Punching above our weight | Page 6 | PASOTI
  • Welcome to PASOTI. Sponsored by Lang & Potter

Punching above our weight

Lundan Cabbie

⚪️ Pasoti Visitor ⚪️
Sep 3, 2008
4,475
1,418
Plymouth
Martin":1t0l692w said:
I have not once said anything other than I am grateful to James Brent for taking on the club. However that does not mean I have agree with everything he does now or in the future.
I simply want to see more of the future profit share going to the club, so we can build Year on Year in a prudent fashion!

I'm sure the JB will ensure that the club will get every penny of profit that is due to them.
 
Jan 16, 2010
12,975
1,682
plymouth
Balham_Green":172ube7s said:
Steve Evans":172ube7s said:
loyal1970":172ube7s said:
jimsing":172ube7s said:
Martin":172ube7s said:
Sorry I cannot help feeling PAFC have been used for JB's personal profit, and it doesn't feel good. Yes he is a business man and a reluctant owner, he is also a reluctant seller so it seems! If only JB would commit 50% of the development profit to the club, keeping 50% for himself, it might feel a whole lot better. Otherwise it smacks of using the club for personal gain.
Martin

I understand what you are saying. It does feel like Brent is taking away from Argyle, rather than adding to it. But you have to remember that if it wasn't for Brent, there would be no Argyle.

His Company bought the Club out of administration. It has separated the Club and put it on a firm footing. It has paid off all the football debt. It has bought the ground from the Council and given it to the Club. It has ensured that we still have a Club to support.

We must thank him for doing this, surely.

His Company still owns Higher Home Park which he now wants to invest in, in order to get a return on his money. Not too much to ask is it?

Some will say Yes, some will say No, but, like it or not, that is the price that we have to pay in order to still have a football Club to support.
we should have started again as Argyle 1886 because having this bloke in charge who aint got the money or ambition to take the club forward is a waste of {Removed by Site Admin - Please watch your language} time.
did you see james brent leap out of his seat when fletch volleyed the equaliser against chelsea?i am convinced he is "into" argyle.we cannot and must not spend money we do not have!we have just signed an exciting player with bags of experience who will help us to at least mid-table in my opinion.this signing is ambitious.



So you reckon ONE player will get us from bottom to mid table? wow you are deluded.
no delusion balham green.this one player will,in my opinion,be the catalyst for our rise up the table.
 
Sep 6, 2006
16,422
3,962
Steve Evans":3upx1jzx said:
Balham_Green":3upx1jzx said:
Steve Evans":3upx1jzx said:
loyal1970":3upx1jzx said:
jimsing":3upx1jzx said:
Martin":3upx1jzx said:
Sorry I cannot help feeling PAFC have been used for JB's personal profit, and it doesn't feel good. Yes he is a business man and a reluctant owner, he is also a reluctant seller so it seems! If only JB would commit 50% of the development profit to the club, keeping 50% for himself, it might feel a whole lot better. Otherwise it smacks of using the club for personal gain.
Martin

I understand what you are saying. It does feel like Brent is taking away from Argyle, rather than adding to it. But you have to remember that if it wasn't for Brent, there would be no Argyle.

His Company bought the Club out of administration. It has separated the Club and put it on a firm footing. It has paid off all the football debt. It has bought the ground from the Council and given it to the Club. It has ensured that we still have a Club to support.

We must thank him for doing this, surely.

His Company still owns Higher Home Park which he now wants to invest in, in order to get a return on his money. Not too much to ask is it?

Some will say Yes, some will say No, but, like it or not, that is the price that we have to pay in order to still have a football Club to support.
we should have started again as Argyle 1886 because having this bloke in charge who aint got the money or ambition to take the club forward is a waste of {Removed by Site Admin - Please watch your language} time.
did you see james brent leap out of his seat when fletch volleyed the equaliser against chelsea?i am convinced he is "into" argyle.we cannot and must not spend money we do not have!we have just signed an exciting player with bags of experience who will help us to at least mid-table in my opinion.this signing is ambitious.



