James Brent offered to resign...

Nool and Delars lame attempt to discredit Grumpy Loyal failed.

They are fast becoming a parody of themselves.

I swear they've been infiltrated and are really Frank and Iggy playing a part.

Either that or they are as truly fucktarded as they appear....and that cannot possibly be the case

Jasper Carrot (one for the kids) once had a line about Benny from Crossroads. He said "is Benny like that normally? If he is he's a bloody good actor and what's a bloody good actor doing on Crossroads?"

I feel the same about Napoleon and little scout Napoleon. Are they like this in real life or just bloody good actors?

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

Nools Mod Pack have started to hit back at RWW, for daring to hint that Plymouth Argyle could to better than non action man Jim, i think Nool is going to mention the quivering lip, and the 700 games in a row that Green Jim has been to! Super Superfan Sue and the GT great blokes also get a mention.

any fool can see argyle could do FAR FAR better than the shyster brent FFS !!!!

Moist_Von_Lipwig wrote:

Frank Bullitt wrote:

Interesting to see the Pasoti mods trying to imply that The Grumpy Loyal is a racist. I suppose they would know exactly what one looks like after trying to get one elected onto the Trust board.

He used the term "nitty gritty". How the hell that has racist connotations, I'll never know. Will they also ban the words like picnic, vandal, hooligan, sold down the river, ghetto, uppity......

Pretty soon, the only words that will get through the farm filter will be: We love you James.

THOUGHT THAT WAS ALREADY THE CASE

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Far be it from me to be seen as a Brent apologist but the £2.5 million asking price will repay the loans Brent has made to the club.

Steady on, in my book that makes you as bad as green sam and spowell

Angry wrote:

Punchdrunk wrote:

Angry wrote:

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

Iggy wrote:

And don't forget that no one that was involved in the war and saving the club moans about feckless Jim it's only the keyboard warriors.

RWW is taking the piss now! he wants saint jim to spend more than two days a month at homepark???? Iggy i am outraged!

What planet does RWW live on.....ban him #stripesareback

Must be getting thin on numbers now over on pisspoti.

Nool, Nickkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk and PL2 talking to each other.

planning their next pr stunt im sure what will it be this time a plane flying over sid james park saying we'll meet again...again or more murals of nools favourite players at the stadium>

Newell and his chums still have dibs about who has access to the Pyramid suite post match.
If your not part of the pint chuckers, meeting 'lynch mob' or have your face on Greens on Screen every week then forget it.
Members only and Superfans .

Graham Clark wrote:

I think yet again we find the future of the football club at a watershed. I wrote as much almost two years ago to the day.

The positives are that two years on we have seen the football club move towards a sustainable financial position with losses falling and debt due for repayment (outside the loans made by Directors) becoming more manageable, particularly, with the PCC loan to reduce the exposure of the balloon payment due in October 2016.

On the field the Board and the Chairman in particular, has fully backed the manager in the assembly of a squad capable of promotion despite the disappointment of the last two results. Attending matches at Home Park has become more joyous as the calibre of player and quality of play has reached levels unseen in the last five seasons or so.

So why the watershed? As ever the sustainable future of the club is inextricably linked to generate additional off field revenue. Quite simply we have a grandstand and facilities that are not fit for purpose. Refurbishment, with the excessive abnormal of dealing with potential asbestos together with the expensive requirements of meeting the Green Guide is not an option.

There are only two ways to fund the grandstand either as part of an overall externally funded leisure development or an arrangement whereby the stadium owner, PCC fund the build, funded by a higher rent, RPI linked, that would enable a better return on investment than the long term interest rates now on offer and likely to be in the future.

An externally funded leisure development in what the commercial market may perceive as a secondary location was always going to be vulnerable to better locationally placed commercial schemes and so it has proved with not only with the long planned Bretonside development (which was part of the Council's Core Strategy going back several years) but also other locations such as RWY, Sutton Harbour and Millbay. The chances of such a scheme funding a £8-10m grandstand continue to recede as the City tries to combat an uncertain commercial climate. The uncertainty and reluctance to invest will increase as Bretonside progresses towards implementation. That is why we are at a new watershed.

A couple of months ago discussions were progressing with the Council with a view to the Executive and Members of the ruling group supporting the principle at least of PCC funding a grandstand with the club paying a substantially enhanced rent to fund it. It would have enabled a 365 day operation of corporate, banqueting and conference facilities that would have provided significant income for the club to create a sustainable financial future and the ability to enhance the team on the pitch. It is hugely regrettable that whatever reason negotiations were unable to be progressed. With no formal comment from either side we can only speculate overthe reasons why. Whatever, it is imperative that these talks can resume and that bridges can be built. The Council have been exceptional in their continued support for the football club and the ruling Labour Group deserve great credit for the foresight in trying to see a way forward. It will probably need concessions, including the achievable and appropriate scale of development on HHP, and the ability to extend the stadium on a less restricted basis in the future if talks can restart. The imperative must be the beneficial and sustainable future of the football club.

