Will the Mini Stand rebellion force out the speculator

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

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.

You said "proof", do you really think anyone with an IQ of more than Newell's waist measurement, in inches, and a basic grounding in business, is going to believe that if Brenda saw an escrow account with £4,000,000 in it, which included payment in full of his massively over inflated invoices, he would move it on down the road to take the haircut Brent gave him? Too ridiculous for words.

Someone was I'm sure prepared to start trying to put together a process but it is plain to see how well you Gargs play together and to reiterate the basic Brenda premise, it was too fookin little and too fookin late. Whilst I hated to see the way he fooked your club over, yes I hate Suits worse than I hate Gargs, I have never known one to look a gift horse in the mouth, if there had been a serious, quantifiable, alternative, which would in turn offer him bigger profits, Brenda would have snatched its proverbial arm off.

Pause for thought

all i know is about the muti complex and the stand is this. if my neighbor wanted to build a bigger shed in his garden and he did that but by doing so he took over some of my garden space, space that doesnt belong to him but in his eyes i wont need it and i did nothing about it because im just happy to have a garden i would be foolish to my other neighbors wouldnt i? but what if one day i want to put my own bigger shed up! i go to measure out the space for it but because my neighbor's shed has been put up a few years ago and thriving i cant now that because he has prevented me doing so by building into my garden, so i'll have to turf away my tools that make me money simply because someone predicted i didn't need the space and wont need a bigger shed.

thats whats happening to our club

Unless the speccy banker is going to build a grandstand as opposed to that pile of shit on offer, one will remain opposed to this development.

Have you just smoked something you shouldn't have Angry? The most important flaw in the garden analogy is that it isn't your garden in the first place. It's his garden therefore he isn't encroaching.

I have no problem with anyone being opposed to what is on offer SS68 and that was never my point in the first place. I have a problem with being asked to believe something posted on a forum as a fact in all of this when there is no evidence to support it. You speak for yourself which is what people should do. What they shouldn't do is make it seem they speak for everyone when they don't. I still maintain that if Argyle are successful on the pitch and are heading for promotion next season the numbers will go up and the Stand will be the least on the majorities mind. I'm not stating that as fact but as an opinion. I hope however that it is put to the test for a change.

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

Pause for thought

all i know is about the muti complex and the stand is this. if my neighbor wanted to build a bigger shed in his garden and he did that but by doing so he took over some of my garden space, space that doesnt belong to him but in his eyes i wont need it and i did nothing about it because im just happy to have a garden i would be foolish to my other neighbors wouldnt i? but what if one day i want to put my own bigger shed up! i go to measure out the space for it but because my neighbor's shed has been put up a few years ago and thriving i cant now that because he has prevented me doing so by building into my garden, so i'll have to turf away my tools that make me money simply because someone predicted i didn't need the space and wont need a bigger shed.

thats whats happening to our club

Sensible has already beaten me to reminding you you're only a tenant but it's worth remembering the landlord is also complicit in all this and looking likely to allow these proposals.

I wish everybody would stop trying to deflect criticism from Brent by banging the M7 drum, that is history, what I would like to do is stop history repeating itself. Wanting a bigger stand than the current proposal is what I am about, one that doesn't stop any ambition for the future of the club. Add to that I want Brent to keep his promises about sustainability via non match day income which he is renaging on.
As for the sustainability how much debt are we in now Sensi? How can you compare one regime with another when the present incumbent keeps all figures under a cloak of secrecy and spin. Accountability my arse.

Iggy wrote:

I wish everybody would stop trying to deflect criticism from Brent by banging the M7 drum, that is history, what I would like to do is stop history repeating itself. Wanting a bigger stand than the current proposal is what I am about, one that doesn't stop any ambition for the future of the club. Add to that I want Brent to keep his promises about sustainability via non match day income which he is renaging on.
As for the sustainability how much debt are we in now Sensi? How can you compare one regime with another when the present incumbent keeps all figures under a cloak of secrecy and spin. Accountability my arse.

It is fair to compare the current administration to what went previously though. Are you really saying that history looks likely to repeat itself under Brent?

I would also like a bigger stand than the current proposal (but I'm more concerned about it hemming in future ambition than current capacity)....and I agree there are concerns about what was said regarding non-match day income v what looks like will happen but have you forgotten what happened under our brilliant previous board? I don't think the outlook now is in the same doomesday scenario as that - not by a long chalk.

Whether you like it or not, Brent doesn't really have to share any numbers with any of us - he owns the club outright. I don't like that but I also don't think it will remain the case forever.

