Presidents Progress

Any posts from the President should be to provide information, to clarify points and respond to questions as far as he is able. Any personal abuse should play no part in that and should be ignored. Some people find that harder to do than others.

First served, first come!

knecht wrote:

Any posts from the President should be to provide information, to clarify points and respond to questions as far as he is able. Any personal abuse should play no part in that and should be ignored. Some people find that harder to do than others.

Maybe we need Chris to qualify his role?

From my point of view it's for us to ask the questions to our Trust leaders and in turn they ask the club? - I see the Presidents role as being a mouthpiece for the club and someone that promotes the club, not someone that we should be asking questions of?

We're all guilty of chucking insults about and I include myself in that, but it's also a football site at the end of the day and I hope we never lose that cutting edge that is often a laugh if kept within reason. Thick skins are required, it's not a place for the over sensitive but neither will it make anyone bleed.

Good post GOB.

I think in the past, the President has been the ONLY formal (or informal) contact with the owner/board at the club. As such we have perhaps asked questions that he was unable or unwilling to answer. You are right, he is in a 'ceremonial' role and not an official capacity as a club spokesman.

I agree the Trust is the medium we should be using to ask questions of the board now.

For matters of Fanfests, Vuvuzeulas, flags and scarves (in other words, rallying the fans) then it should be the President. Chris has clearly taken the role to heart and wants to bridge the gap between boardroom and fans, which, now, might not be in his remit.

GOB wrote:

knecht wrote:

Any posts from the President should be to provide information, to clarify points and respond to questions as far as he is able. Any personal abuse should play no part in that and should be ignored. Some people find that harder to do than others.

Maybe we need Chris to qualify his role?

From my point of view it's for us to ask the questions to our Trust leaders and in turn they ask the club? - I see the Presidents role as being a mouthpiece for the club and someone that promotes the club, not someone that we should be asking questions of?

We're all guilty of chucking insults about and I include myself in that, but it's also a football site at the end of the day and I hope we never lose that cutting edge that is often a laugh if kept within reason. Thick skins are required, it's not a place for the over sensitive but neither will it make anyone bleed.

Not physical harm GOB but there are other areas where individuals can be damaged.

Tringreen wrote:

GOB wrote:

knecht wrote:

Any posts from the President should be to provide information, to clarify points and respond to questions as far as he is able. Any personal abuse should play no part in that and should be ignored. Some people find that harder to do than others.

Maybe we need Chris to qualify his role?

From my point of view it's for us to ask the questions to our Trust leaders and in turn they ask the club? - I see the Presidents role as being a mouthpiece for the club and someone that promotes the club, not someone that we should be asking questions of?

We're all guilty of chucking insults about and I include myself in that, but it's also a football site at the end of the day and I hope we never lose that cutting edge that is often a laugh if kept within reason. Thick skins are required, it's not a place for the over sensitive but neither will it make anyone bleed.

Not physical harm GOB but there are other areas where individuals can be damaged.

You're right Tring, but I was commenting regarding comments that are made on ATD, not other sites.

chriswebbfanclub wrote:

Sandford_Grecian wrote:

monti wrote:

Sandford_Grecian wrote:

Well, there's a coup for these boards... hadn't realised Barack Hussein Obama was a fan of your club... Mr fuckin' President indeed!! my god what a fuckin oaf you have there

The only oaf on here is you, kindly f*ck off

when is it his birthday... I'll hire a Marilyn Monroe look-a-like, and get her to sing happy birthday Mr President... happy birthday to you

He'll stay away from Central Park if he knows what's good for him--far to many grassy knolls!

Oswald's not around to take the rap this time, although I might swear to having seen IJN with a smoking gun!

Thank you for your input 'Fidel Castro'

GOB wrote:

From my point of view it's for us to ask the questions to our Trust leaders and in turn they ask the club?

That will work for a while but then your leaders will morph from the Trust to the Club and their replacements will become more and more the pointless committee men as the real supporters who ask the pertinent questions become bored with the stonewall. I cite the process of the EC Trust 2006-2012, and we own the friggin Club. Anyone that might become a focus for any form of dissent or argument with the "Company Line" will either become part of the problem, see Porky and Webb, or will be vilified so much that they give it bollocks, see quite a few I imagine.

Grovehill raised the perfectly reasonable point that Brent has not paid a penny of his own money into the Club, the hounds dropped on him, I made a post in support of his viewpoint, it was deleted by the Porker.

