Heaney

Mock Cuncher wrote:

Gareth Nicholson wrote:

There's a wild lot of bollocks on this thread.

The general consensus while the club was in administration was that, of the three options that the overwhelming majority of the fanbase recognised (the fourth - starting again as a fan-owned phoenix club - was not considered desirable by virtually everyone), the Brent option was the best (or the least worst, choose which you please).

Given the council's £1.6m deal for the ground on top of the 5 year repayment plan, was the net takeover deal really beyond a well organised Fans' Trust? Portsmouth's Trust have taken over a club in much more debt and in the same league. They now sing "We own our own club" to the tune that the Forza nerds squeak "We're trying our best".

Ridsdale's convenient walking holiday ending in a convenient invite down to his mate Guilfoyle to oversee an pre-pack administration conveniently delayed to the point of crumble by Heaney until the convenient Mr Brent saunters in, all cute and unmanly with his Harry Potter glasses and dim haircut, yet all ruthless and unforgiving with his Voldemortian politics, his truly shit deal for the staff and now this utterly poxy ministand. Yet instead of the fans leaders rising above the crap and showing anything like critical thought (tbf to Webb he was never cut out for that sort of thing) it was sidled up to in really quite a vomit inducing manner (even a thicko like Webb can have morals), leaving us where we are now: We're trying our 'best'; and that is all we'll ever do, ever again.

 
I'm pretty sure that at the time of administration I was consistent in asking for a consideration of whether starting over with a fan-owned club was in the long run a more acceptible and more ethical proposition than exchanging one failed model of ownership for another one run on the same lines. Which is essentially what we've got.
 
In fact, over two years ago I posted this on Pasoti which I still agree with (I'd probably dial back the pomposity though - actually, feck it, I wouldn't.)
 
Having said that, I find it difficult to fathom how Swansea, Pompey, Exeter etc do it. I've met Trust members from all those clubs. They're running their clubs and almost to a man they're fantastic people. My experience with the Trust at Argyle made me very wary of fan ownership. As a concept it's great: as a reality you have to overcome personal ambition, parochialism (especially in Plymouth), entitlement, utter mentalism and a healthy dose of shit stirring. It's more difficult than it looks.

Flat_Track_Bully wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

Flat_Track_Bully wrote:

Coxside_Green wrote:

I've already stated where the money for running the club would've came from, season ticket money plus £1.6m from PCC, circa £4m.  Is that not enough?
.

Clearly not seeing as James Brent has lent the club money to cover ongoing losses. The money from the PCC went straight on paying off some of the football creditor debts I think. We'd be in an even worse state than Brent's 'competitive budget' with Heaney.

FTB are you a complete idiot? You seem to think that Brent and PAFC are totally separate entities.

Brent is the sole owner of PAFC-if his business losses money, he has to cover the losses, it's not some charitable donation.

If The Range was losing money, nobody would say "Chris Dawson has lent The Range money to cover ongoing losses" Brent & PAFC are no different.

If JB doesn't want to support a loss making football team, he has two choices-run it better so it makes a profit, or sell up & F**K off.

As for Heaney/BIL  didn't the Pasoti hordes get turned against them because they wanted to build hotels etc. in Central Park- that would absolutely terrible was the view from the Brent Fan Club at the time

The point I was making is that as Heaney doesn't have any money, he wouldn't have been able to cover those running costs - hence administration/liquidation if he had taken over. I'm not painting Brent out as some generous benefactor, which he clearly isn't. I'm just answering the OP. You're thinking I'm answering a different question. Maybe you should read the thread before throwing names at people,

Heaney wouldn't have needed any money though FTB, he would have done it just as Brent is.

The big difference between the two is that Brent has allies within PCC, Heaney obviously didn't.


I'm not suggesting that Heaney would have been a better alternative because I don't think he would have been, but at the end of the day there seems to be little difference between the two.

Gareth Nicholson wrote:

Mock Cuncher wrote:

Gareth Nicholson wrote:

There's a wild lot of bollocks on this thread.

The general consensus while the club was in administration was that, of the three options that the overwhelming majority of the fanbase recognised (the fourth - starting again as a fan-owned phoenix club - was not considered desirable by virtually everyone), the Brent option was the best (or the least worst, choose which you please).

Given the council's £1.6m deal for the ground on top of the 5 year repayment plan, was the net takeover deal really beyond a well organised Fans' Trust? Portsmouth's Trust have taken over a club in much more debt and in the same league. They now sing "We own our own club" to the tune that the Forza nerds squeak "We're trying our best".

