My Take On Mr Brent & His Plans

Gert Loinz wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

I have no hidden agenda. The football club for one reason or another has cost me everything - a bankruptcy, my business, my house and most importantly my marriage. I cannot be involved in the running of a football club and do not have anyone 'waiting in the wings' to take over. I just want the very best for the Club I have grown to love.

Crikey, not sure I could stay in love with something that had caused me that much strife in life. Damon, I thought you made a few bob from selling your Argyle shares. You didn't stick the proceeds on red did you?

Not my colour!

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Mapperley, darling wrote:

brent is building a stand with forethought. that forethought is relegation to the bsp. have i said that before?

I have been asked by so many people why I am so vocally anti the JB Board and the above is the very reason.

The 'bidder of last resort' has never been a football fan, let alone an Argyle fan. To him going down this season is just another relegation to the fifth division. Falling into non League football does not mean the same to him as it does to you or I.

JB has made it very clear that there will be no more 'loans' to the football club next season. Best estimates put the overspend this season at around £1.25million. Take that off this year's 'competitive budget' plus a bit less for the loss of another 500 - 1,000 season ticket holders and our budget next season will be mid BSP.

He has shown that the property deal is the be all and end all of his involvement. The football club is the 'afterbirth'. A ministand proves a lack of ambition. A reluctance to move the ice-rink to allow a larger grandstand 'for green lung reasons' - my arse! No additional revenue streams for the Club from retail and leisure 'on Argyle land'.

PAFC means nothing to JB. I would love him to prove me wrong. Like many others I have no problem with earning money. Come out and declare that 33% of all profits from the HHP development will go directly into the PAFC coffers - you would still have a pretty hefty payday from the remaining 67% and the football club will be able to breathe. A the moment we are being strangled -financially and geographically by the HHP development.

I have no hidden agenda. The football club for one reason or another has cost me everything - a bankruptcy, my business, my house and most importantly my marriage. I cannot be involved in the running of a football club and do not have anyone 'waiting in the wings' to take over. I just want the very best for the Club I have grown to love.

I believe, as Mapperley does, that BSP suits JB's plans and that is what any football fan would fight against. A total lack of ambition is the death of any football club. But what is the alternative?

IMHO the Trust must now be working behind the scenes to purchase the football club. Not the property, just the Club. Become the Community Club. We have no-one to help us financially from now on, if we are to stand on our own two feet, let them be OUR two feet. Let us involve all those who have given up on the Greens or been ostracised by it's officials. Ok we'll have no money but we aren't going to have any next season anyway. But what we will have is AMBITION - a will to be the very best we can possibly be. Stuff the £400,000 for 20% of a whole lot of debt. The Club is a millstone around the developers neck - the Trust can take it off his hands and do something positive with it.

It can be done.

Possibly the best post on this whole mess to date, I think we are moving to ground zero for all Argyle fans and I think Damon can rally our cause.

I'm as sceptical about the HHP plans as anyone and more critical about Brent's running of the club thus far than many but I don't think for a moment he actually intends us to go into the BSP.

To put it quite bluntly, he wouldn't have sacked Carl Fletcher and he wouldn't he let Sheridan sign the players that he has.

Asset stripping the club, poor managerial choices, poor dialogue with fans? Yes. Deliberate sabotage? No.

Whilst having a chat with a mate today who is a reg at raiders games and he reckons the Raiders could play at the ice rink when its completed for at least for a year when the pavilions has its upgrade maybe even stay there perm.

Many ice hockey and Basketball teams share an arena in the states which works well for them and whilst i don't think this would happen at all i cant help but feel this maybe used as a little sweetener to the council to help get the rubber. Sounds silly but this potential alternative to the ice rink only occurred to me when he mention it.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

You miss my point entirely. I'm not arguing that X-Isle is right in what he says. My point is that just because it doesn't conform to what the internet warriors believe then he is branded as stupid. He might be ill informed and his ideas ill judged but why is he stupid? Everyone is entitled to form a view of what is going on. It is their view presumably come to by them weighing up the situation as they think it is and coming to a conclusion. It is not invalid because it doesn't conform it is different. It's the put down as in Rickler's to me because he doesn't like me much. That is pure childishness.

