Time For a Boycott?

Brent's Avivafesting Argiggle, is an embarrassment.

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

God give me strength.

ejh wrote:

Iggy wrote:

ejh wrote:

Relative to what this club has gone through, the idea of a boycott now is pretty ridiculous.

Why are so many on here obsessed with regime change?

Are you serious? Mid table after three feckin years, the chairman is a feckin joke and couldn't run a piss up in a brewery, Brent out.
Boycott on along with six nations, fire lit, nice cuppa and I've still got £50 in my pocket that I wouldn't have if I went to the footy.

We have had a wobble but that was precipitated by a major defensive crisis (injuries to Hartley and Nelson), being beholden to parent clubs and loans (lengthy wrangles over O'Connor, Bobby Reid, Kellett), both aspects interfering with our difficult Christmas.

We now have 17 games with our solid defence back together, our midfield screen back in place and our important loans committed until the end of the season. 2 points is the gap we need to close.

Perhaps you need more constructive faculties to realise where a side is in the table isn't always the fairest reflection on a chairman (and only the chairman). Just as last week the lesson was that one goal didn't make Olly Lee the next Paul Gascoigne.

A vast percentage of clubs have a lot more to worry about than Argyle under Brent. The idea of some kind of protest is just embarrassing.

I don't mean to be condescending but are you old enough to remember Macauley's days? He got some proper shite at games, before and after them. Plenty of people used to barrack him in the directors box, I don't know of a single piece of criticism aimed at Brent before, during or after a match and he has got away really lightly. Sure you have to get any protest in perspective, does it represent the whole fanbase or just a portion but why shouldn't he get some shite? The chairman of any company will willingly take any plaudits for success, they should also take criticism. If we sterilise the family, football day experience any more it would stop me going altogether, we need more barracking not less.

Iggy wrote:

ejh wrote:

Iggy wrote:

ejh wrote:

Relative to what this club has gone through, the idea of a boycott now is pretty ridiculous.

Why are so many on here obsessed with regime change?

Are you serious? Mid table after three feckin years, the chairman is a feckin joke and couldn't run a piss up in a brewery, Brent out.
Boycott on along with six nations, fire lit, nice cuppa and I've still got £50 in my pocket that I wouldn't have if I went to the footy.

We have had a wobble but that was precipitated by a major defensive crisis (injuries to Hartley and Nelson), being beholden to parent clubs and loans (lengthy wrangles over O'Connor, Bobby Reid, Kellett), both aspects interfering with our difficult Christmas.

We now have 17 games with our solid defence back together, our midfield screen back in place and our important loans committed until the end of the season. 2 points is the gap we need to close.

Perhaps you need more constructive faculties to realise where a side is in the table isn't always the fairest reflection on a chairman (and only the chairman). Just as last week the lesson was that one goal didn't make Olly Lee the next Paul Gascoigne.

A vast percentage of clubs have a lot more to worry about than Argyle under Brent. The idea of some kind of protest is just embarrassing.

I don't mean to be condescending but are you old enough to remember Macauley's days? He got some proper shite at games, before and after them. Plenty of people used to barrack him in the directors box, I don't know of a single piece of criticism aimed at Brent before, during or after a match and he has got away really lightly. Sure you have to get any protest in perspective, does it represent the whole fanbase or just a portion but why shouldn't he get some shite? The chairman of any company will willingly take any plaudits for success, they should also take criticism. If we sterilise the family, football day experience any more it would stop me going altogether, we need more barracking not less.

Agree 120 per cent about the comparison between Brent and Macauley.
It's a point I have raised numerous times on here and none of the Brent lovers can answer it properly, I can still remember the heckling and barracking that came in Macauley's direction.
Red card protest's, turn around protests hell even that Slim from Pasoti sang and released a "go Danny go" recorded it on DVD and flogged it among the supporters.
Yet when it comes to Brent baiting he is almost untouchable, I think someone tried to unveil a 'Brent out' flag a short while ago and had the material promptly removed from the stadium.
It's bizarre.

