Will the Mini Stand rebellion force out the speculator

GOB wrote:

nzgreen wrote:

I wrote an email to private eye magazine. They have been sniffing around Brent for some time so they could make things uncomfortable for him and those at PCC regarding his involvement with pcc generally.

Pasoti rulers make me want to vom. What a collossal pack of cnuts the mods and nool are.

Brent has already had a mention or two I believe. Watch this space and you may even see the odd PCC Councillor get a mention as well.

...

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

but with nobody named then we should believe both you and Guilfoyle who everyone called a liar throughout incidentally that somebody did exist in reality. You may have proof Damon but I don't so until I see a name then I'll stick with the idea there wasn't anyone.

So even when the evidence is produced you refuse to believe it.

You are basically saying that Guilfoyle as an officer of the court, lied in his final official report.

Wow... You are beyond hope.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

You see it isn't a case of blindly following Brent and believing what he says. It seems the majority who post on here (see what I did there? I said who post not members) don't believe him but with nobody named then we should believe both you and Guilfoyle who everyone called a liar throughout incidentally that somebody did exist in reality. You may have proof Damon but I don't so until I see a name then I'll stick with the idea there wasn't anyone.

There are many statements of fact made on the internet which have no basis in fact at all. To spot which ones are true or made up to prove some point or other is impossible.

You may indeed conclude anything you like GOB from your straw poll of the majority of people you know but you cannot say it is the majority of supporters. In the absence of a real poll of supporters then it is just a guess. It may be that the majority don't want anything to do with Brent's plans and I'm not saying I know enough supporters to know different but I'm not claiming a majority to have to prove a point. A little defensive with the pasoti comment as well.

In many things a lot of people are more in the middle than on one side or the other. They aren't particularly happy with what ever it is but are philisophical enough to not want to man a baricade. You might even call it apathetic if you like. I do not believe there will be a concerted effort that has any meaning to get the plans for HP thrown out. I don't believe there will be a proper poll of supporters and I don't believe a name will be put forward as an interested party for purchasing the club pre Brent. If you can get a 25000 seater then you will have my thanks but I expect it to be as big as announced in the end and contain exactly what has been stated officially on the tin. That is just my opinion and I speak for nobody else whatsoever.

You don't believe anything you're told unless you have the evidence in your hands

Do you believe the moon landings were real or are you thinking it was a set up all filmed in a film studio? Do you believe Elvis is still alive and working in a chip shop in Bury?

Sorr y but at some stage you have to accept one version of events and Damon was involved in the CP and is an ex-director of the club so would be a name that people might contact to ask a few questions. If Damon says he had a viable alternative then I'm inclined to believe him over someone like Webb or Newell.

Don't you find it strange how easily James Brent got the gig and how the Trust threw all their weight behind someone who to my eyes has pretty much done what Heaney planned to do?

I have read so many things that are plied as fact on different sites. I have read so many things that are spouted by those you would expect to know but have not always turned out to be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is a fact that people on numerous sites branded the Administration as a complete travesty and that the man leading it bent the truth or didn't tell it at all. I have read a statement from him that made it out he was the saviour of Argyle which was rubbished by many. That is my point. On one hand he doesn't tell truths in many people's eyes and yet on the other this one thing is supposed to be the whole truth. That is just being selective.

In the absence of a name, I think a lot of people simply want to think there was a queue of suitors. There may well have been others interested but they were well hidden from the general public and as such there isn't real evidence they existed at all. The same principle applies to the claims that "the majority" are about to rebel and hate the current stadium plans. There is no proper evidence to support either claim and people habitually just claim the majority without knowing if it really exists or not. Again, it may well be that the majority are totally against and I'm not saying this isn't true. Fact is I don't know and I'm not one for making claims that aren't a little more factual than plucking a statement out of the air. Even if you held a poll on every website regarding Argyle it would only cover a fraction of supporters. The truer statement is that of those that have expressed a view the majority are against.

