Cmon then Brent

I am curious as to why these events are continuing even though the staff have been paid?

I think you're right Funny Man, someone checked out the tax situation and all is OK with consideration that the staff were not being paid, I'm guessing the money would be seen as a gift?

No need for curiosity Gob. The Herald states that the collecting for the 'staff fund' on Pasotibay will continue. The blurring between proper charitable acts and the funding of normal every day activities of the club will go on unabated.

I don't follow pasoti so much now unless there's a link on here so I'm a bit behind things.

If they are not collecting for the staff then where is the money going? If they are collecting for the staff, why?

PlymptonPilgrim wrote:

Greenskin wrote:

X Isle wrote:

Chemical Ali wrote:

Careful Mock, Andy Soapbox will start an angry thread against 'janners' not supporting the club (like he did on tony)- it wasn't Stapes fault for the mess he caused-it was all the janners' fault

It was never ALL the fault of the fans but at a particular point in history, they share some of the blame.

There really was NO excuse for crowds to start dropping during Holloways 'nearly' season. There were truly excellent players, playing trully excellent football at the business end of the championship. That said Stapleton had already (IMHO) committed the cardinal sin of pushing the boat out a wee bit too far. A Janner, more than any other chairman, should know the mind of the Janner football fan and tailored Argyles cloth accordingly. That's where it all started to go wrong for me, and yes, late in the Holloway reign the fanbase DID share some of the blame. What would we give for players and performances like that now, well they were there but far from coming to watch them, gates dropped.

Anyways, back to Brent. Never at any point was there a suggestion he was going to bankroll a rocket launch up the leagues. It'll be a modest 'slowly slowly catchy monkey', just as it should always be. Within our means and not a penny more. Opinions will vary but that's always been my view on it. Stepping away from that core principle started the problems, given all we've been through you'd think we'd have learnt to be careful what we wish for.

Just to go back to the Holloway nearly season.As a matter of fact,the football at HP wasn't actually all that good.I went to many away games during the Holloway period and can definitely state that the performances i saw"on the road" were much better than the fare at home.Some of the away displays at Sunderland,Palace,Wolves etc,far outstripped what was generally on offer down here-the peak performance was actually against Norwich,a real destruction job in what turned out to be Holloway's last game.Before that,the home record was rather mediocre-won 2,drawn 4,lost 1,7 goals scored.The truth is that Holloway's team was a developing one and,in my mind,would undoubtedly have reached at least the play offs in that season but was never given that chance to truly demonstrate it to the public,a fact which Holloway knew and acted upon in moving to Leicester .Looking through those early season stats,its interesting to see some of the gates at Argyle away games-QPR 10900,Stoke 12500,Blackpool 8800-see where those clubs have been since then.As you say,Stapleton should have known the Janner mindset-it is indisputable fact that,in any successful Argyle season,gates crescendo hugely after xmas and it would have been no different in 2007/8.No,Smiffy,there was something more to those decisions than impending financial trouble-if indeed the club did miss out and fall into problems,surely there was enough value within the squad to address that in the following summer? Reports of directors going around town boasting that they "were going to make a fecking mint" reached my ears and i had no reason to disbelieve the sources.I do believe there were some e mails distributed from ex directors who had previously resigned on principle stating that maybe there were other reasons than any financial shortfall behind the great fire sale of 2007/8.

Yep, go along with most of that. The Stapleton board had it's chance to welcome in around £10m of new investment, but as we all know, they had 'other plans in place' - which involved treating the success on the pitch as their own individual lottery wins.

As for the great fire sale it was no more than an exercise to make the club look a much more attractive investment than it was - and the Japanese fell for it (something I still find incredible).

The slowly catchy monkey business is all well and good, but there comes a time when new investment is needed to make that push forward. The £10m would have done that, but the then board didn't want to dilute their holdings - they simply didn't care about further success on the pitch.

All water under the bridge but I firmly believe we would have gone forward had Stapleton and co had the best interests of the club at heart at that time.

As for James Brent? Time will tell, but he needs a good board who know something about a football club - which should not include ordinary fans of the club - super or otherwise.

