A Rotherham fans view Millers 1-1 Argyle

Graiser wrote:

beesrus wrote:

Brent could quite easily have agreed to pay back the local small businesses including St John Ambulance. He decided not to. It wasn't a deal breaker in balance sheet terms.
You ARE a Brent something. You ARE a Brent apologist. You're saying he's just following the way of the day. He is nothing like good hearted and well meaning local business folk who try to do the best they can, often  for less than many average paid lifer employees as yourself.

You can stand on your soap box and accuse and assume of me of what you like as I know it’s all bollox, and it makes no difference to me as it’s coming from you, but I’ll say again in easy language, trying to make a case of “Brent Out” based on a businessman making money ain’t going to cut it, needs to be something rather more constructive than that.

Come on Graiser Bhey 'lets get this straight' the Brent out campaign is loosely based on him asset stripping the car park to profit himself at the cost of the football club, it's then using what should be club land to overdevelop the land adjacent to the club for his own gain, being divisive and turning a blind eye to the behaviour of his pet fans, treating us with contempt, not being transparent as he promised (see the NDA GAWG as an example of this) and not putting enough funds to the manager (not proven but you don't have to be Stephen Fry to work that one out). If you don't want to listen to or believe any of the above fine but you'll get pulled out on it here using the stock Nool/DeLiar line on here.

Earwegoagain wrote:

Graiser wrote:

beesrus wrote:

Brent could quite easily have agreed to pay back the local small businesses including St John Ambulance. He decided not to. It wasn't a deal breaker in balance sheet terms.
You ARE a Brent something. You ARE a Brent apologist. You're saying he's just following the way of the day. He is nothing like good hearted and well meaning local business folk who try to do the best they can, often  for less than many average paid lifer employees as yourself.

You can stand on your soap box and accuse and assume of me of what you like as I know it’s all bollox, and it makes no difference to me as it’s coming from you, but I’ll say again in easy language, trying to make a case of “Brent Out” based on a businessman making money ain’t going to cut it, needs to be something rather more constructive than that.

Come on Graiser Bhey 'lets get this straight' the Brent out campaign is loosely based on him asset stripping the car park to profit himself at the cost of the football club, it's then using what should be club land to overdevelop the land adjacent to the club for his own gain, being divisive and turning a blind eye to the behaviour of his pet fans, treating us with contempt, not being transparent as he promised (see the NDA GAWG as an example of this) and not putting enough funds to the manager (not proven but you don't have to be Stephen Fry to work that one out). If you don't want to listen to or believe any of the above fine but you'll get pulled out on it here using the stock Nool/DeLiar line on here.

Bleddy Hell you were doing alright until you mentioned those two!

I always fully understood what Brent has done and is about to do, my point simply put, if he’s the devil incarnate, there’s plenty more like him in business no matter what myself, you or whatshisface thinks is ethical or not.
My frustration is reading many posts is the same repetitive commentaries, name calling, parking issues, abuse, you name it, it’s been posted many many times - but no proposed actions (and I don’t mean stickers) or constructive solutions, anything really, not easy I know but just banging out posts stating the usual kind of stuff may perhaps get rid of frustrations but precious little else.
Maybe a prioritised focus should be on Brent rather than the other side issues.

I see NDAs are, not before time coming under greater scrutiny, with one of them being used to gag victims of Weinstein from years ago. They are a horror and a way for rich people and employers to get away with blue murder, and yet we have some property guy like Brent insisting on such a deal for any fans that want to be included in deciding what colour toilet seat goes in a renovation !! Jeez.
It's not about actions for those that don't want to miss their Saturday afternoon mates pub crawl or family time, it's about not complying with a cheapskate and an asset stripper.
As to repetition, I suspect your early school taught you every thing you know through the repetition thing. It takes time for messages to sink in with some folk.

Graiser wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

Graiser wrote:

beesrus wrote:

Brent could quite easily have agreed to pay back the local small businesses including St John Ambulance. He decided not to. It wasn't a deal breaker in balance sheet terms.
You ARE a Brent something. You ARE a Brent apologist. You're saying he's just following the way of the day. He is nothing like good hearted and well meaning local business folk who try to do the best they can, often  for less than many average paid lifer employees as yourself.

