Brent can't find right Chairman

Andy_Symons wrote:

I may have dreamed this, but weren't we told that Brent was engaging a firm of Headhunters to find a new Chief Executive for Argyle? I'm bloody sure there was an announcement to that effect not long after Brent completed the purchase.

Can anyone else confirm this, if only to ease my fear that I'm coming down with the Mad Cow? Because it's a decent Chief Exec. with football experience that the club needs. Most Chairmen are just figureheads anyway.

It was Webb what said it last December. Probably one of the things he's been 'hassling' the club about ever since.

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

Quote :

"James Brent's gone out and employed the UK's top headhunting agency so we expect the new appointment and the new chairman to be of an equally high standard."

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

I would saythat Peter's crowning glory in his 1st stint on the Board was the 5 year plan that was published and exceeded. The problem now is that the Chairman, notbeing a football fan has very different aims.

Published in the Herald today the Chairman claims his number 1 priority is the enhancement of the customer experience. Mr Jones would say, as I would say and any football fan would say. The number 1 priority is to produce a winning football team and getting promoted out of tbis shit league.

Mr Brent you could have the finest customer experience, comfy seats, 5 star cuisine, restaurants, conference facilities and a choice of goose down or duck down pillows in the hotel next door but no one will come through the door if we are 18th in Division 4.

Give us a 10 game winning streak of boring 1 - 0 wins that takes us to the top of this pub league and you will have crowds of 8 - 9,000 every week. That is the priority of a football club.

To football fans that is such a good post, and an obvious one.

Unfortunately James Brent isn't a football fan and looks to Exeter Chiefs as a role model to aspire to. I'm not sure if that's all his idea or if he's being advised it would be a good model to copy.

Not my cup of tea I have to admit, but maybe that's where all the money is these days, no matter what league you're in.

Dougie wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

I may have dreamed this, but weren't we told that Brent was engaging a firm of Headhunters to find a new Chief Executive for Argyle? I'm bloody sure there was an announcement to that effect not long after Brent completed the purchase.

Can anyone else confirm this, if only to ease my fear that I'm coming down with the Mad Cow? Because it's a decent Chief Exec. with football experience that the club needs. Most Chairmen are just figureheads anyway.

It was Webb what said it last December. Probably one of the things he's been 'hassling' the club about ever since.

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

Quote :

"James Brent's gone out and employed the UK's top headhunting agency so we expect the new appointment and the new chairman to be of an equally high standard."

It clearly says new Chairman to be fair. Like Andy (and I'm sure many others) I somehow missed this specific story and believed we were looking for a new CEO. How did that happen?.

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

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

I would saythat Peter's crowning glory in his 1st stint on the Board was the 5 year plan that was published and exceeded. The problem now is that the Chairman, notbeing a football fan has very different aims.

Published in the Herald today the Chairman claims his number 1 priority is the enhancement of the customer experience. Mr Jones would say, as I would say and any football fan would say. The number 1 priority is to produce a winning football team and getting promoted out of tbis shit league.

Mr Brent you could have the finest customer experience, comfy seats, 5 star cuisine, restaurants, conference facilities and a choice of goose down or duck down pillows in the hotel next door but no one will come through the door if we are 18th in Division 4.

Give us a 10 game winning streak of boring 1 - 0 wins that takes us to the top of this pub league and you will have crowds of 8 - 9,000 every week. That is the priority of a football club.

Yep good post - Damon, what business plan did you buy into when you bought Peter Jones's (or Micheal Foot's) shares?

To be fair Mike it was a very different situation. The Club was in the Championship with crowds around 14,000. The plan was always steady improvement - the target a higher finish with more points than the year before. Most people agree that our 'natural' position is lower championship. Once we were pushing into top half of Championship and not attracting gates of 16,000 it became obvious that 'investment' was needed. I couldn't put any more money in but did try to find outside investors on 2 seperate trips to the States.

Met Mr Ridsdales buddy Brad Rangell in New York and also the CEO of Hard Rock Group in Florida, with plans, similar to now of a Hard Rock Hotel, casino, live music venue and cafe incorporated onto the site. Unfortunately they decided other European cities were a better bet.

