Brent's party on 14th

Tiberius wrote:

This is the big society in action, getting the public to provide or pay for services that they have a right to expect as a citizen or Argyle supporter in this case. I wouldn't have batted an eyelid had there been a missive requesting that the supporters pay part of Darren Purse's wages.

I expect the trust to become some sort of community outreach body, whereas most normal clubs employ a communities officer to do that sort of thing.

The more I see of Brent, the more hands off I think he is going to be, except where the bits of the club he wants are concerned of course!

I agree with you Tiberius 100%.
This is exactly where we are headed. I have complained of Peter Ridsdale's big society since March when it was quite clear to me the way things were going, and everything James Brent has said so far indicates a CEO, that was going to be Ridsdale, and eveything else run by 'volunteers and 'charitable' donation, headed up by guess who. It will be a disgrace if it happens, formerly paid posts being taken up by volunteers with time on their hands.
How greedy can some people get ..... all the profitable possibilities have now been stripped from the football side by a succession of wealthy men, James Brent being the latest, the one thing that is not profitable, the expensive rebuild of the stadium, is to be passed back to the Council to fund, and Nool and ghoul are already trying to start up teenage Cameron Youth groups. Is James Brent a modern day Baden Powell looking for a gong from Cameron ?

nothing wrong with fan involvment, but let's make it democratic and lets pay people for doing the work ... it's a private company. Of course, I have been suspicious for a long time that 'charitable' ruses are being planned, with the Green Taverners lnot exactly helping matters.

Dougie .... if you read this thread, you quoted something from Pasoti a few days ago about Mr President or someone saying this Ultra thing could be under the umbrella of a Cameron inspired "keep the yoof off the streets" a sort of give 'em a flag rather than a job. Could you possibly point me in the right direction of that thgread on Pasoti .... I have a feeling there is a big story to be had in all this, possibly far wider than just Argyle.

penzancepirate wrote:

Dougie .... if you read this thread, you quoted something from Pasoti a few days ago about Mr President or someone saying this Ultra thing could be under the umbrella of a Cameron inspired "keep the yoof off the streets" a sort of give 'em a flag rather than a job. Could you possibly point me in the right direction of that thgread on Pasoti .... I have a feeling there is a big story to be had in all this, possibly far wider than just Argyle.

You have tweaked my curiosity Pirate?

Thats the problem with the words 'Charity' and 'Community', they sound nice and postive but can be used to sweeten the pill.

I'd like to know how much of his own money Brent is directing towards the football club, I really would. At least he said at the outset that he'd be an alternative to liquidation.

penzancepirate wrote:

Dougie .... if you read this thread, you quoted something from Pasoti a few days ago about Mr President or someone saying this Ultra thing could be under the umbrella of a Cameron inspired "keep the yoof off the streets" a sort of give 'em a flag rather than a job. Could you possibly point me in the right direction of that thgread on Pasoti .... I have a feeling there is a big story to be had in all this, possibly far wider than just Argyle.

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

The bit I quoted earlier is part way down the page linked above.

Quote :

the key point here is that James Brent see's supporting FV1886 as the Club supporting the younger supporters organising properly and perhaps giving them something to look forward to in an age where its not too easy for them to find jobs / careers etc but rather easier to take wrong turns.

GOB wrote:

penzancepirate wrote:

Dougie .... if you read this thread, you quoted something from Pasoti a few days ago about Mr President or someone saying this Ultra thing could be under the umbrella of a Cameron inspired "keep the yoof off the streets" a sort of give 'em a flag rather than a job. Could you possibly point me in the right direction of that thgread on Pasoti .... I have a feeling there is a big story to be had in all this, possibly far wider than just Argyle.

You have tweaked my curiosity Pirate?

Too right Gob. I'm googling and sniffing as we speak, but would love a quote from one of Mr President's mouthings. I detect a possible bit of social engineering here that might be very interesting indeed .... it really is wierd how Mr Webb has taken so actively with this Flag, Drum and shorts thing, with thousands of pounds immediately available, that has never happened before. There has to be a reason other than "Home Park is boring" ... one would have thought there were more pressing matters.
Perhaps someone could ask him on Pasoti, as I don't think he'll be answering any questions on here soon after his latest baffoonery.
I think he needs to be pinned down on this.... and Brent.

