ARE THEY FRIGGING MAD

greenjock wrote:

The full extent of Brent's ambitions could become apparent if Bhasera is sold in January. Surely some kind of fee would be received and if it is not used towards strengthening the squad then I think we can take that as proof that he is going to try and do it on the cheap.

If that happens, Argyle can pretty much kiss what is left of their 'wavering' support goodbye.

Unless the unlikely happens and they manage a home win streak, which of course, will always brings the crowds in!

X Isle wrote:

greenjock wrote:

The full extent of Brent's ambitions could become apparent if Bhasera is sold in January. Surely some kind of fee would be received and if it is not used towards strengthening the squad then I think we can take that as proof that he is going to try and do it on the cheap.

Erm, that's contrary to pretty much everything he's said all along how exactly?.

Anyone looking for a massive cash investment in january hasn't been keeping their finger on the pulse for the last few months, Brent ain't no sugar daddy and we're to stand on (or fall from) our own two feet.

There's a big difference in being a Sugar Daddy and overseeing the sale of every half decent player we have. I'm not naive enough to think we don't have to sell when we get a decent offer, but we have sold so many decent players, relative to the rest of the team, for peanuts, that it's sickening to see them replaced with shit all the time. Bhasera is an asset thats for sure, but if he goes at least some of the cash needs to be re-invested in the team. What will probably happen of course is a statement saying Bhasera has been sold for an undisclosed sum and gets replaced with a free transfer no mark.

So another January looms when we wave goodbye to what little talent we have. *****wallet would be proud that his legacy lives on. Same old Argo, same old shit.

I seem to remember Jimmy B stating [probably advised by PJ] that he recognised the club was big enough to self sustain through the lower leagues and that when 2nd tier status is again achieved, he would look for new owners with the interest in football/ money to take over the baton to push for the top.

Minimal investment.........property development opportunities........ local oiks running around fund raising for him........ eventually sell for a handsome profit when the inevitable rise through the leagues occurs.

Tringreen wrote:

I seem to remember Jimmy B stating [probably advised by PJ] that he recognised the club was big enough to self sustain through the lower leagues and that when 2nd tier status is again achieved, he would look for new owners with the interest in football/ money to take over the baton to push for the top.

Minimal investment.........property development opportunities........ local oiks running around fund raising for him........ eventually sell for a handsome profit when the inevitable rise through the leagues occurs.

I have a close relation who is employ by Plymouth City Council that as had dealing with Mr Brent over the last couple of years when he was working for the PLYMOUTH CITY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY; Development in and around Plymouth is his main aim. Argyle is a stepping stone for bigger thing which fell into his lap.

Tgwu wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

I seem to remember Jimmy B stating [probably advised by PJ] that he recognised the club was big enough to self sustain through the lower leagues and that when 2nd tier status is again achieved, he would look for new owners with the interest in football/ money to take over the baton to push for the top.

Minimal investment.........property development opportunities........ local oiks running around fund raising for him........ eventually sell for a handsome profit when the inevitable rise through the leagues occurs.

I have a close relation who is employ by Plymouth City Council that as had dealing with Mr Brent over the last couple of years when he was working for the PLYMOUTH CITY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY; Development in and around Plymouth is his main aim. Argyle is a stepping stone for bigger thing which fell into his lap.

But he's a legend

I don't know anyone who works for PCC. I know that Brent has so far done what he said he would do (whether I like what he has done or not is an irrelevance). He has had an interest in the development of Plymouth in the past - therefore it may be that, as he always said, he was a reluctant owner of the club and thought that it would contribute to Plymouth's development to keep Argyle in business. Simple. If he and his companies benefit through this either by making some money via the development of the stadium or through raising his business profile in the area enabling him to make money elsewhere in the region ..... well he's a businessman, that's what they do. There really may not be anything more sinister involved. Everyone gains.

Freathy wrote:

So another January looms when we wave goodbye to what little talent we have. *****wallet would be proud that his legacy lives on. Same old Argo, same old shit.

Same old Freathy ........

greengenes wrote:

Freathy wrote:

So another January looms when we wave goodbye to what little talent we have. *****wallet would be proud that his legacy lives on. Same old Argo, same old shit.