Ridsdale's convenient walking holiday ending in a convenient invite down to his mate Guilfoyle to oversee an pre-pack administration conveniently delayed to the point of crumble by Heaney until the convenient Mr Brent saunters in, all cute and unmanly with his Harry Potter glasses and dim haircut, yet all ruthless and unforgiving with his Voldemortian politics, his truly shit deal for the staff and now this utterly poxy ministand. Yet instead of the fans leaders rising above the crap and showing anything like critical thought (tbf to Webb he was never cut out for that sort of thing) it was sidled up to in really quite a vomit inducing manner (even a thicko like Webb can have morals), leaving us where we are now: We're trying our 'best'; and that is all we'll ever do, ever again.

 
I'm pretty sure that at the time of administration I was consistent in asking for a consideration of whether starting over with a fan-owned club was in the long run a more acceptible and more ethical proposition than exchanging one failed model of ownership for another one run on the same lines. Which is essentially what we've got.
 
In fact, over two years ago I posted this on Pasoti which I still agree with (I'd probably dial back the pomposity though - actually, feck it, I wouldn't.)
 
Having said that, I find it difficult to fathom how Swansea, Pompey, Exeter etc do it. I've met Trust members from all those clubs. They're running their clubs and almost to a man they're fantastic people. My experience with the Trust at Argyle made me very wary of fan ownership. As a concept it's great: as a reality you have to overcome personal ambition, parochialism (especially in Plymouth), entitlement, utter mentalism and a healthy dose of shit stirring. It's more difficult than it looks.

I think those problems are quite unique to PAFC though Gareth, not every club has one or two characters like we have that are so self interested and small minded.

They will not be around forever and neither will Brent, I am sure that the AFT will have its day and it will be needed.

On University Challenge last night there was a question to which the answer was "the iron law of oligarchy".

I had never heard of this before so I looked it up. "The Iron Law of Oligarchy is a political concept devised by Robert Michaels, a German sociologist. It states that formalized bureaucracies inevitably become led by a small group of self-serving leaders--that is, the power and responsibility necessary in a formal organization eventually leads to oligarchy. The idea is important because it implies that bureaucracy and democracy are not compatible."

Oligarchy is a bit tricky so I looked that up too. "Oligarchy is a type of power structure where power efficiently rests with an elite class differentiated by wealth, commercial, royalty, family ties, and/or military legitimacy. It is got from the Greek word olígos which means 'a few' and archo which means 'to rule' or 'to govern'."

Which all seems depressingly familiar.

Obviously the way to combat this is by promoting democracy at every turn and reducing bureaucracy and the best way of promoting democracy is to engage with it.

So all of you who argue along the lines of "I'm not joining the Trust because..." or "I don't like the Trust because..." are actually actively promoting, maybe even creating, the conditions needed to cause the Trust to fail in exactly the way you fear it might.

So don't fret overmuch about what the Trust has done or who did what within it but join it, support it and campaign for the policies you want to see from inside it because if your ideas are coherent, practical, sensible and achievable then others will support them too. And if you are a nutter with daft ideas they won't.

There's plenty out there who would rejoice in the demise of the Trust so don't give in to them and don't let them have their day.

If you are not a Trust member already then join it now and if you are then when your subscription comes up then renew it right away if for no other reason than not doing either is precisely what people like Brent and Newell want you to (not) do.

GreenSam wrote:

Mrrapson wrote:

Gareth Nicholson wrote:

Iggy wrote:

I would argue with the efficient claim Gareth, best of a bad bunch I could swallow but are you seriously saying that he is and has been a good owner?

I characterised his ownership of Argyle as being at various stages amateurish and pedestrian so I think I made it pretty clear what my view is. I'd say he's unproven as an owner of Argyle and has a number of questions to answer, but it's hard to argue with how he's prosecuted the wider Akkeron strategy if you're looking at it from their perspective.

But to demonise him and resort to personal abuse and flat out lies makes his job so much easier. It's easy to characterise everyone who doesn't agree with you as cranks and weirdos if some of them behave like cranks and weirdos. It makes the serious questions easier to avoid too.

Well said.

Hear hear.