You can stand on your soap box and accuse and assume of me of what you like as I know it’s all bollox, and it makes no difference to me as it’s coming from you, but I’ll say again in easy language, trying to make a case of “Brent Out” based on a businessman making money ain’t going to cut it, needs to be something rather more constructive than that.

Come on Graiser Bhey 'lets get this straight' the Brent out campaign is loosely based on him asset stripping the car park to profit himself at the cost of the football club, it's then using what should be club land to overdevelop the land adjacent to the club for his own gain, being divisive and turning a blind eye to the behaviour of his pet fans, treating us with contempt, not being transparent as he promised (see the NDA GAWG as an example of this) and not putting enough funds to the manager (not proven but you don't have to be Stephen Fry to work that one out). If you don't want to listen to or believe any of the above fine but you'll get pulled out on it here using the stock Nool/DeLiar line on here.

Bleddy Hell you were doing alright until you mentioned those two!

I always fully understood what Brent has done and is about to do, my point simply put, if he’s the devil incarnate, there’s plenty more like him in business no matter what myself, you or whatshisface thinks is ethical or not.
My frustration is reading many posts is the same repetitive commentaries, name calling, parking issues, abuse, you name it, it’s been posted many many times - but no proposed actions (and I don’t mean stickers) or constructive solutions, anything really, not easy I know but just banging out posts stating the usual kind of stuff may perhaps get rid of frustrations but precious little else.
Maybe a prioritised focus should be on Brent rather than the other side issues.

Jeez read the bit in bold that you wrote, Then read what I wrote. if you can't grasp the argument you are making there is no point discussing it with you.

beesrus wrote:

I see NDAs are, not before time coming under greater scrutiny, with one of them being used to gag victims of Weinstein from years ago. They are a horror and a way for rich people and employers to get away with blue murder, and yet we have some property guy like Brent insisting on such a deal for any fans that want to be included in deciding what colour toilet seat goes in a renovation !! Jeez.
It's not about actions for those that don't want to miss their Saturday afternoon mates pub crawl or family time, it's about not complying with a cheapskate and an asset stripper.
As to repetition, I suspect your early school taught you every thing you know through the repetition thing. It takes time for messages to sink in with some folk.

Yep your right there, so keep at it as you never know.

Earwegoagain wrote:

Graiser wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

Graiser wrote:

beesrus wrote:

Brent could quite easily have agreed to pay back the local small businesses including St John Ambulance. He decided not to. It wasn't a deal breaker in balance sheet terms.
You ARE a Brent something. You ARE a Brent apologist. You're saying he's just following the way of the day. He is nothing like good hearted and well meaning local business folk who try to do the best they can, often  for less than many average paid lifer employees as yourself.

You can stand on your soap box and accuse and assume of me of what you like as I know it’s all bollox, and it makes no difference to me as it’s coming from you, but I’ll say again in easy language, trying to make a case of “Brent Out” based on a businessman making money ain’t going to cut it, needs to be something rather more constructive than that.

Come on Graiser Bhey 'lets get this straight' the Brent out campaign is loosely based on him asset stripping the car park to profit himself at the cost of the football club, it's then using what should be club land to overdevelop the land adjacent to the club for his own gain, being divisive and turning a blind eye to the behaviour of his pet fans, treating us with contempt, not being transparent as he promised (see the NDA GAWG as an example of this) and not putting enough funds to the manager (not proven but you don't have to be Stephen Fry to work that one out). If you don't want to listen to or believe any of the above fine but you'll get pulled out on it here using the stock Nool/DeLiar line on here.

Bleddy Hell you were doing alright until you mentioned those two!

I always fully understood what Brent has done and is about to do, my point simply put, if he’s the devil incarnate, there’s plenty more like him in business no matter what myself, you or whatshisface thinks is ethical or not.
My frustration is reading many posts is the same repetitive commentaries, name calling, parking issues, abuse, you name it, it’s been posted many many times - but no proposed actions (and I don’t mean stickers) or constructive solutions, anything really, not easy I know but just banging out posts stating the usual kind of stuff may perhaps get rid of frustrations but precious little else.
Maybe a prioritised focus should be on Brent rather than the other side issues.

