James Brent

It's hardly a revelation that the club will "benefit" from income generated. that could mean anything. A £10k annual flat fee means Argyle are benfitting yet that is hardly value is it?

Chemical Ali wrote:

GOB wrote:

knecht wrote:

Chemical Ali wrote:

The argument seems to be that Brent is investing his OWN money to make up the shortfall at Argyle- even Errington was arguing with someone the other day (on twitter) saying this.

But in actual fact he's loaning Argyle the money- thus our debts are increasing.

Nikkkk (well done for joining, I hope you stay around) has invested more at £80k- no loan, just straight payments into the club.

As Grovehill has said the club is actually getting in a worse state, whilst JB will profit from his property development.

Yes, I'd forgotten that. They are interest free loans but I guess that's not the point.

Will we ever know if Mr Brent is actually being really philanthropic at Argyle?

Interesting comparisons. Considering that Brent is only loaning the money and that Nikk is giving the money, Nikkk is pumping in more dosh than Brent!

That said, Christ knows how the club will ever afford to pay back Brent! - Oh well, who do you think the next Administrator will be?

According to Posty-

Yes, it is good news that we have an owner who is prepared to offer interest free loans to the club when it has cashflow problems, otherwise the club would have to hawk itself around the banks looking for loans that attract high interest rates. Been there, done that.

Well done to the PASB for finding out the loans are interest free and for finding out this...

Quote :

Matchday (and non-matchday), conferencing and banqueting income from generated from the new Grandstand will benefit the club.

.... which will help pay back the interest free loans.

Damon countered that Posty is supportive due to receiving the Driector's box treatement and a little argument is developing-

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

Cheers CA, I feel better now knowing that a Saturday's pastie sales and cheese and pineapple sticks will make it up to James.

I can't wait to see the business plan and cash flow forecast.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

, he needs to work with some of the more astute and sophisticated supporters .

So you think there might be a chance of him coming to ECFC ?

We have a few.................... self not included, naturally.

thanks tring,,reconition at last,,you took your fecking time

and as far as the thread goes,,if its a given about the land the hotel,granstand with school,then hes here for a minimum of three years to get that all up and running,

So Brent and his jamboys persist with Fletcher, despite the obvious signs that he was clueless, the club piles up more debt because of their incompetence and all Brent does is make it into an interest free loan. Thank you Mr Brent. You are such a hero. You clearly get it.
What an utter Uriah Heap that PL2 faced truly is

knecht wrote:

(and I can never understand why the GTs get lumped in the same category), they are hastening the repayment of money owed to the ordinary workers at HP.

This with bells on for me Knecht.

Whatever dispute people have with Ian Newell, I don't want to get involved. But it's ridiculous the GTs get lumped in. It's easy to be against them when you aren't the ones who are relying on their hastened repayment to get more household income.

I think the problem that a few have with the GT's is that they see the GT's as using ordinary fans to bail out what they consider to be Brent's responsibilities.

The counter argument to that is of course, that the GT's are not bailing out Brent's responsibilities but bailing out the responsibilities of the previous owners.

The counter, counter argument to that is that Brent took on those responsibilities when he purchased the club and the potential huge profits from the developments.

Personally, I think the GT's do a brilliant job and for all the good intentions. Rick O’Shay and Co, get a rough ride from some on here and I never really understood why, it's almost like an absurd sort of envy at times. - That said, there's something quite repulsive about the GT's and ordinary fans that probably only just clear enough dosh for a crust every week delving deep into pockets while Brent, who is an extremely wealthy man that stands to earn a packet from misfortune of this sorry episode, sits back waiting for the cash to roll in.

They're not exactly miles apart from each other though. For just one example:-

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

The GTs seem measured and reasonable whenever they have said anything. They get on with things What is undeniable is that the Fanfests are the breeding ground of Superfan-ism and was the source if not the cause of "Deepthroat", and the GT away fans coach is a creepy, sinister place where the details of ATD users' disabled mothers are passed around willy nilly for that creepy chap Newell to drool over, no doubt mentally screen-shotting every piece of information so he can use it in some way or other to frighten fellow Argyle fans from voicing their opinions on the internet.

Seriously though, I don't see the motive behind the GTs other than to pay the staff back.

I do however, think there is a motive somewhere.

GOB wrote:

I think the problem that a few have with the GT's is that they see the GT's as using ordinary fans to bail out what they consider to be Brent's responsibilities.