Whoaaahhh there, I'm being picked on by a gang here! Have you read what I actually said or are you all thinking of what someone else has written and mistakenly replied to me? I was asking the question of Gareth, does he think that Brent is a good owner? As for Brent, are you seriously saying that if the nasty fans hadn't been so rude to the reluctant bidder he would have opened up to the fans and the PASB? Your naivety astounds me, if we had all been nice to Brent you probably would be looking at an extra dugout as the new grandstand with twenty new shops on the shelf and FWIW I think that Brent has got an incredibly easy ride considering that if Heaney or Stapleton had tried to achieve what Brent has re. Argyle there would have been public disorder on the terraces arranged by his current henchmen. Brent deserves nothing but contempt and that is all he will get from me, I have written to him politely in the past and been ignored, he's a nice guy when he wants to be and a hard headed asset stripping property developer the rest of the time, I have some sympathy for the chav who robs something because he's skint, Brent has and is robbing Argyle and us on a grand scale because he's greedy, he will get no respect from me and I think he deserves everything he gets from anyone who slags him off, don't rob off football clubs and you won't get called a cnut, it works for me.
Ps. The first point I was trying to make was that I only called him a poor owner not a wank splat or anything.

The more I think about it all Gareth the more I think you are being naive, maybe the exact scenario above didn't happen but in the world of big business people do connive, backstab and conspire, you can see it in the trust because you worked there, but don't want to see Brent in a bad light? Struggling to work you out really? I'm not sure that you were the right man for the trust either.

I reckon the reluctant one was clever enough to annoint the devious duo, rather than educated w@nkers of the CG . Seems to have worked a treat for him.
Now that the plans are approved without any real opposition from the trust or educated w@nkers like Lloyd and Clark, the reluctant one will do exactly as he pleases, no matter how many polite requests they make for better facilities and/or questions regarding income streams.

An AAA pass will be produced for anyone who simply won't shut up and begins to gain real support.........but that won't happen anyway.
I reckon brent sussed early on that most football people fink with their emotions and are like kids let loose in a sweet shop at the Theatre of Schemes. Putty in his hands.

Iggy wrote:

The more I think about it all Gareth the more I think you are being naive, maybe the exact scenario above didn't happen but in the world of big business people do connive, backstab and conspire, you can see it in the trust because you worked there, but don't want to see Brent in a bad light? Struggling to work you out really? I'm not sure that you were the right man for the trust either.

I don't think I was either, but the problem with ideological purity is that you end up with a constituency of one. And that's not enough to make change happen.
 
Again though, let me be clear. I don't trust James Brent because I don't trust anyone who owns a football club and runs it on the old and broken model, not because he's some cartoon version of an evil businessman twirling his moustache.
 
People make their own opinion clear on here and on Pasoti and they clearly feel strongly about it, but it puzzles me that they don't seek to make a change. For example, the constitution and objects of the Trust are pretty easy to navigate. It would be easy to find a small number of people who agree with you, draft a motion forcing the Trust board to consider it and then lobby for that to be Trust policy. If enough people agree with you then you've directed the officers of the Trust, who work for you, to change their line.
 
You could have a motion mandating the Trust to withdraw from the PASB done and probably agreed *like that*. I'd vote for it.I've even floated the idea with a few people but I don't think I'm "clean" enough from the past to do it. And frankly I find the whole situation and football in general just really tiresome right now.

Now that's more like it ! I fear it might now be too late. Brent doesn't need the pasb or the trust and his jamboys don't want them either, unless they can be controlled:roll: 

One day we'll probably end up with a sponsored pasb and they'll all wear the logo.

ps the pasb supported the plans in writing despite only having a one vote majority.I'm sure the Trust could have done something similar but in opposition, had there been the will.

Iggy wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Mrrapson wrote:

Gareth Nicholson wrote:

Iggy wrote:

I would argue with the efficient claim Gareth, best of a bad bunch I could swallow but are you seriously saying that he is and has been a good owner?

I characterised his ownership of Argyle as being at various stages amateurish and pedestrian so I think I made it pretty clear what my view is. I'd say he's unproven as an owner of Argyle and has a number of questions to answer, but it's hard to argue with how he's prosecuted the wider Akkeron strategy if you're looking at it from their perspective.

But to demonise him and resort to personal abuse and flat out lies makes his job so much easier. It's easy to characterise everyone who doesn't agree with you as cranks and weirdos if some of them behave like cranks and weirdos. It makes the serious questions easier to avoid too.

Well said.

Hear hear.