The trust must distance themselves from Webb, he has got what he wanted (reluctantly where I have I heard that before) his ego is getting bigger by the day, you will see the clique all gathered together on the 14th and no doubt Webb will be m/c, prancing about on stage, I wonder if he will use his son to make a point, like he did at the last supporters meeting.

Dougie wrote:

penzancepirate wrote:

Dougie .... if you read this thread, you quoted something from Pasoti a few days ago about Mr President or someone saying this Ultra thing could be under the umbrella of a Cameron inspired "keep the yoof off the streets" a sort of give 'em a flag rather than a job. Could you possibly point me in the right direction of that thgread on Pasoti .... I have a feeling there is a big story to be had in all this, possibly far wider than just Argyle.

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

The bit I quoted earlier is part way down the page linked above.

Quote :

the key point here is that James Brent see's supporting FV1886 as the Club supporting the younger supporters organising properly and perhaps giving them something to look forward to in an age where its not too easy for them to find jobs / careers etc but rather easier to take wrong turns.

I wondered about that too. Never seen any mention of this anywhere else?

Please don't let these facts get in the way of a good moan but:

1. The staff haven't been paid what they owed yet PP - that is why the fundraising continues.
2. There were 9 CPers. Chris is now President. Ian Newell seems to have the ear of James Brent and Peter Jones may or may not be on the New Board. The rest of us have no interest in playing any part on whatever the new Supporters representative group is going to be.

For my own part and as a member of the Trust, I fully agree that the Trust should be the only body to represent the fans views,

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Please don't let these facts get in the way of a good moan but:

1. The staff haven't been paid what they owed yet PP - that is why the fundraising continues.
2. There were 9 CPers. Chris is now President. Ian Newell seems to have the ear of James Brent and Peter Jones may or may not be on the New Board. The rest of us have no interest in playing any part on whatever the new Supporters representative group is going to be.

For my own part and as a member of the Trust, I fully agree that the Trust should be the only body to represent the fans views,

I bet you're not saying that it should be the only 'fan input' into the club, Damon ?
Are you really saying the Green Taverners and CPers should fall into line and put their input THROUGH the Trust ?
I don't think so somehow.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Please don't let these facts get in the way of a good moan but:

1. The staff haven't been paid what they owed yet PP - that is why the fundraising continues.
2. There were 9 CPers. Chris is now President. Ian Newell seems to have the ear of James Brent and Peter Jones may or may not be on the New Board. The rest of us have no interest in playing any part on whatever the new Supporters representative group is going to be.

For my own part and as a member of the Trust, I fully agree that the Trust should be the only body to represent the fans views,

Frightening, and quite comical at the same time.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Please don't let these facts get in the way of a good moan but:

1. The staff haven't been paid what they owed yet PP - that is why the fundraising continues.
2. There were 9 CPers. Chris is now President. Ian Newell seems to have the ear of James Brent and Peter Jones may or may not be on the New Board. The rest of us have no interest in playing any part on whatever the new Supporters representative group is going to be.

For my own part and as a member of the Trust, I fully agree that the Trust should be the only body to represent the fans views,

My problem with this is why haven't the staff been paid yet? This should have been part and parcel of the takeover. Brent should have been made to pay the outstanding wages up front and then there would be no need for bucket rattling or shirt auctions. The people worshipping James Brent AMD having lunches with him ought to have campaigned for this in my opinion, but seem to love the adulation of charity work too much

penzancepirate wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Please don't let these facts get in the way of a good moan but:

1. The staff haven't been paid what they owed yet PP - that is why the fundraising continues.
2. There were 9 CPers. Chris is now President. Ian Newell seems to have the ear of James Brent and Peter Jones may or may not be on the New Board. The rest of us have no interest in playing any part on whatever the new Supporters representative group is going to be.

For my own part and as a member of the Trust, I fully agree that the Trust should be the only body to represent the fans views,

I bet you're not saying that it should be the only 'fan input' into the club, Damon ?
Are you really saying the Green Taverners and CPers should fall into line and put their input THROUGH the Trust ?
I don't think so somehow.