"slowly slowly catcy monkey" is not only a stupid term, it makes no sense. Think about any club our size, who have actually gone on and done something recently. Blackpool, Swansea, Brighton and Hull. They went for it and got it, its all about momentum. You aren't going to achieve anything by planning to mill around the mid reaches of the championship for a while and hope that the crowds don't lose interest.

If the club had seen new investment, the wider support might have thought 'hello somethings happening here, lets be part of it'. Instead Stapes decided that the club was his own personal fiefdom and to make as much money out of it as possible and sell it to whoever ever was pffering the most money.

Holloway, the average Janner and most of the first team squad clearly clocked this and decided to get the hell out.

Some old Argo'.

As for Brent, I am pleased there is a club to support. But I'm no longer prepared to spend anytime away from my family for the best part of a day to watch my team being soundly beaten by Morecambe unless he is prepared to make it competitive.

So something needs to be done.

The explanation after someone asked the question was that just because they have now been paid it doesn't mean their backlog of personal debt accrued over the months has been cleared. Some of them seem to be still in financial difficulties.

The auctions etc seem to have taken on a life of their own but I guess if it is going to ordinary people who are out of pocket because of the labyrinthine politics of the recent past it is not a bad "charity". It is not one I support - there are too many good & better causes & you can't donate to them all - but good luck to those that do. I would rather Brent had put enough up front to pay all the back pay with a nice bonus now but I would also like there to be world peace and for us all to love one another (with the exception of that nasty man I used to live next to a few years ago).

As a matter of interest,has it ever been made public how much the staff received as a result of all the collections,auctions,etc?

It's a difficult one.

Morally, the staff's wage debt is the debt of the previous board, but that debt has been purchased by Brent to enable his company to make a substantial profit from development, so on that basis I would argue that it is now Brent that has the moral responsibility to ensure that the staff are paid up-to-date. He will after all make a great deal of money from this venture, where as the fans that are being asked to pay by way of donation are generally just ordinary folk feeling the pinch as per the rest of the country. There's something about this present process that has a hint of a smell about it.

Greenskion makes a good point, without the figures how does anyone know when enough is enough? Is there a date when these pasoti ONLY auctions end, an aim or target, accounts kept etc?

When this was simply just a quick favour for those suffering hardship it was a good idea, but it seems to be becoming very business like and a profession now.

According to the Herald the fundraising will continue as some staff members have built up huge debts.

Surely as the huge staff wage debt is paid off the staff will pay off their huge debts? - If so why is the fundraising continuing? - Or, will the funds raised and given to the staff be paid back to the fundraisers as the staff have their wages debt paid to them?

Love the thumbs up piccy in the Herald, if that's not a "up yours Stapes" I don't know what is!

On attendances etc, its noticeable that in the Division 2 Championship winning season (under Luggy then Blobby) that attendances before christmas were average. After Christmas, the fairweathers could see Argyle were doing well, and attendances grew (from around 8k to 13/ 14k average). If there were investment in the team (from the consortium) and Ollie retained instead of the firesale and purchase of second rate scottish players (sorry for the racist comment ) then I think attendances under Ollie would have grown in the second part of the season.

Chemical Ali wrote:

On attendances etc, its noticeable that in the Division 2 Championship winning season (under Luggy then Blobby) that attendances before christmas were average. After Christmas, the fairweathers could see Argyle were doing well, and attendances grew (from around 8k to 13/ 14k average). If there were investment in the team (from the consortium) and Ollie retained instead of the firesale and purchase of second rate scottish players (sorry for the racist comment ) then I think attendances under Ollie would have grown in the second part of the season.

Greenskin and myself have been saying that and more, for years. Nobody listens. Trust in Stapes.

Chemical Ali wrote:

On attendances etc, its noticeable that in the Division 2 Championship winning season (under Luggy then Blobby) that attendances before christmas were average. After Christmas, the fairweathers could see Argyle were doing well, and attendances grew (from around 8k to 13/ 14k average). If there were investment in the team (from the consortium) and Ollie retained instead of the firesale and purchase of second rate scottish players (sorry for the racist comment ) then I think attendances under Ollie would have grown in the second part of the season.