Jeez read the bit in bold that you wrote, Then read what I wrote. if you can't grasp the argument you are making there is no point discussing it with you.

I can and do, as for grasping my argument, well I thought we were discussing by voicing opinions, I’ve got no interest in trying to force my views on anybody, merely state them as we all are allowed to do without fear or favour, or are we morphing into PASOTi ? really hope not.

Graiser wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

Graiser wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

Graiser wrote:

beesrus wrote:

Brent could quite easily have agreed to pay back the local small businesses including St John Ambulance. He decided not to. It wasn't a deal breaker in balance sheet terms.
You ARE a Brent something. You ARE a Brent apologist. You're saying he's just following the way of the day. He is nothing like good hearted and well meaning local business folk who try to do the best they can, often  for less than many average paid lifer employees as yourself.

You can stand on your soap box and accuse and assume of me of what you like as I know it’s all bollox, and it makes no difference to me as it’s coming from you, but I’ll say again in easy language, trying to make a case of “Brent Out” based on a businessman making money ain’t going to cut it, needs to be something rather more constructive than that.

Come on Graiser Bhey 'lets get this straight' the Brent out campaign is loosely based on him asset stripping the car park to profit himself at the cost of the football club, it's then using what should be club land to overdevelop the land adjacent to the club for his own gain, being divisive and turning a blind eye to the behaviour of his pet fans, treating us with contempt, not being transparent as he promised (see the NDA GAWG as an example of this) and not putting enough funds to the manager (not proven but you don't have to be Stephen Fry to work that one out). If you don't want to listen to or believe any of the above fine but you'll get pulled out on it here using the stock Nool/DeLiar line on here.

Bleddy Hell you were doing alright until you mentioned those two!

I always fully understood what Brent has done and is about to do, my point simply put, if he’s the devil incarnate, there’s plenty more like him in business no matter what myself, you or whatshisface thinks is ethical or not.
My frustration is reading many posts is the same repetitive commentaries, name calling, parking issues, abuse, you name it, it’s been posted many many times - but no proposed actions (and I don’t mean stickers) or constructive solutions, anything really, not easy I know but just banging out posts stating the usual kind of stuff may perhaps get rid of frustrations but precious little else.
Maybe a prioritised focus should be on Brent rather than the other side issues.

Jeez read the bit in bold that you wrote, Then read what I wrote. if you can't grasp the argument you are making there is no point discussing it with you.

I can and do, as for grasping my argument, well I thought we were discussing by voicing opinions, I’ve got no interest in trying to force my views on anybody, merely state them as we all are allowed to do without fear or favour, or are we morphing into PASOTi ? really hope not.

God you talk bollocks read what I said,
You said,
'trying to make a case of “Brent Out” based on a businessman making money ain’t going to cut it, needs to be something rather more constructive than that.'

I then replied with something more constructive which you then ignored, all of it, if that isn't Pasoti mantra and methodology I don't know what is, stick to the word game it's a waste of time trying to discuss anything with you.

beesrus wrote:

Graiser wrote:

I would expect that would apply to most if not all businessmen

Your comments are insulting to some in business. Many people have ethics in their business dealings. Even in Victorian times you had the likes of Clarks and Cadburys. And there are still large mutuals and cooperatives, government run bodies and vendors, functioning with a modicum of decency. Your view of the business world being totally sick, I don't agree with. Those with bad practice should be exposed and hounded out of their marketplaces.

Clarks and Cadbury's did indeed build houses/villages and other leisure facilities but most was for their own workforce not the common good. Clarks, I believe, built houses so that the youngsters could still study while working in the factory. Ethical?


and you go on and say:
''Those with bad practice should be exposed and hounded out of their marketplaces''
Bad practice is not illegal and the only way to stop bad practice (whatever that actually means) would be for consumers to stop using them.  
Consumers may scream ''ethical is best'' but when it comes down to handing over their hard earned money do they really worry about ethics? Nope!

I and all my siblings, and parents before us, have all spent most of our lives in business. You haven't. I think I know something about the subject. You're way off what motivates many people. Money often isn't the driver to get out of the employee thing, believe me. If money were the driver, I would have headed toward the executive route, just like Jim, just like Gardner.
You go on about Brent as if he's some business guru. Most oh his life has been spent in some plum employee situation. Get real''
Whether the driver is money or not the bottom line is that no business will trade for very long without making a profit. You give the impression that you are better than many posters when in fact you know very little about them. Try a smaller soap box!! I also sense a little jealousy on your part towards JB's plum jobs. Maybe you tried the plum job route but couldn't hack it so tried something else.

