BLAME BRENT WHEN WE GET RELEGATED

Rickler wrote:

So...

Trust in Brent, then?

In the world of fans' web-sites, that is an almost reasonable sound-bite - much the same as politicians use and therefore nonsense. But in the real world I think John Petrie's post (and my minor addition) is far more than that.

If I may use a sound-bite in response .... I may not like where we are but let's see if he is going to get us out of it.*


(* like all sound-bites, including yours, this is also empty noise and nonsense but you get my drift.)

Rickler wrote:

So...

Trust in Brent, then?

Exactly Ricks. Just the latest version of it... how depressing... just be glad the city has a club to support thanks to the "philanthropic" Brent.... this seems to be the PR bullshit of choice with this new owner, and Petrie wants to fall for it.
How on earth can any of us fans say Brent is "supporting" the club, when no one knows what arrangements might be in place with the council regarding assets across the city. I hope that is a personal view from J petrie because I would be appalled if that were the position of the Trust... it's basically code for just letting this latest regime have carte blanche whilst hugely underperforming with little to no evidence of anything improving... just what was suspected.

Disappointed.

I can't see anywhere that Jon Petrie (or I in posting his comments) suggests we should 'trust in Brent'. That sort of jibe is a useless, lazy post that is indicative of someone who is more intent on perpetuating an internet persona rather than seriously looking at options and challenging the man in charge as opposed to abusing him.

knecht wrote:

Disappointed.

I can't see anywhere that Jon Petrie (or I in posting his comments) suggests we should 'trust in Brent'. That sort of jibe is a useless, lazy post that is indicative of someone who is more intent on perpetuating an internet persona rather than seriously looking at options and challenging the man in charge as opposed to abusing him.

I'm in this camp too.

I don't trust Brent to have the best interests of the club at heart, but if we want a benevolent philanthropist then those come few and far between. Our best (only really) hope that the club can succeed as well as Brent succeeding and I don't think that's impossible at all. The amount of clubs per league with philanthropic owners who chuck money at the club for the manager to spend in what is essentially a false economy are few and few between. Most clubs have to make do with profit-searching capitalists and try and find a way to succeed at the same time. That's what we have to do too and a lot of clubs make do.

I agree Knecht, however I think your agenda of questioning is entirely different to Petrie's agenda.

knecht wrote:

Disappointed.

I can't see anywhere that Jon Petrie (or I in posting his comments) suggests we should 'trust in Brent'. That sort of jibe is a useless, lazy post that is indicative of someone who is more intent on perpetuating an internet persona rather than seriously looking at options and challenging the man in charge as opposed to abusing him.

But he actually says in his post that he does trust in Brent!

He also rolls out the old "there is no alternative"mantra and when I read it earlier I did genuinely expect to see him say that we should be thankful to have a club to support.

I usually agree with jp's posts but on this occasion I thought he was wide of the mark. It's Brents fault that we are no further forward in a year, no CEO, no footballing savvy chairman, no management worth speaking about, and because of his business record I would say it is because he doesn't want to waste any money on the football club. The land had every ounce of his commitment and attention to detail.

GreenSam wrote:

knecht wrote:

Disappointed.

I can't see anywhere that Jon Petrie (or I in posting his comments) suggests we should 'trust in Brent'. That sort of jibe is a useless, lazy post that is indicative of someone who is more intent on perpetuating an internet persona rather than seriously looking at options and challenging the man in charge as opposed to abusing him.

I'm in this camp too.

I don't trust Brent to have the best interests of the club at heart, but if we want a benevolent philanthropist then those come few and far between. Our best (only really) hope that the club can succeed as well as Brent succeeding and I don't think that's impossible at all. The amount of clubs per league with philanthropic owners who chuck money at the club for the manager to spend in what is essentially a false economy are few and few between. Most clubs have to make do with profit-searching capitalists and try and find a way to succeed at the same time. That's what we have to do too and a lot of clubs make do.

Now you are taking an extreme and exaggerated point of view Sam that is simply not a valid point.

Nobody expects or has ever asked for anyone to chuck money at the club and in all the years I have been an Internet Argyle fan I have never, not once, seen this suggested in a serious discussion. All that is asked of Brent is that he delivers on his promises, if he wants the cash from the developments then he should deliver a secure Championship club, he seems to be failing miserably at the moment.

Then I think it's safe to say, Knecht, that you're probably a revisionist.... I'm not, well at least I don't see this present Argyle position as one that merits such a stance..
All a matter of trust where owners are concerned, and there's precious little of that around these days, let alone the unfortunate behaviour that has accompanied this new regime. Bad vibes will produce more bad vibes... that's how humans are.