Combine with that the comments from Stapes at the time suggesting that the club had reached its pinnacle and you have the ingredients for a disaster as fans realised the limit of the Chairman's ambition, unless of course the disaster would be profitable for Stapes.

GOB wrote:

without the figures how does anyone know when enough is enough? Is there a date when these pasoti ONLY auctions end, an aim or target, accounts kept etc?

This whole staff fund thing is about to become Pasotibay's' War against terror ... it never ends... handy that ... gives them carte blanche and also keeps the attention away from other things.. everything defers to the staff imperative ... like why did Brent/Ridsdale follow exactly "Heaney" s appalling plans for the staff pay, 4 months after Brent said he would have paid them in full and then their continuing wages under TUPE. Where has the £2m difference gone in Brent's May statement on staff pay and his negotiated offer in October. PandA and Ridsdale do not account for the huge disparity over 4 months. I smell a big rat, and I smell Brent doing a similar deal with the ex owners through the offices of peter Ridsdale that was intended under Heaney.

penzancepirate wrote:

GOB wrote:

without the figures how does anyone know when enough is enough? Is there a date when these pasoti ONLY auctions end, an aim or target, accounts kept etc?

This whole staff fund thing is about to become Pasotibay's' War against terror ... it never ends... handy that ... gives them carte blanche and also keeps the attention away from other things.. everything defers to the staff imperative ... like why did Brent/Ridsdale follow exactly "Heaney" s appalling plans for the staff pay, 4 months after Brent said he would have paid them in full and then their continuing wages under TUPE. Where has the £2m difference gone in Brent's May statement on staff pay and his negotiated offer in October. PandA and Ridsdale do not account for the huge disparity over 4 months. I smell a big rat, and I smell Brent doing a similar deal with the ex owners through the offices of peter Ridsdale that was intended under Heaney.

Cue attacks on the Pirate for being a nasty piece of work

How dare he question the hard working gentlemen and saviours of our club ? Stop questioning and enjoy the ride you swine !

penzancepirate wrote:

GOB wrote:

without the figures how does anyone know when enough is enough? Is there a date when these pasoti ONLY auctions end, an aim or target, accounts kept etc?

This whole staff fund thing is about to become Pasotibay's' War against terror ... it never ends... handy that ... gives them carte blanche and also keeps the attention away from other things.. everything defers to the staff imperative ... like why did Brent/Ridsdale follow exactly "Heaney" s appalling plans for the staff pay, 4 months after Brent said he would have paid them in full and then their continuing wages under TUPE. Where has the £2m difference gone in Brent's May statement on staff pay and his negotiated offer in October. PandA and Ridsdale do not account for the huge disparity over 4 months. I smell a big rat, and I smell Brent doing a similar deal with the ex owners through the offices of peter Ridsdale that was intended under Heaney.

I was with you until your final comment. Yes, I know that just because you stop saying there are monsters under the bed it doesn't mean that they're not there but I would love to know the basis for your accusation re the ex-owners.

While on the subject of the two posts above,it was confirmed in the press last week that PCC has purchased the ground only and not the land adjacent to the main grandstand c/w potholed car park,Argyle village etc.Bearing in mind that all of the property was previously owned by Plymouth Argyle FC [possibly in the form of PAFC Holdings or whatever it was called],what would the arrangement have been for the purchase of the car park area when seperated from the ground itself? Did PCC buy the land and then sell to Mr Brent? Would he have purchased the ground directly from PAFC Holdings,or were the administrator in possession of all assets of the old organisations which represented the club? If it was one of the latter options,who did he actually pay the money to? I may have missed something rather simple because such issues tax and confuse me greatly but i would be grateful if any light could be shed on this.

funny man wrote:

I was with you until your final comment. Yes, I know that just because you stop saying there are monsters under the bed it doesn't mean that they're not there but I would love to know the basis for your accusation re the ex-owners.