The problem you have is that if you point anything like this out then instantly you are a Brent appologist or ass licker or whatever. There are numerous other names thrown about but that is the gist of it. I want a bigger Stand but if I'm not going to get it then what else do I do than eventually accept what is produced. This is the same that happens in many things that people want to be bigger or better in other walks of life. My main wish is for some success on the pitch above and beyond anything else. I suspect the majority or supporters would vote for that also but that is only my opinion and I'm not presenting that as a fact either. Having been led astray with info so many times previously is it that surprising that I've come to conclusion that I want to see the evidence first now before taking something as a fact. You believe all of these things if you want to as that is a personal choice.

You really seem to struggle to form an opinion Sensible. Do your homework, ask questions, talk to others, read the press comments etc etc.. In other words, find the evidence that will assist you to find an opinion and come down on the side that you feel meets your benefit rather than tell us all with every comment that you make that you can't find an opinion or that everyone on here is as bad as everyone on pasoti.

Just trying to help

And where in all of this have I said anything to compare pasoti with ATD? I thought I'd quoted an opinion on something here already but in your eyes it doesn't conform to your's so therefore it isn't one at all. The opinion I give is that there have been many lies told and misinformation over time. There is stuff that has appeared on websites that become facts when really there is nothing to substantiate it at all. If you want to believe something then in your mind it becomes a fact rather than what it really is which is somebody elses opinion you agree with. With Guilfoyle, amongst all of the rubbish he spouted, the one thing picked out to believe is part of his statement. If he is an officer of the court then surely ALL of his utterings are to be believed. The one fact born out on websites is that ALL of his utterings were not believed though. With the quote of "the majority", this is what people want to believe without anything but people's opinion to go on. No poll, no mass meeting where a show of hands was taken.

I haven't dismissed the possibility that there were other parties who would have bought into Argyle. I haven't dismissed the possibility that the majority of Argyle supporters are against Brent's plans. All I have done is say that it may not be true and that people are assuming this is correct because of statements made on a website frequented by a few supporters who agree with each other. Given the amount of bullshit spouted by a lot of sources previously is that such a bad stance to take. I don't want to guess anymore even if it is fun to speculate sometimes. I want to see stuff in black and white where evidence is there for me to see.

Oh dear. Go out and find it then Sensible, find the evidence that will satisfy you rather than moan every time that you can't find it on here.

PS let us know what you find BTW.

I haven't moaned either GOB. It seems to me that it is agree with everyone else on everything or you aren't capable of having a thought of your own. I happen to think that Innocent's observations were quite accurate and that is all I said and gave my reasons for agreeing with him. Just for your info, you are allowed in life to agree with an alternative view point and it's not illegal otherwise we might as well all be sheep. I haven't attacked anyone for expressing their own point of view or dismissed it out of hand. Unlike some. Not much point in having a discussion forum if everyone just agrees with everything said is there.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

I haven't moaned either GOB. It seems to me that it is agree with everyone else on everything or you aren't capable of having a thought of your own. I happen to think that Innocent's observations were quite accurate and that is all I said and gave my reasons for agreeing with him. Just for your info, you are allowed in life to agree with an alternative view point and it's not illegal otherwise we might as well all be sheep. I haven't attacked anyone for expressing their own point of view or dismissed it out of hand. Unlike some. Not much point in having a discussion forum if everyone just agrees with everything said is there.

But that's the point. You just argue aimlessly for the sake of it - even when a cast iron counter-argument is produced! I gave up arguing the toss with you many moons ago. Greenskin persevered for months but then realised he was getting nowhere!

