Brent Vs Hallett

Cornish Rebel wrote:

Check rumours on pasoti. I floated this idea a few weeks ago and the piggy moved thread and then pm me saying I was out to cause trouble by asking questions!!!

Ah that old ruse.....when you post something in opposition to the toed line and not long after you receive a message, you don't even need to open it to know who its from.....one of the Ian's obviously, usually the non mod if it's a crass bully boy 'be careful or else' jobby. That place reeks of authoritarian estrogen.

Les Miserable wrote:

Cornish Rebel wrote:

Check rumours on pasoti. I floated this idea a few weeks ago and the piggy moved thread and then pm me saying I was out to cause trouble by asking questions!!!

Ah that old ruse.....when you post something in opposition to the toed line and not long after you receive a message, you don't even need to open it to know who its from.....one of the Ian's obviously, usually the non mod if it's a crass bully boy 'be careful or else' jobby. That place stinks of authoritarian estrogen.

Anything that threatens Knobbers seat in the directors box wont be tolerated, he reads the pm's so he knows who the Bad boys are

Rickler wrote:

beesrus wrote:

You lot really have fallen for the possibility that Si is somehow not quite such a predator as Brent.
Good cop, bad cop, peas in a pod.

I haven't fallen for anything.  It's your stupid dogma that doesn't allow you to think in any way other than your blinkered socialist mantra.
You have the social political naivety of a twelve year old.

I don't have any reason to doubt that your breakfast meeting with Simon Hallett was cordial, informative, and extremely affable. But I do see the other points being made and I'd hope that you'd be at least open to the possibility that Hallet was doing a very effective PR job, and that there is the glimmer of a possibility that he might have been being 'economical with the truth' during his conversation with you.

Homeslice wrote:

Rickler wrote:

beesrus wrote:

You lot really have fallen for the possibility that Si is somehow not quite such a predator as Brent.
Good cop, bad cop, peas in a pod.

I haven't fallen for anything.  It's your stupid dogma that doesn't allow you to think in any way other than your blinkered socialist mantra.
You have the social political naivety of a twelve year old.

I don't have any reason to doubt that your breakfast meeting with Simon Hallett was cordial, informative, and extremely affable. But I do see the other points being made and I'd hope that you'd be at least open to the possibility that Hallet was doing a very effective PR job, and that there is the glimmer of a possibility that he might have been being 'economical with the truth' during his conversation with you.

I wouldn't argue with any of that Homie. I think the one thing that would change it for me would be to find out that Hallet was also funding all or part of the HHP and wider scheme. As it stands we are being told he is just a fan funding the refurb via a loan, if that is the case I can't see where the beef is?

Hallett is hardly going to tell an "ATD'er" anything that would seem "juicy". PR job pure and simple.

Earwegoagain wrote:

I think the one thing that would change it for me would be to find out that Hallet was also funding all or part of the HHP and wider scheme. As it stands we are being told he is just a fan funding the refurb via a loan, if that is the case I can't see where the beef is?

I can see a problem. It might not be anywhere near value for money. A 4 or 5m mortgage is not to be sniffed at, but just what are we getting in return ? and with the lion's share of corners totally untouched and ripe for plundering further down the road . I believe the job spec is being shoehorned in to fit the need for a bolthole for specific cash. Some might construe the whole deal as a pension pot come inheritance move.
I personally doubt if Hallett has much to do with the further HHP office stuff, as I can't believe Brent is charitable enough to share his proceeds with anyone. He came for a deal, and he sure as heck ain't going to give half of it away.

beesrus wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

I think the one thing that would change it for me would be to find out that Hallet was also funding all or part of the HHP and wider scheme. As it stands we are being told he is just a fan funding the refurb via a loan, if that is the case I can't see where the beef is?

I can see a problem. It might not be anywhere near value for money. A 4 or 5m mortgage is not to be sniffed at, but just what are we getting in return ? and with the lion's share of corners totally untouched and ripe for plundering further down the road . I believe the job spec is being shoehorned in to fit the need for a bolthole for specific cash. Some might construe the whole deal as a pension pot come inheritance move.
I personally doubt if Hallett has much to do with the further HHP office stuff, as I can't believe Brent is charitable enough to share his proceeds with anyone. He came for a deal, and he sure as heck ain't going to give half of it away.

