Brent laments Argyle budget

Bogsider wrote:

then Sky released that a lot of people would pay good money to watch it and things were never the same again.

That's the worst bit, imho. With their intervention, football stopped being something you go to and became something you watch on telly. Hence all the plastic 'supporters' of clubs they've never been to and the drop in attendance at local matches. Hence all the 'experts'. And hence all the rest.

Not long before he left, I had the pleasure of meeting Paul Mariner and spending a bit of time with him (and getting a hug ). Nattering about the 70s, he told me that when he signed on for Argyle he took a pay cut compared to the engineering job he'd been offered at the end of his apprenticeship. If only that comparison could be made today.

Still, at least some of us had the pleasure of being around when football was real. And muddy

I have been saying for some years now that football can't go on the way it is now with ever spiralling wages for players and therefore ticket prices which are eye watering for 90 minutes of entertainment.

Something has got to give, perhaps someone like Roman Abramovich thinking he's had enough and dumping Chelsea.

At my first Argyle matches I watched the likes of Jimmy Gould and Wilf Carter who more than likely arrived at hp on the bus

Good grief I feel an aviva moment coming on COYG

I posted this on The Trust forum on pasoti - part of an ongoing discussion with Tony Cholwell:

"My own view of the Trust is coloured by my dissatisfaction at how football is progressing in this country. On the one hand are the big boys funded by fabulously rich backers. I have concerns that as their interest dwindles they will withdraw. At that point football at the top end will be left high and dry and it will have a knock-on effect throughout the league. At the bottom end are the clubs such as us (and the "bottom end" goes up quite a way) who are in deep financial doo-doo. It can only get worse in my view. One way to ameliorate this process is to engage the fans in the running of their club. By increasing its community profile you will not only increase its potential supporters but also set up fire-walls to prevent take-overs by outside bodies or individuals who really don't see the football as their target. (Incidentally, I was amused to read somewhere recently of a supporters group who were enabled to purchase the centre circle in order to prevent any future developer buying in to make a killing by purchasing prime building site. Apocryphal? I don't know but an interesting idea anyway). To this end, I see the linking of Trusts would be an important step in giving them a stronger voice."

In my view the jury is still out on James Brent. I like what he has done so far but a football club is for life not just Xmas. If he manages both his avowed intention to run a club with honesty, integrity and all round niceness whilst still managing a degree of success on the field and financial stability off it then he will be important not just for Argyle but for the wider football community. Let's see.......

dr wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

Moist_Von_Lipwig wrote:

The "legacy" equates to the "staff debt"?

If so, and we have cash available, then pay it off more quickly!

Or have I completely misinterpreted the article?

I think the article is almost intentionally left open to individual interpretation. If it isn't, then it's a piss-poor piece.

Gob has it right about the wage cap. Nothing is 'set in stone' in terms of the League enforcing anything.

Playing the wage cap card, is very much a flag of convenience that can be rolled out whenever Brent feels like it.

but cannot the fl place another embargo on us if they deem some dealings as dangerous?
Granted,its not law but we do operate under a law, the football league laws

The only thing the football league care(d) about, in real terms, was our ability to fulfill fixtures.

We have a new owner. We aren't in any danger whatsoever of a multi-million pound meltdown any more.

If the League didn't want to leave the door ajar, then there would be an immediate closure of any possible funding loopholes (stadium sponsorship etc)

The fact that they don't, says it all.

knecht wrote:

One of the big things that Brent pushed at the Guildhall meeting was "integrity, honesty & so on" (can't remember the full mantra). Good for him! There may be "ways to get around all this" but I'm for integrity, honesty etc. I think in the not so distant future the edifice of dodgy dealings, sugar-daddies and the bubble of Premiership football will run aground. When that happens, there will be many more clubs ion our recent position. I hope Brent's stance at that point will be shown to be the right one. As long as we don't get relegated abloodygain!

I don't understand pp's figures. I'm not a numbers man. (Or as my daughters say to me ' I don't count ). I'll go away with something bigger than a fag-packet and have a look. And what on earth is the Vera Duckworth method!? Sounds like a way of not getting pregnant whilst watching tv soaps.