So my opinion is aimless and that makes your's what exactly? A divine thought process or something. That's just bollocks. Where is the cast iron anything stated on here then? There is no cast iron anything it is just a set of opinions with nothing to back it up at all. Where is the poll of supporters, where is the name of an alternative purchaser? Nowhere is the answer. I'm not asking for an argument just stating my own opinion. I've respected the fact that others have their's and haven't told them they are wrong. I've asked for actual proof rather than just words. I still haven't seen any and until I do then why should I just believe something I'm told to believe.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

I haven't moaned either GOB. It seems to me that it is agree with everyone else on everything or you aren't capable of having a thought of your own. I happen to think that Innocent's observations were quite accurate and that is all I said and gave my reasons for agreeing with him. Just for your info, you are allowed in life to agree with an alternative view point and it's not illegal otherwise we might as well all be sheep. I haven't attacked anyone for expressing their own point of view or dismissed it out of hand. Unlike some. Not much point in having a discussion forum if everyone just agrees with everything said is there.

Not sure what it was you did to attract all this vitriol, in line with your nom de wassname you seem to be making a lucid, relevant and cogent point that the braying masses simply don't want to accept. When Rickler posted that Brenda would never have put drivel in his report I nearly fell off me chair, I always thought that was compulsory for Suits to lie through their back teeth. Then Damon puts forward this potential saviour who was not only going to pay way over the odds for the most dead beatest, dead beat club in the world but if I am reading it correctly was also guaranteeing to play himself and get a hat trick every week. Now call me old fashioned if you like but I thought the "Dogs of War" were unleashed on Brenda and the Leprachaun, how could that have affected someone that apparently only Damon new about and who was soooooo committed to the cause that he, or she, was prepared to spunk many millions which weren't necessary on saving the rump of a never great football club, only to be put off when some dodgy Suit from way up North took a bit of grief after he had already screwed the club over big time. I fail to see the connection between Brenda who was rogering the club up its rusty and this, still anonymous, uber benefactor.

No, the only poster making any real sense on here is the Sensible one, the rest of you are just making noise in some misbegotten hope that you make even the slightest difference which leads me on to the bleedin obvious response to the question posed in the title of the OP:-

No!

You guys are developing a bit of a gang thing here that is making this place look more and more like Pashitty.

Tis whilst most of the time your comments on here are quite reasonable sometimes you post crap on here that really reminds us what team you support.

I did not put forward anyone. The bidder had been speaking to Guilfoyle. He asked me to set up a meeting with the Trust Chairman and the GTs - the idea being that the Club itself, debt free, could be sold back to the fans. The then Trust Chairman wasn't interested, the emails I sent him one evening were in Ridsdale's hands the following morning and it was made very clear to me that nothing was going to stop the Brent bid getting over the line.

The many millions he would 'spunk' were on the property but at least we would have had no crippling debt - and the Trust weren't going to be charged £400,000 for a 20% stake.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Tis whilst most of the time your comments on here are quite reasonable sometimes you post crap on here that really reminds us what team you support.

I did not put forward anyone. The bidder had been speaking to Guilfoyle. He asked me to set up a meeting with the Trust Chairman and the GTs - the idea being that the Club itself, debt free, could be sold back to the fans. The then Trust Chairman wasn't interested, the emails I sent him one evening were in Ridsdale's hands the following morning and it was made very clear to me that nothing was going to stop the Brent bid getting over the line.

The many millions he would 'spunk' were on the property but at least we would have had no crippling debt - and the Trust weren't going to be charged £400,000 for a 20% stake.

Chris Webb decided for the fans that James Brent was the only option. I wonder what convinced him so readily

I ask again, what is Brent doing that is so bloody different to what Heaney was planning? Other than Webb and Newell not being in his pocket I can't see very much.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

I haven't moaned either GOB. It seems to me that it is agree with everyone else on everything or you aren't capable of having a thought of your own. I happen to think that Innocent's observations were quite accurate and that is all I said and gave my reasons for agreeing with him. Just for your info, you are allowed in life to agree with an alternative view point and it's not illegal otherwise we might as well all be sheep. I haven't attacked anyone for expressing their own point of view or dismissed it out of hand. Unlike some. Not much point in having a discussion forum if everyone just agrees with everything said is there.