Whoaaahhh there, I'm being picked on by a gang here! Have you read what I actually said or are you all thinking of what someone else has written and mistakenly replied to me? I was asking the question of Gareth, does he think that Brent is a good owner? As for Brent, are you seriously saying that if the nasty fans hadn't been so rude to the reluctant bidder he would have opened up to the fans and the PASB? Your naivety astounds me, if we had all been nice to Brent you probably would be looking at an extra dugout as the new grandstand with twenty new shops on the shelf and FWIW I think that Brent has got an incredibly easy ride considering that if Heaney or Stapleton had tried to achieve what Brent has re. Argyle there would have been public disorder on the terraces arranged by his current henchmen. Brent deserves nothing but contempt and that is all he will get from me, I have written to him politely in the past and been ignored, he's a nice guy when he wants to be and a hard headed asset stripping property developer the rest of the time, I have some sympathy for the chav who robs something because he's skint, Brent has and is robbing Argyle and us on a grand scale because he's greedy, he will get no respect from me and I think he deserves everything he gets from anyone who slags him off, don't rob off football clubs and you won't get called a cnut, it works for me.
Ps. The first point I was trying to make was that I only called him a poor owner not a wank splat or anything.

Wait, I'm not agreeing with saying being less challenging to Brent would have made things better for us. Not at all and I can't see where you got the idea. All I agreed with is, like Gareth says, some of the language, charecterisation and imagery that has been used which does rightly or wrong reinforce the incorrect idea that all critics of Brent are cranks and weirdos. I actually agree with a lot of that post.

Ok Sam you're quite level headed so answer me this, everyone knows that Heaney didn't have the money himself but it's pretty well accepted that he was the front for some of the M7 trying desperately to claw back some of their losses. Heaney is supposedly seen in a hotel with plans for hotels and cinemas around Home Park spread out for the whole world to see long before Brent supposedly thought of building his empire in Central Park.

1, How likely is it that Heaney had plans drawn up and was looking at them in a hotel in Plymouth?

2, In your opinion was it just because the saviours of Argyle knew Heaney didn't have the money, the same Heaney who was bankrolling Truro City through the non-league world and was trying to get planning permission for a 20,000 stadium for them, or was a lot of the objection because he was a property developer wanting to develop property much like Brent is?

3, I already know your answer to number 2 so how feckin two-faced are cnuts like Ian Newell, Chris Webb, Ian De Lar, Lee Jameson and the like?

And remember when Kevin Heaney was first mentioned as a possible bidder for Argyle Truro City had climbed about 5 or 6 leagues in 7 years and were one league off of a Conference place, planning permission for a 20,000 all seater stadium on the outskirts of Truro was being discussed, and everyone thought that he solely owned the Treyew Rd site which was worth millions if it ever needed to be used as collateral or sold.

His financial troubles were not known when he was sniffing around Argyle and the only problem I ever saw mentioned about him was the fact that the League might not allow him to have interests in Argyle and City, hence Ridsdale was said to be having the football side of things and Heaney developing Home Park.

I can't stand Heaney, never could, but there was an enormous amount of hatred bandied about because he allegedly wanted a cinema and hotel at Home Park. Oh and how coincidental is it that Heaney also thought of having a hotel and cinema, just like Brent!

An enormous amount of bullshit has been fed to Argyle fans in the last two or three years and there's a small group of about 8 people responsible for it.

I agree with you that Heaney wanted to develop property for his own ends just like Brent, which is why I have been consistent in criticising both for putting it above the club. However, all I'm saying is the dichotomy is that of Brent actually succeeding to do it and Heaney failing to do it (and the club ending without the intervention of Brent OR A.N Other). Gareth N actually puts forward a very decent case for a Phoenix club so I guess it's a question of whether you'd have preferred the current dystopia or Heaney's failed attempt at a dystopia in which we'd have had to start again. Two bad options eh?

Except of course that Brent hasn't accomplished anything as yet other than gaining planning permission.

Like the Pavillions and the civic centre, HHP is going to be started dreckly.

Greenjock wrote:

Except of course that Brent hasn't accomplished anything as yet other than gaining planning permission.

Like the Pavillions and the civic centre, HHP is going to be started dreckly.

That's true I suppose. I mean, I'd be surprised if it didn't all go ahead but it's not over till the fat lady moves in to demolish the stand.

GreenSam wrote:

Iggy wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Mrrapson wrote:

Gareth Nicholson wrote:

Iggy wrote:

I would argue with the efficient claim Gareth, best of a bad bunch I could swallow but are you seriously saying that he is and has been a good owner?

I characterised his ownership of Argyle as being at various stages amateurish and pedestrian so I think I made it pretty clear what my view is. I'd say he's unproven as an owner of Argyle and has a number of questions to answer, but it's hard to argue with how he's prosecuted the wider Akkeron strategy if you're looking at it from their perspective.