Forget fan involvement, the only fan involvement Harry Potter wants is your cash, you have to admire the chap, he has worked out pretty quickly that all the bulk of the fannage want is to turn up and watch the team win, in your case squeaking a save this season is all he needs to keep the turnstiles clicking while Porky and Webb wave the flags and cut off the dissent at the pass.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

GOB wrote:

From my point of view it's for us to ask the questions to our Trust leaders and in turn they ask the club?

That will work for a while but then your leaders will morph from the Trust to the Club and their replacements will become more and more the pointless committee men as the real supporters who ask the pertinent questions become bored with the stonewall. I cite the process of the EC Trust 2006-2012, and we own the friggin Club. Anyone that might become a focus for any form of dissent or argument with the "Company Line" will either become part of the problem, see Porky and Webb, or will be vilified so much that they give it bollocks, see quite a few I imagine.

Grovehill raised the perfectly reasonable point that Brent has not paid a penny of his own money into the Club, the hounds dropped on him, I made a post in support of his viewpoint, it was deleted by the Porker.

Forget fan involvement, the only fan involvement Harry Potter wants is your cash, you have to admire the chap, he has worked out pretty quickly that all the bulk of the fannage want is to turn up and watch the team win, in your case squeaking a save this season is all he needs to keep the turnstiles clicking while Porky and Webb wave the flags and cut off the dissent at the pass.

And unless someone can advise me differently, that would appear to encapsulate the whole scenario, past,present and future.

Inspiring innit ?

GOB wrote:

.........

Maybe we need Chris to qualify his role?

From my point of view it's for us to ask the questions to our Trust leaders and in turn they ask the club? - I see the Presidents role as being a mouthpiece for the club and someone that promotes the club, not someone that we should be asking questions of?

We're all guilty of chucking insults about and I include myself in that, but it's also a football site at the end of the day and I hope we never lose that cutting edge that is often a laugh if kept within reason. Thick skins are required, it's not a place for the over sensitive but neither will it make anyone bleed.

I'd agree with that except just because he represents the club it doesn't mean we can't ask questions. Also, I'm in agreement with TonyC to the extent that having a Fans' Trust shouldn't preclude anyone from making contact with the club as an individual.

It amuses me still how he has used the name Porkus [and many others of course] for years and when I gave him the Napoleon from Animal Farm handle, he thought it was the the little general himself.
Not tonight Josephine.

I'm increasingly confused by what appears to me to be mutually opposing views.

On the one hand the cry goes up that we don't know what Mr Brent has put into the club financially or, in the slightly longer term future, what he is proposing to spend.

On the other hand he is berated for only being in it for his own ends, to make money and run.

Surely both views can't be true?

knecht wrote:

I'm increasingly confused by what appears to me to be mutually opposing views.

On the one hand the cry goes up that we don't know what Mr Brent has put into the club financially or, in the slightly longer term future, what he is proposing to spend.

On the other hand he is berated for only being in it for his own ends, to make money and run.

Surely both views can't be true?

I don't find that at all confusing.

Tringreen wrote:

knecht wrote:

I'm increasingly confused by what appears to me to be mutually opposing views.

On the one hand the cry goes up that we don't know what Mr Brent has put into the club financially or, in the slightly longer term future, what he is proposing to spend.

On the other hand he is berated for only being in it for his own ends, to make money and run.

Surely both views can't be true?

I don't find that at all confusing.

Do you simply mean you understand it or that they aren't mutually opposing views?

knecht wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

knecht wrote:

I'm increasingly confused by what appears to me to be mutually opposing views.

On the one hand the cry goes up that we don't know what Mr Brent has put into the club financially or, in the slightly longer term future, what he is proposing to spend.

On the other hand he is berated for only being in it for his own ends, to make money and run.

Surely both views can't be true?

I don't find that at all confusing.

Do you simply mean you understand it or that they aren't mutually opposing views?

I mean that I don't think he has had to stump up much of his own cash to date and that he probably intends persuading the fans, through their 'representatives', to pay for as much as he can [going forward ], whilst he concentrates on other things but remains the club owner when it rises through the leagues again and becomes a salable asset.

The point about how much money Brent had to pay upfront, is that once this figure becomes public, it will become known just how much of a "no one else could do it" saviour Brent was.