Pretty well my take on it, and it was Brent who offered the bolt hole to Hallett again not Hallets fault. I don't think that Hallett is involved in HHP hence his recent fallout with Brent.

Some might construe the whole deal as a pension pot come inheritance move.

indeed, especially with Hallets age and the length of the loan, he's already said publicly that his children will benefit from his investment.

There is no doubt that all is not well in the boardroom and that's down to Brent's latest money making venture at HHP - other Directors (and joint owners) of HHP are not at all pleased with it, to say the least. In his greed for money he's overstepped the mark which may come back to bite him when he doesn't get full planning for his scheme, but the grandstand refurb does. What does he do then? Risk alienating his support by not allowing anything to go ahead? He's so money mad that I think he would, we all know he doesn't care one jot about the football club.

Obviously Hallett's loan then isn't being used and we are no further forward. Unlike some others, I'm prepared to give Hallett the benefit, he is a fan, he likes football and wants to see the best for the club, all things that Brent isn't and never will be.

It was interesting that he agreed to meet Ricks, and yes, probably didn't say too much, but in Rick's defence he isn't the type to be 'schmoozed' by anybody and deserves credit for getting off his sun lounger and doing something.

So where does that leave the club? In a complete and utter mess yet again, at the mercy of an ex-banker who aims to line his pockets at the expense of anything and anyone.

It'll all end in tears.

im sure rickler isnt naive and taken everything hallet told him as gospel like nool would.

Personally i think brent and hallet are two cheeks of the same arse.

PlymptonPilgrim wrote:

Obviously Hallett's loan then isn't being used and we are no further forward. Unlike some others, I'm prepared to give Hallett the benefit, he is a fan, he likes football and wants to see the best for the club, all things that Brent isn't and never will be.

I've seen the quotes from when Hallett first appeared but does does it have any more credibility than the same sort of thing said of Keith Todd ?
Anyone know if there's any evidence of Hallett having Plymouth connections which would endear him to the club rather than bleeding us dry like brent all over again ?

Angry wrote:

im sure rickler isnt naive and taken everything hallet told him as gospel like nool would.

Personally I think Brent and Hallet are two cheeks of the same arse.

I kind of agree with this - it's inconceivable (isn't it?) that Brent and Hallet and indeed Wrathall and the rest of the board aren't all singing from the same hymn sheet. Why wouldn't they be?

Lord Melbury wrote:

PlymptonPilgrim wrote:

Obviously Hallett's loan then isn't being used and we are no further forward. Unlike some others, I'm prepared to give Hallett the benefit, he is a fan, he likes football and wants to see the best for the club, all things that Brent isn't and never will be.

I've seen the quotes from when Hallett first appeared but does does it have any more credibility than the same sort of thing said of Keith Todd ?
Anyone know if there's any evidence of Hallett having Plymouth connections which would endear him to the club rather than bleeding us dry like brent all over again ?  

Well he went to the same school as Peter Jones - no idea if they were mates though.

PatDunne wrote:

Some might construe the whole deal as a pension pot come inheritance move.

indeed, especially with Hallets age and the length of the loan, he's already said publicly that his children will benefit from his investment.

It may well be why he so needlessly made an emphatic point about probably never getting all of his money back. If one looks up inheritance tax rules, you'll come across such matters being specifically addressed. For it all to be dressed up as some Return of the Native, with Si starring as Clym Yeobright back from the wide blue yonder looking for spiritual redemption, is frankly eyebrow raising. Maybe a herald photo op out on Dartmoor with Si hacking down the furze faggots for winter, against a setting sun.

Rickler wrote:

Having had Breakfast with Simon Hallett three weeks ago, I would say nothing is further from the truth.

I realize a lot can happen in three weeks but I somehow doubt there is any credence in these rumours.

Wishful thinking is more like it!

What was Hallet up take on the question you asked Brent, when he flew his toys out of the pram at you?

Sorry if you have answered this before.