FM, you're beginning to sound remarkably like IJN, the same arguements to a tee, but thankfully leaving out the objectionable personal insults.
Monsters under the bed haven't existed in my household since I kicked them out as a child, nor do conspiracy theories and other negative connotations .. my opinons are are based on what everyone else bases their opinion on. I would add my nose is worth ten of most peoples inside propaganda that bears no relation to the truth.
It is common media knowledge that Brent did a deal with the staff almost exactly the same as that offered under the Heaney nonsense.
You haven't addressed my point yet again ... PandA and the Ridsdales of this world have cost the club half a million between May and October, why has Brent decided to cop out to the tune of £1m + compared to what he offered the staff in May for a June takeover. Is he paying less now or is he putting money elsewhere ? I used to be an accountant, I'm not an idiot in these matters... something doesn't add up if Brent's May scenario is to be believed. While I understand the capital price is the same , why does he suddenly have a cash flow problem he apparently didn't have in May ?

Do you have an opinion or do you just want to talk monsters and bogeymen ?

penzancepirate wrote:

funny man wrote:

I was with you until your final comment. Yes, I know that just because you stop saying there are monsters under the bed it doesn't mean that they're not there but I would love to know the basis for your accusation re the ex-owners.

FM, you're beginning to sound remarkably like IJN, the same arguements to a tee, but thankfully leaving out the objectionable personal insults.
Monsters under the bed haven't existed in my household since I kicked them out as a child, nor do conspiracy theories and other negative connotations .. my opinons are are based on what everyone else bases their opinion on. I would add my nose is worth ten of most peoples inside propaganda that bears no relation to the truth.
It is common media knowledge that Brent did a deal with the staff almost exactly the same as that offered under the Heaney nonsense.
You haven't addressed my point yet again ... PandA and the Ridsdales of this world have cost the club half a million between May and October, why has Brent decided to cop out to the tune of £1m + compared to what he offered in May for a June takeover. Is he paying less now or is he putting money elsewhere ? I used to be an accountant, I'm not an idiot in these matters... something doesn't add up if Brent's May scenario is to be believed.

Do you have an opinion or do you just want to talk monsters and bogeymen ? Come on FM, give your opinion on the difference of the two Brent positions in May and October in dollar terms.

Sorry, my intention wasn't to imply that you were simply looking for monsters under the bed. (Though, of course, you might be.) It was more a comment to myself - perhaps unclearly expressed - to start looking more carefully - actually acknowledging you might be right. I know that if I say there is no under-hand dealing that doesn't mean there isn't any.

However, my question was specifically about your accusation that Brent has done a deal with the previous owners. You haven't answered that except to talk about your nose. I have no idea what has gone on behind the scenes. My gut instinct is that Brent has not done a deal with the previous owners. I agree there may be questions about the whole process but it was this particular comment of yours that I found difficult. I'll see your nose and raise you my gut. But you may be right - in which case I'll lose my gut.

I agree, "everyone else bases their opinions" on all sorts of things - some hearsay from a bloke down the pub who knows someone who has a sister who used to go to Argyle who looks a dead-ringer for Stapleton's wife - others actually based on direct solid inside information - and everything in between. There are "facts" and there are "pasoti facts". Are there "facts" and "ATD facts"?

And as for your comment that I'm "beginning to sound remarkably like IJN". I shall be consulting my lawyers. Failing that, there are a couple of blokes who owe me a favour. Know what I mean?

funny man wrote:

My gut instinct is that Brent has not done a deal with the previous owners.

How strange. Gardner's Mastpoint were secured creditors, any deal with Lombard would have involved the locals ... any sale would have required a deal with all of them. Now I know you're having a larf. I'll move on . Nighty night.

The only thing that will solve this debate Gentlemen, is time.

penzancepirate wrote:

funny man wrote:

My gut instinct is that Brent has not done a deal with the previous owners.

How strange. Gardner's Mastpoint were secured creditors, any deal with Lombard would have involved the locals ... any sale would have required a deal with all of them. Now I know you're having a larf. I'll move on . Nighty night.

You have, perhaps intentionally, not understood my question. Of course there were deals involving ex-owners but you implied, I think, that those deals included under-the-counter payments. That's what I was asking you about.

But, OK let's move on with that question hanging.

funny man wrote:

penzancepirate wrote:

funny man wrote:

I was with you until your final comment. Yes, I know that just because you stop saying there are monsters under the bed it doesn't mean that they're not there but I would love to know the basis for your accusation re the ex-owners.