Just playing devils advocate for a minute, i suppose one of the major differences between Dan and James Brent was that Dan took over a club which was actually in the second tier at the time but proceeded to oversee the decline of the club to a point where not only was the fourth division reached for the first time but an encore was enacted as well, mainly due his reluctance to let Warnock strengthen the team adequately, with the inevitable fall out. Brent took over a club which was as low as it could seemingly get-basically, any improvement from that has been regarded as a success. I'm not saying that attitude is right or that I agree with it but almost certainly that is the logic behind the lack of protest. There were common themes running through both reigns-an inability to get any serious infrastructure improvements [although I think Dan eventually did stump up some money for the horseshoe to be built] and mid table fourth division on field performances but the controversy that Dan seemed to court was also not in his favour when it came to getting people on his side. He fell out with Shilton, Warnock, the players, the press, the fans, other chairmen, the council-difficult to find someone he didn't fall out with actually. I'm no Brent fan but can see why he hasn't rubbed people up the wrong way a la Dan, he would appear to be much more of a diplomat and politician.

Brent doesn't need to fall out with anybodt; he has people who do that for him.

Besides "buy low, sell high" is good business.

As Greenskin says Argyle was at an all-time low when Brent bought in but, essentially, that was always likely to be a temporary status just as long as the then current crisis could be muddled through and relegation avoided. By swapping Reid for Fletcher the avoidance of relegation was achieved and from there it would take a sustained period of incompetence and/or negligence for a club like Argyle not to be able able to successfully compete (= avoid relegation) in this division.

And so it has come to pass. We are successfully competing (= avoiding relegation): last season rather more easily than a seemingly precarious final league position suggests; this season by some comfortable distance (so far).

Despite the years of mismanagement before Brent took over and the asset-stripping since Argyle is still a big fish in a small pond and will continue to be for as long as we stay in League 2. Eventually we'll get lucky and be promoted and when we are Brent's stake in the club will be worth more than it is now.

This will eventually happen and when it does Brent will suck up the glory just like McCauley did when he pranced around in his over-sized green top hat and the only thing likely to under-mine it is a hostile home crowd which is why he plays the bumbling, stuttering, affable, doing-the-best-he-can owner thing.

However the mask is slipping, as his recent tantrum in a council meeting has shown and, make no mistake, there'll be no more help from PCC either as long as Tudor remains i/c (which might only be until May, of course) of PCC and Brent remains i/c of Argyle.

Punchdrunk wrote:

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

God give me strength.

Picture 15 I hope tony hooper is in uproar about this. Hypocrites.

I note SFD and Greenskin do apply reasoned logical debate, rather than the usual "Brent out" "God give me strength" etc etc that gets trotted out time and time again.
As to why Brent gets it easier than Dan, I've no idea, but can I suggest that those that wish to storm the directors box or man the barricades etc use their motivational and management techniques to gather the throng and just get on with it, rather than wonder why nobody is.

The best Boycott and the most effective is just to stay away, who wants to pay 22 quid a game watching a team made up of short term loans playing shite football ?I like many others will happily pay the money to watch a team with ambition and a club going places... But under Brent and his cronies the club is only going downhill, he's making the club smaller and more Village with help from the usual self promoters. if thats what you want then fine, but count me and thousands of other potential fans out.

He gets a free ride because he bought the protection of nool and where's webby, by giving them the run of the place. The whole low grade bucket rattling, Avivafesting gang, just love the limelight and as long as he keeps them onside he is safe from any organised criticism.

He also gets a free ride because of the Mayflower being closed, he would have had loads of shite from the moanflower over Crimbo had it been open, I don't think he's done it deliberately to prevent vocal criticism but it has the same effect.

If Brent continues to own the club, it will only be a matter of time before he shuts the Devonport End as a " cost cutting measure", The superfans will no doubt blame the Plastics and apathetic plymouth public, not Green Jim.

Looked a bit sparse yesterday.

The Mayflower lot were a vicious bunch in the best sense of the word. No one from opposition managers, linesman, our own players being substituted, away fans, physios, pasty sellers to the directors above them were immune from there wrath. The Devonport End used to be were all the head cases and hard nut gathered but the gentile patrons on the Mayflower made sure that those who needed a bit a verbal abuse well and truly got it. So I agree with Iggy.

Hugh Watt wrote:

Punchdrunk wrote:

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

God give me strength.

Picture 15 I hope tony hooper is in uproar about this. Hypocrites.

Picture 14 ain't too clever either .

Greenlander wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

Punchdrunk wrote:

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

God give me strength.

Picture 15 I hope tony hooper is in uproar about this. Hypocrites.

Picture 14 ain't too clever either .