If in the final analysis Brent paid (for example) £2 million, they got £1.6 million back from PCC, the true outlay of less than half a million, could well have been a sum that a few (well to do) Argyle fans could have put together.

Knowing the purchase price would also allow us to estimate how much debt the club has been saddled with going forward- if the Club has to clear (again for example) £2.5 million of debt over the next 5 years, then on Brent's aim of "sustainability" the club has to generate half a million pounds a year more than it spends until 2017.

chriswebbfanclub wrote:

If in the final analysis Brent paid (for example) £2 million, they got £1.6 million back from PCC, the true outlay of less than half a million, could well have been a sum that a few (well to do) Argyle fans could have put together.

I really don't want to appear to be a constant Brent knocker but where does this idea that he paid money up front then received something from PCC come from ?

A rudimentary knowledge of the way in which this kind of deal is structured would tell you that this simply would not happen, Brent had everybody over a barrel for the simple reason that he was the only game in town, the Last Chance Saloon if you like, there is more chance of Arsenal making the next round of the Chumps League than Brent having put up £2 million to make the deal happen, if he put up two bob I would be stunned, he had no need to.

The only way this deal was going to happen was with him in the frame, he screwed everybody including the club staff for terms, everybody is getting paid over five years out of PAFC's cash flow, the players and Reidy had to take the deal on the table or get fook all from liquidation, even prime vultures like Brenda had to drop their cacks and brace themselves.

This guy Brent may look like Danger Mouse's sidekick but he is an hard Muther, he will not have needed to put up one penny of his own not so hard earned, so he won't have done.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

chriswebbfanclub wrote:

If in the final analysis Brent paid (for example) £2 million, they got £1.6 million back from PCC, the true outlay of less than half a million, could well have been a sum that a few (well to do) Argyle fans could have put together.

I really don't want to appear to be a constant Brent knocker but where does this idea that he paid money up front then received something from PCC come from ?

A rudimentary knowledge of the way in which this kind of deal is structured would tell you that this simply would not happen, Brent had everybody over a barrel for the simple reason that he was the only game in town, the Last Chance Saloon if you like, there is more chance of Arsenal making the next round of the Chumps League than Brent having put up £2 million to make the deal happen, if he put up two bob I would be stunned, he had no need to.

The only way this deal was going to happen was with him in the frame, he screwed everybody including the club staff for terms, everybody is getting paid over five years out of PAFC's cash flow, the players and Reidy had to take the deal on the table or get fook all from liquidation, even prime vultures like Brenda had to drop their cacks and brace themselves.

This guy Brent may look like Danger Mouse's sidekick but he is an hard Muther, he will not have needed to put up one penny of his own not so hard earned, so he won't have done.

But you haven't looked him in the eye like Porkie has

Tringreen wrote:

Lord Tisdale wrote:

chriswebbfanclub wrote:

If in the final analysis Brent paid (for example) £2 million, they got £1.6 million back from PCC, the true outlay of less than half a million, could well have been a sum that a few (well to do) Argyle fans could have put together.

I really don't want to appear to be a constant Brent knocker but where does this idea that he paid money up front then received something from PCC come from ?

A rudimentary knowledge of the way in which this kind of deal is structured would tell you that this simply would not happen, Brent had everybody over a barrel for the simple reason that he was the only game in town, the Last Chance Saloon if you like, there is more chance of Arsenal making the next round of the Chumps League than Brent having put up £2 million to make the deal happen, if he put up two bob I would be stunned, he had no need to.

The only way this deal was going to happen was with him in the frame, he screwed everybody including the club staff for terms, everybody is getting paid over five years out of PAFC's cash flow, the players and Reidy had to take the deal on the table or get fook all from liquidation, even prime vultures like Brenda had to drop their cacks and brace themselves.

This guy Brent may look like Danger Mouse's sidekick but he is an hard Muther, he will not have needed to put up one penny of his own not so hard earned, so he won't have done.

But you haven't looked him in the eye like Porkie has

Or met his family and seen what a true gentleman he is......

Just like stapes was....

Yea Man wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Lord Tisdale wrote:

chriswebbfanclub wrote:

If in the final analysis Brent paid (for example) £2 million, they got £1.6 million back from PCC, the true outlay of less than half a million, could well have been a sum that a few (well to do) Argyle fans could have put together.

I really don't want to appear to be a constant Brent knocker but where does this idea that he paid money up front then received something from PCC come from ?

