Genuine Question

Charlie Wood wrote:

Greenskin can present a much more cogent argument for where we could/should be with his analysis of Swansea and Norwich, for example. We've suffered under owner after owner failing to do the job they took on. That's now Brent's job and is why he'll never have an easy ride from some of us. We all like to moan about Portsmouth, but I tell you what, as a supporter I'd quite happily take where they are now for the chance to have experienced seasons in the top flight, European competition and an FA Cup win. The debts they've incurred, the people they've bankrupted would not weigh heavily on my conscience because success as a football supporter is what it's all about. If I were to win xillions on the Euro lottery, I'd quite happily (now) piss it all up against the Plymouth Argyle wall just for me.

Thanks for your welcome.

Although I wasn't around in the 60s (I'm 41), I do understand some of your pain. As you'll understand from my age, I'm old enough to have experienced hope and deflation in equal measure under Smith, Shilton, Warnock, Sturrock, Holloway etc....I think I'm right in saying I've seen us promoted and relegated 4 times each.

I've always felt that we could be a Norwich or Ipswich - for example - but haven't managed to do it...for whatever reason.

Where I disagree with you is your point about Portsmouth. What they and other clubs like them did to 'achieve' their place in the top flight, winning the FA Cup etc is, in my view, everything that is wrong with modern football. We did it in miniature under the last regime and we would have deserved it if we'd gone out of business.

I don't for one minute assume that Brent is the messiah but if he puts the club back on a firm footing where it can sustain itself without any shady holding companies diverting debt this way and that, I'll be thankful.

Greenskin wrote:

In what way has football gone to the dogs solely in the last 20 years? Wracking up debt has always,repeat always, been a feature of professional football in my time as a supporter and always will be.Accrington Stanley went bust in the 1960's,Chelsea,Sheffield United,Luton were in severe trouble in the 1970's,Bristol City in the 1980's etc.If any sort of progress is to be made,then financial investment of one sort or another is a must and if you read my signature,Mr Brent has stated that it will be forthcoming [and he has also said that the club has budgeted to make a loss this season,as was the case last season]-if it isn't,then Argyle will be kicking around the lower leagues for a good deal longer than you may think.The situation is bad enough now-Argyle have yet again been overtaken by a clutch of clubs such as Reading,Blackpool,Hull,Cardiff and Swansea who, by appropriate investment and ambition at the right time,have established themselves as outfits that are very unlikely to be in the lower leagues for many years to come-exactly the same scenario happened in the 1960's when clubs like Ipswich,Southampton,Norwich,Palace,QPR etc,whose history was no better [in some cases significantly inferior] seized their moments and have reaped the benfits ever since.Argyle's demise was not brought about by overspend as such but by bad timing,lack of real intent and shocking decision making-you certainly can't say that football has gone to the dogs in the aforementioned cities in comparison.

OK, I guess I'm confusing the modern way of debt accumulation in the age of Sky (post-92)....funding inflated players' wages via TV money etc, versus the 'old' way which has always been around.

I guess what I'm saying is enough is enough. I don't agree that stacking a club with debt will 'always' be part of football club ownership, neither should it be.

Running a club in the black within its means is preferable to the irresponsible speculate to accumulate attitude which has seen so many clubs go close to the wall.

The problem I have with our current situation is that the debt we racked up certainly wasn't used with a genuine intention to get us higher in the league. It was used to boost share value by the board who got greedy.

The issue I have with Brent is that he's much more interested in the property he's acquired than the football team he's acquired. Also going back on his word regarding the staff repayment scheme rankles, as does the company he keeps on a matchday (though that stems back to the first bit - I wish instead of dubious freeloaders with questionable integrity we had people with experience in football in there).

Interesting thread, some interesting thoughts and positions.

I've been 100% Brent from the off, before even some now very impassioned acolytes stepped away from appeasement of AFC Ridsdale/Heaney. My view on the regime therefore is pretty irrelevant, hasn't really changed and is unlikely to change unless it starts behaving without honesty, integrity yadda yadda (and by that I mean the club itself, not the 'moneylenders' that have found their way into the temple somehow).

There are things that grip my sh*t, enormously sometimes. But they're just the window dressings, not the whole shop. Fundamentally we're in good hands and the alternative was worse than folding and starting over again IMHO.

X Isle wrote:

Interesting thread, some interesting thoughts and positions.

I've been 100% Brent from the off, before even some now very impassioned acolytes stepped away from appeasement of AFC Ridsdale/Heaney. My view on the regime therefore is pretty irrelevant, hasn't really changed and is unlikely to change unless it starts behaving without honesty, integrity yadda yadda (and by that I mean the club itself, not the 'moneylenders' that have found their way into the temple somehow).

There are things that grip my sh*t, enormously sometimes. But they're just the window dressings, not the whole shop. Fundamentally we're in good hands and the alternative was worse than folding and starting over again IMHO.

