Rent and Rates the Truth

You make a very good point there Hairy and I agree. Had there been honesty from the start, had Brent come clean and told us all what the real deal was instead of having his warm up acts of Webb and Newell kick start every time Brent blinks, he would have pulled it off without so much as a hint of protest.

Instead he chose deceit over honesty from the word go, what does that tell you about his character?

Richard Blight wrote:

..........

Personally I think this was / is a massive own goal. If this arrangement was announced back when JB took over the club, most people would have just accepted it as part of the package to help save the club. I'm sure some non Argyle supporting Plymothians would have made some comment at the time which would have blown over quickly but this looks much worse.

Why the hell didn't they ( JB & PCC) just tell people in the first place? It's all legal, what's the problem? All this rumour and speculation wouldn't have happened and will now only lead to more suspicion and rumour about what else is being kept from the public ( on both sides).

THIS in spades.

GOB wrote:

You make a very good point there Hairy and I agree. Had there been honesty from the start, had Brent come clean and told us all what the real deal was instead of having his warm up acts of Webb and Newell kick start every time Brent blinks, he would have pulled it off without so much as a hint of protest.

Instead he chose deceit over honesty from the word go, what does that tell you about his character?

Anyone with hole I his arse realises this guy is a merchant who has roped in his own little Sopranos - as for the blinks, surely thats quivers?!! 5-0 and its still the background shite that grinds!!

Tgwu wrote:

GOB wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Not me - others did the digging and found out, and it was Jock who posted here first. Keep digging boys, plenty more where that came from I am sure.

Well done Jock as well then, he already knows I luv him  

Jock was  brave to be the first to take a rumour and post it for the public to read, Damon was brave to to post it in the lions den.
As I said on my first post well do to you both

I too was offered the rumour. I chose not to go with it. There are always rumours and in the nature of rumours some are accurate and some are inaccurate and every shade in between. The one that springs to mind is that the pitch was in a terrible state. I'm not aware that rumour has been shown to have any truth in it. Rumours are dangerous. This one has been proved to have substance to it.

I am still in awe of the lack of knowledge about how business is done from so many of you, it is not Brent's job or his aim to play fair, he will play hard, that is the nature of the beast, the accounts posted have no relevance to his personal worth, it's just a vehicle to run the football club, the liabilities could be anything from an understatement of an asset value to actual loans from JB, ps. I doubt it is the latter.

Brent has done nothing out of the ordinary and your erstwhile elected officials are simply following in the well trodden footsteps of T.Dan.

Every businessman is bent, every elected official is bent, get over it.

Some rumours are dangerous but when corroborated from totally unconnected sources you gotta start believing.

Doesn't mean you have to bend over and offer up tho Tis.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Some rumours are dangerous but when corroborated from totally unconnected sources you gotta start believing.

I agree but my source didn't offer that level of confirmation. Equally I was told that he has paid neither rates nor rent and, from what I've read, that doesn't appear to be accurate. That's one reason that rumours can be dodgy. But, as I said, this one seems to have been accurate in part.

(PS Damon, you have a PM)

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Doesn't mean you have to bend over and offer up tho Tis.

I get your issue is more the corruption within the Council although the analogy I drew with T.Dan is unlikely to be the case, but to be honest Brent is more sewing his seeds up the Muff taxpayers rectum than the fans', albeit there will be some cross over.

It's a shame, but it is the way of this world.

And if you bother to read the posts Tis the general gist is that what Brent has done is legal and most would have accepted it, it's the denial, drip drip and attempted cover up that epitomises what is wrong with Brent and Argyle at present.

hairy j wrote:

It doesn't help Brent at all in our eyes as 'fans on the internet' that the muppets on pasoti/twitter who are posting ridiculous cliches about how whiter than white and morally fabulous James Brent is.

IJN and PL2 and Ponty actually damage his reputation more by holding him up as some paragon of virtue and philanthropy.

He's a family man - who cares?
He's honest - he's a business man so he's unlikely to divulge everything he does and what he spends - that woukdn't make sense as business doesn't work like that.
He has 'got the bug'! - I don't care if he hasn't, most of Plymouth haven't.
He attends games! - normal owners would do.
He's 'transparent'! - see above re: honesty.

They put him on a pedestal he's not asked to be on. They've no reason to do it as there's no point. Most of us don't care, we just want a successful club. When things like this happen, it makes everything seem worse as they've built James Brent up to be something he's not and something he probably doesn't want to be. Any question against him or critical of him is completely pounced upon and there's no need for it.

It's bizarre. If I was James Brent, I'd tell Newell and co to stop acting as his PR team as they're indescribably bad at it.

Without their unwavering support and control of Pasoti, the fanbase would have united behind the Trust plans for HHP and made life very uncomfortable for the reluctant one and the council.
He has given them the keys to the train set, as their compliance is key to his plans.
They just luvs Argo and even more, being someone at the Theatre of Schemes.