As we have all seen since, he could have tagged on the extra half million or so to the deal, including the St John Ambulance, to the millions owed to well off footballers, but he chose not to. Bad form, very bad form.
Am I reading this right? You're saying JB should have 'fiddled' a bit to increase the football creditors pot and then used the 'fiddled' half million to hand out to other creditors? Ethical? Furthermore, whats the big deal as I'm sure these smaller firms are on your wavelength of ''profit comes second' so a bit less profit is fine - surely?

Contrary to what some might have you believe I have no objection to businessmen making money. As Graiser suggests them not to is rather silly. They are in the game to make profit not lose money. That's fine.

Then it comes to rather more blurry territory. We all know where losses can lead so Argyle losing money is not a desirable thing. On that level Brent can only be applauded for making Argyle a profitable business for the last 3 years.

Then again why would anybody have lost money running Argyle over the last 3 years? Last year we were denied being Champions by a whisker, the year before we missed out on promotion at Wembley, the year before we missed out on Wembley. Only one of the three can be said to be truly successful in football terms but in terms of the business model things don't get much better. It would have been a rare set of circumstances that saw us lose money in any of those seasons.

Should we really be grateful and doff our caps simply because we aren't being run incompetently or negligibly?

From there we move on to wider issues. How much profit does a businessman expect to make? In Brent's case I get the impression that the more the merrier and it is here that we get into difficult ethical territory because he hasn't put anything into Argyle at all, nothing irrecoverable anyway: he has bought shares (which can later be sold), supplied loans (all interest earning and repaid or converted into shares) but not actually given or spent or lost control of any money at all.

And then there is the question of what is a "decent" (interpret that how you please) profit: 2%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 50%, 100%, 1000%, 10 000%...?

If Brent is after, for argument's sake, 20% on a £100m development at HHP and it all is only possible because of Argyle - even if indirectly, and Argyle gets, as near as damn it, nothing then as an Argyle fan that rather sticks in the craw.

And no matter how you may interpret the HHP plan there is no profit in it for Argyle and not even James Brent himself has suggested that there is and has been at great pains to separate the scheme from the club despite a hybrid planning application suggesting otherwise.

tigertony wrote:

beesrus wrote:

Graiser wrote:

I would expect that would apply to most if not all businessmen

Your comments are insulting to some in business. Many people have ethics in their business dealings. Even in Victorian times you had the likes of Clarks and Cadburys. And there are still large mutuals and cooperatives, government run bodies and vendors, functioning with a modicum of decency. Your view of the business world being totally sick, I don't agree with. Those with bad practice should be exposed and hounded out of their marketplaces.

Clarks and Cadbury's did indeed build houses/villages and other leisure facilities but most was for their own workforce not the common good. Clarks, I believe, built houses so that the youngsters could still study while working in the factory. Ethical?


and you go on and say:
''Those with bad practice should be exposed and hounded out of their marketplaces''
Bad practice is not illegal and the only way to stop bad practice (whatever that actually means) would be for consumers to stop using them.  
Consumers may scream ''ethical is best'' but when it comes down to handing over their hard earned money do they really worry about ethics? Nope!

I and all my siblings, and parents before us, have all spent most of our lives in business. You haven't. I think I know something about the subject. You're way off what motivates many people. Money often isn't the driver to get out of the employee thing, believe me. If money were the driver, I would have headed toward the executive route, just like Jim, just like Gardner.
You go on about Brent as if he's some business guru. Most oh his life has been spent in some plum employee situation. Get real''
Whether the driver is money or not the bottom line is that no business will trade for very long without making a profit. You give the impression that you are better than many posters when in fact you know very little about them. Try a smaller soap box!! I also sense a little jealousy on your part towards JB's plum jobs. Maybe you tried the plum job route but couldn't hack it so tried something else.