I reckon Hallett was being puppeteered by Brent with a phone app, while sat back home on the estate.

"A backlog of maintenance needed to be cleared and much needed academy future youth stuff needs addressing".

Ricks - genuine question - why do YOU think Hallett agreed to meet you?

Was he super keen to emphasis anything in particular? Did he ask that the conversation remained confidential? Or was he happy for you to relay anything here?

The blatantly obvious concern would be that it was merely a PR exercise to put a chief Brent-questioner under no illusions of what was trying to be done at HP, and that it was all to the greater good of Argyle.

Is Peter Iddesleigh Jones still involved?? He used to PM on pasoti after he resigned from the board about what was going on with Staplewallet, the sale of Holloway's team and trying to get the NW people involved. He said Argo was basically turning into a property development company with a football club bolted on. Which is basically what it is now under brent.

I'm very suspicious of Hallett given brent invited him in. Anyone closely involved with brent cannot be good for Argo. And why hasn't Hallett been involved before? I don't want any of the current rabble involved - clean break with completely new ownership for me. Best thing for Argo at this time would be to go back into adminstration and build again under new owners in L2/National League.

Czarcasm wrote:

Ricks - genuine question -  why do YOU think Hallett agreed to meet you?

Was he super keen to emphasis anything in particular? Did he ask that the conversation remained confidential? Or was he happy for you to relay anything here?

The blatantly obvious concern would be that it was merely a PR exercise to put a chief Brent-questioner under no illusions of what was trying to be done at HP, and that it was all to the greater good of Argyle.

Oh c'mon Czarky. You don't need it spelling out for you. I'll give you an example of silencing someone in the way you mention. A few years back Newell was having problems online with a pasoti user called esmer, that still posts there. Unusually for pasoti, the guy was able to to actually string a few sentences together and was causing Newell problems. After the "face to face" meet, esmer basically shut up and changed his stance out of loyalty to the flag. It's worked to this day. Personal charm and polite over a breakfast table discourse, it really is that easy. Us animals are hard wired for such stuff.

beesrus wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

Ricks - genuine question -  why do YOU think Hallett agreed to meet you?

Was he super keen to emphasis anything in particular? Did he ask that the conversation remained confidential? Or was he happy for you to relay anything here?

The blatantly obvious concern would be that it was merely a PR exercise to put a chief Brent-questioner under no illusions of what was trying to be done at HP, and that it was all to the greater good of Argyle.

Oh c'mon Czarky. You don't need it spelling out for you. I'll give you an example of silencing someone in the way you mention. A few years back Newell was having problems online with a pasoti user called esmer, that still posts there. Unusually for pasoti, the guy was able to to actually string a few sentences together and was causing Newell problems. After the "face to face" meet, esmer basically shut up and changed his stance out of loyalty to the flag. It's worked to this day. Personal charm and polite over a breakfast table discourse, it really is that easy. Us animals are hard wired for such stuff.

But Beez, you have a habit of picking an example and using that as a standard-bearer for every other situation. If only life were that simple. Esmer clearly didn't have the courage of his convictions to stand his ground. That simply says all you need to know about his character. There have been plenty more face to faces that haven't ended so cordially, Greenjock had a few for starters. How many regular ATDers do you think would have their head turned if they sat down over breakfast with Newell? Not many, if any, I'd wager.

I have a good idea how things probably are with Hallett - I'm enough of a cynic for that. But I also don't pretend I'm an all-seeing-eye that knows everything. That's why I'd ask someones opinion who I respect (Ricks) exactly what his take on it all is. He was there, after all.

Hitch wrote:

Angry wrote:

im sure rickler isnt naive and taken everything hallet told him as gospel like nool would.

Personally I think Brent and Hallet are two cheeks of the same arse.

I kind of agree with this - it's inconceivable (isn't it?) that Brent and Hallet and indeed Wrathall and the rest of the board aren't all singing from the same hymn sheet.

They aren't....

Czarcasm wrote:

But Beez, you have a habit of picking an example and using that as a standard-bearer for every other situation. If only life were that simple. Esmer clearly didn't have the courage of his convictions to stand his ground. That simply says all you need to know about his character. There have been plenty more face to faces that haven't ended so cordially, Greenjock had a few for starters. How many regular ATDers do you think would have their head turned if they sat down over breakfast with Newell? Not many, if any, I'd wager.