I meant 15

Iggy wrote:

ejh wrote:

Iggy wrote:

ejh wrote:

Relative to what this club has gone through, the idea of a boycott now is pretty ridiculous.

Why are so many on here obsessed with regime change?

Are you serious? Mid table after three feckin years, the chairman is a feckin joke and couldn't run a piss up in a brewery, Brent out.
Boycott on along with six nations, fire lit, nice cuppa and I've still got £50 in my pocket that I wouldn't have if I went to the footy.

We have had a wobble but that was precipitated by a major defensive crisis (injuries to Hartley and Nelson), being beholden to parent clubs and loans (lengthy wrangles over O'Connor, Bobby Reid, Kellett), both aspects in teetering with our difficult Christmas.

We now have 17 games with our solid defence back together, our midfield screen back in place and our important loans committed until the end of the season. 2 points is the gap we need to close.

Perhaps you need more constructive faculties to realise where a side is in the table isn't always the fairest reflection on a chairman (and only the chairman). Just as last week the lesson was that one goal didn't make Olly Lee the next Paul Gascoigne.

A vast percentage of clubs have a lot more to worry about than Argyle under Brent. The idea of some kind of protest is just embarrassing.

I don't mean to be condescending but are you old enough to remember Macauley's days? He got some proper shite at games, before and after them. Plenty of people used to barrack him in the directors box, I don't know of a single piece of criticism aimed at Brent before, during or after a match and he has got away really lightly. Sure you have to get any protest in perspective, does it represent the whole fanbase or just a portion but why shouldn't he get some shite? The chairman of any company will willingly take any plaudits for success, they should also take criticism. If we sterilise the family, football day experience any more it would stop me going altogether, we need more barracking not less.

McCauley's side was awful. Under Hodges we had hit our lowest point. With the likes of Terry Fleming in centre midfield, an old Sean McCarthy up front as our main striker, John Sheffield in goal etc.  we had much bleaker prospects on the field. Finishing bottom half in the old Division 3 season on season with among the division's highest attendances was absolutely tragic.

Now with Dan he was an utter arse of a human being, belligerent with his own managers, argumentative with supporters, a total 60s/70s throwback of a chairman. What was Paul Wotton's quote - something like, "the mood at the club was awful, I seriously considered quitting football to become a fireman". Manager after manager got the boot and the club was in decay.

With Argyle, I just don't see the current situation as anything like untenable. Brent inherited a debt crisis that wasn't  his doing. The club is doing what it can to address that step by step. Meanwhile we have a stable management, a good continuous improvement of the playing squad, increasing talent in the team with saleable assets such as Reid, Nelson, McHugh and Cox. The playing side is improving, but it is the limitations of the manager that is holding us back from being in contention for promotion - we all know this squad ought to be doing far better.

Everyone seems to believe it ought to be a doddle rocketing a club out of a division it shouldn't be in. Why are Portsmouth not winning the league with their attendances? Why did Luton spend most of a decade in non-league before getting the balance of their side right?

Other than sign good players, I am not really sure what else you expect James Brent to do.

Did you expect Lee Cox to sign in the summer permanently after being away for 18 months and held to ransom by Swindon?

Did you expect Reuben Reid to sign for us in the summer, with better financial deals on offer from Portsmouth and Bristol City?

Did you expect Banton to sign permanently when he did, from a Premier League club, after establishing a reputation for being unplayable at this level?

Did you expect to see O'Connor back after talks broke down both with Blackburn and the player for nearly a month?

Did you expect to see Bobby Reid back here, with Bristol City constantly wanting him back?

An incompetent, unambitious, apathetic owner wouldn't have sealed any of these deals. You have to pull your heads out of the negative vortex of cynicism and hatred and realise that as a football chairman, James Brent really isn't that bad. He does all he can relative to a realistic budget to get the players in the manager wants and the supporters pine for. The comparisons with Dan McCauley, who would refuse to sign the likes of Dean Kiely because he personally thought the bloke was crap, and would tell Warnock to #£*& off when he wanted something, is just another attempt to have Brent more hated than he is or deserves to be.

Aside from the HHP project, that gratefully died the death it deserved, what has been Brent's greatest crime against the football club? Is it his fault the demographic of the supporters doesn't fit the expectations you want? Is it his fault the fansfests are cringe worthy and unfunny, but are initiatives organised by supporters and attended by supporters? Is it Brent's fault Bristol City kept wanting Bobby Reid back, that O'Connor knows he is worth a League One contract next season, that Reuben is out of form, that Nelson and Hartley were injured simultaneously, or that Aaron Bentley made a two footed tackle that cost us a game?