The man is misguided in his ambitions for the club but he's not a demon, for Christ's sake.

Innocent Egbunike wrote:

Iggy wrote:

I wish everybody would stop trying to deflect criticism from Brent by banging the M7 drum, that is history, what I would like to do is stop history repeating itself. Wanting a bigger stand than the current proposal is what I am about, one that doesn't stop any ambition for the future of the club. Add to that I want Brent to keep his promises about sustainability via non match day income which he is renaging on.
As for the sustainability how much debt are we in now Sensi? How can you compare one regime with another when the present incumbent keeps all figures under a cloak of secrecy and spin. Accountability my arse.

It is fair to compare the current administration to what went previously though. Are you really saying that history looks likely to repeat itself under Brent?

I would also like a bigger stand than the current proposal (but I'm more concerned about it hemming in future ambition than current capacity)....and I agree there are concerns about what was said regarding non-match day income v what looks like will happen but have you forgotten what happened under our brilliant previous board? I don't think the outlook now is in the same doomesday scenario as that - not by a long chalk.

Whether you like it or not, Brent doesn't really have to share any numbers with any of us - he owns the club outright. I don't like that but I also don't think it will remain the case forever.

The man is misguided in his ambitions for the club but he's not a demon, for Christ's sake.

Going by his choice of 'friends', I wouldn't be so sure

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

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.

Fair enough, Damon - thanks for your response. The accountability part makes sense (even though the 25% had no real power over decision-making - as you well know, all of that rested with PAFC Holdings).

Sounds like you did your bit regarding accessibility but I won't have that the club was good at communicating back then. It had grown arrogant and had stop engaging with the fanbase at a wider level, well before the documented demise.

Tringreen wrote:

Innocent Egbunike wrote:

Iggy wrote:

I wish everybody would stop trying to deflect criticism from Brent by banging the M7 drum, that is history, what I would like to do is stop history repeating itself. Wanting a bigger stand than the current proposal is what I am about, one that doesn't stop any ambition for the future of the club. Add to that I want Brent to keep his promises about sustainability via non match day income which he is renaging on.
As for the sustainability how much debt are we in now Sensi? How can you compare one regime with another when the present incumbent keeps all figures under a cloak of secrecy and spin. Accountability my arse.

It is fair to compare the current administration to what went previously though. Are you really saying that history looks likely to repeat itself under Brent?

I would also like a bigger stand than the current proposal (but I'm more concerned about it hemming in future ambition than current capacity)....and I agree there are concerns about what was said regarding non-match day income v what looks like will happen but have you forgotten what happened under our brilliant previous board? I don't think the outlook now is in the same doomesday scenario as that - not by a long chalk.

Whether you like it or not, Brent doesn't really have to share any numbers with any of us - he owns the club outright. I don't like that but I also don't think it will remain the case forever.

The man is misguided in his ambitions for the club but he's not a demon, for Christ's sake.

Going by his choice of 'friends', I wouldn't be so sure

I know you're deliberately stirring with that one but even in jest, it's a perfect example of what the argument has become. I reckon if Newell, Webb etc were suddenly removed from the equation, a lot of you would give up the fight - because it's them, not the plans which irk you.

Innocent Egbunike wrote:

Iggy wrote:

I wish everybody would stop trying to deflect criticism from Brent by banging the M7 drum, that is history, what I would like to do is stop history repeating itself. Wanting a bigger stand than the current proposal is what I am about, one that doesn't stop any ambition for the future of the club. Add to that I want Brent to keep his promises about sustainability via non match day income which he is renaging on.
As for the sustainability how much debt are we in now Sensi? How can you compare one regime with another when the present incumbent keeps all figures under a cloak of secrecy and spin. Accountability my arse.

It is fair to compare the current administration to what went previously though. Are you really saying that history looks likely to repeat itself under Brent?

I would also like a bigger stand than the current proposal (but I'm more concerned about it hemming in future ambition than current capacity)....and I agree there are concerns about what was said regarding non-match day income v what looks like will happen but have you forgotten what happened under our brilliant previous board? I don't think the outlook now is in the same doomesday scenario as that - not by a long chalk.

Whether you like it or not, Brent doesn't really have to share any numbers with any of us - he owns the club outright. I don't like that but I also don't think it will remain the case forever.

The man is misguided in his ambitions for the club but he's not a demon, for Christ's sake.