Some who have posted since are also speaking for this "silent majority" as if they have taken a poll of them and know the outcome. The reason they are known as the silent majority is that they are silent and therefore nobody knows how they would vote if they had the chance. You have spoken to some people who you know is all you have done and your conclusion that the silent majority is not in favour or even cares is as invalid as Newell's when trying to pretend he is speaking for this majority as well. I'm not that enamoured with the proposals either and have said so previously. The difference is that I don't think anything better will be achieved and am not kidding myself that my voice against will make the slightest change to what appears. I was at the match today. I didn't hear one voice raised against the building programme either before, during or after the match. I may not have been in the right place at the right time of course but nevertheless I didn't hear it. Therein speaks the silent majority. They cared not enough about anything to make a protest. I might also add that the vocal minority were pretty non vocal as well. Where is the actual evidence, apart from hear say that so many are against what is happening? It's on a few posts on a couple of websites which only represents a fraction of those that go through the turnstyles. The only way the point would be made would be for a proper vote to be had and the majority of people express their view. That is unlikely to happen because most would probably not even bother to vote anyway and it would remain officially a minority.

Some of that is spot on Sensible, but I have a pop at X-Isle because of the way he puts down anyone who doesn't agree with him in a manner that is vomit inducing. He posts with such panache and waxes lyrical but when you read between the lines of all his guff there is no substance whatsoever to his views.

Someone who has Che Guevera as their Avatar defending a rich banker is pretty hard to fathom anyway but it's the way he goes on and on like he's something from a superior universe when in reality he's from Crawley ffs!

Basically he's a tw@t who has sold his soul to Brent and Newell.

GOB wrote:

Newell gave the game away sometime ago when he said that the Blue Square wouldn't do the Club any harm.

I agree. That's what James and Peter have told him and Chris over prawn sandwiches and Brent's word is gospel.

maybe because for a season gates would hold up and IF the argyle got promoted the crest of the wave would see argyle challenge in div4 like other promoted sides generally do............

IF though !

Elias wrote:

maybe because for a season gates would hold up and IF the argyle got promoted the crest of the wave would see argyle challenge in div4 like other promoted sides generally do............

IF though !

That's the problem though. In a way winning the BSP would be better than continually struggling at the bottom of League 2 but Brent aint going to be giving anyone a competetive budget anymore, that's if he did in the first place, so I don't see us winning the BSP while he's in charge.

I expect Luton fans thought the same 5 years ago and they've come close but they're now an establsished non-league club. Luton, who were at the top table and winning the League Cup at Wembley just over 20 years ago.

Angry of Manchester wrote:

Whilst having a chat with a mate today who is a reg at raiders games and he reckons the Raiders could play at the ice rink when its completed for at least for a year when the pavilions has its upgrade maybe even stay there perm.

Many ice hockey and Basketball teams share an arena in the states which works well for them and whilst i don't think this would happen at all i cant help but feel this maybe used as a little sweetener to the council to help get the rubber. Sounds silly but this potential alternative to the ice rink only occurred to me when he mention it.

Really interesting this one - the Council have 'sponsored' Raiders with free use of the Pavilions since basketball moved there. If JB were to charge Raiders commercial rent at either the ice rink or the 'new' Pavilions then financially Raiders would have to 'downsize' to the Life Centre. If JB can 'sponsor' Raiders why not Argyle? Or will he care?

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Angry of Manchester wrote:

Whilst having a chat with a mate today who is a reg at raiders games and he reckons the Raiders could play at the ice rink when its completed for at least for a year when the pavilions has its upgrade maybe even stay there perm.

Many ice hockey and Basketball teams share an arena in the states which works well for them and whilst i don't think this would happen at all i cant help but feel this maybe used as a little sweetener to the council to help get the rubber. Sounds silly but this potential alternative to the ice rink only occurred to me when he mention it.

Really interesting this one - the Council have 'sponsored' Raiders with free use of the Pavilions since basketball moved there. If JB were to charge Raiders commercial rent at either the ice rink or the 'new' Pavilions then financially Raiders would have to 'downsize' to the Life Centre. If JB can 'sponsor' Raiders why not Argyle? Or will he care?

If it would unlock a few tens of millions in development potential then he would like a shot, otherwise he wouldn't entertain it. Argyle was only bought because of development potential, he would have let us die without it. I can't wait until the day that we are hemmed in by building with not even enough room to build Nool a double garage and we can get on with being a football club again.