Same old Freathy ........

are you saying if a club came in for someone like nelson or hourihane for example the club wouldn't snap that clubs hands off for any cash? i reckon they would

Phenom wrote:

greengenes wrote:

Freathy wrote:

So another January looms when we wave goodbye to what little talent we have. *****wallet would be proud that his legacy lives on. Same old Argo, same old shit.

Same old Freathy ........

are you saying if a club came in for someone like nelson or hourihane for example the club wouldn't snap that clubs hands off for any cash? i reckon they would

Of course, they should. The problem is if they don't use that money, or a sizeable proportion of it, to buy a replacement.

What would be even worse is if any of our players are sold and the money isn't used to strengthen the squad, AND the money isn't used to accelerate the back pay owed. Now that surely couldn't happen?

If transfer money is received and it is all used for replacements and the back pay then I can understand splitting it, even though I still think that Mr Brent should have paid the staff the back pay already. Part and parcel of the deal to take over the club in my book.

funny man wrote:

Everyone gains.

Not if he builds inappropriately in the park, they don't.

I don't understand how anyone can be surprised if little cash is spent on the squad or, if the opportunity to sell a player arose it would not be taken. I cannot recall reading anything said by Brent about buckets of cash. He is a businessman and it has always been part and parcel of the purchase of this club that he will be involved in development in Central Park. The deal was laid out for all to see and people were pleading with him to get involved and save Argyle thus accepting his offers unconditionally. He has done what it says on the tin so far and there is no reason to believe he will not continue to do it. Why then any discontent? The only difference between him and Heaney is that he had the money to do the deal and Heaney didn't. Heaney's offer relied on development and the club would have been left to stand on it's own feet thereafter. Brent's offer was virtually the same if you look at it except he would not offload the club for a £1. I mean, what exactly did people not understand at the outset? Did they think he said he would not be investing millions only to change that a couple of weeks on and produce and oversized cheque book and start. Not very long ago people were almost suicidal about Argyle's chances of being saved at all and they then were proclaiming Brent as the second coming. Now the rumblings of discontent are beginning because he has kept to his word. I would say to folks that they should just lower their expectations to where they were before and accept that we are going to be recovering for a while yet before anyone can think of pushes for this or that. Brent may have become a fan himself now as has been said on PASOTI a load of times. I don't know the guy so have no idea. One thing is for sure however, he was a businessman before Argyle and will always be a businessman long after his involvement with PAFC has come to an end. Businessman first and reluctant owner of a football club a bit down the pecking order from that.

funny man wrote:

I don't know anyone who works for PCC. I know that Brent has so far done what he said he would do (whether I like what he has done or not is an irrelevance). He has had an interest in the development of Plymouth in the past - therefore it may be that, as he always said, he was a reluctant owner of the club and thought that it would contribute to Plymouth's development to keep Argyle in business. Simple. If he and his companies benefit through this either by making some money via the development of the stadium or through raising his business profile in the area enabling him to make money elsewhere in the region ..... well he's a businessman, that's what they do. There really may not be anything more sinister involved. Everyone gains.

Quite.

People seem to forget that the alternatives to Brent's benign hands off ownership were oblivion or (IMHO worse still) a system of duality involving an unreliable and frankly nuts private landlord and a football club chairman who would promise the earth but keep most of it for himself.

Presumably ending the year under AFC Ridsdale/Heaney peeps would be delighted that our silver tongued chairman was bigging up our January spending spree. No-one would be asking questions as to where the money was coming from and no-one would be giving a second thought to self sufficiency.

Thank god that smoke, mirrors, promises and lies didn't win out I say. Thank god the worst by-product of standing on our own two feet are some ungrateful disgruntled internet messageboard contributors who STILL want to put the cart before the horse. Most importantly thank god no-one at Home Park will change the couse of fiscal prudence because of fans moaning this time.

penzancepirate wrote:

funny man wrote:

Everyone gains.

Not if he builds inappropriately in the park, they don't.

The sites he is after is Cottage Field and the Parks Dept land plus the site of the Pavilions, The new Pavilion with an ice ring to built on the upper car park and Cottage Field, his hotel on the Park dept land in Outland Rd, The land which he can use of the old Pavilion will be another hotel and students accommodation.

penzancepirate wrote:

funny man wrote:

Everyone gains.

Not if he builds inappropriately in the park, they don't.

Apart from that .....