Finally, a few connected comments on what has been said on this thread. I remain surprised this debate remains on the 'Rumours' board given the personal knowledge of some who have posted on here. The 'resignation' rumour was circulating from authoritative sources weeks ago. That this allegedly has been added to and verified by a current Board member is more than just unfortunate and unhelpful. Finally, the Chris Webb point has some legitimacy. There has been no clarity as to whether his views expressed in his Herald column or on Twitter are his own views or those of the football club given his President's role Without such clarification it is understandable that Council Members and Officers could not see or understand any disassociation. It has not been helpful.

Finally, let's make it clear that James Brent HAS lent the football club substantial sums from within his Group of companies. At the end of the day it is his and his wife's personal money as Directors of the Holding Cpmany and LLP. I have no idea whether any interest is attributable to these loans, perhaps only a Board member would know, but such inter company loans attract a lot of HMRC interest to ensure it is not a method of avoiding tax and so applying a commercial rate to anyloan is entirely appropriate in accounting terms.

As graham doesn't bother to post here, this is his latest missive.

Why does there have to be so much deception?

As I do not have the dubious honour of being able to post on Pyongyang, where does this 'Graham Clark' stand in the spectrum of Brentism?

Part of Newell's gang or one of the good guys?

He also reckons the refurbishment of the Grandstand is not an option.
In his opinion of course.

Punchdrunk wrote:

As I do not have the dubious honour of being able to post on Pyongyang, where does this 'Graham Clark' stand in the spectrum of Brentism?

Part of Newell's gang or one of the good guys?

I can't recall him ever posting 'propaganda' just facts - he obviously knows Brent/Jones etc but I think he's pretty much his own man.

PCC would only build an £8-10 million stand if still landlords, rental increase circa £300,000? per year which would make purchase of ground by any owner rather more expensive. 12 x current rent plus new grandstand rent, some 5 million I reckon.

PatDunne wrote:

PCC would only build an £8-10 million stand if still landlords, rental increase circa £300,000? per year which would make purchase of ground by any owner rather more expensive. 12 x current rent plus new grandstand rent, some 5 million I reckon.

Good point - frankly if PCC did blink and agree to build a new stand the buy-back clause for the freehold should certainly be redacted.

seadog wrote:

Once again caught smearing a poster.

He is a smear. Has been ever thus. His site his rules. Fcuking hypocrite of the highest order and a bully to boot!

One minute he's speccys mate, next he's his spokesperson, keeps slipping up and letting snippets out of the bag, you have to be good to be a liar to remember ALL of your lies.

What an odious yob to have in Argyle's hierarchy. Him and thethe make our club filthy amongst others involved too.

Look at the excerpt from the hidden thread on pisspoti, that even Graham Clark is exasperated at. (Go on Ian, hi btw, i dare you to return it to the main board?)

The thick cnut can neither write properly nor understand simple statements, he is arrogant and stupid enough to think that RWW was asking questions of him!!

RWW wrote:
There are too many people who believe everything they hear from Mr Brent. Our club will forever become a League 1 / League 2 yo-yo team unless he starts giving some straight answers to us.

2 questions to start with.

1. Why have relationships with PCC broken down so seriously?

2. If you spent more than a couple of days a month working on PAFC matters do you think it would help?

porkster -

1) I have no idea.

2) If you mean me, without a doubt, but I have a proper job thank you, that pays rather well. :greensmile:

As for comparing JB with Tesco's, come on be fair, that's a daft link.

JB has lent a couple of million and zero rate of interest, he also charges nothing for his time as the Chair of RD&E and I would imagine the same for the Uni. Why compare JB to the avaricious supermarket chain who will shaft anyone at the drop of a hat.

Like he knows the answers to the interest rates (Graham Clark has since intimated it to be more than likely - like we all suspect) but not the PCC breakdown query. Then doesn't think speccy can be likened to Tesco, no not he of avaricious CITIBANK who will shaft anyone, where he no doubt learnt the skill of using other peoples money.

Speccys spokesman, thick cnut or inflated ego - you decide.

Like Bandy, i am sick to the core of these shady characters that speccy orchestrates, trying to keep Argyle, our club, small time forever with his mini-stand plans.

Speccy's took the piss ever since he dynamically last-minute became "the reluctant one!, Then "saved the club", "gave us a 21st century modern Grandstand for FREE", "gave Argyle ALL the profit from the 6 retail units bar 1 or perhaps 2" "used my council tax for his pension pot without my permission"

Took us out of Admin, but gave us Admin Lite!

BUT NEVER LAID A BRICK!

Hitch wrote:

PatDunne wrote:

PCC would only build an £8-10 million stand if still landlords, rental increase circa £300,000? per year which would make purchase of ground by any owner rather more expensive. 12 x current rent plus new grandstand rent, some 5 million I reckon.

Good point - frankly if PCC did blink and agree to build a new stand the buy-back clause for the freehold should certainly be redacted.

Absolutely, there again, speccy has milked PCC so far!