Penzance wrote:

Rickler wrote:

So...

Trust in Brent, then?

Exactly Ricks. Just the latest version of it... how depressing... just be glad the city has a club to support thanks to the "philanthropic" Brent.... this seems to be the PR bullshit of choice with this new owner, and Petrie wants to fall for it.
How on earth can any of us fans say Brent is "supporting" the club, when no one knows what arrangements might be in place with the council regarding assets across the city. I hope that is a personal view from J petrie because I would be appalled if that were the position of the Trust... it's basically code for just letting this latest regime have carte blanche whilst hugely underperforming with little to no evidence of anything improving... just what was suspected.

If someone doesn't want to 100% agree with you they must be a sucker. Classic Penz!

I'm not sure why I'm rising to this but, if you had the ability to read something, digest it and then understand it, you'd be able to see that what I have written is not simply a banal 'trust in Brent' statement from someone trying to swallow down some PR bullshit. As per usual Penz you have decided to base your opinion of me on a convenient assumption that simply backs up your own deeply held views, pre-conceptions and prejudices. In fact, as per usual, it is you that is peddling the bullshit PR. You have always believed yourself to be of superior perception and judgement than anyone else, strangely enough this manifests itself in complete distrust of anyone who puts their head above the parapet in any way whatsoever, unless they hold the same one dimensional views as yourself. The truth of the matter however is that situations are more complex than you would like, and that not everything is black and white where everybody else is wrong and bad and you are always correct and good.

I'll try and give you the general message of my post in easier to understand language, as it appears you were unable to master the skills needed to decipher the first one.

At the time the club was up for sale, there really was only one option to keep it alive and we ended up with that option. I don't claim that this option was perfect but it was better than the alternatives.

I had hoped for a different style of supporter involvement and have made my feelings known where I feel the club has been wrong, including withdrawing from the PASB election.

I don't think that the current set up is good enough, both on and off the pitch.

James Brent has backed his manager in terms of playing budget. I don't agree with the manager still being in place.

James Brent has promised to build us a new grandstand, either that or we get profits from the development. I hope for the grandstand.

James Brent has promised that he will get someone in who knows how to run a football club. I think that this has taken too long but trust him to deliver.

It does not make sense for James Brent to have to continue to finance losses at a League 2 football club. It would make better financial sense for him to have a thriving club. It would be more likely that he could sell at a profit if this were the case and will also help increase revenue in any development.

Basically, I don't think that things are good enough, I have said as much, but, until James Brent proves otherwise, I trust him to deliver on the promises he has made. If at the end of the season we are still lurking around the bottom of the table with Fletch in charge, there is no prospect of a new stand and we still don't have anyone in place to run the club then maybe my opinion will change. Until that time I will base my opinion on the evidence in front of me.

It's not so easy just to question Brent and trust his response when you consider the company he keeps and the bullying culture that he has encouraged to flourish owing to his lack of willingness to do anything about it.

Greenjock wrote:

.........
But he actually says in his post that he does trust in Brent!
......

I agree, Jock, he does. But JP also puts loads of qualifiers on that trust. To ignore those and focus solely on "trust in Brent" is to ignore all of the other sentences and paragraphs.

As for "revisionist" - not really sure what you mean by that, penz. I have more than ample personal reason to not trust people at present but I remain enough of an idealist to think that, whilst Brent may know nothing about football (as he has acknowledged all along) and that may make him stupid and, in the short term, damaging to our club, nevertheless I hope that in the longer term he will want to get him and us out of the shit that we are in. I may be wrong. In spite of it all I prefer to trust people than not trust them. Better still, I prefer that they are challenged and held to public account.

The jury is still out on Mr Brent. He has certainly taken too long to learn the ropes and put things right - and I think he has taken long enough in standing by his manager. The test is what he will now do - a humiliating defeat at Bradford has got to be the absolute tipping point. I also think that that tipping point actually has already been reached and Fletcher has to go. In our position we can't afford to retain an inexperienced owner, a largely inexperienced board, and an inexperienced team management/coaching staff and hope to climb out of the pit we are in. If Sexstone doesn't shake things up I will really despair of the club.

John, just accept that people see things differently than you... and don't think I don't want you to succeed.
However, you've never been a fan of my views ... while that doesn't bother either of us, I think your withdrawl from the PASB was an honourable thing, but each item on it's own merit please.

Quote :

James Brent has promised to build us a new grandstand

As to the above quote of yours, I think you'll find in reality, certain pre conditions regarding the club and Home Park have been set out by PCC. In my understanding, James Brent had no choice but to build a "back wall" to his developments if he wanted approval and PCC to help launch a "dual" rescue plan that was not considered OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR... according to PCC over the last 18 months.

