Anyone feeling more optimistic?

GOB wrote:

Greenskin wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Brent has said he won't loan the club any more money this season so presumably this budget is self-sustaining and coming entirely out of the club's income.

So what happens then if the clubs income is not sufficient to meet the budgetary criteria this season? And where exactly did Brent state that no more loans would be forthcoming?

Ding Dong!

Precisely GS

I thought it was pretty widely known that this was the season he hoped we would become self-sustaining and that last season he accepted he would have to cover losses. Having said that, I can't actually find a quote where he has said so but Damon has also said it after PASB meetings I think.

Of course you raise a very good point that if the clubs income isn't sufficient then Brent would HAVE to put his fingers into his pocket or else the whole thing would go tits up. However I have a suspicion that we've budgeted a fair bit more conservatively this time around after Brent got his fingers burnt last season loaning the club far more than he probably wanted to.

EDIT- Having just seen Damon's post, that's exactly what I mean.

GreenSam wrote:

GOB wrote:

Greenskin wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Brent has said he won't loan the club any more money this season so presumably this budget is self-sustaining and coming entirely out of the club's income.

So what happens then if the clubs income is not sufficient to meet the budgetary criteria this season? And where exactly did Brent state that no more loans would be forthcoming?

Ding Dong!

Precisely GS

I thought it was pretty widely known that this was the season he hoped we would become self-sustaining and that last season he accepted he would have to cover losses. Having said that, I can't actually find a quote where he has said so but Damon has also said it after PASB meetings I think.

Of course you raise a very good point that if the clubs income isn't sufficient then Brent would HAVE to put his fingers into his pocket or else the whole thing would go tits up. However I have a suspicion that we've budgeted a fair bit more conservatively this time around after Brent got his fingers burnt last season loaning the club far more than he probably wanted to.

EDIT- Having just seen Damon's post, that's exactly what I mean.

Yes and fair enough Sam but I can't help but wonder why Brent is so secretive regarding the figures and my cynical side is telling me that there's more to this than we know. To be fair though, it could just be my cynicism having witnessed how Brent is doing business.

We will know the level of debt when Brent fecks off and leaves it hanging round the clubs neck, Ive been spot on about his motives so far, I'll be proved right on this as well.

Iggy wrote:

We will know the level of debt when Brent fecks off and leaves it hanging round the clubs neck, Ive been spot on about his motives so far, I'll be proved right on this as well.

That will be the day that Newell and his entourage will be exposed in full..medieval stocks style

Greenskin wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Brent has said he won't loan the club any more money this season so presumably this budget is self-sustaining and coming entirely out of the club's income.

So what happens then if the clubs income is not sufficient to meet the budgetary criteria this season? And where exactly did Brent state that no more loans would be forthcoming?

Quite so - and it is ridiculous to suppose that a football league club can be self sustaining. It simply isn't like any other business. In 99% of cases success is bought and the debts incurred are managed.

Anyhoo, this season? I'm optimistic that we won't finish in the bottom two. Look how far we've come.

slightly we could finish 9th  

100% yes from me. Banton, Parsons and Cox would top off a cracking pre season.

GOB wrote:

125+1 wrote:

GOB wrote:

How is he reducing the debt if he is either a) allowing the debt to build, or b) financing a debt? Smiffy will be having a breakdown!

Is that your argument 125?

Based on Greensam's comment of Brent not loaning the club anymore money, then if we are working in budget and as many people have said we are paying £200k a year off historical debts, then surely that means we are working within budget and paying off the debts!

At the end of the day GOB you know as much as me as to what the financial side is, and i know nothing about the budget of the club, on both our parts its guess work based on assumptions rather than facts.

Then how or why on earth do you suggest that Brent as backing the manager if you know nothing about the budget?

By Backing the manager gob i mean many things.

Sheridan has brought in a complete new set up of back room staff, probably the most organised we have been for years, Brent could have said No to this amount of staff, so that counts as backing the manager.

Also Sheridan seems to be bringing in his targets willy nilly, we dont know who he has missed out on or if Brent turned his nose up to some possible targets, but seeing the bodies that have arrived i am presuming that Sheridan is getting who he wants, so again that is with the backing of the Chairman.

So yes i think Sheridan is being backed by Brent.

I disagree with that statement, Brent was backing Fletcher and Sheridan by giving them a budget from the turnover of the club then LENT the club some money to plug the gap his mis management has caused. Remember we haven't had a CEO since day one, the director has been busy trying to ruin Argyle and the park in a property development venture, but I digress, we the fans, the club are paying for all this. If Brent had said "Here is x million quid go for it!" then fair enough, but he hasn't the club is standing on its own two feet, it's not being backed, Brent has never even paid anything for the club and done nothing but loan it money, Brent is only backing the development not the team.
It's the six or seven thousand fans that turn up to watch relegation battles that you need to thank, it's them and them alone that are backing the team.