The difference between then and now is that all the development would have been Argyle's, not the JB pension pot.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

I would saythat Peter's crowning glory in his 1st stint on the Board was the 5 year plan that was published and exceeded. The problem now is that the Chairman, notbeing a football fan has very different aims.

Published in the Herald today the Chairman claims his number 1 priority is the enhancement of the customer experience. Mr Jones would say, as I would say and any football fan would say. The number 1 priority is to produce a winning football team and getting promoted out of tbis shit league.

Mr Brent you could have the finest customer experience, comfy seats, 5 star cuisine, restaurants, conference facilities and a choice of goose down or duck down pillows in the hotel next door but no one will come through the door if we are 18th in Division 4.

Give us a 10 game winning streak of boring 1 - 0 wins that takes us to the top of this pub league and you will have crowds of 8 - 9,000 every week. That is the priority of a football club.

Good post Damon, common sense and spot on if I may say so.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

To be fair Mike it was a very different situation. The Club was in the Championship with crowds around 14,000. The plan was always steady improvement - the target a higher finish with more points than the year before. Most people agree that our 'natural' position is lower championship. Once we were pushing into top half of Championship and not attracting gates of 16,000 it became obvious that 'investment' was needed. I couldn't put any more money in but did try to find outside investors on 2 seperate trips to the States.

Met Mr Ridsdales buddy Brad Rangell in New York and also the CEO of Hard Rock Group in Florida, with plans, similar to now of a Hard Rock Hotel, casino, live music venue and cafe incorporated onto the site. Unfortunately they decided other European cities were a better bet.

The difference between then and now is that all the development would have been Argyle's, not the JB pension pot.

With so much going on over the last 5 years or so it's difficult keeping up with timelines. My understanding is you resigned months after Nic Warren so you were fully aware of the 'consortium'.

Any chance of your view on this bit of non-history (whatever that means, I'm sure you get the gist )?

Greenjock wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

I would saythat Peter's crowning glory in his 1st stint on the Board was the 5 year plan that was published and exceeded. The problem now is that the Chairman, notbeing a football fan has very different aims.

Published in the Herald today the Chairman claims his number 1 priority is the enhancement of the customer experience. Mr Jones would say, as I would say and any football fan would say. The number 1 priority is to produce a winning football team and getting promoted out of tbis shit league.

Mr Brent you could have the finest customer experience, comfy seats, 5 star cuisine, restaurants, conference facilities and a choice of goose down or duck down pillows in the hotel next door but no one will come through the door if we are 18th in Division 4.

Give us a 10 game winning streak of boring 1 - 0 wins that takes us to the top of this pub league and you will have crowds of 8 - 9,000 every week. That is the priority of a football club.

To football fans that is such a good post, and an obvious one.

Unfortunately James Brent isn't a football fan and looks to Exeter Chiefs as a role model to aspire to. I'm not sure if that's all his idea or if he's being advised it would be a good model to copy.

Not my cup of tea I have to admit, but maybe that's where all the money is these days, no matter what league you're in.

Not a bad role model mate. I am not a rugby fan and would never go however The Chiefs have only this week been given the go ahead by Exeter city council to redevelop Sandy Park making it a 20,000 stadium, adding more parking and additional conference facilities. The Ground already has 2 huge video screens and is light years ahead of anything the football club can do. Looks like City's own Flybe sponsors are going to the Chiefs as well. What they have got right is to go for sports fans throughout Devon. It may be Exeter Chiefs in name but it is not targetting soley inhabitants of the City. the catering at sandy Park is top notch too. They also bus people in from various parts of the City on match day, including a pie and a pint in the price. Away from match day the venue is always in use. They are also funding University courses for Chiefs 18 year olds as part of a sports scholarship

I hate rugby but the Chiefs are a model worth following. Problem for us is that the Chiefs are invariably at home when City are at home and we lose 500 to them.

Yes I was on Board when the Consortium made its offer. If we look just at what the offer entailed as opposed to the ludicrous shannanigans before we even saw the offer document it stated that 3 of the then 5 member board were to be replaced. No discussions, no negotiations. The Consortium required that Stapleton and Wrathall bought out Gill, Dennerley and myself then handed over the shares to the Consortium in return for the Consortium investing their cash.

