Noti = nool on the internet!

GOB wrote:

greensleeves wrote:

GOB...Argyle first and foremost but James Brent as a property developer wants some return as a property developer.You cant argue with that,why shouldn't he....PCC initially brought him on board to save the club, they weren't able,didn't want to whatever, themselves..... so it was James Brent or bust....who knows what goes on behind the corridors of power as to what agreements were made.
Knecht...As for a wind up.I dont think I'm ever going to convince you,we will always disagree on that one.

No!

Brent bought into a social and community asset, ie our Club. If he was daft enough not to understand that his profit may not be as high as his other projects because he was buying into a Community asset and, if he failed to understand the sensitivities of the Plymouth public with regards to Central Park as well as its football club and, if it takes just a bump in his and Akeron's overall profit to make things as the majority would prefer, TOUGH TITIES!

I honestly couldn't give a bollock if Brent caught a cold and a massive knock to his business credibility, neither could I give a bollock if Brent stands to make a killing, that's for him to worry about. My concerns are for PAFC, the Fans, Central Park and the Plymouth Council Tax payers, present and future!

Your last paragraph GOB.......admirable stance.......it brought a smile to my face and reminded me of a song that starts as follows...."Robin Hood Robin Hood riding through the glen etc etc............."

ZYPH wrote:

GOB wrote:

greensleeves wrote:

GOB...Argyle first and foremost but James Brent as a property developer wants some return as a property developer.You cant argue with that,why shouldn't he....PCC initially brought him on board to save the club, they weren't able,didn't want to whatever, themselves..... so it was James Brent or bust....who knows what goes on behind the corridors of power as to what agreements were made.
Knecht...As for a wind up.I dont think I'm ever going to convince you,we will always disagree on that one.

No!

Brent bought into a social and community asset, ie our Club. If he was daft enough not to understand that his profit may not be as high as his other projects because he was buying into a Community asset and, if he failed to understand the sensitivities of the Plymouth public with regards to Central Park as well as its football club and, if it takes just a bump in his and Akeron's overall profit to make things as the majority would prefer, TOUGH TITIES!

I honestly couldn't give a bollock if Brent caught a cold and a massive knock to his business credibility, neither could I give a bollock if Brent stands to make a killing, that's for him to worry about. My concerns are for PAFC, the Fans, Central Park and the Plymouth Council Tax payers, present and future!

Your last paragraph GOB.......admirable stance.......it brought a smile to my face and reminded me of a song that starts as follows...."Robin Hood Robin Hood riding through the glen etc etc............."

Good, maybe you could spread the word to others that seem unable to grasp the views of the majority.

GOB wrote:

ZYPH wrote:

GOB wrote:

greensleeves wrote:

GOB...Argyle first and foremost but James Brent as a property developer wants some return as a property developer.You cant argue with that,why shouldn't he....PCC initially brought him on board to save the club, they weren't able,didn't want to whatever, themselves..... so it was James Brent or bust....who knows what goes on behind the corridors of power as to what agreements were made.
Knecht...As for a wind up.I dont think I'm ever going to convince you,we will always disagree on that one.

No!

Brent bought into a social and community asset, ie our Club. If he was daft enough not to understand that his profit may not be as high as his other projects because he was buying into a Community asset and, if he failed to understand the sensitivities of the Plymouth public with regards to Central Park as well as its football club and, if it takes just a bump in his and Akeron's overall profit to make things as the majority would prefer, TOUGH TITIES!

I honestly couldn't give a bollock if Brent caught a cold and a massive knock to his business credibility, neither could I give a bollock if Brent stands to make a killing, that's for him to worry about. My concerns are for PAFC, the Fans, Central Park and the Plymouth Council Tax payers, present and future!

Your last paragraph GOB.......admirable stance.......it brought a smile to my face and reminded me of a song that starts as follows...."Robin Hood Robin Hood riding through the glen etc etc............."

Good, maybe you could spread the word to others that seem unable to grasp the views of the majority.

Not going to happen, Gob. The sycophantic cabal have been radicalized. There is no hope for them.

