Brent to face up...

So JB's hosting an open forum with Argyle fans in a couple of weeks...Ive got a funny feeling this will be a staged performance with set questions and stooge's in the crowd posing questions. Just a simple PR exercise to keep the sheep happy. Reel out a few lines about how we are lucky to have a club, everyone pulling in same direction, blah blah blah. He's hardly going to front up and say, "actually I couldn't give a shit about Argyle, all Im interested in is development and money". Total waste of time UNLESS real questions are asked. Id also rather he didnt bullshit us with 'airy-fairy' statements about competitive budgets, etc. JUST BE HONEST WITH US. Sadly though, I fear this will be enough to appease the majority of the blinkered fanbase unfortunately

If results stay as they have been, he may well get one or two awkward questions.

I'm sure the Jam Boys will be there to try and keep order, mind.

Ken, if all he is interested in is development and money then I would have thought he would invest more in the team. If the on field activities carry on the club will lose even more money.

But he isnt investing anything in the team Mouldy... By saving the club he probably thinks that gives him carte blanche to do what he wants. Doesn't wash with me...

yes but its the club not james brent who will lose money,its the same with the paying off of the football creditors debt,its the club paying it off not james brent.if the club goes downhill then the debts will take longer to pay off,but its the club that will ultimately have to pay off the debts.

mouldyoldgoat wrote:

Ken, if all he is interested in is development and money then I would have thought he would invest more in the team. If the on field activities carry on the club will lose even more money.

Problem is, he's obviously been fed the line that "you don't need to spend a fortune to get out of this League, James". Then he will have been shown the example of how Sturrock did it.

What is hilarious is that he seems to be pinning his hopes on Clueless Carl reproducing those glory days !

Any club at our level that spends money on transfer fees is basically pissing money against the wall. Free transfers and loans is the favoured method for nearly all of our competitors too. It doesn't show lack of desire at all.

Quite right Ken, he isn't what I meant to say was he needs to invest more.

Ah but something must be going wrong somewhere.we are 91st out of 92.Obviously our free transfers and loans aint as good as everybody elses free transfers and loans.So the buck stops with the manager.Carl .you and your family,get the hell out of Plymouth.I'll pay your speeding fine if you cant remember who was driving.

If we do not beat Northampton on Saturday after them playing tonight then he needs to be given some serious stick at this "open forum". No doubt his Blackshirts will be in attendance to shout down any dissenters..... as is standard practice on Pasoti and is becoming increasingly common on here, as Newell and Webb mobilize their cronies from Forza Nerd and Pasoti.
When will this nightmare end.

oddball wrote:

Ah but something must be going wrong somewhere.we are 91st out of 92.Obviously our free transfers and loans aint as good as everybody elses free transfers and loans.So the buck stops with the manager.Carl .you and your family,get the hell out of Plymouth.I'll pay your speeding fine if you cant remember who was driving.

So how do these other clubs manage to do it? Most of them have smaller crowds meaning smaller budgets. Maybe we should bung some money at signing on fees.

I've just had a look at the Open Forum thread just to check again but it seems that none, that is absolutely zilch numbers, of the people most vocal on here are going to attend and try at least to ask an awkward question. The excuse is that it will be stage managed and they won't be allowed to so what is the point. Despite all of the ranting and raving about pretty much all things Brent and Argyle to name but two nobody wants to go along and stage a revolt. You could take your keyboard with you as a comforter. But no, it's easier to rant and rave here and do nothing despite the calls for revolution. Hmmmm!

SFD... Cheltenham get crowds of 2500,yet they are one of the top sides in this division,meanwhile we are 91st out of 92 on gates of 7000.

Czarcasm wrote:

mouldyoldgoat wrote:

Ken, if all he is interested in is development and money then I would have thought he would invest more in the team. If the on field activities carry on the club will lose even more money.

Problem is, he's obviously been fed the line that "you don't need to spend a fortune to get out of this League, James".

Probably the same tw@t who told him we were just a couple of players short of a decent team.

Wonder who that was?

