IJN Says...

It makes one long for the days of Dan McCauley. One common enemy who could give as good as he got. Know anyone and everything that moves is in conflict. I think fan involvement of any kind is a misnomer is disruptive and destructive. Only a benign dictator will ever be able to take the club forward. Or at least an owner who keeps fans at an arms length.

Newel gies it the big I am regards sitting in the directors box. However he is only there because Webb gets him the tickets.

No coincidence that Webb is away, so super fan Ian goes to Paris rather then go to watch argyle tonight and have to sit in the stalls cause Webb ain't there to get him in the directors box.

I don't think that is the case Dane. He's Brent's mate, drives him to matches.

Dougie wrote:

It makes one long for the days of Dan McCauley. One common enemy who could give as good as he got. Know anyone and everything that moves is in conflict. I think fan involvement of any kind is a misnomer is disruptive and destructive. Only a benign dictator will ever be able to take the club forward. Or at least an owner who keeps fans at an arms length.

Good to see you've learnt something from your years of private ownership.

One owner fecks you up; but hey, the next one'll be better. He fecks you up; but never mind - you were just unlucky. The next one fecks you up; but no need to panic; if at first you don't succeed try, try again. Stuck with a slick, machiavellian leech like Brent? What you need is a better class of leech. How about the dirty money of a human-rights abusing arab dictator of your own? That doesn't grab you? Then how about a Russian robber-baron, who admits in open court to corruption, has done time for theft and seems to be very unlucky in the way that trade unionists who challenge him tend to wind up in dark alleys with terminal tracheotomies and journalists who try and investigate him tend to wind up in concrete overcoats at the bottom of the Moscow river.

In actual fact why don't we extend the benign dictator idea to the problem of national government? No need for the hoi polloi to stick their oar into decisions that affect their lives. Just let the experts get on with things.

This supporter involvement lark is such cobblers isn't it? Bayern, Schalke, (both more valuable than Chelsea and Manchester City according to Forbes) Galatasary (private ownership of football clubs is banned in Turkey) Barcelona, Real Madrid, most of the big clubs in Brazil and Argentina - even the Green Bay Packers in the NFL. What's more, It's been a complete disaster in the UK as well. Wrexham, fighting for promotion, having been moribund and worse under private ownership; Chester, charging through the leagues, after the old Chester was killed under private ownership (ditto AFC); ourselves, experiencing arguably unprecedented success and certainly a situation a universe away fom the terminal decay and the moribund atmosphere of the previous twenty years of private ownership, both on and off the pitch. And then there's Swansea, owned by a consortium of fans and a powerful Trust who have more hands-on involvement than we do.

You only have to see the resurgence of clubs who've spunked their Trust to see how much better private ownership is. We have Northampton charging up the leagues; Chesterfield, showing us how it was.done in League 1; Stockport, who's new private owners took them to the heights of the bottom of the Conference; and last but not least, Notts Co, who gave up fan ownership to a group who eventually proved to be con-artists, only to be rescued from the disaster that lot left behind by another luvverly private owner - with a spokesman fond of making patronising comments about the Trust model only being good for small clubs and not the likes of Notts County - only for him to lose interest and tell the fans that they are Very Naughty Supporters and that therefore he is not going to put one penny more of his hard-earned into a football club supported by such ingrates.

What we need is a system that, according to Deloittes, has left two-thirds of clubs in the Football League technically insolvent and one adverse event from disaster.

Or perhaps not.

jabba the gut ecfc wrote:

Dougie wrote:

It makes one long for the days of Dan McCauley. One common enemy who could give as good as he got. Know anyone and everything that moves is in conflict. I think fan involvement of any kind is a misnomer is disruptive and destructive. Only a benign dictator will ever be able to take the club forward. Or at least an owner who keeps fans at an arms length.

Good to see you've learnt something from your years of private ownership.