The counter argument to that is of course, that the GT's are not bailing out Brent's responsibilities but bailing out the responsibilities of the previous owners.

The counter, counter argument to that is that Brent took on those responsibilities when he purchased the club and the potential huge profits from the developments.

Personally, I think the GT's do a brilliant job and for all the good intentions. Rick O’Shay and Co, get a rough ride from some on here and I never really understood why, it's almost like an absurd sort of envy at times. - That said, there's something quite repulsive about the GT's and ordinary fans that probably only just clear enough dosh for a crust every week delving deep into pockets while Brent, who is an extremely wealthy man that stands to earn a packet from misfortune of this sorry episode, sits back waiting for the cash to roll in.

Can't argue with any of that GOB and I don't think that is being unfair to the GT's.

To be fair the GTs very very (and an extra) very seldomly get a hard time. The Fanfest draw attention for there faux REAL fan bohommie and as a password exchange and for most that is where the association ends.

I suppose the other arguement is they somewhat help get Brent off the hook in as much as there might have been more of an uproar if the staff literally had to wait to get their money back.

It's not oft remembered but the GTs were always around doing jobs around the place on th QT but are high profle now all helped along by the weekly pics of the usual suspects on GOS (Chris posing with Ian, Ian posing with Chris, Chris and Ian posing with Graham, Chris with Lindsey, Ian with Lindsey, Chris and Ian with Lindsey, Chris, Ian, Graham, Chris with Windsor Boy (ok thats not even physically possible), Chris with Lee, Lee with Deepthroat (have they ever been seen in the same room together or are the related), Ian with his multis)

The GTs serve their purpose and all power to their elbow.

GOB wrote:

I think the problem that a few have with the GT's is that they see the GT's as using ordinary fans to bail out what they consider to be Brent's responsibilities.

The counter argument to that is of course, that the GT's are not bailing out Brent's responsibilities but bailing out the responsibilities of the previous owners.

The counter, counter argument to that is that Brent took on those responsibilities when he purchased the club and the potential huge profits from the developments.

Personally, I think the GT's do a brilliant job and for all the good intentions. Rick O’Shay and Co, get a rough ride from some on here and I never really understood why, it's almost like an absurd sort of envy at times. - That said, there's something quite repulsive about the GT's and ordinary fans that probably only just clear enough dosh for a crust every week delving deep into pockets while Brent, who is an extremely wealthy man that stands to earn a packet from misfortune of this sorry episode, sits back waiting for the cash to roll in.

It's bad that they have to pay for businessmen but:

A) That's capitalism. No-one would buy the club if they had to pay all debts up front from their own pocket.
B) It's easy to have a moral objection when we're not the one benefiting from their work. I have spoken to (at a guess) 7/8 staff who went unpaid during administration and they are all, to a man, delighted at the work the Taverners do. And I'm not saying you are morally objecting in that btw Gob.

This shouldn't be the situation that staff have to wait so long, but now it is the situation, the GTs are making the best out of a bad scenario.

GreenSam wrote:

GOB wrote:

I think the problem that a few have with the GT's is that they see the GT's as using ordinary fans to bail out what they consider to be Brent's responsibilities.

The counter argument to that is of course, that the GT's are not bailing out Brent's responsibilities but bailing out the responsibilities of the previous owners.

The counter, counter argument to that is that Brent took on those responsibilities when he purchased the club and the potential huge profits from the developments.

Personally, I think the GT's do a brilliant job and for all the good intentions. Rick O’Shay and Co, get a rough ride from some on here and I never really understood why, it's almost like an absurd sort of envy at times. - That said, there's something quite repulsive about the GT's and ordinary fans that probably only just clear enough dosh for a crust every week delving deep into pockets while Brent, who is an extremely wealthy man that stands to earn a packet from misfortune of this sorry episode, sits back waiting for the cash to roll in.

It's bad that they have to pay for businessmen but:

A) That's capitalism. No-one would buy the club if they had to pay all debts up front from their own pocket.
B) It's easy to have a moral objection when we're not the one benefiting from their work. I have spoken to (at a guess) 7/8 staff who went unpaid during administration and they are all, to a man, delighted at the work the Taverners do. And I'm not saying you are morally objecting in that btw Gob.

This shouldn't be the situation that staff have to wait so long, but now it is the situation, the GTs are making the best out of a bad scenario.

A) That doesn't make it right Sam, a capitalist society without compassion is a society without a soul.

