we are going down brent are you bothered?

Penzance wrote:

Tizzy, you sound like Guilfoyle with your spin. There's always another buyer for football clubs the size of Argyle as a going concern. Brent was almost certainly always the buyer ... just a matter of how the price was settled and who was going to pay for the administration, AKA the Ridsdale/Guilfoyle double act ... Brent certainly said he wasn't going to pay for it.... so the employees did in effect.
And we are yet to see how workable this solution is. The employee debt is just part of the deal.

Amen. Brent the reluctant bidder was never going to fund admin, the old guard wanted ther money. Ack and weren't going to throw anymore good after bad so someone must pay.

I'd love to know the full details of the purchase by philanthropic banker!

Grovehill wrote:

GOB wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

The only way to hit a guy who is purely money motivated is in the pocket.

In my opinion the best thing anyone who has the best interests of the club at heart should stop putting money in his pocket.



As an aside, am I the only one who's surprised by the total lack of critisism of this guy in the media?

This is exactly what it will take although I really don't think that anyone will hurt if the club is hit financially, Brent will just reduce expenditure, ie further redundancies, selling of players etc.

There will need to be an outcry opposing his development plans and it has to resist the "I won't be building you a new stand then" kind of talk that we'll be getting from the Newell's and Webb's and other Brent ambassadors and it also needs to be hit home hard to PCC.

Ha Ha. That's a good one GOB. When your star striker's a free transfer from the fire brigade, and you can't even beat Dorchester, "transfer income" is just a pipe dream

Afraid not. One of the big buzzes about supporting this level football is when your local lads make the first team. We may or may not have two great prospects in our youth team, we'll never know as we'll sell them for Plymouth prices!!

Greenskin wrote:

BTW-i had a look through your club accounts a while back and there was a liability of £802k,apparently a loan form ECFC supporters club.Who provided the monney for that-seems rather a lot for your average punter to raise.

That represents the bulk of monies raised by the Trust since its inception, it shows as a liability because until recently it was designated as a loan, it is not an issue as we aren't going to be asking for it back other than in terms of an increase in the Trust's equity stake.

Not in the spin business nor the advocation of the Trust model as a panacea, merely trying to recognise that by the time JB picked up the baton all the damage had been done, so much time and money had been wasted that the club had became the last vestige of a fire sale, the people who were actually to blame for everything being fubar were either long gone or sat on their big fat ass in the main office waiting for a big fat cheque. My reading as a chap who has seen a few admins is that Brent did what could be done. As painful as the collateral damage to the staff et al might be it is just emotive frou frou, Brent is your guy and he really isn't going anywhere until he is good and ready i.e. Once the development has paid off, he holds all the cards and rightly so, Brenda's next step if Brent hadn't 'reluctantly' stepped in would have been to liquidate the assets and in the absence of any white knight you would now be looking at a good few years in non league football.

Brent has done exactly what he said he would, it isn't working all that well at the moment on the field but bitching about him doing exactly that seems a tad disingenuous.

That is all I am saying.

Not only is it all our own fault, we are now being disingenuous moaning about the club being owned by a property developer who prefers rugby union
And I didn't realise that giving a forewarning of any action in life exempted anyone from the result of their actions... rather strange logic that, as it wasn't us fans that accepted Brent's offer ... it was the administrators acting on behalf of the former owners mainly. i expect they are not being disingenuous at all, as they probably got the best deal they could have wished for.
I, Freathy and many others, feel let down by the administrators and the state of limited liability law... it was never originally meant to be used in the weay that has now become the norm.

You city fans are like the clever portion of our fans that also kept their mouths shut whilst all this was unfolding and are now experts on what has and will happen.
By the time of the great clean up on pasoti which was just after the takeover there was only me and Grovey left on the farm. Everybody with enough balls to question the superfans or their owner had been banned already. Brent and his jam boys do "get" one thing, to control the population you need to control communication. All of our concerns either got shouted down by the huge nodding dog of the majority of fans who just want everything to be OK, or the more dubious superfans with an agenda.
All in all thanks for your concern but don't you have any of your own that need patronising today?