One owner fecks you up; but hey, the next one'll be better. He fecks you up; but never mind - you were just unlucky. The next one fecks you up; but no need to panic; if at first you don't succeed try, try again. Stuck with a slick, machiavellian leech like Brent? What you need is a better class of leech. How about the dirty money of a human-rights abusing arab dictator of your own? That doesn't grab you? Then how about a Russian robber-baron, who admits in open court to corruption, has done time for theft and seems to be very unlucky in the way that trade unionists who challenge him tend to wind up in dark alleys with terminal tracheotomies and journalists who try and investigate him tend to wind up in concrete overcoats at the bottom of the Moscow river.

In actual fact why don't we extend the benign dictator idea to the problem of national government? No need for the hoi polloi to stick their oar into decisions that affect their lives. Just let the experts get on with things.

This supporter involvement lark is such cobblers isn't it? Bayern, Schalke, (both more valuable than Chelsea and Manchester City according to Forbes) Galatasary (private ownership of football clubs is banned in Turkey) Barcelona, Real Madrid, most of the big clubs in Brazil and Argentina - even the Green Bay Packers in the NFL. What's more, It's been a complete disaster in the UK as well. Wrexham, fighting for promotion, having been moribund and worse under private ownership; Chester, charging through the leagues, after the old Chester was killed under private ownership (ditto AFC); ourselves, experiencing arguably unprecedented success and certainly a situation a universe away fom the terminal decay and the moribund atmosphere of the previous twenty years of private ownership, both on and off the pitch. And then there's Swansea, owned by a consortium of fans and a powerful Trust who have more hands-on involvement than we do.

You only have to see the resurgence of clubs who've spunked their Trust to see how much better private ownership is. We have Northampton charging up the leagues; Chesterfield, showing us how it was.done in League 1; Stockport, who's new private owners took them to the heights of the bottom of the Conference; and last but not least, Notts Co, who gave up fan ownership to a group who eventually proved to be con-artists, only to be rescued from the disaster that lot left behind by another luvverly private owner, - fond of making patronising comments about the Trust model only being good for small clubs and not the likes of Notts County - only for him to lose interest and tell the fans that they are Very Naughty Supporters and that therefore he is not going to put one penny more of his hard-earned into a football club supported by such ingrates.

What we need is a system that, according to Deloittes, has left two-thirds of clubs in the Football League technically insolvent and one adverse event from disaster.

Or perhaps not.

That's all very well Jabba but we have the janners let loose in a sweet shop scenario at Home Park. Exactly 'how' those fit to lead a Trust run club would rise to the top in this cesspit of personal positioning , would be the major stumbling block down here.

Mrrapson wrote:

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

I see the lapdog Rapson has popped up to tongue both ian and damon's collective arses.

I was trying to be diplomatic and tell them both to pack it in!

is your tongue raw yet i se you are into deep shit stirring today. Been told to do it i imagine.

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

Mrrapson wrote:

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

I see the lapdog Rapson has popped up to tongue both ian and damon's collective arses.

I was trying to be diplomatic and tell them both to pack it in!

is your tongue raw yet i se you are into deep shit stirring today. Been told to do it i imagine.

I've made two comments, not exactly registering as massive shit stirring. Anyway at least I have the integrity to do it in my own name.

Diplomatic ? Yet your first post is mostly having a pop at Damon. Very one sided

punchdrunk wrote:

He seems to crave publicity and face-time
It is no wonder he coseyed up to Newell, Pasoti and the gang.
It was epic when he lost the election though..dummies getting spat out left right and center.
Says it all really

cerbs bottled it when nool knocked on his door, now he's the fat contollers official bitch

Dane. wrote:

Diplomatic ? Yet your first post is mostly having a pop at Damon. Very one sided

Don't think you're in any position to pop at my diplomacy skills are you Dane?

See past you Ian Newell blindness and you'll see I had a go at him too.

Mrrapson wrote:

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

Mrrapson wrote:

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

I see the lapdog Rapson has popped up to tongue both ian and damon's collective arses.

I was trying to be diplomatic and tell them both to pack it in!

is your tongue raw yet i se you are into deep shit stirring today. Been told to do it i imagine.