I presume Brent's "integrity, honesty & so on" didn't include sacking the manager before the Club came out of Admin so that his compo would then be part of the Football Debt that was "negotiated" down from Paid in full at once to paid in dribs and drabs over five years, with anyone not "voluntarily agreeing" to the latter being threatened with being personally and publicly held responsible for the demise of PAFC . Or holding a financial gun to the head of some creditors on the same basis (i.e. Accept what I offer or I'll let the Club folds)


Some people only seem to want to play by the rules when it suits them.

knecht wrote:

In my view the jury is still out on James Brent. I like what he has done so far

But it's all soft soap so far. What has he actually done ? Some of his speeches, just like the initial Trust rhetoric, have been fine, but I've seen little evidence of it in reality.
He's decided to pay the employees 50% of their wages over 5 years, is pushing along a possibly dodgy Ultra thing for some wierd reason,
he's spent virtually no money, he's taken 3 months just to get a board of directors in, has allowed a pair of divisive characters loose on the club without even bothering to have a CEO, and now he's saying it's all the league's fault he's not spending money. Apart from Ant and Dec, it sounds like Heaney.

chriswebbfanclub wrote:

knecht wrote:

One of the big things that Brent pushed at the Guildhall meeting was "integrity, honesty & so on" (can't remember the full mantra). Good for him! There may be "ways to get around all this" but I'm for integrity, honesty etc. I think in the not so distant future the edifice of dodgy dealings, sugar-daddies and the bubble of Premiership football will run aground. When that happens, there will be many more clubs ion our recent position. I hope Brent's stance at that point will be shown to be the right one. As long as we don't get relegated abloodygain!

I don't understand pp's figures. I'm not a numbers man. (Or as my daughters say to me ' I don't count ). I'll go away with something bigger than a fag-packet and have a look. And what on earth is the Vera Duckworth method!? Sounds like a way of not getting pregnant whilst watching tv soaps.

I presume Brent's "integrity, honesty & so on" didn't include sacking the manager before the Club came out of Admin so that his compo would then be part of the Football Debt that was "negotiated" down from Paid in full at once to paid in dribs and drabs over five years, with anyone not "voluntarily agreeing" to the latter being threatened with being personally and publicly held responsible for the demise of PAFC . Or holding a financial gun to the head of some creditors on the same basis (i.e. Accept what I offer or I'll let the Club folds)


Some people only seem to want to play by the rules when it suits them.

An interesting theory regarding why Reid was sacked. You may be right. You may not. The suggestion at the time was that "it is a results game" and he simply wasn't getting the results. It is a results game and he wasn't getting the results.

The threats to hold people responsible for the club's demise came from the good folk on pasoti and allegedly from Ridsdale in a private conversation with an ex-director.

Brent said all along what his terms would be and he stuck to them. He could only offer the paltry deal that he did to the ordinary staff because it had to match that being paid to other, more highly-paid staff and that would have been exhorbitant. At that point it really was "take this offer or nothing".

I may have qualms about the process so far - and I have expressed them, specifically about the role of a multi-millionnairre having oodles of personal and business money, whilst staff are not immediately paid what they are owed - but, in societal terms that's where we are. Whilst I would love there to be a People's Republic of Britain where each receives according to their needs and gives according to their abilities, it ain't gonna happen! We have to work with what we have and what we have got is a man who, since he has taken over, has delivered on his promises.

knecht wrote:

chriswebbfanclub wrote:

knecht wrote:

One of the big things that Brent pushed at the Guildhall meeting was "integrity, honesty & so on" (can't remember the full mantra). Good for him! There may be "ways to get around all this" but I'm for integrity, honesty etc. I think in the not so distant future the edifice of dodgy dealings, sugar-daddies and the bubble of Premiership football will run aground. When that happens, there will be many more clubs ion our recent position. I hope Brent's stance at that point will be shown to be the right one. As long as we don't get relegated abloodygain!

I don't understand pp's figures. I'm not a numbers man. (Or as my daughters say to me ' I don't count ). I'll go away with something bigger than a fag-packet and have a look. And what on earth is the Vera Duckworth method!? Sounds like a way of not getting pregnant whilst watching tv soaps.

I presume Brent's "integrity, honesty & so on" didn't include sacking the manager before the Club came out of Admin so that his compo would then be part of the Football Debt that was "negotiated" down from Paid in full at once to paid in dribs and drabs over five years, with anyone not "voluntarily agreeing" to the latter being threatened with being personally and publicly held responsible for the demise of PAFC . Or holding a financial gun to the head of some creditors on the same basis (i.e. Accept what I offer or I'll let the Club folds)


Some people only seem to want to play by the rules when it suits them.

An interesting theory regarding why Reid was sacked. You may be right. You may not. The suggestion at the time was that "it is a results game" and he simply wasn't getting the results. It is a results game and he wasn't getting the results.

The threats to hold people responsible for the club's demise came from the good folk on pasoti and allegedly from Ridsdale in a private conversation with an ex-director.