But to demonise him and resort to personal abuse and flat out lies makes his job so much easier. It's easy to characterise everyone who doesn't agree with you as cranks and weirdos if some of them behave like cranks and weirdos. It makes the serious questions easier to avoid too.

Well said.

Hear hear.

Whoaaahhh there, I'm being picked on by a gang here! Have you read what I actually said or are you all thinking of what someone else has written and mistakenly replied to me? I was asking the question of Gareth, does he think that Brent is a good owner? As for Brent, are you seriously saying that if the nasty fans hadn't been so rude to the reluctant bidder he would have opened up to the fans and the PASB? Your naivety astounds me, if we had all been nice to Brent you probably would be looking at an extra dugout as the new grandstand with twenty new shops on the shelf and FWIW I think that Brent has got an incredibly easy ride considering that if Heaney or Stapleton had tried to achieve what Brent has re. Argyle there would have been public disorder on the terraces arranged by his current henchmen. Brent deserves nothing but contempt and that is all he will get from me, I have written to him politely in the past and been ignored, he's a nice guy when he wants to be and a hard headed asset stripping property developer the rest of the time, I have some sympathy for the chav who robs something because he's skint, Brent has and is robbing Argyle and us on a grand scale because he's greedy, he will get no respect from me and I think he deserves everything he gets from anyone who slags him off, don't rob off football clubs and you won't get called a cnut, it works for me.
Ps. The first point I was trying to make was that I only called him a poor owner not a wank splat or anything.

Wait, I'm not agreeing with saying being less challenging to Brent would have made things better for us. Not at all and I can't see where you got the idea. All I agreed with is, like Gareth says, some of the language, charecterisation and imagery that has been used which does rightly or wrong reinforce the incorrect idea that all critics of Brent are cranks and weirdos. I actually agree with a lot of that post.

I'm not havin it Sam, Brent won't talk to the people he elected to be the talking shop of Argyle, why would he talk to the nasty fans? Agreed lies about people aren't nice but then I don't remember ever telling a lie about Brent, some pretty hard nosed questioning but what is the problem with that? This is another talking shop, we talk, we surmise, we guess, trying to suss what Brent is up to, if he doesn't like it he could stop it by being open-as he promised he would be- but is all we get is more smoke and mirrors facts being drip fed to us after they have been decided months before and the usual pr in the press. Brent has bought all this on himself and if we didn't ask the questions and stir the shit is all you would have to go on is the Herald articles.
Ps. I was ridiculed for saying Brent was A property developer, I was ridiculed about him going to asset strip the club, if I am suspicious of the admin. process it's because there was a lot of power plays going on behind the scenes, Brent was into Argyle with PCC a long time ago and that makes a good topic for discussion don't yer fink?

Greenjock wrote:

Ok Sam you're quite level headed so answer me this, everyone knows that Heaney didn't have the money himself but it's pretty well accepted that he was the front for some of the M7 trying desperately to claw back some of their losses. Heaney is supposedly seen in a hotel with plans for hotels and cinemas around Home Park spread out for the whole world to see long before Brent supposedly thought of building his empire in Central Park.

1, How likely is it that Heaney had plans drawn up and was looking at them in a hotel in Plymouth?

2, In your opinion was it just because the saviours of Argyle knew Heaney didn't have the money, the same Heaney who was bankrolling Truro City through the non-league world and was trying to get planning permission for a 20,000 stadium for them, or was a lot of the objection because he was a property developer wanting to develop property much like Brent is?

3, I already know your answer to number 2 so how feckin two-faced are cnuts like Ian Newell, Chris Webb, Ian De Lar, Lee Jameson and the like?

And remember when Kevin Heaney was first mentioned as a possible bidder for Argyle Truro City had climbed about 5 or 6 leagues in 7 years and were one league off of a Conference place, planning permission for a 20,000 all seater stadium on the outskirts of Truro was being discussed, and everyone thought that he solely owned the Treyew Rd site which was worth millions if it ever needed to be used as collateral or sold.

His financial troubles were not known when he was sniffing around Argyle and the only problem I ever saw mentioned about him was the fact that the League might not allow him to have interests in Argyle and City, hence Ridsdale was said to be having the football side of things and Heaney developing Home Park.

I can't stand Heaney, never could, but there was an enormous amount of hatred bandied about because he allegedly wanted a cinema and hotel at Home Park. Oh and how coincidental is it that Heaney also thought of having a hotel and cinema, just like Brent!

An enormous amount of bullshit has been fed to Argyle fans in the last two or three years and there's a small group of about 8 people responsible for it.