Not sure what it was you did to attract all this vitriol, in line with your nom de wassname you seem to be making a lucid, relevant and cogent point that the braying masses simply don't want to accept. When Rickler posted that Brenda would never have put drivel in his report I nearly fell off me chair, I always thought that was compulsory for Suits to lie through their back teeth. Then Damon puts forward this potential saviour who was not only going to pay way over the odds for the most dead beatest, dead beat club in the world but if I am reading it correctly was also guaranteeing to play himself and get a hat trick every week. Now call me old fashioned if you like but I thought the "Dogs of War" were unleashed on Brenda and the Leprachaun, how could that have affected someone that apparently only Damon new about and who was soooooo committed to the cause that he, or she, was prepared to spunk many millions which weren't necessary on saving the rump of a never great football club, only to be put off when some dodgy Suit from way up North took a bit of grief after he had already screwed the club over big time. I fail to see the connection between Brenda who was rogering the club up its rusty and this, still anonymous, uber benefactor.

No, the only poster making any real sense on here is the Sensible one, the rest of you are just making noise in some misbegotten hope that you make even the slightest difference which leads me on to the bleedin obvious response to the question posed in the title of the OP:-

No!

You guys are developing a bit of a gang thing here that is making this place look more and more like Pashitty.

Sensi has no credibility in these matters,he didn't even know that there was a London consortium that put forward an alternative to the Stapleton regime in 2007.I'll also back Iggy up by saying that not one Argyle supporter that i know [and there are many of them] is in favour of the proposals put forward by Brent and Peggy,whose circle of Argyle supporting friends is almost certainly wider than mine,said exactly the same thing on this site the other day.Add the polls on PASOTI [85% opposed the developments on the original poll,before some rather more double edged polls were produced to push percentages more in favour of the establishment] and that would represent a very strong cross section of supporters who are against these proposals to a discerning and realistic eye.

BTW,notice your chairman was in the WMN over the past couple of days bellyaching about the poor gates at SJP and blaming the lack of disposable income in your fair city.Looks like things are quite so Nirvana-like up the A38 after all.He was almost Stapes-like in his claim that the redevelopment of the old grandstand at SJP was "imminent" but only after patching it up until it falls down.You poor things.Makes Brent seem like Madjeski, does your chap.Unlucky.

Greenjock wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Tis whilst most of the time your comments on here are quite reasonable sometimes you post crap on here that really reminds us what team you support.

I did not put forward anyone. The bidder had been speaking to Guilfoyle. He asked me to set up a meeting with the Trust Chairman and the GTs - the idea being that the Club itself, debt free, could be sold back to the fans. The then Trust Chairman wasn't interested, the emails I sent him one evening were in Ridsdale's hands the following morning and it was made very clear to me that nothing was going to stop the Brent bid getting over the line.

The many millions he would 'spunk' were on the property but at least we would have had no crippling debt - and the Trust weren't going to be charged £400,000 for a 20% stake.

Chris Webb decided for the fans that James Brent was the only option. I wonder what convinced him so readily

I ask again, what is Brent doing that is so bloody different to what Heaney was planning? Other than Webb and Newell not being in his pocket I can't see very much.

Its simply because James Brent spoke to them when they asked him question while the other groups didnt.

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Tis whilst most of the time your comments on here are quite reasonable sometimes you post crap on here that really reminds us what team you support.

I did not put forward anyone. The bidder had been speaking to Guilfoyle. He asked me to set up a meeting with the Trust Chairman and the GTs - the idea being that the Club itself, debt free, could be sold back to the fans. The then Trust Chairman wasn't interested, the emails I sent him one evening were in Ridsdale's hands the following morning and it was made very clear to me that nothing was going to stop the Brent bid getting over the line.