Greenjock wrote:

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

You miss my point entirely. I'm not arguing that X-Isle is right in what he says. My point is that just because it doesn't conform to what the internet warriors believe then he is branded as stupid. He might be ill informed and his ideas ill judged but why is he stupid? Everyone is entitled to form a view of what is going on. It is their view presumably come to by them weighing up the situation as they think it is and coming to a conclusion. It is not invalid because it doesn't conform it is different. It's the put down as in Rickler's to me because he doesn't like me much. That is pure childishness.

Some who have posted since are also speaking for this "silent majority" as if they have taken a poll of them and know the outcome. The reason they are known as the silent majority is that they are silent and therefore nobody knows how they would vote if they had the chance. You have spoken to some people who you know is all you have done and your conclusion that the silent majority is not in favour or even cares is as invalid as Newell's when trying to pretend he is speaking for this majority as well. I'm not that enamoured with the proposals either and have said so previously. The difference is that I don't think anything better will be achieved and am not kidding myself that my voice against will make the slightest change to what appears. I was at the match today. I didn't hear one voice raised against the building programme either before, during or after the match. I may not have been in the right place at the right time of course but nevertheless I didn't hear it. Therein speaks the silent majority. They cared not enough about anything to make a protest. I might also add that the vocal minority were pretty non vocal as well. Where is the actual evidence, apart from hear say that so many are against what is happening? It's on a few posts on a couple of websites which only represents a fraction of those that go through the turnstyles. The only way the point would be made would be for a proper vote to be had and the majority of people express their view. That is unlikely to happen because most would probably not even bother to vote anyway and it would remain officially a minority.

Some of that is spot on Sensible, but I have a pop at X-Isle because of the way he puts down anyone who doesn't agree with him in a manner that is vomit inducing. He posts with such panache and waxes lyrical but when you read between the lines of all his guff there is no substance whatsoever to his views.

Someone who has Che Guevera as their Avatar defending a rich banker is pretty hard to fathom anyway but it's the way he goes on and on like he's something from a superior universe when in reality he's from Crawley ffs!

Basically he's a tw@t who has sold his soul to Brent and Newell.

Having cross swords with him, my opinion bounced from hes ok to what a collosal pain in the arse.
He has a knack of bringing the worst out of people, me included, but sanctimonious doesn't even begin to describe him.

nzgreen wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

You miss my point entirely. I'm not arguing that X-Isle is right in what he says. My point is that just because it doesn't conform to what the internet warriors believe then he is branded as stupid. He might be ill informed and his ideas ill judged but why is he stupid? Everyone is entitled to form a view of what is going on. It is their view presumably come to by them weighing up the situation as they think it is and coming to a conclusion. It is not invalid because it doesn't conform it is different. It's the put down as in Rickler's to me because he doesn't like me much. That is pure childishness.

Some who have posted since are also speaking for this "silent majority" as if they have taken a poll of them and know the outcome. The reason they are known as the silent majority is that they are silent and therefore nobody knows how they would vote if they had the chance. You have spoken to some people who you know is all you have done and your conclusion that the silent majority is not in favour or even cares is as invalid as Newell's when trying to pretend he is speaking for this majority as well. I'm not that enamoured with the proposals either and have said so previously. The difference is that I don't think anything better will be achieved and am not kidding myself that my voice against will make the slightest change to what appears. I was at the match today. I didn't hear one voice raised against the building programme either before, during or after the match. I may not have been in the right place at the right time of course but nevertheless I didn't hear it. Therein speaks the silent majority. They cared not enough about anything to make a protest. I might also add that the vocal minority were pretty non vocal as well. Where is the actual evidence, apart from hear say that so many are against what is happening? It's on a few posts on a couple of websites which only represents a fraction of those that go through the turnstyles. The only way the point would be made would be for a proper vote to be had and the majority of people express their view. That is unlikely to happen because most would probably not even bother to vote anyway and it would remain officially a minority.

Some of that is spot on Sensible, but I have a pop at X-Isle because of the way he puts down anyone who doesn't agree with him in a manner that is vomit inducing. He posts with such panache and waxes lyrical but when you read between the lines of all his guff there is no substance whatsoever to his views.

Someone who has Che Guevera as their Avatar defending a rich banker is pretty hard to fathom anyway but it's the way he goes on and on like he's something from a superior universe when in reality he's from Crawley ffs!

Basically he's a tw@t who has sold his soul to Brent and Newell.