A number of hings to consider. Firstly maybe the 3 didnt want to go at that time. It was a divide and conquer offer but we were quite a tight unit at that time. I cannot stress enoigh the importance of a strong unity in the Boardroom. Look what happened later when we had 3 way splits between Directors.

Secondly and I only speak for myself here, it would have been important for me to know who I was handing over the reins to. I knew the Chair was to be the woman from the National Lottery but just who else made up the Consortium and the personalities wh were to serve on the Board were not made clear. Also remember that we had a system of one man one vote at the time. Paul and Tony would have been in the minority.

Then there was the question of the valuation of the Club, the 3 being bought out agreeing a valuation on shares and then the 2 buying us out agreeing that valuation and actually having the money to buy them. When both Nick and I left we had no need to formally value the company. We had a price in mind and it was settled with a handshake.

Make no mistake the way of doing business had made this a hostile offer. Normally on a hostile takeover the buyer will make increasing offers to the person selling the shares until that person says yes. The Consortium did not wish to enter those negotiations. I had put my life savings into the football club. I was not wanted on the board for my cash, but for other attributes I could bring to the table. We all thought the divide and conquer theme to the offer was completely out of order.

Despite the general belief that we were not actively looking for outside investment there were also other avenues being pursued. In addition to my trips to the States Phil was talking with a prominent firm of football 'dealmakers' and Paul was also talking to a couple of very wealthy individuals.

we knew investment was needed at that time to push us on, but we were financially sound and did not have a desperate need for a cash injection. When things are desperate you do desperate things. I wasnt around but Kagami, Synan, Todd and Gardner all smacked of desperation.

To try and force people who do not have that desperate need into a corner will not work. That was the Consortiums error.

As ever from Damon an informative post on a subject that must be hard to talk about sometimes.

For most people, the inner workings of a boardroom are not something we would get to hear about and probably could only imagine the consequences of each decision.

More and more I hope Damon is somehow involved in Argyle again one day.

The Trust would certainly benefit from your honesty and experience if there is nothing on offer from the club itself. Hopefully Mr Brent is aware of what you could bring to the table.

Thank you very much for the reply Damon. Not sure I agree with everything you said, I'll probably have to read a few times for it all to sink in

Anyhow, we are where we are, I love your current questioning. Whatever the past, the current is a big positive in my book. I wish you well.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

I would saythat Peter's crowning glory in his 1st stint on the Board was the 5 year plan that was published and exceeded. The problem now is that the Chairman, notbeing a football fan has very different aims.

Published in the Herald today the Chairman claims his number 1 priority is the enhancement of the customer experience. Mr Jones would say, as I would say and any football fan would say. The number 1 priority is to produce a winning football team and getting promoted out of tbis shit league.

Mr Brent you could have the finest customer experience, comfy seats, 5 star cuisine, restaurants, conference facilities and a choice of goose down or duck down pillows in the hotel next door but no one will come through the door if we are 18th in Division 4.

Give us a 10 game winning streak of boring 1 - 0 wins that takes us to the top of this pub league and you will have crowds of 8 - 9,000 every week. That is the priority of a football club.

Absolutely......................but in order to do that he will have to stop listening to certain people and find a manager, worthy of the name. Can you imagine what a 'Pulis' type would have done to this squad ?

Coxside_Green wrote:

Thank you very much for the reply Damon. Not sure I agree with everything you said, I'll probably have to read a few times for it all to sink in

Anyhow, we are where we are, I love your current questioning. Whatever the past, the current is a big positive in my book. I wish you well.

Agree with this. Also echo Jocks point about possible future involvement (though with his current probing and questioning, that would seem unlikely in the Brent era )

Moreso, what is refreshing is the candid way that Damon talks of what's gone down in the recent past - particularly his admittance that getting on to the Board was really for him, "living the dream".

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

I would saythat Peter's crowning glory in his 1st stint on the Board was the 5 year plan that was published and exceeded. The problem now is that the Chairman, notbeing a football fan has very different aims.

Published in the Herald today the Chairman claims his number 1 priority is the enhancement of the customer experience. Mr Jones would say, as I would say and any football fan would say. The number 1 priority is to produce a winning football team and getting promoted out of tbis shit league.