When did I say he is a demon? What I have said ever since he rocked up at HP is that the man is a property developer, if it wasn't for said property he wouldn't come anywhere near the club. I also said that we had to watch that he didn't saddle the club with huge debts as the previous board did. Brent started by not funding the wages for the staff making us the first club in history to come out of administration still in debt to its former employees. The football league also shared my concerns but with Brent holding a gun to the clubs head threatening to walk away and let us get liquidated we had no choice by that point. Also Brent has loaned the club money for two seasons, how much has been added to the historical staff debt? Again we don't know even though we had assurances from Brent that his Argyle would be accountable to fans, with transparency in a football first kind of a way. We now have a chairman who's only concern is making money via the club through a huge property portfolio, huge conflict of interest, why do you support a misguided chairman, I am struggling to work some people out, we agree on the future of the club yet close your eyes to what Brent has said and done in the past, how do you know that when Brent has finished with this project he doesn't ride off with the club being £17m in debt again?
There I didn't mention any superfans there did I?
Also I have heard from a source close to the club that the debt we have at the moment is in the region of £5m do you think that that is sustainable and do you think that is why Brent is being coy about the money?

Innocent, the number on ATD who have actual serious issues with Newell are probably single figure. Then there are a far greater number that simply see him as an utter tool.

Newell being removed from the equation would be highly amusing, but I think you seriously under-estimate the depth of feeling against Brents land grabbing exploits.

Innocent Egbunike wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Innocent Egbunike wrote:

Iggy wrote:

I wish everybody would stop trying to deflect criticism from Brent by banging the M7 drum, that is history, what I would like to do is stop history repeating itself. Wanting a bigger stand than the current proposal is what I am about, one that doesn't stop any ambition for the future of the club. Add to that I want Brent to keep his promises about sustainability via non match day income which he is renaging on.
As for the sustainability how much debt are we in now Sensi? How can you compare one regime with another when the present incumbent keeps all figures under a cloak of secrecy and spin. Accountability my arse.

It is fair to compare the current administration to what went previously though. Are you really saying that history looks likely to repeat itself under Brent?

I would also like a bigger stand than the current proposal (but I'm more concerned about it hemming in future ambition than current capacity)....and I agree there are concerns about what was said regarding non-match day income v what looks like will happen but have you forgotten what happened under our brilliant previous board? I don't think the outlook now is in the same doomesday scenario as that - not by a long chalk.

Whether you like it or not, Brent doesn't really have to share any numbers with any of us - he owns the club outright. I don't like that but I also don't think it will remain the case forever.

The man is misguided in his ambitions for the club but he's not a demon, for Christ's sake.

Going by his choice of 'friends', I wouldn't be so sure

I know you're deliberately stirring with that one but even in jest, it's a perfect example of what the argument has become. I reckon if Newell, Webb etc were suddenly removed from the equation, a lot of you would give up the fight - because it's them, not the plans which irk you.

Incorrect. It's both.

The straw man arguments get weaker and weaker, no one is prepared to prove any of my assertions to be incorrect, instead we have counters of comparisons with the M7, lucky to have a club to support and the best one of all, what if the highly moral, oozing with integrity, huge fan of Argyle JB pulls the plug and liquidates the club out of spite when he doesn't get his own way.
I am still waiting with counter arguments re. club debt, Brent's promises re. sustainability and why he shouldn't compromise to make a large proportion of the fanbase happy?
But then I don't live in Plymouth I am hardly qualified to talk about building a football stadia and I am a tree hugger and an anti, childlike and desperate.

Coxside_Green wrote:

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

Pause for thought

all i know is about the muti complex and the stand is this. if my neighbor wanted to build a bigger shed in his garden and he did that but by doing so he took over some of my garden space, space that doesnt belong to him but in his eyes i wont need it and i did nothing about it because im just happy to have a garden i would be foolish to my other neighbors wouldnt i? but what if one day i want to put my own bigger shed up! i go to measure out the space for it but because my neighbor's shed has been put up a few years ago and thriving i cant now that because he has prevented me doing so by building into my garden, so i'll have to turf away my tools that make me money simply because someone predicted i didn't need the space and wont need a bigger shed.

thats whats happening to our club

Sensible has already beaten me to reminding you you're only a tenant but it's worth remembering the landlord is also complicit in all this and looking likely to allow these proposals.

Makes no difference if i own the garden or the council does the point is james doesnt own it so why he is including building work on land he doesnt own strikes me that the council are either in on it from day one or he has them in his pocket.

nb i am refering to the corners

I hope sensi saying anyone associated with M7 shouldnt comment wasnt aimed at me - I left pre kagami, todd, gardner and synan. The club was a top half championship club with a £350, 000 overdraft.

Well have no facts here Damon! Anyway somebody called Brent the anti Christ and until we get to the bottom of that one we cannot discuss the stand as this is just unwarranted criticism aimed at Webb and Newell?
Its about the best argument from the pro lobby I have heard so far.