Person Of Interest wrote:

GOB wrote:

ZYPH wrote:

GOB wrote:

greensleeves wrote:

GOB...Argyle first and foremost but James Brent as a property developer wants some return as a property developer.You cant argue with that,why shouldn't he....PCC initially brought him on board to save the club, they weren't able,didn't want to whatever, themselves..... so it was James Brent or bust....who knows what goes on behind the corridors of power as to what agreements were made.
Knecht...As for a wind up.I dont think I'm ever going to convince you,we will always disagree on that one.

No!

Brent bought into a social and community asset, ie our Club. If he was daft enough not to understand that his profit may not be as high as his other projects because he was buying into a Community asset and, if he failed to understand the sensitivities of the Plymouth public with regards to Central Park as well as its football club and, if it takes just a bump in his and Akeron's overall profit to make things as the majority would prefer, TOUGH TITIES!

I honestly couldn't give a bollock if Brent caught a cold and a massive knock to his business credibility, neither could I give a bollock if Brent stands to make a killing, that's for him to worry about. My concerns are for PAFC, the Fans, Central Park and the Plymouth Council Tax payers, present and future!

Your last paragraph GOB.......admirable stance.......it brought a smile to my face and reminded me of a song that starts as follows...."Robin Hood Robin Hood riding through the glen etc etc............."

Good, maybe you could spread the word to others that seem unable to grasp the views of the majority.

Not going to happen, Gob. The sycophantic cabal have been radicalized. There is no hope for them.

feck me wait until Cobi hears about that.....

The problem that we have here is that people like Greensleeves are so feckin gullible, free agents riding through the night to do battle with the evil ATDers! If you are not a Brent/Nool patsy then WTF? You are just a WUM? Why bother? Luckily now I know who you are I will be able to sleep tonight.
Gobs post about not giving a feck about Brent is a good one, Zyph then steals Brent's theme tune aka Robin Hood, very clever.
I have never got this reluctant bidder bullshit, never will. Check my posts on pasoti when he was riding through the glen, racing to save Maid Marion, Friar Tuck and Will Scarlet running behind his horse, I was saying that we should be careful of Brent, he is a property developer, he will asset strip the club for his personal profit and we will get very little out of it. I was told that I was wrong, Brent was a real fan, who had to buy the club to return us to the days of openess and transparency, morals and integrity were to be his colours, he was the most super of superfans, unlike me who had followed the Greens for half a feckin century as my father and grandfather had before me.
So now after all the lies about not being interested in property, after saying he wouldn't steal the clubs assets, after being more unapproachable than a rattlesnake with a hangover we have to endure people like you GS (people like you is a derogatory term BTW) saying why should he be open? Why should he give us the same capacity stand that we had before? And the one that really grips my shit, Why shouldn't he cash in on Argyle? Because it shouldn't be his to cash in on, it is a community asset as Gob said, he should look after it, have some fun and pass it on to the next owner better than it was before.
The one small thing that makes me feel a little better about all this is that I believe history will look kindly upon myself Gob and all the evil wrong uns on this site, as we were trying to do the best for PAFC. You and all you sort (read arse licking toadies for that one Al) will go down in history as the people who helped a property developer feather his nest at the expense of the club, I pity you.

To be fair to Zyph he does seem to have grasped the concept of Brent's actions as his analogy is spot on.

Now he seems to accept that Brent is indeed attempting to make himself wealthier at the expense of the majority, what is Zyph's motives for supporting him?

In life you have leaders of men and followers of men, some people just need to follow.

GOB wrote:

To be fair to Zyph he does seem to have grasped the concept of Brent's actions as his analogy is spot on.

Now he seems to accept that Brent is indeed attempting to make himself wealthier at the expense of the majority, what is Zyph's motives for supporting him?

Please GOB your understanding of my comment is running riot in your mind.....I am not on anyones side.....I'm ploughing a furrow straight down the middle.

A pinch of salt is sprinkled on all comments/facts that come forth.... for and against.... what is at present going on regarding a new stand and other developments at Home Park and I hope that the right thing is done........oh to have the wisdom of knowing what that is.....maybe the mentioned "Palace Model" is the way ahead.

Agree with Gob and Iggy. I don't give a feck if Brent cashes in on the club as long as the football does well out if it. I don't see how a man buying a club, removing most of its land to build on, whilst restricting its future growth and leaving it a hollow debt ridden shell can be defended one bit. I can't believe how people who purport to support the club would care more about self promotion and a private person feathering his own nest than the success of the football team. I dont get it.