I believe anything Brent is doing is NOT philanthropic, but at the lowest cost, and in view of the company he keeps, not the friendliest to Argyle fans who use this forum to comment, and anything agreed to the seeming benefit of the club over and above Brent's view of the market value, will have been thanks to PCC, not an ex banker that helped oversee one of the biggest corporate failures in American history.

How you wish to approach the likes of him is up to you, and I wish you luck, but I don't have to approach him at all... there's plenty of other things for me to do while this whole unfortunate saga plays itself out. Please don't berrate me like the new superfans do, 99.5% of normal fans are making their own personal decisions. For those that wish to get involved in the "REAL" world that apparently we don't inhabit, may I suggest you just get on with it.... intended with respect to you.

knecht wrote:

a humiliating defeat at Bradford has got to be the absolute tipping point.

I rather think a humiliating defeat at SJP on the 15th with a spot in the drop zone for Christmas would be more likely to stimulate some reaction.

Anyone who counts the 'Windsor Boys' as personal friends and advisors, is not to be trusted or liked in my humble opinion.

The 'arrangement', whereby he became the only reluctant bidder, is as 'obvious' as the stench of mutual self interest surrounding all those involved.

It has spawned the pathetic spectre of local wannabes falling over eachother to be holier than thou, whilst being manipulated by the Deepthroating types within Pasoti and now infesting the corridors at Home Park.

Brent has seemingly condoned, nay rewarded such activists and anyone daring to question or speak out, is subject to all manner of character assassinations.

After over 50 years as a fan, the last few have been the most depressing but also the most predictable.

The lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Tringreen wrote:

Anyone who counts the 'Windsor Boys' as personal friends and advisors, is not to be trusted or liked in my humble opinion.

The 'arrangement', whereby he became the only reluctant bidder, is as 'obvious' as the stench of mutual self interest surrounding all those involved.

It has spawned the pathetic spectre of local wannabes falling over eachother to be holier than thou, whilst being manipulated by the Deepthroating types within Pasoti and now infesting the corridors at Home Park.

Brent has seemingly condoned, nay rewarded such activists and anyone daring to question or speak out, is subject to all manner of character assassinations.

After over 50 years as a fan, the last few have been the most depressing but also the most predictable.

The lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Absolutely this and especially the bold bit!

I'm not knocking people who do trust Brent to get us out of this mess, because to a large number of fans he is still considered the knight in shining armour who rode into town and saved us.

Maybe if the fans cared a little more about the details about how he obtained the club, and little details like Penz has just dropped into conversation, that building the grandstand was a prerequisite to PCC buying the ground and therefore becoming a partner in the club, then the club wouldn't have gotten into the mess it is now in the first place.

The PASB is reported in the local press as some kind of wonderful opportunity that Mr Brent has handed the club, but the smallprint about not being given the financial details are conveniently left out.

The PASB has two people who have been involved in some pretty shitty behaviour towards other Argyle fans, and yet they are in this circle of supporters who are having a nice time thank you very much even though the club is on the brink of another relegation battle where the BSP awaits the losers.

The local press have been subservient to Mr Brent from day one. Not one meaningful question has been asked, or answered anyway, and he is almost pictured in soft focus when they print his image. Even ESPN were alluding to his philanthropic handling of the club FFS.

The announcement of redundancies has been reported as though it is a much needed stroke of genius as the club has a workforce the size of the population of Los Angeles. If it were another business in the city which had stayed afloat because it's loyal staff worked without pay for 10 months, and then rewarded them with redundancy just before Christmas, there would be an outbreak of Daily Mail style headlines in The 'Erald.

We have a band of supporters who appear to be being rewarded for their support when he was trying to gain control of the club, so the people who were busy "saving" the club last year, are now happy with the situation the club is in because they have a padded seat to watch the shit from, or are now a local celebrity with a blossoming radio career!

Maybe Brent is just a poor judge of people? Although that would seem unlikely as he's so successful in his other businesses, because his unflinching support of Carl Fletcher has him in a gang of about 5. His choice of friends is also questionable, allowing them to "suggest" that people should no longer be allowed to have a role within the club, even though they were voluntary roles.

As the majority of the fanbase are spoonfed the story of who saved the club and what a sacrifice these people were continually making to keep it going, all out of the goodness of their heart, these people believe it.

Only now the cracks are starting to appear because the "just glad to have a club to support" brigade are suddenly not so keen on supporting a club who are crap week in week out, and don't quite share Mr Brent's view of a manager who is leading the slide towards non-league status with an air of not really caring, and condoning his captain getting sent off because he has a replacement on the bench, and a grasp of the English language that is usually found in third world countries who learn their English from watching re-runs of Only fools and horses.