FM, you're beginning to sound remarkably like IJN, the same arguements to a tee, but thankfully leaving out the objectionable personal insults.
Monsters under the bed haven't existed in my household since I kicked them out as a child, nor do conspiracy theories and other negative connotations .. my opinons are are based on what everyone else bases their opinion on. I would add my nose is worth ten of most peoples inside propaganda that bears no relation to the truth.
It is common media knowledge that Brent did a deal with the staff almost exactly the same as that offered under the Heaney nonsense.
You haven't addressed my point yet again ... PandA and the Ridsdales of this world have cost the club half a million between May and October, why has Brent decided to cop out to the tune of £1m + compared to what he offered in May for a June takeover. Is he paying less now or is he putting money elsewhere ? I used to be an accountant, I'm not an idiot in these matters... something doesn't add up if Brent's May scenario is to be believed.

Do you have an opinion or do you just want to talk monsters and bogeymen ? Come on FM, give your opinion on the difference of the two Brent positions in May and October in dollar terms.

Sorry, my intention wasn't to imply that you were simply looking for monsters under the bed. (Though, of course, you might be.) It was more a comment to myself - perhaps unclearly expressed - to start looking more carefully - actually acknowledging you might be right. I know that if I say there is no under-hand dealing that doesn't mean there isn't any.

However, my question was specifically about your accusation that Brent has done a deal with the previous owners. You haven't answered that except to talk about your nose. I have no idea what has gone on behind the scenes. My gut instinct is that Brent has not done a deal with the previous owners. I agree there may be questions about the whole process but it was this particular comment of yours that I found difficult. I'll see your nose and raise you my gut. But you may be right - in which case I'll lose my gut.

I agree, "everyone else bases their opinions" on all sorts of things - some hearsay from a bloke down the pub who knows someone who has a sister who used to go to Argyle who looks a dead-ringer for Stapleton's wife - others actually based on direct solid inside information - and everything in between. There are "facts" and there are "pasoti facts". Are there "facts" and "ATD facts"?

And as for your comment that I'm "beginning to sound remarkably like IJN". I shall be consulting my lawyers. Failing that, there are a couple of blokes who owe me a favour. Know what I mean?

Can't be Newell.

Freddy Eastwood turns Argyle down.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Arch Stanton wrote:

Freddy Eastwood turns Argyle down.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

What a surprise!

funny man wrote:

Of course there were deals involving ex-owners but you implied, I think, that those deals included under-the-counter payments.

Good grief FM, I think you're the one who sees things that aren't there. Of course I did not imply 'under the counter payments' and nor would I ... Brent does not seem that sort of businesman. How you got that from my comments is straaaaange.
My whole point is that none of us have any idea whatsoever what LEGAL deals Brent has made with Mastpoint, Ticketus etc., not even the develpopment Trust 300K. Not one fan seems interested in that part of the deal ... he could have virtually done the same deals as Heaney, and all at the expense of not paying the staff since May, when he would have taken over. I think my point is perfectly clear.
In fact, will we ever get any details whatsoever of the deals made with the previous owners so that we can measure them against the staff agreement, and make our own minds up who exactly gained from the massive delay ..... a delay that was in itself, the whole point of the exercise in my opinion, not who bought the club.

penzancepirate wrote:

funny man wrote:

Of course there were deals involving ex-owners but you implied, I think, that those deals included under-the-counter payments.

Good grief FM, I think you're the one who sees things that aren't there. Of course I did not imply 'under the counter payments' and nor would I ... Brent does not seem that sort of businesman. How you got that from my comments is straaaaange.
My whole point is that none of us have any idea whatsoever what LEGAL deals Brent has made with Mastpoint, Ticketus etc., not even the develpopment Trust 300K. Not one fan seems interested in that part of the deal ... he could have virtually done the same deals as Heaney, and all at the expense of not paying the staff since May, when he would have taken over. I think my point is perfectly clear.
In fact, will we ever get any details whatsoever of the deals made with the previous owners so that we can measure them against the staff agreement, and make our own minds up who exactly gained from the massive delay ..... a delay that was in itself, the whole point of the exercise in my opinion, not who bought the club.

He has a point you know.