Rewind to admin. days, Heaney rolls into town and basically said that he was going to do half what Brent is proposing, minus school, medical centre and Ministand, cue outright condemnation from all the fanbase led by Porky on his white charger to unleash the dogs of war! Then we have Brent protecting Nools green lung by building all over it, why the total contrast in opinions? This is what a lot of us are struggling with.
I must register a noti account so that I can search out some posts from back then.

greensleeves wrote:

Jock I dont think you should be a moderator on here with that sort of attitude.Alcoholic,scrounger,....whatever next...I don't post on here to wind up people,just to provide a different view,which as a democratic site I hope you are happy with.Actually Damon twigged who I was about two weeks ago,not unsurprising really as I used to sit behind Damon and Helen in the grandstand.The old car story/blagged a ST is a load of cobblers,as well.....You seem to believe everything IJN feeds you.. I offer this site a creditable alternative to the daily negative viewpoints that you and others offer.So I'm most definitely not going to flounce....I don't swear so nighty night...

I don't think I should be either and you can't say that I didn't tell people that in the election run up!

As for the scrounging whilst buying a new car story, take it up with your old pal Newell, he was the one who gave me the details in a phone call, which he denies happened, and in that same phone call he also gave details of why he knew it was Sean rapson who made all the threats etc as Greenman. A groupie for the GT's he described Sean as and all along it was porkys mate Postey making the threats to my family and me.

Postey also says others were involved but won't name them. I think we all know who they are though, just another deepthroat/Windsor Boy/Deadly Nightshade/Dogger/Derrick Sanderson which involved Postey, Webb, Jameson and some more Pasoti mods.

So you're not happy with ATD mods but are quite happy to be matey with Pasoti more who have been involved in all of the crap over the last couple of years?

You're either trying to cause trouble for ATD and helping a football forum influence the club with bullshit and propaganda even though it means siding with a fat prick who has blabbed a story about you which you claim is horrible and not true, or you just like the animosity between the two sites. That makes you either a sad little creep who doesn't care what is said behind your back as long as it makes you feel part of a group, or a bit crazy with mental health issues. You could say a bit of an Oddball.

Hugh Watt wrote:

Agree with Gob and Iggy. I don't give a feck if Brent cashes in on the club as long as the football does well out if it. I don't see how a man buying a club, removing most of its land to build on, whilst restricting its future growth and leaving it a hollow debt ridden shell can be defended one bit. I can't believe how people who purport to support the club would care more about self promotion and a private person feathering his own nest than the success of the football team. I dont get it.

this.

and that should be thought of the week.

Mapperley, darling wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

Agree with Gob and Iggy. I don't give a feck if Brent cashes in on the club as long as the football does well out if it. I don't see how a man buying a club, removing most of its land to build on, whilst restricting its future growth and leaving it a hollow debt ridden shell can be defended one bit. I can't believe how people who purport to support the club would care more about self promotion and a private person feathering his own nest than the success of the football team. I dont get it.

this.

and that should be thought of the week.

done

Iggy wrote:

Rewind to admin. days, Heaney rolls into town and basically said that he was going to do half what Brent is proposing, minus school, medical centre and Ministand, cue outright condemnation from all the fanbase led by Porky on his white charger to unleash the dogs of war! Then we have Brent protecting Nools green lung by building all over it, why the total contrast in opinions? This is what a lot of us are struggling with.
I must register a noti account so that I can search out some posts from back then.

Cue the Prez and other supers, Heaney didn't have any money, blah, blah blah. The thing is they are right that he didn't. He was a total Walter Mitty tosser and most, if not all, of us knew it. On the other hand, he could have had backers/investors who were quite keen on being given the keys to the city and the £150m (low estimate) development opportunities therein. If Heaney was such a pariah for not having the money, whats the difference with Brent. He's done alright for himself, no question, but he's not shelling out only his own money is he? There must be backers/investors/credit streams there somewhere. (I stand to be corrected on this, but I would be suprised). He hasn't kept the club afloat out of any of this called philanthropy or because he's become so obsessed with the club, like us mere purporters. It's an investment. Funding the shortfall in his own ridiculous budget hasn't come for free. They were covered by loans, yes loans, that will have to be repaid, from his ever giving, never taking company.