B) I have also spoken to a couple members of staff and yes of course they are happy that their bills are being paid and their gratitude for the work that the GT's do is significant, but it would be unfair if that was distorted to give an impression that the staff are content that their wages are being made up with what is for the want of better words, charitable acts.

GreenSam wrote:

This shouldn't be the situation that staff have to wait so long, but now it is the situation, the GTs are making the best out of a bad scenario.

The two members of staff who protested the immoral settlement, as much as a service to their fellow staff members in the case of Reid, were talked around by Een Nool and the head GT.

Weird how these things come round in circles.

GOB wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

GOB wrote:

I think the problem that a few have with the GT's is that they see the GT's as using ordinary fans to bail out what they consider to be Brent's responsibilities.

The counter argument to that is of course, that the GT's are not bailing out Brent's responsibilities but bailing out the responsibilities of the previous owners.

The counter, counter argument to that is that Brent took on those responsibilities when he purchased the club and the potential huge profits from the developments.

Personally, I think the GT's do a brilliant job and for all the good intentions. Rick O’Shay and Co, get a rough ride from some on here and I never really understood why, it's almost like an absurd sort of envy at times. - That said, there's something quite repulsive about the GT's and ordinary fans that probably only just clear enough dosh for a crust every week delving deep into pockets while Brent, who is an extremely wealthy man that stands to earn a packet from misfortune of this sorry episode, sits back waiting for the cash to roll in.

It's bad that they have to pay for businessmen but:

A) That's capitalism. No-one would buy the club if they had to pay all debts up front from their own pocket.
B) It's easy to have a moral objection when we're not the one benefiting from their work. I have spoken to (at a guess) 7/8 staff who went unpaid during administration and they are all, to a man, delighted at the work the Taverners do. And I'm not saying you are morally objecting in that btw Gob.

This shouldn't be the situation that staff have to wait so long, but now it is the situation, the GTs are making the best out of a bad scenario.

A) That doesn't make it right Sam, a capitalist society without compassion is a society without a soul.

B) I have also spoken to a couple members of staff and yes of course they are happy that their bills are being paid and their gratitude for the work that the GT's do is significant, but it would be unfair if that was distorted to give an impression that the staff are content that their wages are being made up with what is for the want of better words, charitable acts.

Perhaps we're at cross purposes here.

I agree it doesn't make it right, believe me I'm no cheerleader for capitalism. That's why I agree it's a stinking situation to start with. If I gave off the impression that the staff are happy with it then that wasn't the intention.

However, looking at it just from the GT and staff perspective. Brent has already decided not to pay it up front. There's nothing the staff or GTs can do to change his mind. The best the GTs can do when put in that scenario is make the best out of the bad situation and do what they do and that's what the staff are happy about (albeit annoyed it's come to that anyway). And I don't actually think you disagree with any of that either so perhaps we just misinterpreted oneanother.

Mock Cuncher wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

This shouldn't be the situation that staff have to wait so long, but now it is the situation, the GTs are making the best out of a bad scenario.

The two members of staff who protested the immoral settlement, as much as a service to their fellow staff members in the case of Reid, were talked around by Een Nool and the head GT.

Weird how these things come round in circles.

I don't think Tony Campbell protested it for that reason- I think it was a quibble over a technicality as to just how long he was in work or not if I remember correctly. There was a period of time which he believed he was owed payment and the club did not which is what the debate was over.

As for Reid, well it's the first I heard that he did it in protest for the staff. Are you sure on that? If Reid was protesting against the immoral payment fair enough but were there any alternatives that Brent would sanction?

Yes if Brent was more philanthropic he could have payed it all in one go. I'm not arguing with that. BUT the reality is he was never going to. A football savvy man like Reid will have known that too, not to mention the concept of doing it "for" other staff who had already agreed the settlement for themselves. Even if what you said about Reid is true (and no offence, I just haven't heard it) I still can't see what the GTs could have done that was much better. Because if the staff had held out for payment in full right away then Brent would have turned his back. The old cliche goes that there's always someone daft enough to buy a football club and it's true. I don't think there's often people daft enough to buy a football club paying about £5 million or so up front for a team 24th in League 2 though.

If capitalism was moral, Brent would have payed the full whack yes. But then if capitalism was moral, it wouldn't be capitalism. I still say the GTs are doing the best job possible to counteract the negative results of the clubs prior mismanagement and the terms of the buy-out.

GreenSam wrote:

GOB wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

GOB wrote:

I think the problem that a few have with the GT's is that they see the GT's as using ordinary fans to bail out what they consider to be Brent's responsibilities.

