PL2 FACED making a prick of himself again

Pointing out that there's a piece about Brent's vision for Argyle in The Telegraph. All very good until you see the 1 comment left under the article  

And it wasn't me. It's far too polite to be me  

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

It almost amazes me that he just happened to "stumble" over that article while browsing the Telegraph as if he reads it online every day.
More spin from the Brent propaganda machine put together and sent in by one of his Jam-boys, edited by the Telegraph while PL2 announces its online publishing on Pasoti.

brilliant comment on the torygraph site.

Same old shite.

I wont be shocked if that comment on there gets removed. telegraph dont like the rich and fellow tories being spoken of like that.

Interestingly in that article JB still says they have a plan to increase the capacity to 20,000.

Such a pity he won't explain to us whether the plans will meet the criteria set down in the Green Guide for football stadiums. The same guide Akkeron used to evaluate the WG's alternative plan for the stadium. Or what they intend to do if the plans don't meet the Green Guide.

brent is the perfect big society, maximising profit, cameron loving tory so wouldn't expect anything else but high praise from the not even fit to be arsepaper torygraph.

As for the "plan" to incease to 20,000 that must be refering to extending the horse shoe - which we all know is horse shit.

Freathy wrote:

brent is the perfect big society, maximising profit, cameron loving tory so wouldn't expect anything else but high praise from the not even fit to be arsepaper torygraph.

As for the "plan" to incease to 20,000 that must be refering to extending the horse shoe - which we all know is horse shit.

well he isnt referring to the new substandard stand as he has heemed that in good and proper so no increase in the size is possible.

Your summing up of Brent is spot on. He is a tory boy and thatcherite to the core.

I'm sure the Torygraph would love to know of a Labour council leader calling a supporter a chimp.

looks like the first comment has been edited

alannotivvy wrote:

looks like the first comment has been edited

probably had the sheep ringing up/emailing them in droves to get them to remove it as per usual.

The comment has disappeared. What did it say?

As I just posted in the relevant thread on Exeweb, the timing of this puff-piece is very interesting.  Opponents of Brent start making noises about contacting the national press and hey presto - a fawning  article on PAFC is printed in a major broadsheet. Hopefully those who still don't realise what sort of player Brent is are beginning to open their eyes.

...and to think that some of you are trying to argue that the Trust won't be important in the end...

the first one is up there, but has been edited and two more haven't been allowed on.
all stating the usual stuff about Brent and his super fan cronies

James Brent wrote:

There’s no anxiety if we don’t get promoted this year.

but unless the development got the nod now there were threats he'd walk. Got his priorities right then.

Also the article says that the current capacity would be increased by 1000, doesn't mention that that is after the Mayflower was closed and maybe some of the Lyndhurst.
#brentmyths #couldntmakeitup #butdoes
#wishIhadanewspaperinmypocket

This is one if my pet hates. The capacity of a stand is dictated by the maximum number of people able to fit in - when it is used to its full capacity. They CHOSE to remove seats from the Mayflower.

It's like closing off or taking out 3000 seats in the Lyndhurst, then announcing that the capacity of the Lyndhurst is 1000. Its not, you cnuts! The CAPACITY of the Mayflower is what it is capable of holding when used to its full CAPACITY. If they wanna take seats out, that's their small-minded decision.

Tossers.

My comment om the Telegraph article was removed completely - it said nothing nasty or libelous - just the truth. Should be ashamed of themselves.

They have actually removed people's comments on the Telegraph?

Was there anything said which was in any way deserving of censorship? Perhaps I should have my say on there  

Brent's Bounty and the Torygraph is the subject of debate on Exeweb too.

This thread also clearly illustrates just how easy it is to get away with the rape of a football club when the media is in your pocket and how a few articulate individuals can shift opinion given the platform.
Well played Jabba.

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

Shame you cant comment as a guest on there. I just couldn't bring myself to sign up to that pissy-arsed Pyongyang equivalent.

Czarcasm wrote:

Shame you cant comment as a guest on there. I just couldn't bring myself to sign up to that pissy-arsed Pyongyang equivalent.

If I can do it, you can too.  

They haven't banned me and I've been on there for years. It's the only forum I can use to chat with Napoleon.

all dissent must be silenced, cant wait for the penny to drop with the pro-brigade that theyve been had.

mannameadbabe wrote:

My comment om the Telegraph article was removed completely - it said nothing nasty or libelous - just the truth.  Should be ashamed of themselves.

Why don't you post what you wrote in the Telegraph on the New Grandstand thread in response to PL2faced's last comment on there and let people judge for themselves if there was any potentially libellous content? Or post it on here at least

Tringreen wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

Shame you cant comment as a guest on there. I just couldn't bring myself to sign up to that pissy-arsed Pyongyang equivalent.

If I can do it, you can too.  

They haven't banned me and I've been on there for years. It's the only forum I can use to chat with Napoleon.

I read that as Czarcasm meaning the Telegraph not Exeweb Tring.

swampy wrote:

mannameadbabe wrote:

My comment om the Telegraph article was removed completely - it said nothing nasty or libelous - just the truth.  Should be ashamed of themselves.

Why don't you post what you wrote in the Telegraph on the New Grandstand thread in response to PL2faced's last comment on there and let people judge for themselves if there was any potentially libellous content? Or post it on here at least

Would there be any real point, it's a website forum with a proven track record for its corrupt owners and managers or whatever title they have given themselves these days.

There is only way this whole story will ever be told and that's if someone can be arsed to get off their arse and do something to bring it to the masses. I can't be arsed but if someone out there can I'll be happy to offer support but that's as far as my interest goes.

To be fair to old porky at least he's gotten off his arse to defend his master, hence why they are winning, Brent gets his empire and Argyle and Argyle fans lose.