Having cross swords with him, my opinion bounced from hes ok to what a collosal pain in the arse.
He has a knack of bringing the worst out of people, me included, but sanctimonious doesn't even begin to describe him.

Well done NZ you and the Manc G are holding your corner well.

Its been fun at times.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Angry of Manchester wrote:

Whilst having a chat with a mate today who is a reg at raiders games and he reckons the Raiders could play at the ice rink when its completed for at least for a year when the pavilions has its upgrade maybe even stay there perm.

Many ice hockey and Basketball teams share an arena in the states which works well for them and whilst i don't think this would happen at all i cant help but feel this maybe used as a little sweetener to the council to help get the rubber. Sounds silly but this potential alternative to the ice rink only occurred to me when he mention it.

Really interesting this one - the Council have 'sponsored' Raiders with free use of the Pavilions since basketball moved there. If JB were to charge Raiders commercial rent at either the ice rink or the 'new' Pavilions then financially Raiders would have to 'downsize' to the Life Centre. If JB can 'sponsor' Raiders why not Argyle? Or will he care?

If Brent thought it was a good way of winning votes from the council he'd do it. Whether the raiders want to move to the ice rink is perhaps another story as correct me if i am wrong but dont they want to move to a bigger place so they can meet the European basketball requirements which i believe is min of 5000?.

One thing is for sure though the Raiders playing at the ice rink would sell more tickets on a reg basis making more money than any figure skating competition. Perhaps the trust better not mention this lol

European basketball could have happened at Pailions, I had it cleared with a Euro Commissioner. The thing that will always hold it back is finance, They would need to have a budget approx. treble it's current level - for travel and increased size and quality squad

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

European basketball could have happened at Pailions, I had it cleared with a Euro Commissioner. The thing that will always hold it back is finance, They would need to have a budget approx. treble it's current level - for travel and increased size and quality squad

I see, understandable why that never came about no point jeapodising the clubs future for the holy grail.

Angry of Manchester wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

European basketball could have happened at Pailions, I had it cleared with a Euro Commissioner. The thing that will always hold it back is finance, They would need to have a budget approx. treble it's current level - for travel and increased size and quality squad

I see, understandable why that never came about no point jeapodising the clubs future for the holy grail.

That's what the farm politburo were saying about Argyle and Trust in Stapes mantra. Cardiff were doing it all wrong apparently and we weren't going to jeopardise the club through 'going for it'.

Tringreen wrote:

Angry of Manchester wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

European basketball could have happened at Pailions, I had it cleared with a Euro Commissioner. The thing that will always hold it back is finance, They would need to have a budget approx. treble it's current level - for travel and increased size and quality squad

I see, understandable why that never came about no point jeapodising the clubs future for the holy grail.

That's what the farm politburo were saying about Argyle and Trust in Stapes mantra. Cardiff were doing it all wrong apparently and we weren't going to jeopardise the club through 'going for it'.

True but its a little different for the raiders they arent a budding Boston Celtics in the waiting no matter how much they wish for it.

Football here has a Holy Grail to 'go for'. Basketball doesn't.

Mansfield Town
Wrexham
Lincoln city

3 Conference teams that will have bigger main stands then us
Feel free to research and add to the list

Plymouth Albion could reach the higher ground with investment they have the facilities and fanbase in place.

Angry of Manchester wrote:

Plymouth Albion could reach the higher ground with investment they have the facilities and fanbase in place.

I see your thread on a trust run club got shouted down over on the farm in true Pasoti style.
Knobs

punchdrunk wrote:

Angry of Manchester wrote:

Plymouth Albion could reach the higher ground with investment they have the facilities and fanbase in place.

I see your thread on a trust run club got shouted down over on the farm in true Pasoti style.
Knobs

im not manchester green i dont have a pasoti account im proud to say. I do agree with the notion the trust owning a 20% stake and a seat on the board of directors at the club so fans are involved in the running of the club in all aspects and can vote against measures that are not in the fan/clubs interests. I wouldnt charge the trust £400,000 for the % and nothing in return though thats just silly

On a side note i really ought to change my name back i was only meant to have Angry of Manchester while we did that man utd avatar thing lol

Who needs a democratically elected and talented Trust run club ,which could invite in part ownership investment from wealthy Argyle fans, when you have the Windsor Boys , the farm politburo and their sponsors in pole position ?

What do you want Angry?