Mr Brent you could have the finest customer experience, comfy seats, 5 star cuisine, restaurants, conference facilities and a choice of goose down or duck down pillows in the hotel next door but no one will come through the door if we are 18th in Division 4.

Give us a 10 game winning streak of boring 1 - 0 wins that takes us to the top of this pub league and you will have crowds of 8 - 9,000 every week. That is the priority of a football club.

Abso bloomin' lutely.

Tringreen wrote:

........
Absolutely......................but in order to do that he will have to stop listening to certain people and find a manager, worthy of the name. Can you imagine what a 'Pulis' type would have done to this squad ?

Errr... turn it into a boring team with no flair?

Coxside_Green wrote:

Thank you very much for the reply Damon. Not sure I agree with everything you said, I'll probably have to read a few times for it all to sink in

Anyhow, we are where we are, I love your current questioning. Whatever the past, the current is a big positive in my book. I wish you well.

Agree with both these points. I have copies somewhere of the letters, both to and from Stapleton, that were circulated by some people who were close to the consortium at the time - after it was clear that Stapleton and the others weren't interested in even opening a dialogue. There was no negotiation because Stapleton rejected even an initial meeting to discuss things further because he said he had 'other plans in place.' The truth I believe was closer to the fact that he didn't want Peter Jones back on the board and an element of personal greed and inflated ego of his position. He lied then and his behaviour over the subsequent years were largely responsible for the ultimate collapse of the club.

Absolutely true that there was no way Stapleton and Jones would ever sit on the same board again. Too much bad blood had flowed.

No truth in that it was Stapletons ego. It was a 5 man Board at the time, 1 man, 1 vote. If 3 of the 5 had decided they wanted the Board to speak to the Consortium then those conversations would have had to take place. Seeing the Consortium wanted 3 of us out it is doubtful that was ever going to happen.

Not sure about the greed thing. Even now, knowing what has happened since I cannot recall one conversation at anytime during my time on board that was ever about personal gain. Maybe that came later.

And it was true that we were speaking to other people about investment.

Ultimately the Consortium failed because it went about its business in the wrong way. As I said we were still progressing, improving every season and financially secure. Maybe the slowly but surely wasn't quick enough for some but right or wrong the decisions taken were taken in the best interests of the club.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Absolutely true that there was no way Stapleton and Jones would ever sit on the same board again. Too much bad blood had flowed.

No truth in that it was Stapletons ego. It was a 5 man Board at the time, 1 man, 1 vote. If 3 of the 5 had decided they wanted the Board to speak to the Consortium then those conversations would have had to take place. Seeing the Consortium wanted 3 of us out it is doubtful that was ever going to happen.

Not sure about the greed thing. Even now, knowing what has happened since I cannot recall one conversation at anytime during my time on board that was ever about personal gain. Maybe that came later.

And it was true that we were speaking to other people about investment.

Ultimately the Consortium failed because it went about its business in the wrong way. As I said we were still progressing, improving every season and financially secure. Maybe the slowly but surely wasn't quick enough for some but right or wrong the decisions taken were taken in the best interests of the club.

The thing is though Damon, that anyone with an ounce of modern day football understanding and of Argyle's position in the grand scheme of things, would have known that there would come a point when further investment would be necessary to retain the staff and build upon it for a promotion push eg under Holloway. The stockof Ollie and his players was high and there was no way the club could retain them and build further without additional investment. This year on year progress, the organic model bollox, just doesn't work in modern football.
The board blamed the stay away fans but some cash backed ambition would have ignited the potential fanbase and a play off run would have resulted in full houses at Home Park. Of that I am convinced.
It has always been like this and the phrase, 'Same old Argyle' and the rightful scepticism of the locals is well deserved.
We could have a solid 20k fanbase like Norwich but first we have to have top flight exposure. The region needs to have got the t shirt, so to speak.

What is happening at HP now just won't work. You are preaching to the converted and the public won't turn out until they see more than pasties, pints and Devonportenders on offer.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Absolutely true that there was no way Stapleton and Jones would ever sit on the same board again. Too much bad blood had flowed.