Firstly the CPers havent met as a Group since the day Brent took over. The life span of the CPers as a group ended the day the club came out of administration.
Secondly the Green Taverners do not and have never sought to represent anyone. We are a group of people who help raise money for the Club and the staff. You may think that is not right, many don't and I respect that opinion. I fully understand the argument that James has bought the Club, he should pay the staff. My own view is that I will continue to help people who helped keep our club alive. When the GTs talk to James it is merely to get the Clubs official OK to move forward with various fundraising events. And finally yes I am saying the Trust should be the only fan input into the Club.

greenjock wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Please don't let these facts get in the way of a good moan but:

1. The staff haven't been paid what they owed yet PP - that is why the fundraising continues.
2. There were 9 CPers. Chris is now President. Ian Newell seems to have the ear of James Brent and Peter Jones may or may not be on the New Board. The rest of us have no interest in playing any part on whatever the new Supporters representative group is going to be.

For my own part and as a member of the Trust, I fully agree that the Trust should be the only body to represent the fans views,

My problem with this is why haven't the staff been paid yet? This should have been part and parcel of the takeover. Brent should have been made to pay the outstanding wages up front and then there would be no need for bucket rattling or shirt auctions. The people worshipping James Brent AMD having lunches with him ought to have campaigned for this in my opinion, but seem to love the adulation of charity work too much

I fully understand and respect that position Greenjock. I have many friends who do not attend Fansfest because they are of the same opinion regarding James paying the staff. For my part I just wanted to help my former colleagues who have gone through hell to keep the club alive and I do what I can to ease their situation.

In James' defence he always said he was the bidder of last resort, with a limited budget to save the Club. His financial budgets simply did not allow for paying off the £3.5 million owed to players and staff - and the Football Creditors rule stopped the differentiating between players and staff. Once again I do have sympathy for your views on this.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Firstly the CPers havent met as a Group since the day Brent took over. The life span of the CPers as a group ended the day the club came out of administration.
Secondly the Green Taverners do not and have never sought to represent anyone. We are a group of people who help raise money for the Club and the staff. You may think that is not right, many don't and I respect that opinion. I fully understand the argument that James has bought the Club, he should pay the staff. My own view is that I will continue to help people who helped keep our club alive. When the GTs talk to James it is merely to get the Clubs official OK to move forward with various fundraising events. And finally yes I am saying the Trust should be the only fan input into the Club.

I have a problem with the term 'fund raising' that implies chatitable activity. It's not, receipts reduce the debts of the current owners. Why not call it sales receipts, because that's what it is, and if it were so described, I wouldn't have a problem.
There was another thread on this site that talked of the possibilty of volunteers like the GTs, and other 'initiatives, taking up the work of formerly paid posts at the club. That would be an appalling situation... an Argyle Big Society. this part of the world needs jobs, not voluntary euphemisms, while next door property matters take their inevitable course.

Chris Webb wrote:

Peggy wrote:

No it isn't. As I've stated a number of times before, the meeting is the equivalent of an employer recognising an independent trade union (the Trust), but then also setting up some kind of internal staff committee (whatever's going to be proposed next week) so as to play the two off each other.

Peggy, not for the first time, well wide of the mark.

1. When did the Club, 'recognise' the Trust?

2. The Trust have been FULLY involved in the talks ahead of the meeting on the 14th and have raised no issues.

3. How do you know what is going to be proposed two weeks ahead of the meeting when James Brent hasn't even finalised the agenda himself?

Chris

I think it's time I stuck my head above the ATD parapet and added to the debate. To that end, a question for Chris Webb:

If, as hinted in 1) above, the club is yet to 'recognise' the Trust, why then are the Trust FULLY involved in talks ahead of the club-organised meeting (see 2). Just asking...

Andy_Symons wrote:

I think it's time I stuck my head above the ATD parapet and added to the debate. To that end, a question for Chris Webb:

If, as hinted in 1) above, the club is yet to 'recognise' the Trust, why then are the Trust FULLY involved in talks ahead of the club-organised meeting (see 2). Just asking...

Ahem... How does one say this politely?

President Webb has flounced from this site (for the second time) and so is not available to take questions.

I suggest you post on Pasoti.

If Brent hadn't stated when he was first interested that he would pay the staff up front and in full, then I could understand the fund-raising. As it is, we've a collection of (hopefully) well intentioned people working for free, to help other people who worked for free, on behalf of a multi-millionaire who went back on his word. And no-one is batting an eyelid.