I am not sure the statement that Heaney's 'financial troubles were not known when he was sniffing around Argyle' stands up to scrutiny. They were widely reported (see the link below) where his company went into liquidation owing millions.. Also a simple financial search upon him confirmed he also had County Court Judgement against him. With his ruinous track record no bank in the land would or could lend to him. He was a front man who persuaded Abe and Kagami to stump up £300k to secure a preferred bidder status ahead of Brent on the eve of the CVA meeting with the Administrator. The fact that they never paid the rest of the promised £700,000 to Guilfoyle and complete a sale and purchase agreement was because Heaney failed to persuade other investors to come on board despite actively touting his 'deal' around the market in a desperate attempt to salvage his reputation All he succeeded in doing was driving up the Football Creditor debt over a four month period.

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

Kevin Heaney was made bankrupt on 24th August 2012

The link you have posted Graham is from 2008 and Kevin Heaney continued to be a successful businessman after his firm collapsed in 2008, he just started up another and washed his hands of it.

Not very nice for the people who lost out from his previous company but he certainly wouldn't have been the first owner of a football club to have carried out such a thing by any means. I believe he operated future businesses under his partners name.

"No bank in the land would or could lend to him" Except the ones who kept loaning him money against the Treyew Rd site in Truro which Sainsbury's once tried to buy for several million pounds.

He was the front for some previous board members at Argyle who was able to secure £300k more towards funding the admin process than James Brent did.

I wouldn't have wanted him to succeed in his bid all that time ago because I know exactly what he is like as a person, and that is someone who would've gotten on very well with Peter Ridsdale, who was hailed as the second coming by many of the now Brent brigade.

What I am trying to point out is that Heaney was villified for wanting to develop the land around Home Park with a cinema and hotel, yet the same people are spunking themselves at Brent's plans which include the cinema and hotel but also a school, dentist practice and several other retail units none of which will raise any income for the club.

It's amazing how similar Brent's and Heaney's plans, which were there for all to see on a breakfast table at the Holiday Inn  when the club saviours rumbled him. It's just a shame that some of those saviours of the club were as vocal now, as you are, and seem to have forgotten how opposed to a cinema and hotel they were two years ago.

It keeps being said that Brent has no money so how has he loaned the money to Argyle to keep it going?

Could it be the 1.6 mill ? that PCC paid for HP and ST money?

If so then he has lent the club money to keep it afloat using the club's own money!

Very clever.

Greenjock wrote:

The link you have posted Graham is from 2008 and Kevin Heaney continued to be a successful businessman after his firm collapsed in 2008, he just started up another and washed his hands of it.

Not very nice for the people who lost out from his previous company but he certainly wouldn't have been the first owner of a football club to have carried out such a thing by any means. I believe he operated future businesses under his partners name.

"No bank in the land would or could lend to him" Except the ones who kept loaning him money against the Treyew Rd site in Truro which Sainsbury's once tried to buy for several million pounds.

He was the front for some previous board members at Argyle who was able to secure £300k more towards funding the admin process than James Brent did.

I wouldn't have wanted him to succeed in his bid all that time ago because I know exactly hat he is like as a person, and that is someone who would've gotten on very well with Peter Ridsdale, who was hailed as the second coming by many of the now Brent brigade.

What I am trying to point out is that Heaney was villified for wanting to develop the land around Home Park with a cinema and hotel, yet the same people are spunking themselves at Brent's plans which include the cinema and hotel but also a school, dentist practice and several other retail units none of which will raise any income for the club.

It's amazing how similar Brent's and Heaney's plans, which were there for all to see on a breakfast table at the Holiday Inn  when the club saviours rumbled him. It's just a shame that some of those saviours of the club were as vocal now, as you are, and seem to have forgotten how opposed to a cinema and hotel they were two years ago.

Heaney acquired the freehold of Truro City's ground at Treyew Road on 21st September 2007 a year before the liquidation of Cornish Homes. The first thing Lloyds Bank did after his acquisition was to place a legal charge upon it to prevent him selling it. The ground has now been sold and a supermarket is proposed upon it. In the three years after the liquidation of Cornish Homes Heaney managed to put Truro City FC in nearly £4m of debt. In the same time period all of his other companies collapsed ending in his personal bankruptcy. Not exactly the definition of 'a successful businessman.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

On University Challenge last night there was a question to which the answer was "the iron law of oligarchy".