Thats a fair assessment. However I think many on here would rather he showed a bit more interest in the football club rather than the associate developent. There is a real lack of leadership coming out of HQ and no amount of tub thumping from El Presidente can cover that crack.

X Isle wrote:

Interesting thread, some interesting thoughts and positions.

I've been 100% Brent from the off, before even some now very impassioned acolytes stepped away from appeasement of AFC Ridsdale/Heaney. My view on the regime therefore is pretty irrelevant, hasn't really changed and is unlikely to change unless it starts behaving without honesty, integrity yadda yadda (and by that I mean the club itself, not the 'moneylenders' that have found their way into the temple somehow).

There are things that grip my sh*t, enormously sometimes. But they're just the window dressings, not the whole shop. Fundamentally we're in good hands and the alternative was worse than folding and starting over again IMHO.

Where do you stand on the transfer of club assets to Brent with the only assurance we as a club get something back is a bit of guff and bluster from his poodles?

On the assets, they're his assets, he owns the club.

Additionally I also have faith, I trust him. That's not because anyone has convinced me to trust him and I don't seek to convince you either. Trust is a very personal thing and be wary of people who tell you to trust anyone, you can only do that by yourself. I am a keen student of body language and character, from the off his body gave off the same message as the words he used. Compare and contrast with the others and they were poles apart.

On footballing nouse at the club I agree, some naivety persists with a part time Saltrock director which a proper football savvy CEO would eliminate. It'd be nice if that was remedied but I don't elevate that issue above window dressing. No reason to call for regime change.

You've seen his body language and you trust him? Is that any different from you've looked into his eyes....?

My response to Mr Brent needs a swingometer. When I listen to him or talk with him he seems very genuine. I quite like him. He has largely done what he said he would do. He made it very clear he wasn't going to be a sugar-daddy. He also made it very clear that he wasn't just in it for the love of football. Up to a point he is keeping his promises.

One of the nags in the back of my mind is the speed he bought up the car-park. It may be that he needed that in place before his deal of building a new stand with its attendant money-making facilities for the club could be made but it did seem questionable. That caveat is important but the development does fit in with his claim to want to build financial stability. I am bothered that he has twice been asked the question by me "Do you expect to make more out of the club than you put in?" and twice he has failed to give a direct answer.

All I can say, with reservations, is that it is too early to say whether he will be good for the club in the long term. If it is accurate that the club is here for ever but the owner is temporary it is also accurate to say that only history will make a fair judgement. If he does deliver on his promise of "financial stability" that would be a major achievement.

He and Peter Jones have made positive noises about Carl Fletcher. Some of the stuff Fletcher has produced has been questionable at least. But the team appears to be producing some good and successful football at the moment. Let's see on that front. If he delivers on his commitment to getting us back where we belong that would be a major achievement.

One of the other aspects of his "Integrity, Honesty and Financial Security" commitment is put into question by his loyalty to certain of his friends. I am certainly not at the extremes in any condemnation of those people. They both have made major contributions to the club and should be thanked for that. But it is also undeniable that they have been involved in unpleasant behaviour - either centrally or peripherally - and that alone should put a question-mark over Mr Brent's commitment to "Honesty & Integrity". Though, some would argue that you don't get to the top in the banking & business world with 'compromise' anyway and it is naive to expect anything else.

I like the man from the very limited contact I have had with him and from listening to him in the media. Whether he is good for the club .... ask me again in a few year's time.

knecht wrote:

You've seen his body language and you trust him? Is that any different from you've looked into his eyes....?

My response to Mr Brent needs a swingometer. When I listen to him or talk with him he seems very genuine. I quite like him. He has largely done what he said he would do. He made it very clear he wasn't going to be a sugar-daddy. He also made it very clear that he wasn't just in it for the love of football. Up to a point he is keeping his promises.

One of the nags in the back of my mind is the speed he bought up the car-park. It may be that he needed that in place before his deal of building a new stand with its attendant money-making facilities for the club could be made but it did seem questionable. That caveat is important but the development does fit in with his claim to want to build financial stability. I am bothered that he has twice been asked the question by me "Do you expect to make more out of the club than you put in?" and twice he has failed to give a direct answer.

All I can say, with reservations, is that it is too early to say whether he will be good for the club in the long term. If it is accurate that the club is here for ever but the owner is temporary it is also accurate to say that only history will make a fair judgement. If he does deliver on his promise of "financial stability" that would be a major achievement.

He and Peter Jones have made positive noises about Carl Fletcher. Some of the stuff Fletcher has produced has been questionable at least. But the team appears to be producing some good and successful football at the moment. Let's see on that front. If he delivers on his commitment to getting us back where we belong that would be a major achievement.

One of the other aspects of his "Integrity, Honesty and Financial Security" commitment is put into question by his loyalty to certain of his friends. I am certainly not at the extremes in any condemnation of those people. They both have made major contributions to the club and should be thanked for that. But it is also undeniable that they have been involved in unpleasant behaviour - either centrally or peripherally - and that alone should put a question-mark over Mr Brent's commitment to "Honesty & Integrity". Though, some would argue that you don't get to the top in the banking & business world with 'compromise' anyway and it is naive to expect anything else.