Iggy wrote:

Innocent Egbunike wrote:

Iggy wrote:

I wish everybody would stop trying to deflect criticism from Brent by banging the M7 drum, that is history, what I would like to do is stop history repeating itself. Wanting a bigger stand than the current proposal is what I am about, one that doesn't stop any ambition for the future of the club. Add to that I want Brent to keep his promises about sustainability via non match day income which he is renaging on.
As for the sustainability how much debt are we in now Sensi? How can you compare one regime with another when the present incumbent keeps all figures under a cloak of secrecy and spin. Accountability my arse.

It is fair to compare the current administration to what went previously though. Are you really saying that history looks likely to repeat itself under Brent?

I would also like a bigger stand than the current proposal (but I'm more concerned about it hemming in future ambition than current capacity)....and I agree there are concerns about what was said regarding non-match day income v what looks like will happen but have you forgotten what happened under our brilliant previous board? I don't think the outlook now is in the same doomesday scenario as that - not by a long chalk.

Whether you like it or not, Brent doesn't really have to share any numbers with any of us - he owns the club outright. I don't like that but I also don't think it will remain the case forever.

The man is misguided in his ambitions for the club but he's not a demon, for Christ's sake.

When did I say he is a demon? What I have said ever since he rocked up at HP is that the man is a property developer, if it wasn't for said property he wouldn't come anywhere near the club. I also said that we had to watch that he didn't saddle the club with huge debts as the previous board did. Brent started by not funding the wages for the staff making us the first club in history to come out of administration still in debt to its former employees. The football league also shared my concerns but with Brent holding a gun to the clubs head threatening to walk away and let us get liquidated we had no choice by that point. Also Brent has loaned the club money for two seasons, how much has been added to the historical staff debt? Again we don't know even though we had assurances from Brent that his Argyle would be accountable to fans, with transparency in a football first kind of a way. We now have a chairman who's only concern is making money via the club through a huge property portfolio, huge conflict of interest, why do you support a misguided chairman, I am struggling to work some people out, we agree on the future of the club yet close your eyes to what Brent has said and done in the past, how do you know that when Brent has finished with this project he doesn't ride off with the club being £17m in debt again?
There I didn't mention any superfans there did I?
Also I have heard from a source close to the club that the debt we have at the moment is in the region of £5m do you think that that is sustainable and do you think that is why Brent is being coy about the money?

In terms of support, the jury is out. I wanted him to take over, as (despite what Damon says) I believe we were going to go under without his and PCC's intervention. The results since then in terms of his stewardship have been mixed.

I don't think anyone denies - Brent included - that one of the primary reasons he took over was for the development opportunity. I didn't have a problem with that then and I don't now (though I would like to see the proposals modified to suit the club better).

The previous board saddled the club with 17m of unsustainable debt and seemingly buried their heads in the sand with wild dreams of world cup glory and banking it would be 'alright on the night'. Your 5m number might or might not be true but there is debt and then there is debt. A large portion of that debt is inherited, not generated since he took over....and yes, he started by not meeting the staff wages but that situation largely occurred because we had the first unfunded administration in football history. Heaney and co. were supposed to meet that cost but the shambles that preceded Brent's takeover meant no-one got paid. In short, it wasn't his debt.

Of course, I don't know that when Brent has finished with the project we won't be 17m in debt again but I don't believe that we will be left in that situation. That's because I also don't agree with you that his 'only concern is making money via the club through a huge property portfolio'. I think that's going too far. My belief is that he wants to balance putting the club on an even footing, with generating profit from the other elements of HHP. Unfortunately, I think that conservatism will see us stunted, as he's not prepared to gamble on something bigger than is being proposed - but it's not the same thing as the blatant profiteering you seem to see.

Transparency - yes, I agree - that could and should be much, much better. There is still time for that but I'm not holding my breath.

The request for information regarding current debt level from both the PASB and AFT has been consistently denied.

But profits from so many of 'the other elements of HHP' - ice rink, hotel, 5 of the 6 retail units, cinema and car park - will not be going to the football club will they. Yes, the club will benefit from the club shop (which will undoubtedly get a higher footfall with the development). and the hospitality, where estimates seem to vary between £100,000 and £2 million.