I've made two comments, not exactly registering as massive shit stirring. Anyway at least I have the integrity to do it in my own name.

You have no integrity your a sheep.

I'm in any position I wanna out myself in. I call things as I see it. I have no friendship with Ian or Damon to cloud my opinions.

Mrrapson wrote:

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

I see the lapdog Rapson has popped up to tongue both ian and damon's collective arses.

I was trying to be diplomatic and tell them both to pack it in!

you were slow of the mark rapson, your love rival cerbs started arse kissing nobber way before you, your slow response will be noted in his secret files

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

Mrrapson wrote:

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

Mrrapson wrote:

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

I see the lapdog Rapson has popped up to tongue both ian and damon's collective arses.

I was trying to be diplomatic and tell them both to pack it in!

is your tongue raw yet i se you are into deep shit stirring today. Been told to do it i imagine.

I've made two comments, not exactly registering as massive shit stirring. Anyway at least I have the integrity to do it in my own name.

You have no integrity your a sheep.

You're! Good grief if you are going to put me down at least do it right!

Dane. wrote:

I'm in any position I wanna out myself in. I call things as I see it. I have no friendship with Ian or Damon to cloud my opinions.

You may not anymore but you did, and you helped cause as much havoc as you could just to be part of the "in crowd".

No one tells me or asks me to post, I post what I feel. Just like you Dane.

Mrrapson wrote:

You're! Good grief if you are going to put me down at least do it right!

Sorry, did you mean, at least do it correctly ?

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Mrrapson wrote:

You're! Good grief if you are going to put me down at least do it right!

Sorry, did you mean, at least do it correctly ?

talk about twatting yourself there Leigh.

Tringreen wrote:

jabba the gut ecfc wrote:

Dougie wrote:

It makes one long for the days of Dan McCauley. One common enemy who could give as good as he got. Know anyone and everything that moves is in conflict. I think fan involvement of any kind is a misnomer is disruptive and destructive. Only a benign dictator will ever be able to take the club forward. Or at least an owner who keeps fans at an arms length.

Good to see you've learnt something from your years of private ownership.

One owner fecks you up; but hey, the next one'll be better. He fecks you up; but never mind - you were just unlucky. The next one fecks you up; but no need to panic; if at first you don't succeed try, try again. Stuck with a slick, machiavellian leech like Brent? What you need is a better class of leech. How about the dirty money of a human-rights abusing arab dictator of your own? That doesn't grab you? Then how about a Russian robber-baron, who admits in open court to corruption, has done time for theft and seems to be very unlucky in the way that trade unionists who challenge him tend to wind up in dark alleys with terminal tracheotomies and journalists who try and investigate him tend to wind up in concrete overcoats at the bottom of the Moscow river.

In actual fact why don't we extend the benign dictator idea to the problem of national government? No need for the hoi polloi to stick their oar into decisions that affect their lives. Just let the experts get on with things.

This supporter involvement lark is such cobblers isn't it? Bayern, Schalke, (both more valuable than Chelsea and Manchester City according to Forbes) Galatasary (private ownership of football clubs is banned in Turkey) Barcelona, Real Madrid, most of the big clubs in Brazil and Argentina - even the Green Bay Packers in the NFL. What's more, It's been a complete disaster in the UK as well. Wrexham, fighting for promotion, having been moribund and worse under private ownership; Chester, charging through the leagues, after the old Chester was killed under private ownership (ditto AFC); ourselves, experiencing arguably unprecedented success and certainly a situation a universe away fom the terminal decay and the moribund atmosphere of the previous twenty years of private ownership, both on and off the pitch. And then there's Swansea, owned by a consortium of fans and a powerful Trust who have more hands-on involvement than we do.