I had never heard of this before so I looked it up. "The Iron Law of Oligarchy is a political concept devised by Robert Michaels, a German sociologist. It states that formalized bureaucracies inevitably become led by a small group of self-serving leaders--that is, the power and responsibility necessary in a formal organization eventually leads to oligarchy. The idea is important because it implies that bureaucracy and democracy are not compatible."

Oligarchy is a bit tricky so I looked that up too. "Oligarchy is a type of power structure where power efficiently rests with an elite class differentiated by wealth, commercial, royalty, family ties, and/or military legitimacy. It is got from the Greek word olígos which means 'a few' and archo which means 'to rule' or 'to govern'."

Which all seems depressingly familiar.

Obviously the way to combat this is by promoting democracy at every turn and reducing bureaucracy and the best way of promoting democracy is to engage with it.

So all of you who argue along the lines of "I'm not joining the Trust because..." or "I don't like the Trust because..." are actually actively promoting, maybe even creating, the conditions needed to cause the Trust to fail in exactly the way you fear it might.

So don't fret overmuch about what the Trust has done or who did what within it but join it, support it and campaign for the policies you want to see from inside it because if your ideas are coherent, practical, sensible and achievable then others will support them too. And if you are a nutter with daft ideas they won't.

There's plenty out there who would rejoice in the demise of the Trust so don't give in to them and don't let them have their day.

If you are not a Trust member already then join it now and if you are then when your subscription comes up then renew it right away if for no other reason than not doing either is precisely what people like Brent and Newell want you to (not) do.

I'm pretty sure that there used to be a couple of Argyle related songs/chants that included that word.One was ;

Oligarchy,oligarchy,oligarchy
Oi oi oi

and the other was;

And we'll all go back to oligarchy land,to oligarchy land,to oligarchy land
And we'll all go back to oligarchy land,to oligarchy land,to oligarchy land
Where they can't tell shit from tissue paper,tissue paper
Where they can't tell shit from tissue paper,tissue paper

Something like that,anyway.

mouldyoldgoat wrote:

It keeps being said that Brent has no money so how has he loaned the money to Argyle to keep it going?

Could it be the 1.6 mill ? that PCC paid for HP and ST money?

If so then he has lent the club money to keep it afloat using the club's own money!

Very clever.

Don't forget the 2 million he was supposedly paid as part of the pavillions deal, that seems to have vanished into thin air, i really wish that someone with financial nous could investigate Brent/Akkeron..............I smell a rat.

Graham Clark wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

The link you have posted Graham is from 2008 and Kevin Heaney continued to be a successful businessman after his firm collapsed in 2008, he just started up another and washed his hands of it.

Not very nice for the people who lost out from his previous company but he certainly wouldn't have been the first owner of a football club to have carried out such a thing by any means. I believe he operated future businesses under his partners name.

"No bank in the land would or could lend to him" Except the ones who kept loaning him money against the Treyew Rd site in Truro which Sainsbury's once tried to buy for several million pounds.

He was the front for some previous board members at Argyle who was able to secure £300k more towards funding the admin process than James Brent did.

I wouldn't have wanted him to succeed in his bid all that time ago because I know exactly hat he is like as a person, and that is someone who would've gotten on very well with Peter Ridsdale, who was hailed as the second coming by many of the now Brent brigade.

What I am trying to point out is that Heaney was villified for wanting to develop the land around Home Park with a cinema and hotel, yet the same people are spunking themselves at Brent's plans which include the cinema and hotel but also a school, dentist practice and several other retail units none of which will raise any income for the club.

It's amazing how similar Brent's and Heaney's plans, which were there for all to see on a breakfast table at the Holiday Inn  when the club saviours rumbled him. It's just a shame that some of those saviours of the club were as vocal now, as you are, and seem to have forgotten how opposed to a cinema and hotel they were two years ago.

Heaney acquired the freehold of Truro City's ground at Treyew Road on 21st September 2007 a year before the liquidation of Cornish Homes. The first thing Lloyds Bank did after his acquisition was to place a legal charge upon it to prevent him selling it. The ground has now been sold and a supermarket is proposed upon it. In the three years after the liquidation of Cornish Homes Heaney managed to put Truro City FC in nearly £4m of debt. In the same time period all of his other companies collapsed ending in his personal bankruptcy. Not exactly the definition of 'a successful businessman.