Tgwu wrote:

penzancepirate wrote:

funny man wrote:

Everyone gains.

Not if he builds inappropriately in the park, they don't.

The sites he is after is Cottage Field and the Parks Dept land plus the site of the Pavilions, The new Pavilion with an ice ring to built on the upper car park and Cottage Field, his hotel on the Park dept land in Outland Rd, The land which he can use of the old Pavilion will be another hotel and students accommodation.

Is that a fact or an ATD "fact"?

But Smiffy, there's "massive cash investment", which I have never read or heard any fan request, or, there's sensible cash investment, which is something that all businesses undertake at times.

Tgwu wrote:

penzancepirate wrote:

funny man wrote:

Everyone gains.

Not if he builds inappropriately in the park, they don't.

The sites he is after is Cottage Field and the Parks Dept land plus the site of the Pavilions, The new Pavilion with an ice ring to built on the upper car park and Cottage Field, his hotel on the Park dept land in Outland Rd, The land which he can use of the old Pavilion will be another hotel and students accommodation.

Do you know he specifically, James Brent, is after these plots. This was a big part of the plan that Todd wanted, apart from the old Pavillions land thing. Todd wanted to build student accomodation blocks all over the park, and that was never going to be accepted.
I am quite aware Cottage Field was on the Council's original dvelopment plans for the whole Life Centre thing, but then changed somewhat when Todd wanted a new World Cup plan.
What I would find extroadinary is the Council agreeing to Brent having his hotel where Todd wanted his cinema complex. Student accomodation in Millbay ? quite possibly, certainly not in the park.
It's pretty obvious the Council have had discussions with others, including Heaney, to do with Central Park, Millbay and Derriford, that is public knowledge. The controversy would be what goes where. In all of this we have Colin Campbell Court that was supposed to be used for retail, that I now understand will quite likely be used for flats akin to those down in Millbay like the Cargo thing. And of course on top of that, we all know 'student accomodation' is the new lesser spec social housing and/or private flats of the future. The country is bursting to overflowingwith them, and many cities are finally beginning to call a halt.

X Isle wrote:

funny man wrote:

I don't know anyone who works for PCC. I know that Brent has so far done what he said he would do (whether I like what he has done or not is an irrelevance). He has had an interest in the development of Plymouth in the past - therefore it may be that, as he always said, he was a reluctant owner of the club and thought that it would contribute to Plymouth's development to keep Argyle in business. Simple. If he and his companies benefit through this either by making some money via the development of the stadium or through raising his business profile in the area enabling him to make money elsewhere in the region ..... well he's a businessman, that's what they do. There really may not be anything more sinister involved. Everyone gains.

Quite.

People seem to forget that the alternatives to Brent's benign hands off ownership were oblivion or (IMHO worse still) a system of duality involving an unreliable and frankly nuts private landlord and a football club chairman who would promise the earth but keep most of it for himself.

Presumably ending the year under AFC Ridsdale/Heaney peeps would be delighted that our silver tongued chairman was bigging up our January spending spree. No-one would be asking questions as to where the money was coming from and no-one would be giving a second thought to self sufficiency.

Thank god that smoke, mirrors, promises and lies didn't win out I say. Thank god the worst by-product of standing on our own two feet are some ungrateful disgruntled internet messageboard contributors who STILL want to put the cart before the horse. Most importantly thank god no-one at Home Park will change the couse of fiscal prudence because of fans moaning this time.

I AGREE

GOB wrote:

But Smiffy, there's "massive cash investment", which I have never read or heard any fan request, or, there's sensible cash investment, which is something that all businesses undertake at times.

Exactly.I've actually been reasonably content with James Brent so far,he has allowed the squad to be strengthened,with a corresponding improvement in results,good on him.I wouldn't expect there to be any massive signings in January,i recall the President stating awhile back that there would be some new blood,possibly involving the sale of Bhasera,all well and good,although i would really like to see the player sale/new blood scenario next summer,after relegation has been avoided.But as you say,businesses need investment-how would Mr Brent go about rejuvenating one of the failing hotels that i believe he specialises in? Leave it as it is? Cut the spending budget to lower levels? Of course not.Some people seem to think that running Argyle is akin to an episode of the Good Life,rather than trying to progress a professional football club.For the umpteenth and last time,this is what Brent actually said on completion of takeover;

"There is no ambition to chuck money at the club but this is a big club and we will provide the financial support that it needs to move back to the level at which it should perform"

I think that quote should be stickied to ensure that everyone is very clear on what Brent has said or hasn't said.There is no mention of "living within our means" or "self-suffiency" and,as far as i'm aware,the owner has not mentioned them is subsequent public comment.