No truth in that it was Stapletons ego. It was a 5 man Board at the time, 1 man, 1 vote. If 3 of the 5 had decided they wanted the Board to speak to the Consortium then those conversations would have had to take place. Seeing the Consortium wanted 3 of us out it is doubtful that was ever going to happen.

Not sure about the greed thing. Even now, knowing what has happened since I cannot recall one conversation at anytime during my time on board that was ever about personal gain. Maybe that came later.

And it was true that we were speaking to other people about investment.

Ultimately the Consortium failed because it went about its business in the wrong way. As I said we were still progressing, improving every season and financially secure. Maybe the slowly but surely wasn't quick enough for some but right or wrong the decisions taken were taken in the best interests of the club.

I agree with that too Damon - from memory the consortium's genesis was that a group of wealthy Argyle fans who were former school mates were reunited thanks largely to Pasoti. At the time there was mounting ill feeling toward Stapleton and Gill orchestrated largely by Peter Jones - and the Cockney Green episode didn't help matters either. So initial comments on the internet by individuals who later went to become part of the consortium certainly didn't help, that is for sure.

Hey - it's history and we are where we are - what is important now is that independent free-thinking Argyle supporters continue to monitor, question and challenge the club's present custodians.

Trin we were very aware of the need for further investment, hence my trips to the States, Phil's conversations with the dealmaker and Stapletons conversations with other individuals. My mention of the organic growth was only in relation to the position that we were not desperate. We were paying our bills and were still improving, so any investment would have to be 'right'. Much oater it became a case of 'any' investment, hence kagami, synan then todd and gardner.

Mike it is history, only trying to answer the questions asked. I am sure 'my' board made mistakes and yes being told that the consortium required that i leave would make me defensive. All I think about now regarding this time is that had the consortium succeeded the boardroom wars between the factions would have made pasoti/atd look like a love in.

I have absolutely no inside info but would guess that all is not calm in the boardroom now. There is too much going on, not only on the pitch, but in the offices and amongst the fans for Mr Jones to be a happy bunny.

All this says to me is what I thought at the time and was hounded off Pasoti for persisting with.

The 'run by fans for fans' mantra was all well and good in the lower leagues but the reality of competing at Championship level is much different. So many 'big' clubs, parachute payments, wealthy benefactors , solid 20 k fanbases through years of top flight/ European exposure etc.
We were always going to be devoured by the bigger fish unless there was more wealth in the boardroom. I simply don't believe that you guys were willing to look to hand over the reins, to promote the potential of England's 13th largest city club to anyone with the cash, who would listen. If you had been real fans and greed and position had not become king, you would have found a buyer, made decent but not excessive profit on your shares and gone back to the cheap seats.
I think the investment you were seeking, before the wheels started to come off, meant the existing directors becoming very wealthy but staying on the board with fingers well and truly still in the pie.

Thank you again Damon for answering fans' questions with such candour.

If only Messrs Brent, Jones, Webb (and the others on the board who are so invisible I can't even name them) acted in the same way perhaps there would be fewer personal attacks and name calling on this and the other site. While I've been to the Q&A sessions, I still get the feeling that the actual football team is getting in the way of other more pressing development matters.

Surely if Mr Brent were seeking a CEO/Chairman for one of his other businesses it would not be taking this long.

I can only speak for me but there were many times I doubted my right to be at the table due to lack of personal wealth. If, for example, the Hard Rock Corporation wanted to take over lock stock and barrel with a clause in the contract guaranteeing say £5 million per annum investment per annum over 5 years straight into the playing side you would not have seen my ass for dust. I can't speak for the others, but they were all much deeper rooted Argyle fans than I.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

I can only speak for me but there were many times I doubted my right to be at the table due to lack of personal wealth. If, for example, the Hard Rock Corporation wanted to take over lock stock and barrel with a clause in the contract guaranteeing say £5 million per annum investment per annum over 5 years straight into the playing side you would not have seen my ass for dust. I can't speak for the others, but they were all much deeper rooted Argyle fans than I.

You can of course, only speak for yourself and I thank you for your candour. A rare element in matters relating to PAFC it would appear.

seems to me damon you should be the chairman brents looking for, or is that to simple?