Well I can guarantee you that Kevin Heaney did extremely well out of his businesses at that time, whether it was just personal gain or his companies flourishing is another matter. I know that he lived the life of luxury whilst he wasn't paying tradesmen and small businesses for work and goods they supplied and nobody can condone that. Is he the first football club owner/chairman to have financial difficulties? Not by a long way and there are many high profile businessmen and women who have had tainted careers in whichever field they are in, but other than Ian Newell castigating Damon over and over again about his bankruptcy, these people are usually forgiven and allowed to carry on where they left off either in a wife or husband's name or a few years after their initial problems.

Truro City went from being a mid-table South Western League team to playing at Wembley and winning the FA Vase. From playing in front of 20 fans if they were lucky to almost being one more promotion away from Argyle. Try telling the Truro City fans that this guy is a scumbag and a shyster as he was called time and time again on Pasoti and by friends of yours.

Here's a snippet of what Truro City fans thought about Kevin Heaney;

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

It's worth a read because like most fickle football fans they couldn't have given a shit how they were propelled up the leagues, they were just loving it.

Now like I've said before I'm no great fan of his at all but it does amaze me the amount of vitriol some people hurled at Kevin Heaney yet were quite happy to chat to Peter Ridsdale and shake his hand because of all the good work he was doing!

Are you telling me that Kevin Heaney due to an unflattering photograph really was that evil and a worse person than Peter Ridsdale?

At the time Graham you yourself as Trust Leader were accused of rolling over too easily and throwing your support behind James Brent as if you had something personal to gain from it. The post is still around in the ATD archives. Surprising as it may seem to some people, he person accusing you of rolling over extremely easily was none other than Mr Brent's mouthpiece Ian De Lar. How times change?

Oh and Kevin Heaney was every bad thing under the sun and over people's dead body would he gain control of the club yet are quite happy to sit and applaud Luke McCormick every weekend. feckin unbelievable!

Kevin Heaney was the pantomime baddie for the fans to hiss and boo because wankers like Ian Newell and Chris Webb said he was, well they don't make decisions for me or tell me who I should put my faith in, which is lucky really because to be honest I think a good few of you back then were hoodwinked by James Brent and it is only becoming apparent now how badly he hoodwinked you.

GJ I posted the following on Pasoti on 5th April 2011 a few weeks before the decisive CVA meeting

"The ISC is holding meetings this week to discuss the implications of what has been proposed by James Brent. As Mr. Brent has not paid the administrator a fee to secure a period of exclusivity there remains a chance that another bidder could come to the fore. We'll see. In the meantime, in the absence of any other formal proposals on the table, we are proceeding on the basis that the Akkeron Group will be the eventual new owners. As others have indicated, depending on the CVA being agreed, the new owners could be in place soon after the season has ended."

It proved to be quite prophetic! There was no rolling over just support for the only formal bidder at the time. You may recall at the time Guilfoyle called for support from the fans for the Akkeron proposal as the only alternative to liquidation. Heaney's untimely intervention scupper end all that.

I wasn't aware of Ian De Lar's comments at the time. As time has proven they were very wide of the mark and he has never had the good grace to apologise. Consequently I have watched his pendulum swing of opinion with some bemusement.

Forgive me but after this brief foray I will concentrate on the more important matters that confront the fan base.

I'm glad you are aware of De Lar and how he operates Graham. I've unfortunately experienced how the little runt works for myself and he's a spineless little coward who really needs a good slap to remind him that he is just a piece of faecal matter and not anybody important.

I'm not getting at you personally Graham, in fact I recognise that you probably are the one person challenging what is happening at Home Park when others are too afraid to speak out or too cosy now and not willing to give up their badges and AAA passes.

What does get on my tits though is the way that Kevin Heaney has been portrayed when Peter Ridsdale has in my opinion been a far worse individual both during his time at Argyle and with several other football clubs.

I also can't stand the sycophantic bullshit spread by people like Newell, Webb and De Lar about James Brent who laud him as a cross between Gandhi and Mother Teresa even when they know full well that Argyle are getting the shitty end of the stick once again. It wouldn't be quite so bad if it wasn't for the fact that these people were the most vocal of all when "sticking their heads above the parapet".

It's becoming more and more obvious that James Brent is not the transparent reluctant bidder he was portrayed as. Not a property developer they preach as he lines up property development after property development and cheer with glee at the fantastic plans that are hardly great news for the club at all.

Too many people who put in a lot of effort to help two years ago have now changed allegiance from Plymouth Argyle to James Brent, who is just another temporary custodian of our club, albeit one who has the chance to go down in history as the man who had the chance to safeguard our future and decided to sell out to Nando's instead.

Fans need to ask a question of themselves, "am I an Argyle fan or am I a James Brent fan?" because from what I can see, you can't be both!

Which one are you?