The club stinks and is virtually dead as it exists now, to people of intelligence and a high moral compass.

I do think that Hairy has got a lot right there, I wonder how many time Baby James has groaned when he's seen his posse turn up at a game or meeting?

Iggy wrote:

I do think that Hairy has got a lot right there, I wonder how many time Baby James has groaned when he's seen his posse turn up at a game or meeting?

Of course he does but................ they and the control they exert over the rump of the support base, is/was essential to his plans. If he hadn't kept them sweet, they'd be his fiercest and most influential critics.
Porkie may well be an unpleasant and devious character in many ways but he's cornered the market in the superfan stakes. I see that he's back to effusing about how much going to Argo means to him. Add to that his never ending and well advertised charitable activities and who can fail to love him ?  

hairy j wrote:

It doesn't help Brent at all in our eyes as 'fans on the internet' that the muppets on pasoti/twitter who are posting ridiculous cliches about how whiter than white and morally fabulous James Brent is.

IJN and PL2 and Ponty actually damage his reputation more by holding him up as some paragon of virtue and philanthropy.

He's a family man - who cares?
He's honest - he's a business man so he's unlikely to divulge everything he does and what he spends - that woukdn't make sense as business doesn't work like that.
He has 'got the bug'! - I don't care if he hasn't, most of Plymouth haven't.
He attends games! - normal owners would do.
He's 'transparent'! - see above re: honesty.

They put him on a pedestal he's not asked to be on. They've no reason to do it as there's no point. Most of us don't care, we just want a successful club. When things like this happen, it makes everything seem worse as they've built James Brent up to be something he's not and something he probably doesn't want to be. Any question against him or critical of him is completely pounced upon and there's no need for it.

It's bizarre. If I was James Brent, I'd tell Newell and co to stop acting as his PR team as they're indescribably bad at it.

Spot on.

There's several ways of looking at this. The first is that it is a magnificently visionary cross-party policy implemented by both Labour and Tory council leaders who value the contribution that Argyle makes in a host of different ways. Which is fantastic. Or would be if they believed it themselves. Which they clearly do not given that there is no mention of this arrangement anywhere at all. Still 2 years at 100% and another at 50% this rent holiday represents a donation, or perhaps, an investment of around £250,000 made by the city into its football club. This is amazingly generous especially when you consider that even Argyle's owner only ever lends the club money. It is fantastic to see the council go that extra yard and actually not expect any direct return and it is a shame that owner doesn't do the same.

Of course the flow of hard money (£1.6m for the purchase of Home Park), assets (1.22 acres of land) and now over 2 years', and still counting - what about next year?, worth of what amounts to being a grant shows that the council has actually invested very heavily into Plymouth Argyle. So heavily, in fact, that they might as well have been the ones to buy the club because it seems as though it has spent, not lent, leveraged or guaranteed, far more on the club than James Brent has.

Which is odd. How could a bunch of Free Market Tories actually even consider the idea of what amounts to public money subsidising a private business? How could a bunch of raving lefties even consider just throwing money into the pot exploited by an already very wealthy man?

So it must all be for The Good Of The City and So Important That All Other Considerations Are Negligible which in turn makes me wonder why all the secrecy was necessary and why "nobody at Plymouth Argyle was available for comment" when the benefits of this deal for the city are so real, so obvious, so tangible and the benefits for all so incontrovertible that the people responsible for the deal should be proudly shouting praise for its merits from the rooftoops so that they can reap their just rewards at election time instead of which all we get from them is silence with a bit bit of "not illegal" or "not unusual in any way" from apologists for them.

You old cynic you !

The "no comment" from Argyle says everything.

They didn't really need to comment; why would they?

Openness, transparency........It would be better if they just saved the bullshit really.

hairy j wrote:

They didn't really need to comment; why would they?

They didn't comment, I did.

Are you sure you're a English major?

Rickler wrote:

The "no comment" from Argyle says everything.

Rickler wrote:

hairy j wrote:

They didn't really need to comment; why would they?

They didn't comment, I did.

Are you sure you're a English major?

I am AN English graduate.

You did state the "no comment" says everything so I am assuming you expected a comment from PAFC.

What are the club supposed to say? Also, this image of transparency and decency and moral fortitude is a myth-like status afforded from the misguided and self-destructuve PR from Newell and co. I think Brent wanted to introduce it, saw how stupid the PASB was (after the debacle of the election and what has happened after) and thought not a great idea actually - someone should tell Newell. He's like Ratners fronted by this guy
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

In a nutshell SFD.

Yup, on the button SFD.

can someone find out......................................

when the rent was last paid?
when the business rates were last paid?

and were payments made to clear arrears !!!!!

Elias wrote:

can someone find out......................................

when the rent was last paid?
when the business rates were last paid?

and were payments made to clear arrears !!!!!

All rent is up to date.

Rates 2 years free and this year at 50% a saving of 254,00 for the club.

Rent is due again end of this month, rates paid.