The many millions he would 'spunk' were on the property but at least we would have had no crippling debt - and the Trust weren't going to be charged £400,000 for a 20% stake.

Chris Webb decided for the fans that James Brent was the only option. I wonder what convinced him so readily

I ask again, what is Brent doing that is so bloody different to what Heaney was planning? Other than Webb and Newell not being in his pocket I can't see very much.

Its simply because James Brent spoke to them when they asked him question while the other groups didnt.

You are saying that sarcastically right? Chris Webb is a duplitious cnut so if you're relying on his word then you're a feckin idiot. Sorry if that sounds harsh but I would rather take Peter Ridsdale's word than Chris "I've never posted under anyother usernames" Webb/Greenman/Windsor Boy/Deepthroat.

Greenjock wrote:

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Tis whilst most of the time your comments on here are quite reasonable sometimes you post crap on here that really reminds us what team you support.

I did not put forward anyone. The bidder had been speaking to Guilfoyle. He asked me to set up a meeting with the Trust Chairman and the GTs - the idea being that the Club itself, debt free, could be sold back to the fans. The then Trust Chairman wasn't interested, the emails I sent him one evening were in Ridsdale's hands the following morning and it was made very clear to me that nothing was going to stop the Brent bid getting over the line.

The many millions he would 'spunk' were on the property but at least we would have had no crippling debt - and the Trust weren't going to be charged £400,000 for a 20% stake.

Chris Webb decided for the fans that James Brent was the only option. I wonder what convinced him so readily

I ask again, what is Brent doing that is so bloody different to what Heaney was planning? Other than Webb and Newell not being in his pocket I can't see very much.

Its simply because James Brent spoke to them when they asked him question while the other groups didnt.

You are saying that sarcastically right? Chris Webb is a duplitious cnut so if you're relying on his word then you're a feckin idiot. Sorry if that sounds harsh but I would rather take Peter Ridsdale's word than Chris "I've never posted under anyother usernames" Webb/Greenman/Windsor Boy/Deepthroat.

it has to be something like that because nothing James Brent has done so far suggests he was worth nearly bankrupting the club to bring in.

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Tis whilst most of the time your comments on here are quite reasonable sometimes you post crap on here that really reminds us what team you support.

I did not put forward anyone. The bidder had been speaking to Guilfoyle. He asked me to set up a meeting with the Trust Chairman and the GTs - the idea being that the Club itself, debt free, could be sold back to the fans. The then Trust Chairman wasn't interested, the emails I sent him one evening were in Ridsdale's hands the following morning and it was made very clear to me that nothing was going to stop the Brent bid getting over the line.

The many millions he would 'spunk' were on the property but at least we would have had no crippling debt - and the Trust weren't going to be charged £400,000 for a 20% stake.

Chris Webb decided for the fans that James Brent was the only option. I wonder what convinced him so readily

I ask again, what is Brent doing that is so bloody different to what Heaney was planning? Other than Webb and Newell not being in his pocket I can't see very much.

Its simply because James Brent spoke to them when they asked him question while the other groups didnt.

You are saying that sarcastically right? Chris Webb is a duplitious cnut so if you're relying on his word then you're a feckin idiot. Sorry if that sounds harsh but I would rather take Peter Ridsdale's word than Chris "I've never posted under anyother usernames" Webb/Greenman/Windsor Boy/Deepthroat.

it has to be something like that because nothing James Brent has done so far suggests he was worth nearly bankrupting the club to bring in.

No it hasn't. Far more likely is that Brent identified the right people and made them an offer they couldn't refuse

Greenjock wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Tis whilst most of the time your comments on here are quite reasonable sometimes you post crap on here that really reminds us what team you support.

I did not put forward anyone. The bidder had been speaking to Guilfoyle. He asked me to set up a meeting with the Trust Chairman and the GTs - the idea being that the Club itself, debt free, could be sold back to the fans. The then Trust Chairman wasn't interested, the emails I sent him one evening were in Ridsdale's hands the following morning and it was made very clear to me that nothing was going to stop the Brent bid getting over the line.