I know that. How do they do it? They don't splash out on transfer fees. That's for sure.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

I've just had a look at the Open Forum thread just to check again but it seems that none, that is absolutely zilch numbers, of the people most vocal on here are going to attend and try at least to ask an awkward question. The excuse is that it will be stage managed and they won't be allowed to so what is the point. Despite all of the ranting and raving about pretty much all things Brent and Argyle to name but two nobody wants to go along and stage a revolt. You could take your keyboard with you as a comforter. But no, it's easier to rant and rave here and do nothing despite the calls for revolution. Hmmmm!

Hold on there SG...I've been to many of these meet the chairman sessions...Guildhall,Senior Greens,ATD,they are a complete waste of time.Yes you get to ask a question to which James Brent gives you the stock answer. He believes Carl Fletcher is the greatest thing since sliced bread and will not be replaced.You then get Peter Jones saying how lucky we are that James Brent has saved the club.You could have 100 Freathys turning up but nothing will change Brents viewpoint.

it seem afecking long wait for the atd revolution

Well, if you get the stock answer then you ask it again and for the real one. If you still don't get anything other than a stock answer the second time then you ask it even louder and so on. If he won't answer then you get louder and protest and if there are enough of you then he won't get an easy ride will he. That's how protests go so to say it is a waste of time is a weak excuse. There are a number of people who post on here and shout a lot about what they think is wrong. They don't get to show dissent openly very often so why pass up the opportunity when one comes along? One could be forgiven for thinking they have no real bottle of course but I would never be so disrespectful as to suggest that was the case.

Hey sensible....What a shame that No 1 fan can't get over to sort Brent out......it's just too far to be able to use the old freedom pass fom Larnaca.......Brent would be trembling in his shoes at the thought of being told where he's going wrong......never mind some other time maybe.

And once again Sensiblegreeny uses a thread to go off on another of his familiar tangents. You know, for someone who constantly accuses others of obsessive behaviour, you make a good job of doing exactly the same thing.

You may have missed it (that's what you usually do - plead ignorance), but there was a Q&A session organised with Brent by members of this site a few months ago. Is it really fair to expect people to attend another one, especially given that the reassurances provided by Brent have thus far proved pretty flimsy? Do you honestly think that it would be tolerated for people to repeat their questions louder and louder if they were not satisfied with Brent's response? And if several people started 'protesting' in this way simultaneously, do you honestly think that the outcome wouldn't be Brent being whisked out of a backdoor followed by recriminations against the supposed miscreants? Apart from anything else I would think twice, personally, before getting involved in any kind of public protest against the current regime at Home Park, simply because we know what kind of antics Brent's 'henchmen' can get up to, online and in real life. (This, by the way, is why people are quite right to keep repeating the fact that it is wrong for Newell and Webb to have any kind of role in representing the club. It is not the minority concern that you like to depict it as being.)

Apart from anything else, who the dickens do you think you are, telling people that they must attend and if they don't they are spineless? Some people live a long way away. You spend a lot of time on here telling people what to post and what not to post. And now you are going to tell them what they should do with their spare time? Get over yourself.

No no no charley I'm not telling people to attend I am saying they have an opportunity to protest and none are seemingly going to take it. If the answers given at the last Q&A have proved to be lies then go and tell him that. If a protest takes place then maybe he will get the message that all is not well in the troops camp. There are people who constantly come on here and tell everyone who reads this site how shit everything Argyle is yet when they get a chance to tell the man himself nobody wants to go. Are you trying to tell me that if people don't behave like lambs then the men in trenchcoats will move in to qwell them with clubs or something? If asking Brent questions is considered a waste of time then what is posting on here then. There seems to be a whole lot of internet passion but little appetite for anything beyond that. Why would you think that was then?

By the way the subject is "Brent to face up..." I don't think posting about the meeting which is the topic is going off subject I think it is what the subject is.

I often don't agree with what you say, sensible or how you say it. But in this instance, I do agree. It's oh so easy to sit and moan and be bitter & aggressive but when presented with an opportunity to do something that may have an impact it is too easy to say, "What's the point?"

People who live, say, in France, Cyprus or far from Plymouth of course are not included in my comment.

To answer your second point you have used the subject of the meeting to drum home one of your pet theories, which is about 'keyboard warriors'.