Greenskin
I think we will see investment in new players, but not massive or indeed any transfer fees. I think the money will be invested into bringing folks in on wages. £200k has been bandied around various places. 2 or 3 good lower league players. Maybe one or two of the loanees being thanked and returned? Don't know, but looking forward to what January brings.
Anybody else going tomoz, see you at the Garden Gate.- last day of drinking for a month
Mike

A good post that Greenskin, and roughly how I see things..
We all know Brent was the best option on offer out of him and Heaney, not one person in the whole of Christendom thinks otherwise. But, I have to be honest here. It is only his partnership with the Council that swung my vote. If I was to take his Citibank credentials and property aspirations alone, I wouldn't want him anywhere near MY club and MY park and would have voted for liquidation and a new club under community ownership playing in the park a couple of leagues below where we are now.
As with all new owners, what is said before and after a sale can be two different things.
Brent has just said don't expect much, well, that's an easy one, nothing to live up to there. That will mean many fans who want an upturn in fortune will continue to stay away until some sort of investment is made, something that Brent obviously does when neccessary with all his other businesses.
Perhaps we should stop listening to the axis of ego who keep saying Brent "has got the bug". If annything raises expectations, it will be statements like that.

I quite like paying one's way, but there is a limit, there is such a thing as investment and there is the " I'll support the team to get back where they belong" routine. of Brent's. That does infer enough investment to get us up challenging for promotion places in L1, not floundering for seasons in the bottom half of L2. You can't have it both ways.
Years of McCauleyesque stasis will not be popular, and rightly so. If he has agreed to large debts hanging around the club's neck, that could be a problem, but of course, we don't hear any of that side of things, like we did with Heaney's supposed bid. Money is scarce and getting scarcer. Entertainment businesses need to raise their game to keep folk interested.

Brent was not the best offer going he was the "only" offer going as it was proved that Heaney didn't have a pot to piss in when it came to coughing up. The other offers we don't know much about so can only assume they were pretty much non starters without the details.

If I'm reading your comments rightly penzancepirate you are saying that Brent should invest a wedge despite what has been on record as his statements previously. He has always said as I recall that there will be no pot of gold even if that is vague and no amount has been stated. That says to me this is no quick fix. You are therefore advocating that he should now anti up to do what exactly? Satisfy your need to be entertained at his expense with no guarantee that you will turn up or it will be successful. Why exactly should he do that then?

To bring in a couple of more expensive players who presumably would be of the class you desire would mean paying the wages to make it happen. There is a limit impossed by the football league on how much a club can spend on wages in this league which is a percentage of it's income. What happens if he exceeds that and you don't turn up to bridge the gap along with a thousand or two others? Are there penalties like points deductions or fines. I don't know the answer to that one but assume there are penalties and neither of those are much good to us either. I have never understood why anyone would expect somebody else to stump up their money for their benefit. It's chicken and egg as it has always been. Which one comes first, the fans show their support by coming in their droves making investment more likely and assured or the investment first in the hope enough come to pay for it. If it was you paying the bills which one would you choose baring in mind you would be the one to lose out if you got it wrong. How easy it is to spend others money when there is no comeback. Maybe I've been doing this Argyle supporter thing for too long and am brainwashed into the prudent Argyle way and not having loads of money but I know which one I would want them to follow. We have tried spending loads and it failed so I am happy to sit back and let it take the time it needs and my club not go back to the brink once more.

funny man wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

penzancepirate wrote:

funny man wrote:

Everyone gains.

Not if he builds inappropriately in the park, they don't.

The sites he is after is Cottage Field and the Parks Dept land plus the site of the Pavilions, The new Pavilion with an ice ring to built on the upper car park and Cottage Field, his hotel on the Park dept land in Outland Rd, The land which he can use of the old Pavilion will be another hotel and students accommodation.

Is that a fact or an ATD "fact"?

Put the question to Mrs Viv Pengelly