The many millions he would 'spunk' were on the property but at least we would have had no crippling debt - and the Trust weren't going to be charged £400,000 for a 20% stake.

Chris Webb decided for the fans that James Brent was the only option. I wonder what convinced him so readily

I ask again, what is Brent doing that is so bloody different to what Heaney was planning? Other than Webb and Newell not being in his pocket I can't see very much.

This is all just bluster.

The way I remember it was we are on the brink of liquidation and it took an almighty effort to get the Brent plan up and running in a very short space of time. Yes, there might have been alternative interest (I have no reason to doubt Damon is telling the truth....but neither do I have anything to tell me how solid that interest was) but it was at the point where it wasn't possible to court many options - a deal needed to be done, or it was into oblivion we went. Weren't we the first (only) ever unfunded administration? That should indicate how desperate things were.

I don't like the plans which are being put in place for the ground but equally, I don't see where James Brent has lied through his back teeth, as some would have it on here. Are people really saying that he is in the same ilk as Heaney? He was a spiv of the highest order. At a very simple level, the difference between him and Brent is that Brent can fund his plans - whatever you think of them.

As an aside, I'd be interested in knowing how Damon feels the board of which he was a member compares to the current regime - in terms of transparency, communication and plans for redeveloping club assets.

The main protagonists on this board are as paranoid as those on Pasoti are blindly sycophantic.

Your name is apt mate, Brent knew what he was going to do before he approached the famous five, he had it all worked out, but what did he say? something like, "I will step in and buy the club, give you a new stand with all the income from the associated retail and conference facilities going to the club to sustain at least CCC football." not lower the capacity of HP by building a small stand, sell all the retail units bar the club shop to pay for said stand, put an ice rink in the car park so you can't expand and build a fuckin school in the corner. Have I missed anything out? Oh yeah, accountability, good manage ment structure and fan involvement. Give me strength.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

I did not put forward anyone.

Oh dear.

Earlier you had "proof" this guy was going to save the world, now he was thinking about trying to put together a deal with some disparate groups, make your mind up fellah.

Who I support has no relevance here, I am simply looking at the facts, and as Sensible clearly suggests there are none beyond Brent being in charge and bailing out the club while nicking himself a nice few quid. Whether this was always a done deal with Brenda can only be pure conjecture, exactly what Sensible is saying, all this bluster about who everybody knows and what they think is utter frou frou, anecdotal ain't submissible and let's face it, who wouldn't want a '99' with two flakes rather than one? The question is if somebody offered you the one flake '99' would you chuck on the floor and then slap the chap?

I guess most of you think that to be a great idea.

As to what Chorlton thinks, I or any other City fan could give a shiite, he is a Man United supporting tw@ who as with most Suits is drawing wedge and doing feck all.

For all your blustering and the unbecoming ganging up on the Sensible one I have yet to see one poster state that he believes Harry Potter is for turning.

Innocent Egbunike wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Tis whilst most of the time your comments on here are quite reasonable sometimes you post crap on here that really reminds us what team you support.

I did not put forward anyone. The bidder had been speaking to Guilfoyle. He asked me to set up a meeting with the Trust Chairman and the GTs - the idea being that the Club itself, debt free, could be sold back to the fans. The then Trust Chairman wasn't interested, the emails I sent him one evening were in Ridsdale's hands the following morning and it was made very clear to me that nothing was going to stop the Brent bid getting over the line.

The many millions he would 'spunk' were on the property but at least we would have had no crippling debt - and the Trust weren't going to be charged £400,000 for a 20% stake.

Chris Webb decided for the fans that James Brent was the only option. I wonder what convinced him so readily

I ask again, what is Brent doing that is so bloody different to what Heaney was planning? Other than Webb and Newell not being in his pocket I can't see very much.

This is all just bluster.

