's fair to say that since Jones left the club the communication from PAFC to the fans has been poor. Thompson is Chief Executive of Camelot who operates the national lottery and is also a former Businesswoman of the Year and her expertise and experience would have benefited the club enormously.

The consortium were against the purchase of the Home Park freehold from Plymouth Council, which meant the club had to spend £2.7 million that could have been used elsewhere.

With a sound and robust business plan in place the new Argyle board of directors would have comprised Paul Stapleton as chairman, Tony Wrathall, Nic Warren, Julian Seaward and Peter Jones, with Di Thompson on board as a non-executive director. The three new directors would have represented the interests of Ball and Garden. There was also scope for a supporters' representative on the board and further investment from private individuals.


However, this offer was rejected by Stapleton and the Argyle board, no doubt because they have other plans in place and will seek investment from partners of their choosing. The directors may even have plans to borrow the money needed to build Phase 2.

Stapleton could rightly argue that a stable board of directors has served the club well for the past 6 years. Under the chairmanship of Stapleton the club has progressed through the leagues to become an established Championship club, a superb achievement. But off the pitch there is a nagging doubt that the current board of directors have taken Argyle as far as they can.

Shortly after rejecting the offer from the consortium Argyle director Nic Warren left the Argyle board of directors.

There is speculation that the consortium may return with another offer in the summer, 6 months after their original offer to help the club.
The consortium has politely declined an interview with Plymouth Vital.

So where does this leave PAFC? Well only the five directors at the club will know.
The theme throughout this article is 'where does the money come from?' and it's likely that the board will borrow from a financial institution.

Hopefully as things progress during the close season more will be revealed as to what the future plans for Argyle will be.
But somehow, either by borrowing, by investment or from a friendly consortium, Argyle desperately need funding in order to progress on and off the field.

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

Firstly I will say that I was never a participant in any football chat site several years ago so I have no idea what was or wasn't posted on pasoti at the time. Therefore it isn't a "just doesn't get it" it is a simply doesn't know like I suspect a fair few others. The second thing is that just because I don't doubt Brent at every turn does not make me or anyone else who doesn't an acceptor of mediocraty. That is an easy jibe to make but has no meaning. Thirdly, why do I make a perfect customer? I will have a pop like anyone else if I think there is something to have a pop about. I will not however simply accept there is a problem with everything the man does. The most compelling point most seem to make against him is that as it is him, and given Argyle's history, there simply must be a hidden agenda.

It is a simple fact of life that no businessman is going to give anyone chapter and verse on his dealings or how much he paid for this or that. He has acquired the club on terms acceptable to the people involved and they were the only ones who needed to know. Transparency is never going to include these details. He has been fairly transparent about a number of things and as far as I can see, without being privvy to any inner sanctum, he has told the supporters what he would do and done it up to now. That is transparancy as much as I can tell.

As for Mr Tring and his comments well personally I don't give a monkey's if he says the same thing in every post which he pretty much does anyway. It isn't that that I get a tad fed up with. It is the patronising and arrogant manner he posts in. King of the "They just don't get it" post and if anyone dares to trespass on his little site and invade the hareem of starstruck tarts he clearly has then they are sidelined and belittled. Dogs of War on pasoti but as I've said before it is exactly the same on here with the usual suspects fawning to join the put down. No bannings which is the only difference. He couldn't even do his self imposed exile without announcing it to the world like some diva hoping no doubt for the faithful to beg him not to go.

Thank you for that Chemical Ali, it is something I have never seen previously and it begs the question as to why nobody has bothered to put it on a thread previously when the argument of Consortium comes up. I have no doubt there are plenty of others who have never seen it either.

It's probably been mentioned before and I missed it whilst looking after my pets or was busy giving blood or at some fundraiser for retired greyhounds or something, but is Nick Warren nikkk by any chance? I seem to recall something about nikkk wanting to approach James Brent about investment.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

Thank you for that Chemical Ali, it is something I have never seen previously and it begs the question as to why nobody has bothered to put it on a thread previously when the argument of Consortium comes up. I have no doubt there are plenty of others who have never seen it either.

There was a hundred page debate on PASOTI at the time,Rupert Metcalf wrote about it in the WMN and it has been the subject of discussion on this site and the old Argyletalk on countless occasions.With respect,if you didn't know about the London consortium bid and it's aftermath,then you couldn't have looked very hard because it was certainly there for all to see.

Greenjock wrote:

It's probably been mentioned before and I missed it whilst looking after my pets or was busy giving blood or at some fundraiser for retired greyhounds or something, but is Nick Warren nikkk by any chance? I seem to recall something about nikkk wanting to approach James Brent about investment.

There's definitely a Bunny connection I can see, Jock