You are the one mentioning men in trenchoats, not me. I just think that if things got in any way rowdy, then Brent would be spirited out of there double quick. The op suggests that previous meetings have been exercises in PR and I think that, from what I have read, this is fairly accurate. Even after the ATD Q&A session, I can't recall there being a groundswell of anger against JB on here. This to me suggests that the new regime at the club is good at PR. Yet look at the situation the club is in a few months down the line. I suspect that many fans would prefer a little less PR and a bit more substance. Do you honestly feel that the meeting would be allowed to become a centre of protests and difficult questions? And do you honestly think that, if rowdiness were to occur, there would EVER be an open meeting again?

I notice that you didn't reply to the point I made about people maybe not wanting to become publicly associated with protests against Brent's regime: that's up to you. You have previously said that the antics of Webb and Newell are only known to a minority of fans. This is true, but that seems to me the best argument for people to keep on about what they have been up to, so more people know about it. Because as it stands, people who have been known to be 'difficult' since Brent took the club over have had a PI sent after them, have had e-mail accounts hacked, have found private documents posted publicly online, have been viciously charicatured in an attempt at online satire - need I go on? Given this, is it really advisable for people to associate their faces publicly with any kind of discontent about PAFC?

The combination of clever PR and the genuine threat of recriminations against those who go against the grain seems to indicate that there is little point investing too much hope in this meeting. It seems perfectly understandable therefore that even the most raucous of dissatisfied fans (Hi Freathy!) wouldn't bother going. This is why it seems unfair to suggest that anyone having voiced their dissatisfaction online who dares not to attend is in some way lacking bottle. (And btw saying 'you should go, if not you've got no bottle' - you might not be 'telling' people to go, but you are certainly trying to exert pressure on them. I only hope that those who remain absent aren't too distressed at not having your good opinion. I for one would be devastated...)

And the publicity that would follow Brent being shaddowed away from an Argyle Supporters meeting once the papers got hold of it would be? Hardly a PR triumph. I didn't advocate rowdiness anywhere. I said protest which doesn't have to become a wild west saloon brawl does it. There are so many people on here who post loud and long about Newell and Co. anyway so it is hardly a secret what they think of them anyway. The reference to men in trenchcoats with clubs was actually a response to the expected attacks you suggest but I get you are actually saying this would be after the event and more subtle.

The term keyboard warriors is hardly my own phrase made up by me. As I understand it this is a term for people who fight a fight via the internet rather than in person. The opportunity is there for these people to do it in public but I'm just guessing that from the lack of uptake it won't be happening. Just pointing out that they aren't that passionate when push comes to shove although you are arguing that they aren't stupid enough to put their heads above the rampart which if that is your opinion then fair enough.

It would be pretty easy to spin any protest against Brent in his favour though. The usual lines about being lucky to have a club, if it weren't for Brent the club would be no more. It would be no problem at all to make anyone who dared to protest look like an ungrateful wretch, protesting against the saviour of the club etc. I wasn't suggesting any kind of physical violence could take place, but I think if you got one person repeating a question louder and louder plus other people chiming in at the same time, I don't think it would go down very well. (Oh and btw, why are you exaggerating so many things that I say? I mention henchmen, you go on about men in trenchcoats [just because one syllable rhymes it doesn't make it the same thing...]. I use the word 'rowdiness', you talk of Wild West brawls...)

I'm not saying that you invented the term keyboard warriors, but you do like, whenever possible, to depict the malcontents of this site as spineless. That's precisely what you have done here, yet when others use a thread to visit a familiar theme, they meet with much scorn on your part. Now if you want to do that, and I reckon that everyone does it online to an extent, it's fine, but it seems a bit hypocritical to scold other for doing the same.

You conclude by saying that 'if that is your opinion then fair enough'. But it wasn't an opinion plucked out of the air; there were arguments backing it up. You haven't really countered any of them, which is again up to you. I argued that previous form suggests that this meeting is unlikely to be worthwhile and, also given previous form, that anyone involved in discontent could be taking a risk. I think these are two solid reasons not to bother attending this meeting. But you are convinced that it is a lack of passion and bottle...why, exactly? Because for the moment, the only reasons that I can find for you thinking so is that you don't like these people, you disagree with them and you are just instrumentalizing another thread to have a dig at them.