I just really struggle to grasp the constant, endless moaning about Brent that permeates the majority of posts made on these boards every day, every week of every month for near enough the last three years.

Just to pick up on this section:

Quote :

Everyone seems to believe it ought to be a doddle rocketing a club out of a division it shouldn't be in. Why are Portsmouth not winning the league with their attendances? Why did Luton spend most of a decade in non-league before getting the balance of their side right?

I've never suggested that it'll be a doddle just that it will happen eventually - and it will. And it'll happen for both Luton and Pompey too, eventually. Similarly Bristol Rovers in the Conference.

Success (= promotion) at the level that Rovers, Pompey, Luton and ourselves are currently playing at is as nailed on as anything could ever be given a bit of time and something approaching careful, sensible, coherent management.

The trick here, for the owner concerned, is for the club to be promoted because of, not inspite of, their stewardship and for that to follow then proper budgets need to be set and adhered to (you'll hear no argument from me on that front). The fact is that Brent's previous budgeting, based on 8500 crowds, was as nonsensical as any set by any of the deadheads in charge before and has caused us to face repercussions that need never have been faced.

As for the assessment of our current players: I largely agree. The mystery is why we aren't doing better than we are and that doesn't lay wholly at Brent's door.

Brent out

Without quoting everything you said EJH you are the only one that thinks this squad should be doing better, the majority IMO think the squad is inadequate, we should be building a squad for life in league 1, the majority of our squad are "decent league 2 players" which is why we are where we are, over half of our squad would be out of thier depth in league 1.

They are what they are,mediocre league 2 players with a mediocre league 2 manager, and what do you get ?
A mediocre league 2 side that sits between mid table and the play off's..no shit Sherlock.

And this team is head and shoulders above Kevin Hodges/ Macauleys Argyle ejh ?!  My arse is it.

This squad is adequate for Div 2......and when they are playing well have proved that they could get us out of this division.......life in Div 1 is a different kettle of fish, needing new players to strengthen the squad......we have to live post-administration and do it with minimum funds.....keeping to the repayment of that debt.....which the FL oversee.

I think the last Hodges XI started at Torquay on November 14th 2000 (as memory suggests) and Greens On Screen gives this line-up:

John Hodges, Paul Wotton, Jon Beswetherick, Chris Leadbitter, Steve Adams, Craig Taylor, Martin Phillips, Martin Barlow, Sean McCarthy, Paul McGregor, Lee Phillips. Subs: Steve Guinan, Jason Peake, Kevin Wills.

The most recent Sheridan line-up was:

McCormick, Nelson, McHugh, Hartley, Mellor, Lee (Cox 70), Bobby Reid, O'Connor, Talbot, Alessandra, Reuben Reid (Brunt 89). Non-playing subs: Bittner, Purrington, Norburn, Flanagan.

I'd say the best XI from those two is:

McCormick, Mellor, Beswetherick, Taylor, Nelson, Hartley,  O'Connor, Ledbitter, Phillips, RReid, McGregor.

So that's 6-5 in favour of Sheridan's mob.

Not exactly conclusive that either squad is better but more suggestive that they are much the same.

ejh wrote:

Iggy wrote:

ejh wrote:

Iggy wrote:

ejh wrote:

Relative to what this club has gone through, the idea of a boycott now is pretty ridiculous.

Why are so many on here obsessed with regime change?

Are you serious? Mid table after three feckin years, the chairman is a feckin joke and couldn't run a piss up in a brewery, Brent out.
Boycott on along with six nations, fire lit, nice cuppa and I've still got £50 in my pocket that I wouldn't have if I went to the footy.

We have had a wobble but that was precipitated by a major defensive crisis (injuries to Hartley and Nelson), being beholden to parent clubs and loans (lengthy wrangles over O'Connor, Bobby Reid, Kellett), both aspects in teetering with our difficult Christmas.

We now have 17 games with our solid defence back together, our midfield screen back in place and our important loans committed until the end of the season. 2 points is the gap we need to close.

Perhaps you need more constructive faculties to realise where a side is in the table isn't always the fairest reflection on a chairman (and only the chairman). Just as last week the lesson was that one goal didn't make Olly Lee the next Paul Gascoigne.