Brent said all along what his terms would be and he stuck to them. He could only offer the paltry deal that he did to the ordinary staff because it had to match that being paid to other, more highly-paid staff and that would have been exhorbitant. At that point it really was "take this offer or nothing".

I may have qualms about the process so far - and I have expressed them, specifically about the role of a multi-millionnairre having oodles of personal and business money, whilst staff are not immediately paid what they are owed - but, in societal terms that's where we are. Whilst I would love there to be a People's Republic of Britain where each receives according to their needs and gives according to their abilities, it ain't gonna happen! We have to work with what we have and what we have got is a man who, since he has taken over, has delivered on his promises.

Yes..... but he seems to see the Gruesome Twosome as his links to the fanbase. Therefore he is either badly misguided or a tw@t !

penzancepirate wrote:

knecht wrote:

In my view the jury is still out on James Brent. I like what he has done so far

But it's all soft soap so far. What has he actually done ? Some of his speeches, just like the initial Trust rhetoric, have been fine, but I've seen little evidence of it in reality.
He's decided to pay the employees 50% of their wages over 5 years, is pushing along a possibly dodgy Ultra thing for some wierd reason,
he's spent virtually no money, he's taken 3 months just to get a board of directors in, has allowed a pair of divisive characters loose on the club without even bothering to have a CEO, and now he's saying it's all the league's fault he's not spending money. Apart from Ant and Dec, it sounds like Heaney.

It may be soft soap. In my experience, lots of businessmen and "leaders" specialise in the that. But that doesn't stop much of it being true in this instance. Whilst I have prejudices (and I suspect that many of them are the same as yours), my preferred mode is to trust until proven wrong - though I try to keep my radar going. It's got me into trouble in the past but I just think that's a better way.

He is paying back wages over the 5 year period. This was a necessity as to pay ordinary people back what they were owed at a quicker rate than the higher earners wouldn't have been allowed by the Players' Union and the League (not completely sure about the League's position). At that point, paying back the significantly higher wages of the players at a higher rate would have meant it not being possible to take on the club.

The "possibly dodgy Ultra thing" (I note your get-out clause of "possibly") - I wonder how people at the age you and I are now would have looked at us in the Devonport back in "the good old day"? I don't like the feel of forza verde but, then I'm a boring old fart who would like to stop young people expressing themselves in the way they do nowadays. Yes, I know that their leader is a grown man who appears to be getting off on it but maybe once it gets going he will step back and allow the young fans to make it or break it on their own as it should be.

Like you, I would very much like to know exactly how much Mr Brent has spent, what risk he is taking. Nobody appears to know and nobody is allowed to ask. I would eventually be more interested in how much he spends on Argyle when contrasted how much he makes by the development of the site. But he is a businessman, not a fan, and businessmen are always in it to make money. That's their job. I want to see revealed any disproportionate difference between outlay and profit.

I assume that the two "divisive characters" you refer to are the President and Mr Newell. I can see the President being let loose at Argyle but I really don't see Mr Newell having a free run or having any direct influence (except over pasoti). If Mr Brent actually has allowed Mr Newell any significant role, I will take back all the good things I have said about him!

And, pp, maybe he's "saying it's all the league's fault he's not spending money" because it's true.

knecht wrote:

And, pp, maybe he's "saying it's all the league's fault he's not spending money" because it's true.

That's just playing the heaney game ... remember what Bil said as soon as they hooked their fish ? ...... we didn't realise we were liable for the employees wages !! .......pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease... behave.
James Brent must have known darn well what the wage and cap situation was, and the negotiations held with the league must have rammed home the situation. He can't now, months later, start playing that routine. I'm sorry, that's just bullshit.
If you turn what is in effect a purchase debt of £3.5m into a current wages liability aginst the club's current earnings, then he should expect it to be taken as .... you guessed it, wages.
If he is complaining that the League are hampering his attempts of stopping our relegation, then he should have paid off their debts, and given himself a free hand. But it ws decided secured creditors came first, i would imagine, and we all know who they were.

Brent clearly used a couple of gullible people to help him beat down the price in a number of ways:

1. By getting them to repeatedly say he was the best choice without saying why.

2.By saying that there were no other options.

3. By whipping up support against anyone else who even enquired about buying Argyle

4. By the two gullibles constantly and repeatedly taking every media opportunity to portray themselves as "the voice of the fans".

By means such as this and others mentioned in my previous comment, Brent has clearly got the Club at a price far below what any other prospective buyers would have expected to pay (The discount he "negotiated" with P & A would probably have been enough to pay three or four decent transfer fees at this level)

I've got no problem with him getting the best deal he can, but the lack of or slow pace at which any improvements in the structure of the club have taken place does give me concerns about what his ultimate intentions and motives are.