The way I remember it was we are on the brink of liquidation and it took an almighty effort to get the Brent plan up and running in a very short space of time. Yes, there might have been alternative interest (I have no reason to doubt Damon is telling the truth....but neither do I have anything to tell me how solid that interest was) but it was at the point where it wasn't possible to court many options - a deal needed to be done, or it was into oblivion we went. Weren't we the first (only) ever unfunded administration? That should indicate how desperate things were.

I don't like the plans which are being put in place for the ground but equally, I don't see where James Brent has lied through his back teeth, as some would have it on here. Are people really saying that he is in the same ilk as Heaney? He was a spiv of the highest order. At a very simple level, the difference between him and Brent is that Brent can fund his plans - whatever you think of them.

As an aside, I'd be interested in knowing how Damon feels the board of which he was a member compares to the current regime - in terms of transparency, communication and plans for redeveloping club assets.

The main protagonists on this board are as paranoid as those on Pasoti are blindly sycophantic.

Do you honestly think Brent has shelled out millions on Argyle?

Whether Heaney's mob had the funds or not, what's so different about his plans and what Brent's done and is proposing? Both wanted the land and weren't that bothered about the football.

It didn't matter who else enquired once Brents had met with the important fans. They decided he was the only one good enough. Just ask Postey about Buttivant.

How anyone can defend the school and settling for a mini stand whilst building after building springs up around us is beyond me. Unless of course there's something in it for them then it's a case of protecting your investment, which is what I suspect Webb and Newell are doing. How the feck they can say the proposed development is good for the club with a straight face is puzzling to say the least.

Newell has a new excuse and a new relative everyday who the mini stand benefits. Bullshit merchant who can't be so adamant unless he stands to gain from it financially.

The 'deal' Tis was for fans groups to take control of the football club for £1. The monies to pay the Administrator, the football creditors and the back wages was in place.

I.E. I do not for a moment think the Board I served under was perfect. It was, however, accountable. 25% of the shares in the football club were in the hands of fans and we were held to task at the AGM - and at regular Shareholders Group meetings.

In terms of accessibility I have commented elsewhere in response to a question from IJN that I can hold my head high. I spent time before every game, home and away talking to fans, regularly sitting with the Green ARmy at away games. I attended every school presentation, every DJM presentation and every corporate event I (or a rep from the Board) was invited to.

The plans we had for the Grandstand were similar in one respect, the improvement of the hospitality areas, allowed for a capacity of 20,500 and allowed for a Sports Bar/Restaurant on the corner of Devonport/Grandstand. All income from the redevelopment was PAFC income.

All very laudible Damon but then the club was £17m in debt. I don't think the old board or anyone associated with it has much to criticise Brent for given what they did to the club. I have no credibility Greenskin because I didn't know something is a great argument. So, your credibility to comment on other suitors is what exactly? You know all about these alternative purchasers do you. I think probably not so lack of knowledge about something you suggest gives you no right to comment then. Why are you?

I have never heard Brent say he was ever going to spend millions on Argyle. Not once. I have never believed he saved Argyle for any other reason than the development opportunities he was going to get out of it. I am not even sure he has saved Argyle just yet as that remains to be seen once the development opportunities. However it also hasn't been proved that he is just waiting to throw it on the scrap heap either.

I can understand there is disappointment over the proposed stand. I'd like it to be bigger and better. However, I still maintain that success on the pitch would soon quiet the masses. I've kept saying that it is perfectly conceivable that the majority are not happy but it is also true that as they are the silent majority the very fact they are silent doesn't give the right to anyone to speak for them as if their opinions are fact. I thought that it was the mantra of ATD that the site allowed for anyone's opinion to be made. Seems not though and perhaps should be changed to add the words "as long as it agrees with everyone else". (Can't resist adding this for GOB as he seems kean for me to make the comparison) Without that mantra being true the site sounds just like another site we all know and love.