I like the man from the very limited contact I have had with him and from listening to him in the media. Whether he is good for the club .... ask me again in a few year's time.

I can dance to all of that.

X Isle wrote:

On the assets, they're his assets, he owns the club.

Additionally I also have faith, I trust him. That's not because anyone has convinced me to trust him and I don't seek to convince you either. Trust is a very personal thing and be wary of people who tell you to trust anyone, you can only do that by yourself. I am a keen student of body language and character, from the off his body gave off the same message as the words he used. Compare and contrast with the others and they were poles apart.

On footballing nouse at the club I agree, some naivety persists with a part time Saltrock director which a proper football savvy CEO would eliminate. It'd be nice if that was remedied but I don't elevate that issue above window dressing. No reason to call for regime change.

This is what I have the problem with though, when Stapleton was ruining the club it was our club and we were outraged that anybody could do that with "our" club, what was it you were saying to Ridsdale? No snake oil salesman anywhere near "our" club? Now it"s Brent it's ok for him to strip assets from the club because they are now his, would you have said that to Heaney? Would you feck as like.
I don't know how I emboldened all that?

Nobdoy can read the inner workings of Brent's mind and what he will or won't do. It has to be a matter of trust because there is nothing much else to go on. Some will trust and others won't and it is the same in a lot of things in life. Apart from those who are seemingly brainwashed at the moment there are plenty who are prepared to go along with Brent and his plans and dealings but not so many who are totally sold. It remains to be seen what happens but the one sure thing is somebody will be proved right and somebody wrong given the devided opinion.

Going back to this "London Consortium" who were in the frame to invest previously. Was this before or during Administration? I thought they offered to invest before but I have no knowledge that any of them sought to buy the club during the Administration period. If they didn't then nobody can tell me they weren't aware the club was up for sale.

I wouldn't have liked it but I would never have argued that the property was not his to do what he liked with. I guess, again, the difference is trust. I trust Brent at his word.

Joining Home Park to the life centre in a continual sporting/leisure complex makes perfect commercial sense, the alternative if the car park was retained is a stand alone Home Park. As it is we stand to benefit from a 'joined up' association as 100% of stadium revenue goes to us.

Another difference I suppose is that I'm prepared to trust my instincts and give the benefit of the doubt UNTIL proved wrong whereas others will just doubt until things work out OK. Again, a personal thing.

BRENT IN ,,,FLETCH IN,,,,

tcm wrote:

BRENT IN ,,,FLETCH IN,,,,

Putin?

X Isle wrote:

tcm wrote:

BRENT IN ,,,FLETCH IN,,,,

Putin?

Rintintin?

X Isle wrote:

I wouldn't have liked it but I would never have argued that the property was not his to do what he liked with. I guess, again, the difference is trust. I trust Brent at his word.

Joining Home Park to the life centre in a continual sporting/leisure complex makes perfect commercial sense, the alternative if the car park was retained is a stand alone Home Park. As it is we stand to benefit from a 'joined up' association as 100% of stadium revenue goes to us.

1 .... None of us can do what we like with our own property, not even this character. There are community rules.

2... I take it your laissez faire attitude to concreting more of Central Park comes from a domicile hundreds of miles away from said location.

hardy har har,,,mr x,,,,normally skipp your posts on pasoti but you seem to be mellowing?or have i got that wrong,,still think you would win the most boring cnut of year award on any given forum hay you could pick up on my spelling? that would be fun,,,

tcm wrote:

hardy har har,,,mr x,,,,normally skipp your posts on pasoti but you seem to be mellowing?or have i got that wrong,,still think you would win the most boring cnut of year award on any given forum hay you could pick up on my spelling? that would be fun,,,

Charming.

tcm wrote:

hardy har har,,,mr x,,,,normally skipp your posts on pasoti but you seem to be mellowing?or have i got that wrong,,still think you would win the most boring cnut of year award on any given forum hay you could pick up on my spelling? that would be fun,,,

X Isle wrote:

tcm wrote:

BRENT IN ,,,FLETCH IN,,,,

Putin?

Any truth in the rumour that you are the one behind the new Pasoti twitter account X Isle?

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

Tw@ts on twitter?

Unlike Mr Hooper, I take no offence Greenskin. It's just TCM's way to put the harm in charming

No Penz, happen to think there's no difference to green space if it's a tarmac car park or a building. Wouldn't matter if it was my back yard or yours.

jock you are a tease

Greenjock wrote:

X Isle wrote:

tcm wrote:

BRENT IN ,,,FLETCH IN,,,,

Putin?

Any truth in the rumour that you are the one behind the new Pasoti twitter account X Isle?

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

Ha ha, sadly they didn't ask me. Did chuckle how the post was locked immediately, not so much a thread but a royal decree. How can the expansion of a tool for free speech be closed to discussion?

could do with a costa right now,,,,,does any one else do internet dateing on this site?