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

Coxside_Green wrote:

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

Pause for thought

all i know is about the muti complex and the stand is this. if my neighbor wanted to build a bigger shed in his garden and he did that but by doing so he took over some of my garden space, space that doesnt belong to him but in his eyes i wont need it and i did nothing about it because im just happy to have a garden i would be foolish to my other neighbors wouldnt i? but what if one day i want to put my own bigger shed up! i go to measure out the space for it but because my neighbor's shed has been put up a few years ago and thriving i cant now that because he has prevented me doing so by building into my garden, so i'll have to turf away my tools that make me money simply because someone predicted i didn't need the space and wont need a bigger shed.

thats whats happening to our club

Sensible has already beaten me to reminding you you're only a tenant but it's worth remembering the landlord is also complicit in all this and looking likely to allow these proposals.

Makes no difference if i own the garden or the council does the point is james doesnt own it so why he is including building work on land he doesnt own strikes me that the council are either in on it from day one or he has them in his pocket.

nb i am refering to the corners

From the outside looking in, my guess is PCC have been more involved than they'd like us to believe.

All the arguments in favour of Brent cast him in a warm glow of light purely because they don't wish to think that someone could be as ruthless as the man is, I would love to be proved wrong, but I think I have been right so far, he cares as much for Argyle as I do for property developers. It's the constant spin that really sticks in my throat, we have gone from Brent is not a property developer, to don't worry he's a good one, why the secrecy when he bought the club? He has mugged a lot of people here and I don't trust him, I wouldn't want to meet him face to face as he is obviously an expert in coming across well, he has certainly fooled a lot of people.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

Farming, which was something I’d been involved in during my banking days, is similar to the hotel industry in the sense that it is highly fragmented and offers great benefits through economies of scale. Our approach is to bring several farms together into units covering at least 12,500 acres.

The aim is to get to around 250,000 acres, and we have about 30,000 acres of land at the moment. Population growth will both create greater demand for commodities and lead to less land being available for agriculture, which in turn will drive the price of land higher.

“On the hotel front, we have 36, ranging from the Scottish highlands to Bournemouth, and the aim is to grow to around 150. Having scale allows us to attract the best people, in both hotels and farming, and also offers definite synergies.

Back in banking, I used to tell clients size wasn’t a strategic imperative, so perhaps I ought to apologise for that advice!

More fingers in more pies than a leapers cooking class.

im confused. brent has/has not paid any cash towards the 17m inherited debt?

It amuses me that if you say anything at all that isn't totally negative about Brent then suddenly you are in the Brent is wonderful camp. Nobody has said he is wonderful at all and not even he was the messiah. This argument is used to ignore what is really being said and divert the point made.

What I said is that people should not speak for a silent majority as if it was an undisputable fact. I accept that a lot of people think this development could be a lot better. I have said so myself and so has Innocent several times. Newell posts as if he has done a survey of all supporters and is casitgated for it and quite rightly. But if you have a go at him for doing it then it doesn't suddenly become right to do it and claim everyone is against the build because it suits an argument.

The same applies with the Brent take over. There is no proof in the shape of any name that anyone else was waiting with a bucket of cash to buy Argyle out of Administration. I am being asked to just believe there was which I simply state I'm not prepared to do. I have been asked to accept all sorts of stuff which mostly has been proved in the end to be bollocks so why should I continue once again just because it suits somebodies argument to believe it without question. Guilfoyle said loads which was rubbished and some of which turned out to actually be rubbish yet I'm being asked to take the one bit that said somebody else was out there again because it is supposed to prove the point. If Guilfoyle is seen as a lying toad then why not in that statement as well? I know he is an officer of the courts and should be straight and honest about everything but you cannot discount some of his statements and then say he wouldn't lie.

To put the record straight this is my position. I am not a Brent lover and think he has not done all that he said he would. Some things he has and especially the not bankrolling the club. I always thought he was in it for the property deals and like Innocent didn't have a problem with it as long as he treated the club properly. I would like a bigger stand and I would like the content to benefit the club rather than others. I am not totally convinced he will not bale out when he has done his other deals but like to think he won't. I do not believe either Webb or Newell have any real influence at Argyle and do believe Brent is not that daft to listen to them. He didn't get where he is today by being naive. The jury is out on a lot of things but I live in hope. I also believe that if Argyle were to get some success on the pitch and be up there promotion wise most supporters would be happy and a lot of what is wrong will be forgotten. The eye of the masses is only on the things that are wrong because of the lack of success elsewhere. If it happens then the only ones left who will be moaning and groaning will be the ex-pats who have nothing much else to do given their distance from home and a few local dissenters who would fight the good fight whatever. I emphasise that this is purely my own opinion come to all by myself out of what I've seen and read. It may change as more stuff comes to light and I might be totally wrong to have thought this way and I even ackowledge that. We will see.