Three months to appoint 3 board members, when one of them was virtually begging for the position?

No senior executive officer running things when Brent knew from the start that PR wasn't staying?

The whole mentor fiasco!

chriswebbfanclub wrote:

Brent clearly used a couple of gullible people to help him beat down the price in a number of ways:

1. By getting them to repeatedly say he was the best choice without saying why.

2.By saying that there were no other options.

3. By whipping up support against anyone else who even enquired about buying Argyle

4. By the two gullibles constantly and repeatedly taking every media opportunity to portray themselves as "the voice of the fans".

By means such as this and others mentioned in my previous comment, Brent has clearly got the Club at a price far below what any other prospective buyers would have expected to pay (The discount he "negotiated" with P & A would probably have been enough to pay three or four decent transfer fees at this level)

I've got no problem with him getting the best deal he can, but the lack of or slow pace at which any improvements in the structure of the club have taken place does give me concerns about what his ultimate intentions and motives are.

Three months to appoint 3 board members, when one of them was virtually begging for the position?

No senior executive officer running things when Brent knew from the start that PR wasn't staying?

The whole mentor fiasco!

A lot of the points you mention here really do well to sum up Brents in-experience of running a football club, very poor indeed. I also agree, the fact it took him 3 months to appoint 3 board members is an absolute joke.

The fans meeting, the joining the fans in the devonport are all designed to cover up the fact that we are failing in the transfer window, and offcourse the whole mentor fiasco as you say.

Brent is trying to keep people on his side, its not hard to brainwash pasoti

Sorry, but the message is that the League's requirement of a 55% cap on wages against income is what has held up further significant signings. As we neither know nor fully understand how that cap operates or the sorts of wages we are currently paying on full or loan signings (both by Argyle for players coming in as well as by clubs we have made loans to) then surely we are unable to make absolute comments. What is your experience of how long it takes to get in top quality board members for a football club. And I assume it was known well in advance of their unveiling at The Guildhall.

On the other hand, I don't know how this works either.

The timespan for the new Board is not just the three months since the takeover. It must also include the time leading up to that takeover.

I find it disturbing/hard to believe that, all the time the gullible brothers were saying "It's got to be Brent, he's the only one etc." Brent himself was sitting back and thinking "Well if I buy this football club, who am I going to get to run it. No, I'll not worry about that till after I've done the deal"

It's things like this that give me serious doubts about the way the club is being run.

chriswebbfanclub wrote:

The timespan for the new Board is not just the three months since the takeover. It must also include the time leading up to that takeover.

I find it disturbing/hard to believe that, all the time the gullible brothers were saying "It's got to be Brent, he's the only one etc." Brent himself was sitting back and thinking "Well if I buy this football club, who am I going to get to run it. No, I'll not worry about that till after I've done the deal"

It's things like this that give me serious doubts about the way the club is being run.

Well said!

Those that helped bring us to our knees may well soon play a much bigger part in our demise should we be relegated.

penzancepirate wrote:

knecht wrote:

And, pp, maybe he's "saying it's all the league's fault he's not spending money" because it's true.

That's just playing the heaney game ... remember what Bil said as soon as they hooked their fish ? ...... we didn't realise we were liable for the employees wages !! .......pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease... behave.
James Brent must have known darn well what the wage and cap situation was, and the negotiations held with the league must have rammed home the situation. He can't now, months later, start playing that routine. I'm sorry, that's just bullshit.
If you turn what is in effect a purchase debt of £3.5m into a current wages liability aginst the club's current earnings, then he should expect it to be taken as .... you guessed it, wages.
If he is complaining that the League are hampering his attempts of stopping our relegation, then he should have paid off their debts, and given himself a free hand. But it ws decided secured creditors came first, i would imagine, and we all know who they were.

Where is there any evidence that Brent looked upon the secured creditors favourably?

Obviously their debts were near the top of the pile once the club went into administration but that is simply because, by definition, they were secured.

I don't think there is any reason to assume that their owings were paid in full and given that their choice was take what is on offer or take nothing then why wouldn't they agree a deal?

What did the council pay for Home Park? Wasn't it about £1.5m? That wouldn't even have covered the first mortgage let alone the others.

penzancepirate wrote:

knecht wrote:

In my view the jury is still out on James Brent. I like what he has done so far

But it's all soft soap so far. What has he actually done ? Some of his speeches, just like the initial Trust rhetoric, have been fine, but I've seen little evidence of it in reality.
He's decided to pay the employees 50% of their wages over 5 years, is pushing along a possibly dodgy Ultra thing for some wierd reason,
he's spent virtually no money, he's taken 3 months just to get a board of directors in, has allowed a pair of divisive characters loose on the club without even bothering to have a CEO, and now he's saying it's all the league's fault he's not spending money. Apart from Ant and Dec, it sounds like Heaney.