A rudimentary knowledge of the way in which this kind of deal is structured would tell you that this simply would not happen, Brent had everybody over a barrel for the simple reason that he was the only game in town, the Last Chance Saloon if you like, there is more chance of Arsenal making the next round of the Chumps League than Brent having put up £2 million to make the deal happen, if he put up two bob I would be stunned, he had no need to.

The only way this deal was going to happen was with him in the frame, he screwed everybody including the club staff for terms, everybody is getting paid over five years out of PAFC's cash flow, the players and Reidy had to take the deal on the table or get fook all from liquidation, even prime vultures like Brenda had to drop their cacks and brace themselves.

This guy Brent may look like Danger Mouse's sidekick but he is an hard Muther, he will not have needed to put up one penny of his own not so hard earned, so he won't have done.

But you haven't looked him in the eye like Porkie has

Or met his family and seen what a true gentleman he is......

Just like stapes was....

I am still asking the questions on pbay (along with Grovey) and the answers to these questions about money have been answered, apparently we just don't listen to the answers and no one is going to go repeating them. Postey came out with the "if you had met the man you would trust him bollocks", and newell backed him up with the old "it's easy to criticise from an internet forum" bollocks. Pasoti just doesn't get the concept of an internet football forum, the new saying is, "join the gas board or STFU."

The GAS board, approved by Pasoti . It just gets worse and worse. The real condemnation is that this is exactly what Brent appears to want. I think he may have misjudged the influence of these people over the masses. They represent a few hundred Avivas but that is enough to make them the largest and most vociferous group.

Tringreen wrote:

The GAS board, approved by Pasoti . It just gets worse and worse. The real condemnation is that this is exactly what Brent appears to want. I think he may have misjudged the influence of these people over the masses. They represent a few hundred Avivas but that is enough to make them the largest and most vociferous group.

Any fan's website (this one included) that thinks it's going to have a significant say in the outcome of the GAS elections is deluding itself. At most, ATD, Pasoti and Vital has, what, 350 regular posters? I may be being generous there. For further details of what I mean, check out the Trust election result, particularly Ed Shillabear's showing.

The successful candidates will be the ones that reach out to the regular punters, the 5,500 or so other bodies that go to Home Park, engage with them, effectively represent their views (it's a pretty broad church, after all) and pinpoints the issues that the regulars are most concerned about. My guess is more people worry about the cost of the Mars Bars in the ground than about what Brent did or did not pay for the club. That's why I still favour a slate of four candidates, all Trust members, who will be prepared to work with the Trust on this Board. That way, we might actually see some real fan engagement, some proper scrutiny, and some genuine representation, not just a few internet-based 'names' who think that by pandering to a particular 'group' they'll secure enough votes to win a seat.

I hope you are correct Andy but I fear that there will be a united determination, from certain quarters, to place 'approved' persons onto this board............ one way or another.

Anyway, I don't suppose they'll be listened to unless they are fund raising.

Tringreen wrote:

I hope you are correct Andy but I fear that there will be a united determination, from certain quarters, to place 'approved' persons onto this board............ one way or another.

Anyway, I don't suppose they'll be listened to unless they are fund raising.

I fear you may be right, and if I do decide to stand I'm bracing myself for yet more nastiness from those certain quarters you mention. Nevertheless, I think that if the GAS Board is to have any credibility it needs people on it who won't be bought off, won't be pressured by individuals to do things their way, will be truly representative of all Argyle fans, and not in any way a 'yes man' (or woman). Such creatures do exist. Lets hope some of them get elected.

shonbo wrote:

I did not say that Tring's opinion was not acceptable, just it wasn't much of one and that it didn't do his arguments any favours. That's my opinion

Some people seem more infatuated with certain other supporters than discussing what I find quite interesting alternate points of view to the norm and which I wouldn't have necessarily considered if it wasn't for this site. Football sites should be full of passion, but what I liked about this one were those thought provoking points of view. I can go on twitter or FB to hear people being called a tw@t if I want. (apols a bit of a tw@t )

Again, GJ's post says it all.
H

Agree, Tring is fatuated with Newell, so much its really sad. It brings this site down, we all have our opinion, i personally dont think much of Newell's opinions, but to bring him up all the time is bordering on sadness, Chris should be posting on all forums but i dont blame him if he stays away if he just gets childish abuse.

Some people need to grow up.

Good post GJ, by the way sums it up.