A vast percentage of clubs have a lot more to worry about than Argyle under Brent. The idea of some kind of protest is just embarrassing.

I don't mean to be condescending but are you old enough to remember Macauley's days? He got some proper shite at games, before and after them. Plenty of people used to barrack him in the directors box, I don't know of a single piece of criticism aimed at Brent before, during or after a match and he has got away really lightly. Sure you have to get any protest in perspective, does it represent the whole fanbase or just a portion but why shouldn't he get some shite? The chairman of any company will willingly take any plaudits for success, they should also take criticism. If we sterilise the family, football day experience any more it would stop me going altogether, we need more barracking not less.

McCauley's side was awful. Under Hodges we had hit our lowest point. With the likes of Terry Fleming in centre midfield, an old Sean McCarthy up front as our main striker, John Sheffield in goal etc.  we had much bleaker prospects on the field. Finishing bottom half in the old Division 3 season on season with among the division's highest attendances was absolutely tragic.

Now with Dan he was an utter arse of a human being, belligerent with his own managers, argumentative with supporters, a total 60s/70s throwback of a chairman. What was Paul Wotton's quote - something like, "the mood at the club was awful, I seriously considered quitting football to become a fireman". Manager after manager got the boot and the club was in decay.

With Argyle, I just don't see the current situation as anything like untenable. Brent inherited a debt crisis that wasn't  his doing. The club is doing what it can to address that step by step. Meanwhile we have a stable management, a good continuous improvement of the playing squad, increasing talent in the team with saleable assets such as Reid, Nelson, McHugh and Cox. The playing side is improving, but it is the limitations of the manager that is holding us back from being in contention for promotion - we all know this squad ought to be doing far better.

Everyone seems to believe it ought to be a doddle rocketing a club out of a division it shouldn't be in. Why are Portsmouth not winning the league with their attendances? Why did Luton spend most of a decade in non-league before getting the balance of their side right?

Other than sign good players, I am not really sure what else you expect James Brent to do.

Did you expect Lee Cox to sign in the summer permanently after being away for 18 months and held to ransom by Swindon?

Did you expect Reuben Reid to sign for us in the summer, with better financial deals on offer from Portsmouth and Bristol City?

Did you expect Banton to sign permanently when he did, from a Premier League club, after establishing a reputation for being unplayable at this level?

Did you expect to see O'Connor back after talks broke down both with Blackburn and the player for nearly a month?

Did you expect to see Bobby Reid back here, with Bristol City constantly wanting him back?

An incompetent, unambitious, apathetic owner wouldn't have sealed any of these deals. You have to pull your heads out of the negative vortex of cynicism and hatred and realise that as a football chairman, James Brent really isn't that bad. He does all he can relative to a realistic budget to get the players in the manager wants and the supporters pine for. The comparisons with Dan McCauley, who would refuse to sign the likes of Dean Kiely because he personally thought the bloke was crap, and would tell Warnock to #£*& off when he wanted something, is just another attempt to have Brent more hated than he is or deserves to be.

Aside from the HHP project, that gratefully died the death it deserved, what has been Brent's greatest crime against the football club? Is it his fault the demographic of the supporters doesn't fit the expectations you want? Is it his fault the fansfests are cringe worthy and unfunny, but are initiatives organised by supporters and attended by supporters? Is it Brent's fault Bristol City kept wanting Bobby Reid back, that O'Connor knows he is worth a League One contract next season, that Reuben is out of form, that Nelson and Hartley were injured simultaneously, or that Aaron Bentley made a two footed tackle that cost us a game?

I just really struggle to grasp the constant, endless moaning about Brent that permeates the majority of posts made on these boards every day, every week of every month for near enough the last three years.

Agree with none of that, the loans farce was down to brent he knew when they were ending, Nothing to do with "hating Brent" as you put it, Brents budget is suppose to be the ninth best in this division whys that? The club is mid table going nowhere stuffed full with journey men and short term loans, Brent has failed the club miserably imo, time for him to sell up, despite what his fans will say there will always be people interested in buying Plymouth Argyle the fans who still go deserve better than Brent.

Tringreen wrote:

Brent's Avivafesting Argiggle, is an embarrassment.

I know a few who go over to the fests before a game.

I have Never been to a fest as yet, i much prefer to stand under the Lyndhurst and have a pasty and a pint [or a coffee].