You only have to see the resurgence of clubs who've spunked their Trust to see how much better private ownership is. We have Northampton charging up the leagues; Chesterfield, showing us how it was.done in League 1; Stockport, who's new private owners took them to the heights of the bottom of the Conference; and last but not least, Notts Co, who gave up fan ownership to a group who eventually proved to be con-artists, only to be rescued from the disaster that lot left behind by another luvverly private owner, - fond of making patronising comments about the Trust model only being good for small clubs and not the likes of Notts County - only for him to lose interest and tell the fans that they are Very Naughty Supporters and that therefore he is not going to put one penny more of his hard-earned into a football club supported by such ingrates.

What we need is a system that, according to Deloittes, has left two-thirds of clubs in the Football League technically insolvent and one adverse event from disaster.

Or perhaps not.

That's all very well Jabba but we have the janners let loose in a sweet shop scenario at Home Park. Exactly 'how' those fit to lead a Trust run club would rise to the top in this cesspit of personal positioning , would be the major stumbling block down here.

No you don't. What you have is the legacy of an unelected Trust with a self- appointed leader who never allowed himself or the myths he created about his role during administration to be held up to scrutiny. You have fans claiming to be advocates for the fanbase who are in reality tools (no pun intended) and Kapos of a private owner who is essentiaaly the same as.the old boss, but knows that it is expedient not to appear to be so. That Webb version was not a Trust, or anything like it and the cabal responsible for smoothing Brent's path are now liegemen in a mediaeval style feudal court, fuelled by the politics of manipulation and the personality cult.

In reality, what you are seeing at PAFC is the very situation a properly functioning Trust model is designed to to prevent. It would actually be a safeguard against the likes of Webb hypnotising the fanbase and a situation of unelected personal rule, empire building and influence peddling. At the very least you would have a clear avenue open to you to change the situation.

Brent knows the score. Why do you think he and his henchmen have gone out of their way to wrongfoot it and attack its leaders? A strong Trust, with funds and as large a membership as possible, is the only hope of a competing powerbase to the janners in the sweetshop. Notwithstanding that, it gives you a fighting chance of preventing another Webb elbowing his way to the front when Brent bails before the bulk of the debt becomes due.

If you don't at least try and do a Blackburn and prepare yourselves for the opportunity of some form of ownership in future, but hope that the extreme rarity of a genuinely benevolent, decent owner falls into your lap, then you are essentially reduced to the status of a man who's lost his business, who's wife has run off with his best friend and who is on the verge of bankruptcy owing millions; but who just KNOWS that it will all be OK when he wins the Euromillions rollover jackpot.

The thing is, fan ownership doesn't prevent you having a sugar daddy that will fire you to the Premier League, if by some miracle one was to magically appear. If you were ever to find yourself prevented with such a scenario and were stupid enough to surrender control, you could still make the decision to sell - however then at least YOU would be driving the process - not Brent, nor any other self-interested, smooth-talking politician in a suit, whose only real motivation is to make himself even richer.

The Trust is the only hope for those who want to eventually SEE "decency, integrity, openness and transparency", or whatever the slogan is that X-Isle is so fond of repeating, make an appearance at HP, instead of simply talking about it all the time.

It won't happen overnight, but like I said before - use it or lose

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Mrrapson wrote:

You're! Good grief if you are going to put me down at least do it right!

Sorry, did you mean, at least do it correctly ?

Yes, yes I did!

Mrrapson wrote:

Dane. wrote:

I'm in any position I wanna out myself in. I call things as I see it. I have no friendship with Ian or Damon to cloud my opinions.

You may not anymore but you did, and you helped cause as much havoc as you could just to be part of the "in crowd".

No one tells me or asks me to post, I post what I feel. Just like you Dane.

Your very mis guided if that's what you think Leigh. I've never had a friendship with either of them

jabba the gut ecfc wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

jabba the gut ecfc wrote:

Dougie wrote:

It makes one long for the days of Dan McCauley. One common enemy who could give as good as he got. Know anyone and everything that moves is in conflict. I think fan involvement of any kind is a misnomer is disruptive and destructive. Only a benign dictator will ever be able to take the club forward. Or at least an owner who keeps fans at an arms length.

Good to see you've learnt something from your years of private ownership.