As we have all seen since, he could have tagged on the extra half million or so to the deal, including the St John Ambulance, to the millions owed to well off footballers, but he chose not to. Bad form, very bad form.
Am I reading this right? You're saying JB should have 'fiddled' a bit to increase the football creditors pot and then used the 'fiddled' half million to hand out to other creditors? Ethical? Furthermore, whats the big deal as I'm sure these smaller firms are on your wavelength of ''profit comes second' so a bit less profit is fine - surely?

Well. I'm glad I don't have your brain and skewed vision.
In my memory most football owners were not in it for big profit, they were in it for big ego, and to be someone noticed in the community as Brian Clough often commented. If anything, they paid for the privilege as a sort of right of passage. You can't tell me Walker at Blackburn was in it for the money with all the millions he spent. Sometimes, the middle man, the football manager, was in it for what he could spirit away in a brown envelope, but not everyone. You're like Tory peas in a pod Tone and Graiser, greedy people are ok because we're all greedy apparently. Absolute drivel  
Anything to excuse bad form, and particularly the bad form of J Brent Esq. who IS in it for whatever assets/income he can tear away from the club. Well, he won't be pocketing any of my cash, nor receiving any of my approval. I don't live my life to share goals with such types.
As for jealousy, do me a favour, that's a Nool line.
Some people just have different desires. You enjoyed your time in the armed forces, I would have been horrified if that were my lot. It's nothing about better, it's about difference.  Maybe that's a bit difficult to comprehend for some. I guess there's just a lot of matelots out there looking for a captain to salute. Geddon, not my scene.

It's the Christmas present you hoped for with all your heart and never thought you'd get, the Tiger and Graiser double act reunited......

TWAT

Graiser wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

Graiser wrote:

beesrus wrote:

Brent could quite easily have agreed to pay back the local small businesses including St John Ambulance. He decided not to. It wasn't a deal breaker in balance sheet terms.
You ARE a Brent something. You ARE a Brent apologist. You're saying he's just following the way of the day. He is nothing like good hearted and well meaning local business folk who try to do the best they can, often  for less than many average paid lifer employees as yourself.

You can stand on your soap box and accuse and assume of me of what you like as I know it’s all bollox, and it makes no difference to me as it’s coming from you, but I’ll say again in easy language, trying to make a case of “Brent Out” based on a businessman making money ain’t going to cut it, needs to be something rather more constructive than that.

Come on Graiser Bhey 'lets get this straight' the Brent out campaign is loosely based on him asset stripping the car park to profit himself at the cost of the football club, it's then using what should be club land to overdevelop the land adjacent to the club for his own gain, being divisive and turning a blind eye to the behaviour of his pet fans, treating us with contempt, not being transparent as he promised (see the NDA GAWG as an example of this) and not putting enough funds to the manager (not proven but you don't have to be Stephen Fry to work that one out). If you don't want to listen to or believe any of the above fine but you'll get pulled out on it here using the stock Nool/DeLiar line on here.

Bleddy Hell you were doing alright until you mentioned those two!

I always fully understood what Brent has done and is about to do, my point simply put, if he’s the devil incarnate, there’s plenty more like him in business no matter what myself, you or whatshisface thinks is ethical or not.
My frustration is reading many posts is the same repetitive commentaries, name calling, parking issues, abuse, you name it, it’s been posted many many times - but no proposed actions (and I don’t mean stickers) or constructive solutions, anything really, not easy I know but just banging out posts stating the usual kind of stuff may perhaps get rid of frustrations but precious little else.
Maybe a prioritised focus should be on Brent rather than the other side issues.

Yet again it’s always got to be a race to the bottom, always pointing at worsen examples rather than better.

It’s why This godforsaken club will never and has never achieved anything

beesrus wrote:

Some people just have different desires. You enjoyed your time in the armed forces, I would have been horrified if that were my lot. It's nothing about better, it's about difference.  Maybe that's a bit difficult to comprehend for some. I guess there's just a lot of matelots out there looking for a captain to salute. Geddon, not my scene.

Out of interest, why horrified if one of yours joined the Armed Forces?
Maybe I'm fortunate and/or lucky but I've enjoyed all my jobs and the Forces have only been 40% of my working life. Having been an employee, and had a good time, I'm about to break into self-employment so we may well meet up in the future at one of those business net-working thingys. Look forward to it.