Its like syria down on the farm

Ffarquhar wrote:

I too think you should go for it Cobi. Keen young fans like you are just what is needed.

Thankyou

Just don't forget us freaks and weirdo's when your lording it up on the top table, sat next to dumb and dumber in the director's box and sharing a lift in the limo.

Cobi Budge is the modern day....... Joseph and his amazing Greencoloured dreamcoat.....will we recognize him when we come looking for handouts,.....remember us Cobi in your position of power.

zeezan gets my vote

Renegade wrote:

zeezan gets my vote

Is that because she has a big pair of......buckets?

I am only going to vote for Cobi if he changes his name back to Pitbull.

Frank Bullitt wrote:

I am only going to vote for Cobi if he changes his name back to Pitbull.

I second that! He sounds meaner as pitbull

Funny to see xtwat retreating back to towing the nool line on the farm," i love jb honest i do ian," what a wanker!

I must say, reading the Pasoti thread that questions Harry's intentions is quite entertaining.

From the assertion that because there's no income in the close season, Harry is paying all the bills out of his own pocket to the my/our/his club confusion about Harry building a stand for our/my/his/ the Council's benefit, it's an endless example of the blinkeredness or sheer downright stupidity of some people.


As we all know, Harry has got more cash back from selling the ground to the Council and his own company than it cost him to buy the club-cashwise he's already made a profit.

The real test will be if he's still around in four year's time when the bulk of the Football debt is due to be repaid, I can't see that being funded solely from football income so the test will be if he puts his hand in his pocket for that.

My guess is that he'll sell up if the Club does well or put us back into Administration if we continue to struggle in the basement (or lower)

I think the ganging up on the legitimate questions that marin(er) was asking on pasoti is reprehensible.

But the point remains that Mr Brent bought the club saying, in so many words, that he was not going to be a sugar daddy. I may not like that but, as John Petrie says in that thread, the time to really question the commitment of the new owner will be when the transfer and loan windows close. We have now signed Griffiths (who may turn out to be an inspired signing) plus the loan of Johnny Gorman. They may both be risks but in the absence of a sugar daddy they appear to be all we are getting at the moment.

At present Mr Brent appears to be like a person who you are about to marry saying, "If you marry me you won't have all my attention but, frankly, I'm the best you're going to get. How about it?" If the marriage goes ahead nobody can say they weren't warned.

Agreed Knecht...

Except in the case of Argyle fans, we don't even know what we signed up for in the prenup.

Yeah! I knew there were flaws in the image but what the hell, It sounded good.

I don't mind us trying and failing Knect, I do want us to try though. After last season I would have thought that the only positives were the two loanees, Mac, and Hemmings plus Purse, Blanchard and Wotton. Other than that a few youngsters are worth hanging on to, other than that clear out the deadwood and lets have another roll of the dice, lets put a message out to the footballing world at large and say, "we haven't got the biggest budget but believe me this team is going somewhere, do you want to be a part of that? What Fletch has said in effect is that we are going no where this season, who wants to be a part of that?

Iggy, I agree with you. I think the main issue is, we've not been able/willing to move on the dead wood to allow for fewer but better players to come in.

knecht wrote:

I think the ganging up on the legitimate questions that marin(er) was asking on pasoti is reprehensible.

But the point remains that Mr Brent bought the club saying, in so many words, that he was not going to be a sugar daddy. I may not like that but, as John Petrie says in that thread, the time to really question the commitment of the new owner will be when the transfer and loan windows close. We have now signed Griffiths (who may turn out to be an inspired signing) plus the loan of Johnny Gorman. They may both be risks but in the absence of a sugar daddy they appear to be all we are getting at the moment.

At present Mr Brent appears to be like a person who you are about to marry saying, "If you marry me you won't have all my attention but, frankly, I'm the best you're going to get. How about it?" If the marriage goes ahead nobody can say they weren't warned.

Utter rubbish.You're seriously suggesting that a "sugar daddy" is needed to get Argyle out of the fourth division?

At this level Argyle don't need a sugar daddy, even Stapes proved that. All we need is an owner with an interest.

Retaining Fletcher pretty much set the stall out for what is now following.

Brent doesn't have the required knowledge to make football management acquisitions, so getting a proper Director of Football to recruit a proper management team was glaringly obvious to anyone with half a brain. But no. Deehan came and went, and we're left the rookiest of rookie management/coaching staff.

What was Brents benchmark when it comes to the "competitive budget" statement?

Because if as suggested on the other place, he made an intentionally ambiguous comparison, then that gives the questions Marin(er) makes even more credence.

Greenskin wrote:

.......
Utter rubbish.You're seriously suggesting that a "sugar daddy" is needed to get Argyle out of the fourth division?

It's all relative, isn't it.

The new owner made fairly clear that he wasn't going to pump money into the club - multi-millionaire though he is. He said he would ensure our survival and create the means whereby, at least in the lower divisions, we could be self-financing. There has been a lack of clarity about what "a competitive budget" actually means but it was always evident that he wasn't going to spend, spend, spend himself.

In my view - and who really knows - the apparent failure of the club in signing players who will do the job is down to the decision-making of the management team. I'm not filled with high hopes but we will only tell properly a few matches into the season.

too many multis on pasoti !

The first ten matches should give a clear indication.Thats the normal yardstick before any changes occur.Bobby Williamson springs to mind.The directors wasted no time in showing him the door.

Its all a good read on there

Someone says something negative about the club

And the 3 stooges come on and then 1st say that Brent saved the club blah blah your not a Proper Fan and where was you during the war and blah blah blah

No debate can be had because of the 3

Gentlemen,

Please do not be so disrespectful to such a wonderful forum. This forum could learn many lessons from Pasoti.

Stan

Is it possible to be disrespectful to an abstract concept like a fans' forum?

I like Stan. Can we keep him... unless it's that Dane again. If it is, nuke the account off the planet.

I don't think this one is Dane, but it is another pain in the arse who has been de-activated pending confirmation of their email address (again).