Will the baying mob still trust in Brent if we lose again on Tuesday and Brent once again reiterates his belief that Fletcher is an exceptional talent and he still tries to convince people that he receives more mail supporting Carl Fletcher than he does voicing disapproval at him as manager?

I don't know if The Trust are in a position to ask for a meeting with Mr Brent to pass on their concerns about where the club is at the moment? Or will this be part of the remit of the PASB and they get told that this will be one of the many things that can't be discussed?

Lose on Tuesday and Fletcher still in charge on Saturday, what will be the attendance against Chesterfield? I would hazard a guess at below 5000 and that's counting the season tickets sold which are taken up because the owners cannot bear to watch this crap anymore and won't waste more money on refreshments and travel costs.

If Brent is the man a large number perceive him to be then he needs to listen to the fans, not just the ones he has the telephone numbers of.

GOB wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

knecht wrote:

Disappointed.

I can't see anywhere that Jon Petrie (or I in posting his comments) suggests we should 'trust in Brent'. That sort of jibe is a useless, lazy post that is indicative of someone who is more intent on perpetuating an internet persona rather than seriously looking at options and challenging the man in charge as opposed to abusing him.

I'm in this camp too.

I don't trust Brent to have the best interests of the club at heart, but if we want a benevolent philanthropist then those come few and far between. Our best (only really) hope that the club can succeed as well as Brent succeeding and I don't think that's impossible at all. The amount of clubs per league with philanthropic owners who chuck money at the club for the manager to spend in what is essentially a false economy are few and few between. Most clubs have to make do with profit-searching capitalists and try and find a way to succeed at the same time. That's what we have to do too and a lot of clubs make do.

Now you are taking an extreme and exaggerated point of view Sam that is simply not a valid point.

Nobody expects or has ever asked for anyone to chuck money at the club and in all the years I have been an Internet Argyle fan I have never, not once, seen this suggested in a serious discussion. All that is asked of Brent is that he delivers on his promises, if he wants the cash from the developments then he should deliver a secure Championship club, he seems to be failing miserably at the moment.

Fair point if that's the case. I never seek to deliberately caricature any opposing point of view so if I have then I apologise.

I think all he can do at the moment to put us up the league is change the manager. Do I think he should put more money in? No (and you clearly agree so fair enough there). All he needs to do to move us up the league is appoint someone who can utilise the budget better. And a CEO wouldn't go amiss either. But I guess at the moment the fact that he hasn't could be as much of an honest mistake as it is neglect. I don't actually think there are many reasons to trust him at the moment, which may surprise a few people. I also don't think there's much reason to mistrust him though (in the sense of where he'll take the club that is). For me the jury is still well and truly out. I sense we're probably not too far from agreement in all honestly and probably got our wires crossed somewhere.

GreenSam wrote:

GOB wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

knecht wrote:

Disappointed.

I can't see anywhere that Jon Petrie (or I in posting his comments) suggests we should 'trust in Brent'. That sort of jibe is a useless, lazy post that is indicative of someone who is more intent on perpetuating an internet persona rather than seriously looking at options and challenging the man in charge as opposed to abusing him.

I'm in this camp too.

I don't trust Brent to have the best interests of the club at heart, but if we want a benevolent philanthropist then those come few and far between. Our best (only really) hope that the club can succeed as well as Brent succeeding and I don't think that's impossible at all. The amount of clubs per league with philanthropic owners who chuck money at the club for the manager to spend in what is essentially a false economy are few and few between. Most clubs have to make do with profit-searching capitalists and try and find a way to succeed at the same time. That's what we have to do too and a lot of clubs make do.

Now you are taking an extreme and exaggerated point of view Sam that is simply not a valid point.

Nobody expects or has ever asked for anyone to chuck money at the club and in all the years I have been an Internet Argyle fan I have never, not once, seen this suggested in a serious discussion. All that is asked of Brent is that he delivers on his promises, if he wants the cash from the developments then he should deliver a secure Championship club, he seems to be failing miserably at the moment.

Fair point if that's the case. I never seek to deliberately caricature any opposing point of view so if I have then I apologise.

I think all he can do at the moment to put us up the league is change the manager. Do I think he should put more money in? No (and you clearly agree so fair enough there). All he needs to do to move us up the league is appoint someone who can utilise the budget better. And a CEO wouldn't go amiss either. But I guess at the moment the fact that he hasn't could be as much of an honest mistake as it is neglect. I don't actually think there are many reasons to trust him at the moment, which may surprise a few people. I also don't think there's much reason to mistrust him though (in the sense of where he'll take the club that is). For me the jury is still well and truly out. I sense we're probably not too far from agreement in all honestly and probably got our wires crossed somewhere.