Where did this figure 50% come from? Isn't a key part of Brent's staff/players deal that they get paid back in full? Didn't the staff accept the same terms as those negotiated by the PFA for the players? Without the agreement to settle the football debt in full the Football League would never have sanctioned the takeover or lifted the transfer embargo.

I think the key issue here is whether that back pay counts against the 55% salary cap?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Where did this figure 50% come from? Isn't a key part of Brent's staff/players deal that they get paid back in full? Didn't the staff accept the same terms as those negotiated by the PFA for the players? Without the agreement to settle the football debt in full the Football League would never have sanctioned the takeover or lifted the transfer embargo.

I think the key issue here is whether that back pay counts against the 55% salary cap?

The 50% comes from 17% of the wages up front and then 7% each year for the next 5 years.

Where does that come from?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Where does that come from?

That's the deal franny, in fact, I might be wrong here , but the 17% might possibly have been reduced to 14%, but I can't be sure of that.
The last half is then due in a so-called 'bullet payment'. now given the record of money men at Argyle over the last few years, don't you have just the smallest snippet of cynicism, that when this dte finally arrives, the £1.7m, or what ever it is, get's renegotiated again ... if we were still in L2 under Brent's austerity, there's just no way the club would be able to pay that out in one huge payment. It's just such a cynical deal.

As for the secured debtors, you are right, there as no public information out there barring the folding of the Holding company. I am not suggesting, and never have, that the secured creditors were paid 'in full' ... nowhere near it I would imagine, but I bet we can be pretty sure that their share of the sale price went up at the expense of that £3.5m deferred wages .... that was the whole point of the huge delay ..... in my ever so humble opinion.
Even Brent has recently said that he couldn't understand how or why the administrators kept the club going in limbo for so long. I think I do,

penzancepirate wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Where does that come from?

That's the deal franny, in fact, I might be wrong here , but the 17% might possibly have been reduced to 14%, but I can't be sure of that.
The last half is then due in a so-called 'bullet payment'. now given the record of money men at Argyle over the last few years, don't you have just the smallest snippet of cynicism, that when this dte finally arrives, the £1.7m, or what ever it is, get's renegotiated again ... if we were still in L2 under Brent's austerity, there's just no way the club would be able to pay that out in one huge payment. It's just such a cynical deal.

As for the secured debtors, you are right, there as no public information out there barring the folding of the Holding company. I am not suggesting, and never have, that the secured creditors were paid 'in full' ... nowhere near it I would imagine, but I bet we can be pretty sure that their share of the sale price went up at the expense of that £3.5m deferred wages .... that was the whole point of the huge delay ..... in my ever so humble opinion.
Even Brent has recently said that he couldn't understand how or why the administrators kept the club going in limbo for so long. I think I do,

So the agreement is that the back pay will be paid in full you made it sound as though that was not the cas. Presumably that bullet payment at the end is what is being eaten into by the GTs fund-raising and the half share of received transfer revenue so it'll be less than 50% in the end anyway. If I was owed that money I wouldn't care where it came from as long as it did come and came as soon as possible. Let's not condemn anybody for what might happen at a later date if it does at all so I don't have any quibble with Brent on this score.

The details of what happened in administration are not publicly known but P&A needed to send off a closure report to the court, didn't it? I think the shady nature of what was planned got blown apart when Heaney's bid collapsed. I don't share your suspicion that the old board got a good deal at all. If a good deal had been on offer then they wouldn't have tried so hard for so long to hang on in there.

Brent may have driven a hard bargain on his own terms but those terms never altered very much from the outset and in the end his bid was the only one that could succeed. We're lucky it did because if it hadn't there'd be no club at all now.

The controversy here is how and why Heaney's bid was selected in the first place and after that how it hung in there as long as it did.

As a matter of interest (excuse pun) does any interest accrue on the deferred balances due or is it the old game (favoured by governments across the world) of letting inflation reduce the debt in real terms.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

The controversy here is how and why Heaney's bid was selected in the first place and after that how it hung in there as long as it did.

I couldn't agree with you more Frank, although I suspect the first part of that is quite obvious ... it was presented out of nowhere as the best bid at the time .. the administrators HAD to accept it. It almost reminded me of bouncing someone.
Why it was allowed to go on for so long is where the bodies are burried and no one is going there and no one will.
Again, Brent himself has just remarked he can't understand it, so us fans are not going to find out, that's for sure.