Despite the propoganda on Pasoti I dont give a shit that he was a banker because he isn't one now. Now he is a hotel tycoon/property developer. Remember those halcyon days when the phrase 'Property Developer' was about as popular as a cartoon of the prophet Mohammed. (Just a joke for you radicalists on the other thread) Apparently all those who oppose his plans are just jealous that he is worth a few bob and was a banker. Not generalising slander at all that. As long as I've been a supporter, all of the owners/chairmen had quite a bit more funds than I had. This custodian is no different and as such my criticisms of him aren't based on that.

As was posted earlier, if he makes money on his investment or not is completely irrelevant to me personally. I've ranted before that my priorities regards his stewardship and the myriad developments that this entails are the football club at number one, the city as a whole as number two and Akkerrons profits not even on the map.

Anyway, I can feel myself going off on a ranty tangent, so I'll leave it there.

Steve

ZYPH wrote:

GOB wrote:

To be fair to Zyph he does seem to have grasped the concept of Brent's actions as his analogy is spot on.

Now he seems to accept that Brent is indeed attempting to make himself wealthier at the expense of the majority, what is Zyph's motives for supporting him?

Please GOB your understanding of my comment is running riot in your mind.....I am not on anyones side.....I'm ploughing a furrow straight down the middle.

A pinch of salt is sprinkled on all comments/facts that come forth.... for and against.... what is at present going on regarding a new stand and other developments at Home Park and I hope that the right thing is done........oh to have the wisdom of knowing what that is.....maybe the mentioned "Palace Model" is the way ahead.

Take a chill pill Zyph, it was how I perceived your comment, it's nothing to stress about.

GOB.....Why do I need a "chill pill" it is not I who have strong views on the development....it isn't I who is stressed out....I haven't strong views either way on the subject.

I'm more interested in who Sheridan is trying to bring in......until we have a winning team the stadium is not No1 problem.

greensleeves wrote:

Knecht...this is what bothers with this site.Moderators are supposed to behave with a bit of discretion,integrity,honesty

I did have a little smile when I read this, it strikes me that moderation on here now takes its lead from the other places, Euuuuweb and Pasoti.

It's a shame because I used to find this place to be a tad different, they are now all so far up their own arses with their rabid hate of the Porker they seem incapable of making any kind of reasonable response to anything. Brent saved the club and is now doing things for it which might never have been possible without his intervention, yet all he gets is venom spat at him from this nest of vipers.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

greensleeves wrote:

Knecht...this is what bothers with this site.Moderators are supposed to behave with a bit of discretion,integrity,honesty

I did have a little smile when I read this, it strikes me that moderation on here now takes its lead from the other places, Euuuuweb and Pasoti.

It's a shame because I used to find this place to be a tad different, they are now all so far up their own arses with their rabid hate of the Porker they seem incapable of making any kind of reasonable response to anything. Brent saved the club and is now doing things for it which might never have been possible without his intervention, yet all he gets is venom spat at him from this nest of vipers.

Well,if you don't like it........

Settle down chaps. It could be worse.............

http://www.exeweb.com/forums/showthread.php?51423-So-who-s-responsible

Tringreen wrote:

Settle down chaps. It could be worse.............

http://www.exeweb.com/forums/showthread.php?51423-So-who-s-responsible

The problem with there, Pasoti and now unfortunately here is the way in which the moderation has become progressively more subjective, weak ass wankers, angry fooktards, control freaks and women need to be kept well clear of the moderation function, all three sites are now failing in that, which is a shame.

We have the moderation we voted for

pepsipete wrote:

We have the moderation we voted for

Nah, you got the moderators you voted for.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Settle down chaps. It could be worse.............

http://www.exeweb.com/forums/showthread.php?51423-So-who-s-responsible

The problem with there, Pasoti and now unfortunately here is the way in which the moderation has become progressively more subjective, weak ass wankers, angry fooktards, control freaks and women need to be kept well clear of the moderation function, all three sites are now failing in that, which is a shame.

Women need to be kept away from the modroom as well? Who else have you missed off Adolf?

Lord Tisdale wrote:

pepsipete wrote:

We have the moderation we voted for

Nah, you got the moderators you voted for.

Nobody is making you stay.