The brent appreciation society meeting!

GOB wrote:

I'm sure his ego increased by ten when he was stood there being applauded while the semper theme played  

And wtf is with that grin? He looks like a serial killer yet to be caught.

Undo the top button too ffs!

 

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

greensleeves wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Every question will eventually prompt an answer along the lines of "we'd like to but the budget doesn't support it".

Our problem is that there isn't anything published that shows what the budgets might be, what income is, any sort of breakdown as to how the budgets are spent or pretty much anything at all in a financial sense.

With regards to the ground we don't know how much the stand will cost to build, what the predicted income streams are, what the profit margins on all of that are just as we don't know how the whole HHP project is funded or how our bit is funded or what the breakdown of any of that is. All we have to go on is trust that the "figures don't add up" or "a bigger stand is unaffordable" or "the retail units all have to be leased out" or "there has to be a school" or there "has to be a dentist" and our recent history tells us, if it tells us anything at all, to question everything, accept nothing, check the figures and get everything in writing. In fact it compels us to demand the openness and transparency that was once so close to Brent's heart.

And all of that applies to the team too. What is the club's turnover, how much of the 55% of that goes to Sheridan, how much of that is swallowed up by historic debt and just how competitive is our competitive budget?

And all of that applies to the future too. Exactly how will the new stand benefit the club in terms of money it has to spend on players? Exactly how are we going to meet our requirements regarding the balloon payment at the end of the 5 years because right now it looks like we have no chance of doing it without absolutely destroying the playing budget.

And all of that means that the club publishes some real, accurate, verified and verifiable accounts and income/cost projections. It could be called something like a "business plan" which I believe are all the rage in some quarters.

And so far the club has shown absolutely no inclination at all to do so.

So "go along and ask what you like" is all well and good but we don't have even a tiny portion of the information we might need access to on which to base some sensible questions about the stuff that really, really matters.

SFD.. a lot of the questions that you want answering are commercially sensitive though. I doubt if there is a football club in the country that would give you the information that you are looking for.Argyle are no different than anyone else in that respect.

If other club's don't already know our budget, and we do not already know theirs, how could we ever have claimed that our playing budget was "competitive"? This information is supplied to the FL by each club and then the FL send it out to all the clubs when collated. So much of that information, being out there already, has no commercial sensitivity whatsoever. But we shouldn't ask about this because it might be deemed "commercially sensitive"?

But it wasn't me who promised openness and transparency, was it? But it was promised, wasn't it? And given what had happened before quite rightly so. It was one of the key points that lent valuable credibility to Brent's brand. Credibility which has since been utterly and wilfully squandered. But we shouldn't ask about this because it might be deemed "commercially sensitive"?

It is essential that these questions are asked because the club's, and hence Akkeron/Brent's, financial planning underpins absolutely everything but it is even more important that they are answered but they shouldn't be because it might be deemed "commercially sensitive"?

What scares me the most is that we appear to be blundering blindly towards the end of the 5 year admin debt repayment schedule, which looms ever closer with every passing day, and we are not, despite attracting some of the best attendances in the division for the last 2 years, making any progress at all with regards to paying our debts down. Why not? The money isn't being splurged on players, is it? Or maybe it is. If that is so then how are we meeting the 55% salary cap? It certainly isn't being spent, and quite rightly too, on transfer fees. But we shouldn't ask because it might be "commercially sensitive"?

Brent says it is essential that we are self-sufficient. I agree. But we aren't, are we? We are still losing money. Why? Those expensive historical contracts have all ended and ended a long time ago. So what is the excuse? Is Argyle paying towards the HHP development? But we shouldn't ask the question because it might be "commercially sensitive"?

Brent is effecting a mini-Glazer styled Man Utd takeover by "buying" Argyle with money he has leveraged against the club. In no meaningful sense has he "bought" anything with his own hard cash so far as I can see. The takeover and exit from admin was financed by £1.6m from the council and since then it has all been the "shareholders are lending the club money" which potentially puts us ever further back in the mire. Even the HHP development appears to be financed by deals with a car park company, fast food "restaurants", a hotel company, a dentist, a school etc. But we shouldn't ask about this because it might be deemed "commercially sensitive"?

We can't touch, so we are told, a single blade of grass on Cottage Field, despite it being specifically earmarked for such purpose in the Central Park Action Plan, but we can demand, and be given, 1.22 acres of Central Park somewhere else. Add to that the £1.6m for selling (some of) the land to the council. Add to that a "rent holiday" negotiated with the council. Is there anything else Brent's been given by the council on my behalf that I don't know about? That's a lot of land and money given to Brent by the council. Land which as a city resident and council tax payer is, sorry was, partly "mine". Money which is either added to my council tax bill or paid for by providing me with either fewer services or the same services as at a lower standard. But we shouldn't ask about this because it might be deemed "commercially sensitive"?

So what do we gain from all of this? Well we still have a club, that's true. We'd still have a club anyway even if Brent had never darkened our horizon. Probably not currently a league club but a club of sorts nonetheless. We'll, maybe (we'll see), get a new grandstand that is too small, does not include a supporters' bar, has no space for a Fans' Fest, is riddled with retail outlets that do not benefit (and in some instances actually compete with!) the club on matchdays surrounded by development that makes future ground expansion impossible and never again will we see even as few as 17000 people in the ground. It's a plan that carves our future assured mediocrity irreducibly into stone. That might seem feckin wonderful to some but it seems to be a complete feckin catastrophe to me. But we shouldn't ask about this because it might be deemed "commercially sensitive"?