PatDunne wrote:

PCC would only build an £8-10 million stand if still landlords, rental increase circa £300,000? per year which would make purchase of ground by any owner rather more expensive. 12 x current rent plus new grandstand rent, some 5 million I reckon.

PCC have gone out on a limb for the club and finally realised the rules are different for the banking fraternity - we have entered the Russian roulette stage. Either way the fans will lose - Who needs pesky fans?!!

Hitch wrote:

Punchdrunk wrote:

As I do not have the dubious honour of being able to post on Pyongyang, where does this 'Graham Clark' stand in the spectrum of Brentism?

Part of Newell's gang or one of the good guys?

I can't recall him ever posting 'propaganda' just facts - he obviously knows Brent/Jones etc but I think he's pretty much his own man.

I think it would be safe to say Graham is his own man.

I would further echo that notion and also add...

Hitch wrote:

Graham Clark wrote:

I think yet again...etc (Graham's missive)

As graham doesn't bother to post here, this is his latest missive.

That's a bit unfair.

Graham does post on here.  I think he tends to post where the biggest fire to be put out, is - in this case, on Pasoti.  I also think he is well aware that his posts are often copied onto here if applicable.

Quite honestly...  If it wasn't for Graham most of us would be in the dark, as for the most part, he seems to know as much as everyone else put together.  Which if thought about, is a rather alarming situation for us fans to be in.

GC is astute,considered, and as such, treated with respect by the reluctant one and his jamboys. I'm just wondering if he'll ever see the need to do anything other than paint the increasingly troubled picture of brent's tenure and actually provoke a resolution ?
If something is as failed as he seems to be suggesting and he knows full well the control that the tent dwellers and pasoti have over the visible fanbase, he or others like him need to lead the opposition. The Trust seems unwilling to take such action but with support from the likes of GC and/or a few other well known and articulate Argyle fans, most of whom now rarely speak out or post on the forums, we might get somewhere, other than waiting for the next calamity to actually happen to the club.

Tringreen wrote:

GC is astute,considered, and as such, treated with respect by the reluctant one and his jamboys. I'm just wondering if he'll ever see the need to do anything other than paint the increasingly troubled picture of brent's tenure and actually provoke a resolution ?
If something is as failed as he seems to be suggesting and he knows full well the control that the tent dwellers and pasoti have over the visible fanbase, he or others like him need to lead the opposition. The Trust seems unwilling to take such action but with support from the likes of GC and/or a few other well known and articulate Argyle fans, most of whom now rarely speak out or post on the forums, we might get somewhere, other than waiting for the next calamity to actually happen to the club.

Only because if taken on in a debate, GC would verbally assassinate Pig-chops and his acolytes. How more embarrassing would that be for an already failing bunch of pissed-with-power, piss-pipe pulling cuntasaurus's.

Person Of Interest wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

GC is astute,considered, and as such, treated with respect by the reluctant one and his jamboys. I'm just wondering if he'll ever see the need to do anything other than paint the increasingly troubled picture of brent's tenure and actually provoke a resolution ?
If something is as failed as he seems to be suggesting and he knows full well the control that the tent dwellers and pasoti have over the visible fanbase, he or others like him need to lead the opposition. The Trust seems unwilling to take such action but with support from the likes of GC and/or a few other well known and articulate Argyle fans, most of whom now rarely speak out or post on the forums, we might get somewhere, other than waiting for the next calamity to actually happen to the club.

Only because if taken on in a debate, GC would verbally assassinate Pig-chops and his acolytes. How more embarrassing would that be for an already failing bunch of pissed-with-power, piss-pipe pulling cuntasaurus's.

i forgot to add that he's in a possibly unique position, through his Trust days and the fact that he was involved either officially, or later as a visible presence, throughout brent's coronation. If he turns , rather than just presenting the facts to a largely Aviva state controlled audience, it could well be the catalyst for other essentially decent and respected Argyle fans currently sidelined, to provide the leadership necessary to help shape the club's future, rather than wait meekly for the inevitable next episode of The Emperor's New Clothes.

I'm offended that you seem to suggest that the Emperor is naked.................

PatDunne wrote:

I'm offended that you seem to suggest that the Emperor is naked.................

This version so reminds me of Pasoti.................. Josh has one of the main parts

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

Don't fret ye good people of ATD. Said thread on Pigsoti has been well and truly cleansed. 9 pages this morning, now only 6 and not a whiff of anti-Jimbo descent.

Person Of Interest wrote:

Don't fret ye good people of ATD. Said thread on Pigsoti has been well and truly cleansed. 9 pages this morning, now only 6 and not a whiff of anti-Jimbo descent.

Dear oh dear.......... the few remaining decent , thinking people, will now know we were right all along. All Pasoti has left is the self promoting but essentially dimwitted and devious controllers , plus the Aviva rump of the support. Together they desperately continue to attempt to prop up and protect a similarly self interested regime at HP.

These people are not fit to lead anything other than bucket rattling chain gangs. What a sad, sad club PAFC has become.