But I do Sam, I do think that Brent needs to put more money in, he will have to if he decides to replace the manager. Can he afford not to? - Like any business you have to speculate to accumulate as Brent has done with his hotel empire, each and every transaction he has ever made has been based around that business philosophy.

Meanwhile the club is rapidly heading towards its second catastrophe in as many seasons, the debt is starting to build again and again it is because of incredibly incompetent management and leadership. Can we really trust an owner that basis his Business Plan and Cash Flow forecast on figures that any Argyle fan, Plymothian or uninterested housewife on drugs and solvent abuse would have been able to predict more accurately?

As usual Greenjock captures just about everything I want to say about my club, but far more eloquently than I ever could.

SirCumfrance wrote:

As usual Greenjock captures just about everything I want to say about my club, but far more eloquently than I ever could.

Yeah............ maybe he should write for the 'Erald or do a piece in the matchday programme ?

Just rob wrote:

This is harsh. We are moving forward under Brent and Carl

Moving forward how exactly?

I guess you weren't at Fleetwood on Saturday?

If that's "moving forward" then I'd rather go rapidly backwards!!!

david_fisher wrote:

Just rob wrote:

This is harsh. We are moving forward under Brent and Carl

Moving forward how exactly?

I guess you weren't at Fleetwood on Saturday?

If that's "moving forward" then I'd rather go rapidly backwards!!!

Ignore him David. The word 'troll' is often used by Pasoti types for people they don't agree with, so they can ban them.

In this instance, Just Rob is most definitely trolling and has been justifiably banned.

Yes, Just Rob has been banned from here.

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

The last time we started out at this level we went on to become the darlings of Deloitte & Touche as not only were we winning matches and gaining promotions for fun, we were turning profits. I don't recall an abundance of experience on the Board back then either. Stapleton knew a bit from working with Dan McCauley, the rest were just supporters astute enough to realise if the football on the pitch was right, the rest would fall into place. It didn't require Directors of Football or any major changes in football philosophy, just a manager who knew what he was doing.

Initial investments from the then Board included 25k for Trigger and a decent wage for Cocko. I suspect Friio & Ro (who both completed a strong spine) would've been on decentish wages to compensate uprooting from France. The entire squad couldn't have consisted of much more than 20 players. You could argue we got lucky with injuries or you could accept we had one of the best physios in the game. We certainly never had discipline problems and got full value from each and every player. We finished that 1st promotion season with gates over 8k and I've seen the wages to turnover figure quoted as low as 42%.

The above is where we should be heading again. Having squads of 30+ players is simply pissing money down the drain. If Brent really wants such a huge squad carrying so many youngsters hoping they come good then he better be prepared to support it financially for the next 2-3 years and be prepared to suck up the losses if/when it fails as the Janners wont and neither can you expect them to. Somehow I doubt that's part of his plan so can we just get back to basics please ie winning football matches?, it has afterall been a proven football philosophy in the past!

Coxside_Green wrote:

The last time we started out at this level we went on to become the darlings of Deloitte & Touche as not only were we winning matches and gaining promotions for fun, we were turning profits. I don't recall an abundance of experience on the Board back then either. Stapleton knew a bit from working with Dan McCauley, the rest were just supporters astute enough to realise if the football on the pitch was right, the rest would fall into place. It didn't require Directors of Football or any major changes in football philosophy, just a manager who knew what he was doing.

Initial investments from the then Board included 25k for Trigger and a decent wage for Cocko. I suspect Friio & Ro (who both completed a strong spine) would've been on decentish wages to compensate uprooting from France. The entire squad couldn't have consisted of much more than 20 players. You could argue we got lucky with injuries or you could accept we had one of the best physios in the game. We certainly never had discipline problems and got full value from each and every player. We finished that 1st promotion season with gates over 8k and I've seen the wages to turnover figure quoted as low as 42%.

The above is where we should be heading again. Having squads of 30+ players is simply pissing money down the drain. If Brent really wants such a huge squad carrying so many youngsters hoping they come good then he better be prepared to support it financially for the next 2-3 years and be prepared to suck up the losses if/when it fails as the Janners wont and neither can you expect them to. Somehow I doubt that's part of his plan so can we just get back to basics please ie winning football matches?, it has afterall been a proven football philosophy in the past!

What an excellent post, the problems being so simple to see. It begs to ask if Brent is really as switched on as his CV actually reads.