One owner fecks you up; but hey, the next one'll be better. He fecks you up; but never mind - you were just unlucky. The next one fecks you up; but no need to panic; if at first you don't succeed try, try again. Stuck with a slick, machiavellian leech like Brent? What you need is a better class of leech. How about the dirty money of a human-rights abusing arab dictator of your own? That doesn't grab you? Then how about a Russian robber-baron, who admits in open court to corruption, has done time for theft and seems to be very unlucky in the way that trade unionists who challenge him tend to wind up in dark alleys with terminal tracheotomies and journalists who try and investigate him tend to wind up in concrete overcoats at the bottom of the Moscow river.

In actual fact why don't we extend the benign dictator idea to the problem of national government? No need for the hoi polloi to stick their oar into decisions that affect their lives. Just let the experts get on with things.

This supporter involvement lark is such cobblers isn't it? Bayern, Schalke, (both more valuable than Chelsea and Manchester City according to Forbes) Galatasary (private ownership of football clubs is banned in Turkey) Barcelona, Real Madrid, most of the big clubs in Brazil and Argentina - even the Green Bay Packers in the NFL. What's more, It's been a complete disaster in the UK as well. Wrexham, fighting for promotion, having been moribund and worse under private ownership; Chester, charging through the leagues, after the old Chester was killed under private ownership (ditto AFC); ourselves, experiencing arguably unprecedented success and certainly a situation a universe away fom the terminal decay and the moribund atmosphere of the previous twenty years of private ownership, both on and off the pitch. And then there's Swansea, owned by a consortium of fans and a powerful Trust who have more hands-on involvement than we do.

You only have to see the resurgence of clubs who've spunked their Trust to see how much better private ownership is. We have Northampton charging up the leagues; Chesterfield, showing us how it was.done in League 1; Stockport, who's new private owners took them to the heights of the bottom of the Conference; and last but not least, Notts Co, who gave up fan ownership to a group who eventually proved to be con-artists, only to be rescued from the disaster that lot left behind by another luvverly private owner, - fond of making patronising comments about the Trust model only being good for small clubs and not the likes of Notts County - only for him to lose interest and tell the fans that they are Very Naughty Supporters and that therefore he is not going to put one penny more of his hard-earned into a football club supported by such ingrates.

What we need is a system that, according to Deloittes, has left two-thirds of clubs in the Football League technically insolvent and one adverse event from disaster.

Or perhaps not.

That's all very well Jabba but we have the janners let loose in a sweet shop scenario at Home Park. Exactly 'how' those fit to lead a Trust run club would rise to the top in this cesspit of personal positioning , would be the major stumbling block down here.

No you don't. What you have is the legacy of an unelected Trust with a self- appointed leader who never allowed himself or the myths he created about his role during administration to be held up to scrutiny. You have fans claiming to be advocates for the fanbase who are in reality tools (no pun intended) and Kapos of a private owner who is essentiaaly the same as.the old boss, but knows that it is expedient not to appear to be so. That Webb version was not a Trust, or anything like it and the cabal responsible for smoothing Brent's path are now liegemen in a mediaeval style feudal court, fuelled by the politics of manipulation and the personality cult.

In reality, what you are seeing at PAFC is the very situation a properly functioning Trust model is designed to to prevent. It would actually be a safeguard against the likes of Webb hypnotising the fanbase and a situation of unelected personal rule, empire building and influence peddling. At the very least you would have a clear avenue open to you to change the situation.

Brent knows the score. Why do you think he and his henchmen have gone out of their way to wrongfoot it and attack its leaders? A strong Trust, with funds and as large a membership as possible, is the only hope of a competing powerbase to the janners in the sweetshop. Notwithstanding that, it gives you a fighting chance of preventing another Webb elbowing his way to the front when Brent bails before the bulk of the debt becomes due.