The counter argument to that is of course, that the GT's are not bailing out Brent's responsibilities but bailing out the responsibilities of the previous owners.

The counter, counter argument to that is that Brent took on those responsibilities when he purchased the club and the potential huge profits from the developments.

Personally, I think the GT's do a brilliant job and for all the good intentions. Rick O’Shay and Co, get a rough ride from some on here and I never really understood why, it's almost like an absurd sort of envy at times. - That said, there's something quite repulsive about the GT's and ordinary fans that probably only just clear enough dosh for a crust every week delving deep into pockets while Brent, who is an extremely wealthy man that stands to earn a packet from misfortune of this sorry episode, sits back waiting for the cash to roll in.

It's bad that they have to pay for businessmen but:

A) That's capitalism. No-one would buy the club if they had to pay all debts up front from their own pocket.
B) It's easy to have a moral objection when we're not the one benefiting from their work. I have spoken to (at a guess) 7/8 staff who went unpaid during administration and they are all, to a man, delighted at the work the Taverners do. And I'm not saying you are morally objecting in that btw Gob.

This shouldn't be the situation that staff have to wait so long, but now it is the situation, the GTs are making the best out of a bad scenario.

A) That doesn't make it right Sam, a capitalist society without compassion is a society without a soul.

B) I have also spoken to a couple members of staff and yes of course they are happy that their bills are being paid and their gratitude for the work that the GT's do is significant, but it would be unfair if that was distorted to give an impression that the staff are content that their wages are being made up with what is for the want of better words, charitable acts.

Perhaps we're at cross purposes here.

I agree it doesn't make it right, believe me I'm no cheerleader for capitalism. That's why I agree it's a stinking situation to start with. If I gave off the impression that the staff are happy with it then that wasn't the intention.

However, looking at it just from the GT and staff perspective. Brent has already decided not to pay it up front. There's nothing the staff or GTs can do to change his mind. The best the GTs can do when put in that scenario is make the best out of the bad situation and do what they do and that's what the staff are happy about (albeit annoyed it's come to that anyway). And I don't actually think you disagree with any of that either so perhaps we just misinterpreted oneanother.

That's pretty much how I see it Sam, there's a 'need' for the GT's to do it and all credit to them for doing so, but what sort of moral indictment is that on a man in Brent's position and with Brent's fortune and with Brent's local developing opportunities?

There's probably no laws being broken in any of this sham but that doesn't mean we have to accept it Sam. It stinks from high heaven and for anyone with a hint of a moral compass the revulsion induces anger and dislike made even worse knowing that those who I pay my Council Tax to are having financial dealings with such a character!

What's next, selling arms of warfare to third world countries, it's not illegal but it stinks just as much. There's not a lot I can do about it but I sure as hell can shout about it rather than to just accept it.

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

Hmm.

That's an excellent thread overall. The difference between reading it and the PASOTI equivalent is quite remarkable. One is a thread contributed to by Plymouth Argyle fans, the other a thread by James Brent fans.

There is a need for the staff repayments.

When Brent's intimidation and hardline approach didn't work, he turned to the pleading 'look into my fat feckin eyes' of Ian, and the glib promises from the Taverners.

Would Brent have been so hardline had the GTs not promised to soften the blow? No way of telling for sure, but me: I reckon he'd have paid whatever it took to get his hands on the land.

selling arms of warfare to third world countrys stinks just as much the tiny bit of credabillity you have on this site gob (and it was tiny) has totally gone out the window,,,mental person alert

Welcome back again Ian

no,newton abbot comie mike

Isn't the plan for the club (fans) to repay the GT's at the end of all this? Meaning in effect the fans will have paid twice?

And what will the GT's do with that money? That is a question that never seems to get answered?

tcm wrote:

selling arms of warfare to third world countrys stinks just as much the tiny bit of credabillity you have on this site gob (and it was tiny) has totally gone out the window,,,mental person alert

After reading your post I have a question
Are you yoda ?

if you want me to be,,,,,££££££££££££££££££££££££

Rickler wrote:

Isn't the plan for the club (fans) to repay the GT's at the end of all this? Meaning in effect the fans will have paid twice?

And what will the GT's do with that money? That is a question that never seems to get answered?

So not only will the club have to pay back Brent for his loan, it will also have to pay back the GT's as well - Have I got this right?

How much is owed to the GT's so far then?