I have a good idea how things probably are with Hallett - I'm enough of a cynic for that. But I also don't pretend I'm an all-seeing-eye that knows everything. That's why I'd ask someones opinion who I respect (Ricks) exactly what his take on it all is. He was there, after all.

Well, I unashamedly think life is simple, very simple, and questions are for young students while they make sense of the contradictions and nuance of civility. Not many ATDers have the cut of greenjock or Al, so no point in using them as "standard bearers" of your own. Underestimate the power of social niceties at your peril, if you want to advance your cause. We obviously disagree here, but no problem, and I do happen to agree with you  that esmer is a lily livered wally.
As for the actual breakfast in question, maybe, just maybe, the supposed, trailed, leaked, hinted at, legendary, whispered, fall out was simply an irritation on Brent's behalf that Hallett had dined with the recent object of his ire. "You've made me look a right charlie..... my mate Ian told me".

To get back to the matter at hand, I find it impossible to accept that Hallett wasn't fully briefed on the hybrid application and Brent's office block plans right from the start. Any forlorn hope of Si riding over the hill giving Brent a right hiding is pure fantasy.
i've got a bit bored with hints that all is not well in Argyle land on here, and if we need any further proof of how social niceties work, there's a lot of hinting and nudging on here  but nothing of consequence whatsoever. Obviously something has been shared in the mod room or by PM, but none are prepared to talk about it openly. Again, social etiquette gagging people so easily. If the likes of former directors aren't prepared to say anything publicly, then it's an indication they have been totally vanquished. When Foot left, with his lapdog following, at least he had the courage to clearly state what the problem was, and how right he was.

harvetheslayer wrote:

Hitch wrote:

Angry wrote:

im sure rickler isnt naive and taken everything hallet told him as gospel like nool would.

Personally I think Brent and Hallet are two cheeks of the same arse.

I kind of agree with this - it's inconceivable (isn't it?) that Brent and Hallet and indeed Wrathall and the rest of the board aren't all singing from the same hymn sheet.

They aren't....

But why not? It's just not possible that Hallet hands over £5m to Brent and says 'crack on son' without knowing fully how, where and when it's going to be spent and what his guaranteed return/risk is going to be. The frailties of football finances at Argyle's level are well documented and Hallet just can't be a schmuck. I understand that partnerships/friendships/business relationships etc can founder and break-up but there is simply zero evidence of even the smallest crack in the Brent/Hallet amitié.

I also don't think that Hallett didn't know about HHP but what could caused the row according to the rumour I heard is that it was when the planning went in, and I'm wondering whether Hallett was pissed with the double application? The other directors are pissed with Brent because he will not bend or amend anything, it's his way or nothing, again according to rumour. Maybe bullshit but to me it has a ring of truth about it. It could be that Hallett wants the stand done to massage his ego somewhat a monument to him when he's gone as it were. The way Brent has gone about things Hallett like the rest of us will be lucky to see anything built.

Hitch wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

Hitch wrote:

Angry wrote:

im sure rickler isnt naive and taken everything hallet told him as gospel like nool would.

Personally I think Brent and Hallet are two cheeks of the same arse.

I kind of agree with this - it's inconceivable (isn't it?) that Brent and Hallet and indeed Wrathall and the rest of the board aren't all singing from the same hymn sheet.

They aren't....

But why not? It's just not possible that Hallet hands over £5m to Brent and says 'crack on son' without knowing fully how, where and when it's going to be spent and what his guaranteed return/risk is going to be. The frailties of football finances at Argyle's level are well documented and Hallet just can't be a schmuck. I understand that partnerships/friendships/business relationships etc can founder and break-up but there is simply zero evidence of even the smallest crack in the Brent/Hallet amitié.

I heard about the Brent Hallet fallout the other week and then lo and behold Brent didn't attend the match. Isn't that the first time he's never showed?
I think things aren't rosy in the garden and I think it's showing right through the club.