If you don't at least try and do a Blackburn and prepare yourselves for the opportunity of some form of ownership in future, but hope that the extreme rarity of a genuinely benevolent, decent owner falls into your lap, then you are essentially reduced to the status of a man who's lost his business, who's wife has run off with his best friend and who is on the verge of bankruptcy owing millions; but who just KNOWS that it will all be OK when he wins the Euromillions rollover jackpot.

The thing is, fan ownership doesn't prevent you having a sugar daddy that will fire you to the Premier League, if by some miracle one was to magically appear. If you were ever to find yourself prevented with such a scenario and were stupid enough to surrender control, you could still make the decision to sell - however then at least YOU would be driving the process - not Brent, nor any other self-interested, smooth-talking politician in a suit, whose only real motivation is to make himself even richer.

The Trust is the only hope for those who want to eventually SEE "decency, integrity, openness and transparency", or whatever the slogan is that X-Isle is so fond of repeating, make an appearance at HP, instead of simply talking about it all the time.

It won't happen overnight, but like I said before - use it or lose

A very well reasoned critique Jabba but it's now just all too late I suspect. The genie is out of the bottle and the AFT is destined to whither and die on the vine unless it has a clear raison d'etre that fans can rally behind. It had that during administration. My appalling habit of mixing metaphors aside, the bulk of the janner fan-base has, as you say, been hypnotised by Brent, Jones, Webb etc. It will be interesting to see how the personality politics plays out if this car-crash of a season ends with expulsion from the football league.

Mrrapson wrote:

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Mrrapson wrote:

You're! Good grief if you are going to put me down at least do it right!

Sorry, did you mean, at least do it correctly ?

Yes, yes I did!

Leigh, the one point I do disagree with on your post on pasoti was the fact that there were loads of IJN haters on there waiting to pounce - I dont think thats fair. He got the reaction he did because he posted a totally unprovoked and pretty unpleasent character assasination of one of the PASB. The exact sort of post he says he despises in fact.

People werent waiting in the wings to kick him - people just took issue to what he said and responded accordingly. A shame he had the meltdown, as I thought he was making a useful contribution to the other thread re the merits of the grandstand. People are sick of the personal vendettas and the politicking, and one person is constantl at the centre of it.

Personally I feel that all my posts on that threads played the ball not the man.

Wasn't particularly aimed at you womble tbh.
You tend to be quite measure when you respond. There are certain posters on there, and indeed here who take pleasure in seeing Ian feck up and then rub it in his face!

Mrrapson wrote:

Wasn't particularly aimed at you womble tbh.
You tend to be quite measure when you respond. There are certain posters on there, and indeed here who take pleasure in seeing Ian feck up and then rub it in his face!

True, but not so many on that thread. The fact that he made these arguements wiht no support from anyone else at all, even his long standing gang, speaks volumes - his arguements had no support and he became more and more desperate. He would have been better of being the bigger man and backing down.

Plus the fact that he referenced Hitler means he gave up on the debate - common internet knowledge is that as soon as a poster resorts to saying things such as "you're just like Hitler" means that they have given up all pretenc eof having a reasonable debate and are not interested in debating any issues. If the thread descended it was his own fault for lacking either the tolerence or the IQ to engage in a proper debate about the issues he was raising.

I used to love PASOTI, sadly that man seems to have engaged on a 2 year mission to ruin it for everyone. If he accepted that it wasnt all about him it would be a better place.

Mrrapson wrote:

Wasn't particularly aimed at you womble tbh.
You tend to be quite measure when you respond. There are certain posters on there, and indeed here who take pleasure in seeing Ian feck up and then rub it in his face!

I agree with you, there are.

Can you not see though that Ian has brought that upon himself. You must accept that he saved those documents to his flickr files. Why? Why would you want private medical information for a teenager? You must see that the majority of these games have been orchaestrated by Newell and no-one else. I accept that he is an extremely passionate Argyle fan, I'll even go as far as to say that many a person who meets him likes him, although I haven't had the pleasure.

His internet behaviour and his alone causes this aggro. When someone does the things he has then bloody right I take pleasure in seeing an internet manipulative bully fall flat on his face and he can take that prick Peter Jones with him.