What are the GTs going to do when the staff are all paid up in 4-5 years time? Start getting paid by the club? Send some of their fund-raising towards the Trust in return for that £8k loan? Will people start getting bored in a couple of years when the staff have been paid back, say, 80%?

penzancepirate wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Firstly the CPers havent met as a Group since the day Brent took over. The life span of the CPers as a group ended the day the club came out of administration.
Secondly the Green Taverners do not and have never sought to represent anyone. We are a group of people who help raise money for the Club and the staff. You may think that is not right, many don't and I respect that opinion. I fully understand the argument that James has bought the Club, he should pay the staff. My own view is that I will continue to help people who helped keep our club alive. When the GTs talk to James it is merely to get the Clubs official OK to move forward with various fundraising events. And finally yes I am saying the Trust should be the only fan input into the Club.

I have a problem with the term 'fund raising' that implies chatitable activity. It's not, receipts reduce the debts of the current owners. Why not call it sales receipts, because that's what it is, and if it were so described, I wouldn't have a problem.
There was another thread on this site that talked of the possibilty of volunteers like the GTs, and other 'initiatives, taking up the work of formerly paid posts at the club. That would be an appalling situation... an Argyle Big Society. this part of the world needs jobs, not voluntary euphemisms, while next door property matters take their inevitable course.

OK - now we're just talking semantics PP. Yes I do call it raising funds - and yes the funds we are raising are reducing the debt of the owner by paying the staff monies owed faster than they would receive it. Is this a charitable act - yes - are we a 'registered charity' - no. But ask people who attend the Fansfest and I am sure that they will still attend even when debts are paid, because it's probably the best pre match entertainment ever offered at Home Park (or from the views of many away fans and fans of other clubs who have visited the best pre match anywhere).

And I haven't heard of any redundant full time roles that are being taken up by volunteers. I would be totally against that.

Mock Cuncher wrote:

If Brent hadn't stated when he was first interested that he would pay the staff up front and in full, then I could understand the fund-raising. As it is, we've a collection of (hopefully) well intentioned people working for free, to help other people who worked for free, on behalf of a multi-millionaire who went back on his word. And no-one is batting an eyelid.

What are the GTs going to do when the staff are all paid up in 4-5 years time? Start getting paid by the club? Send some of their fund-raising towards the Trust in return for that £8k loan? Will people start getting bored in a couple of years when the staff have been paid back, say, 80%?

MC - the football creditor rule states that all staff and other football creditors MUST be paid in full for the takeover to be given the green light by the Football League. The trouble is precedent had been set allowing this full payment to be made over a five year period. James has not gone back on his word. He has alweays intended to pay the staff all the money due, albeit over time.

When the staff are paid it is the intention of the GTs to continue raising money to help the youth team, the ladies team, and any other part of the club that needs financial assistance. We see ourselves as supporters who are supporting. As for people getting bored with what we do - if we do things right we will change what we are doing to keep things fresh and attractive for fans.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

And I haven't heard of any redundant full time roles that are being taken up by volunteers. I would be totally against that.

I'll remember that Damon. Of course, your hearing nothing means just that, but glad to hear you are against a Home Park big society ... we're all on alert for signs of Big Society feeders. And I assume you meant part time as well as full time jobs of course. A job is a job in this part of the world.

And I haven't heard of any redundant full time roles that are being taken up by volunteers. I would be totally against that.[/quote]

Just a matter of time methinks

penzancepirate wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

And I haven't heard of any redundant full time roles that are being taken up by volunteers. I would be totally against that.

I'll remember that Damon. Of course, your hearing nothing means just that, but glad to hear you are against a Home Park big society ... we're all on alert for signs of Big Society feeders. And I assume you meant part time as well as full time jobs of course. A job is a job in this part of the world.

Yes PP - I typed full time jobs but would feel the same way about part time jobs too.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

As for people getting bored with what we do - if we do things right we will change what we are doing to keep things fresh and attractive for fans.

Just make sure Chollwell gets his beloved Merlot.

Hey Damon,

While you're here.. I wondered what you thought about this comment?

"I'm not so sure that the GT's are that fussed about providing an away coach all of the time, as their fundraising has reached a different level these days, and Mark and Gary are, I know pushed for time etc."

Do you think they should provide one?