Currently we have 19 points from 16 games (which knocks spots off the last 2 (6?) seasons but we are still only 86th best, or 6th worst, league team in the country. We need some indication that this is not going to continue, if it is then what is the point of any of it?, and what is being done to rectify it but that can only include us signing players, improving a scouting network, bettering the training regime and facilities and we won't be able to ask about any of them because they are either "footballing matters down to Sheridan" (who won't be there) or reliant on long-term investment, which in turn is reliant on a business plan which in turn we can't ask about because it might be deemed "commercially sensitive".

So "turn up and ask your question". "Question" note. How can all of that be addressed in one question or given in one answer. It can't and a bunch of randomly selected questions won't do it either. The way forward is not an open session such as the one proposed. The way forward is for our local media to be holding Brent and his plans to account with prolonged scrutiny so that when we are told "the numbers don't add up" to justify selling off the retail outlets and the corners of the ground and chunks of Central Park and building an inadequately small stand and so on somebody, somewhere asks "what numbers?" and then asks to be shown them and doesn't give up until they are shown them. But we shouldn't ask about any of this because it might be deemed "commercially sensitive"?

And then some...

Excellent post SFD, and if that were repeated at the Questionfest I doubt many answers would be forthcoming. If the PASB and AFT struggle to get answers to key questions how are everyday fans going to get answers?

REAL fans don't need answers, they just trust people, any people in dapper suits.

Surely the Budget should be 55% of Income?

Unless someone has something to hide?

Love Webby's little joke at the start about waiting for Kevin Heaney. Heaney with bells on, is wearing the scarf just to the left of you ffs !

I expect the pasoti despot will be sat in the front row of the gratefuls rally, making sure jimmy see's him clapping and cheering his every word:     

 

nzgreen wrote:

Yeah. I've got a question for the four eyed cnut. How come you get to pay 50% of your feckin cunting tax bill while every other poor wanker out there has to pay it in full. You feckin lying cnut. Get your feckin claws off of my club you feckin cnut and feck OFF. Sell up and feck OFF NOW!!!!!!!!!

Whilst I agree in principle, I do wish you'd ease up on the expletives.  

Agree 100%

So do I, it cheapens and belittles the argument and gives those that wish to suppress opinion the opportunity to dismiss the opinions of those that use this site.

[quote="Tringreen"]

nzgreen wrote:

Yeah. I've got a question for the four eyed cnut. How come you get to pay 50% of your feckin cunting tax bill while every other poor wanker out there has to pay it in full. You feckin lying cnut. Get your feckin claws off of my club you feckin cnut and feck OFF. Sell up and feck OFF NOW!!!!!!!!!

Whilst I agree in principle, I do wish you'd ease up on the expletives. :

I feel angry about this, but I live down under and have done for years so I guess my opinion doesn't really count, hence why I express it so vehemently! If I was a council tax paying Plymothian however, Id be feckin livid and cannot for the life of me see how Brent can get away with this.

We all agree mate, believe me, we all agree!

But you know how newell likes slur so don't give him the opportunity.

Of course he can and he has the full support of Pasoti's co owner and site manager, the council and the Herald................ like he does with everything he does  

Swearing too much doesn't help at all and only belittles the integrity of this forum.

Apologies all round. Swearing can be a good antedote at times. Happy to rein it in.
Hope the jist of my opinion still resonates to some degree...

We feel and share in your pain NZ.

nzgreen wrote:

Yeah. I've got a question for the four eyed cnut. How come you get to pay 50% of your feckin cunting tax bill while every other poor wanker out there has to pay it in full. You feckin lying cnut. Get your feckin claws off of my club you feckin cnut and feck OFF. Sell up and feck OFF NOW!!!!!!!!!

Dude, come on. Have a bit of class. I agree with the tax issue, but no need to call anyone that word, no matter how strongly you feel.

Please see apology above. But I am happy to be the fall guy on this thread. Really.

Posts tend to be taken more seriously if they are not full of expletives, spelling and punctuation mistakes.

pepsipete wrote:

Posts tend to be taken more seriously if they are not full of expletives, spelling and punctuation mistakes.

How many times did you check that one, Pete ?  

Tringreen wrote:

pepsipete wrote:

Posts tend to be taken more seriously if they are not full of expletives, spelling and punctuation mistakes.

How many times did you check that one, Pete ?  

Three,   I do make mistakes, but don't feel my posts are full of them.

pepsipete wrote:

Posts tend to be taken more seriously if they are not full of expletives, spelling and punctuation mistakes.

Unlike grammatically correct condescending ones which of course, carry much greater authority.

I'm not going tomorrow, I have to cut more firewood as I am refusing to use the gas central heating until it gets consistently into the minuses. I wouldn't bother anyway tbh the sight of Brent glibly and evasively answering the questions that he wants to and steering cleverly around the ones he doesnt would not be my idea of fun. I don't want to be in constant communication with the owner of PAFC I want him to run the club, all,this fan engagement bullshit is just that, big piles of steaming bullshit or as it is known these days PR. I bet baby James is as tired of the facade as I am, well don't worry BJ once those diggers roll in you won't need to bother with any of us pesky fans, no more will you have to endure the feeling of Porkies eyes boring into the back of your neck in the directors box, no more of the ridiculous Q&A sessions online or even when you should be perusing your stocks and shares options. I bet you can't wait to ride off with your ill gotten gains, I know I can't.

The vast majority of attendees will be going straight to the fanfest after the love-in, That should tell you all you need to know about the questions that will be asked of his Lordship.