125+1 wrote:

GOB wrote:

125+1 wrote:

GOB wrote:

How is he reducing the debt if he is either a) allowing the debt to build, or b) financing a debt? Smiffy will be having a breakdown!

Is that your argument 125?

Based on Greensam's comment of Brent not loaning the club anymore money, then if we are working in budget and as many people have said we are paying £200k a year off historical debts, then surely that means we are working within budget and paying off the debts!

At the end of the day GOB you know as much as me as to what the financial side is, and i know nothing about the budget of the club, on both our parts its guess work based on assumptions rather than facts.

Then how or why on earth do you suggest that Brent as backing the manager if you know nothing about the budget?

By Backing the manager gob i mean many things.

Sheridan has brought in a complete new set up of back room staff, probably the most organised we have been for years, Brent could have said No to this amount of staff, so that counts as backing the manager.

Also Sheridan seems to be bringing in his targets willy nilly, we dont know who he has missed out on or if Brent turned his nose up to some possible targets, but seeing the bodies that have arrived i am presuming that Sheridan is getting who he wants, so again that is with the backing of the Chairman.

So yes i think Sheridan is being backed by Brent.

That's a bit like saying that Brent is backing the AFT because he's talking to them  

I expect Dagenham are [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
How much of their wage bill would that cover? It would cover it 100% and leave them with almost £500,000 minimum.

GreenSam wrote:

Brent has said he won't loan the club any more money this season so presumably this budget is self-sustaining and coming entirely out of the club's income.

I think statements like this highlight just how much Brent has manipulated how people think of PAFC. The Club cannot in any way be considered to be separate from Brent.


The reality is that Brent is the 100% owner of PAFC. If HIS business is losing money HE has to make up the shortfall. If HE has drawn up an unfit budget for HIS business, that is entirely HIS fault and HIS problem to deal with.

This myth that JB and his cohorts have created that Brent is a phillanthropic businessman who has decided to support a business (ie PAFC) that is nothing to do with him, is utter bullshit.

All the talk of Brent "giving" the Club a new Stand is the same line of bullshit-Brent is taking a profit on one part of his business empire (profit available because of the low transfer price of the land) and spending it on another part of his business.

If Tesco (for example) upgrade their Lee Mill store, no one would say "the owners of Tesco Transit Way have donated part of their profits to a store near Ivybridge"

Good point, well made Groovy. Perhaps young Samuel could cut and paste that for perusal over at Pyongyang.

Grovehill wrote:

....... The Club cannot in any way be considered to be separate from Brent.

The reality is that Brent is the 100% owner of PAFC. If HIS  business is losing money HE has to make up the shortfall. If HE has  drawn up an unfit budget for HIS business, that is entirely HIS fault and HIS problem to deal with.

This myth that JB and his cohorts have created that Brent is a phillanthropic businessman who has decided to support a business (ie PAFC) that is nothing to do  with him, is utter bullshit.

All the talk of Brent "giving" the Club a new Stand is the same line of bullshit-Brent is taking a profit on one part of his business empire (profit available because of the low transfer price of the land) and spending it on another part of his business.

If Tesco (for example) upgrade their Lee Mill store, no one would say "the owners of Tesco Transit Way have donated part of their profits to a store near Ivybridge"

Amen!

GreenSam wrote:

Brent has said he won't loan the club any more money this season so presumably this budget is self-sustaining and coming entirely out of the club's income.

If this is the case then why is the proposed development (trying to cram in as much as possible to maximise profit) going ahead when it has always been stated (by certain individuals) that it should be excepted to balance the books for Brent?
If the club is now running in a self sufficient manner then there is no need for the development
And if this is correct then the club is obviously making more money than we are led to believe
Plus if you are a capable business owner then you run it accordingly

Realistically optimistic about having a more successful footballing season, but optimistic about Brent's vision for the future of PAFC - nah! not at all.

In response to all of those posts- I'm not saying his strategy is RIGHT, just passing on what he said in the context of the debate.  The intention is obviously for the club to run itself entirely out of its own income from fans/customers, that's all. Not defending it particularly but just saying.

Not having a go at you Sam, just trying to point out the obvious failings under the present regime. It just amazes me that people think the owner of a football club uses their own money.

Well,i think Argyle will be safe from relegation this new season.

I do not think Argyle will go up,but a top 11 finish would do for me [along with a good cup run].

I would expect promotion though in the 2014/15 season.

On the budget thing Brent said

Quote :

"John hasn't got the biggest budget in League Two, but he's got a decent budget.

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