So you reckon ONE player will get us from bottom to mid table? wow you are deluded.
no delusion balham green.this one player will,in my opinion,be the catalyst for our rise up the table.


Dream, dream., dream... And who is going to score the goals? Guess he will do that as well will he?
 
Jan 16, 2010
12,975
1,682
plymouth
he will make the passes that ness,sarcevic and for some unknown reason carey isn't doing ;) that will lead to goals for blissett and our top scorer.let's wait and see on saturday shall we?feel free to "hammer" me saturday after the shrewsbury match balham.'til then i shall enjoy dreaming.
 
F

Frazer Lloyd-Davies

Guest
Martin":1c1dciuy said:
Ok Frazer, a far more accepted scenario would be this.
James Brent would develop the Grandstand, conference facilities, food outlets, hotel (if needed) etc under the ownership of Argyle. Meaning all profit goes to the club. The value of the club would increase and when Mr Brent sells his profit is realise accordingly. The club would continue to benefit from land and subsequent development that was always part of the club. No problem with a profit for the outgoing chairman, and neither are the club renting a gym, losing potential revenue from associated facilities.

If I understand what you're saying Martin (apologies if I've misunderstood) it is that Brent should waive his rights to the profits of any development, in exchange for the additional value of Plymouth Argyle should he sell the club, and the potential profit he will make on his initial investment?

If that's the case, I just don't see the sums adding up. As a businessman why would you turn down regular recurring revenue, over a potential, but not definite in terms of profit, lump sum at an undefined moment of time?
 
Jan 21, 2017
37
0
Hi Frazer, my opinion and lots of others I speak to do not have a problem with the chairman making a profit. The issue is the potential that has forever been lost to Argyle and will instead go to one individual. A far more equitable share in perpetuity would sit far more comfortably. There is being grateful and being grateful.
 

Biggs

Administrator
Staff member
✅ Evergreen
🎫 S.T. Donor 🎫
✨Pasoti Donor✨
🌟Sparksy Mural🌟
Feb 14, 2010
12,416
5,748
Plymouth/London
Martin":1h8jxlag said:
Ok Frazer, a far more accepted scenario would be this.
James Brent would develop the Grandstand, conference facilities, food outlets, hotel (if needed) etc under the ownership of Argyle. Meaning all profit goes to the club. The value of the club would increase and when Mr Brent sells his profit is realise accordingly. The club would continue to benefit from land and subsequent development that was always part of the club. No problem with a profit for the outgoing chairman, and neither are the club renting a gym, losing potential revenue from associated facilities.

Sorry... how the hell do Argyle end up owning food outlets and a hotel in this dream world?

You realise that JB is simply renting/selling the land to these hotels and food outlets? He's not building them himself, they won't be his personal property and he won't have any claim to the profits they make.
 
Jan 21, 2017
37
0
Yes but he will profit from the rental which could be shared with PAFC, from land he would never have acquired without PAFC at a knockdown price!
 
Jul 13, 2006
1,163
252
Martin":2qetj56b said:
Yes but he will profit from the rental which could be shared with PAFC, from land he would never have acquired without PAFC at a knockdown price!

Carry on like this and you'll get a ban for speaking far too much sense.
 

Lundan Cabbie

⚪️ Pasoti Visitor ⚪️
Sep 3, 2008
4,475
1,418
Plymouth
Martin":3oa9z7rc said:
Yes but he will profit from the rental which could be shared with PAFC, from land he would never have acquired without PAFC at a knockdown price!

Argyle have had their share of money from that land but the previous owners blew it. You can't just say "it's ours and we want it back."
 
Feb 8, 2005
4,273
2,368
Martin":7dhvfdlw said:
Yes but he will profit from the rental which could be shared with PAFC, from land he would never have acquired without PAFC at a knockdown price!

Seems to me that you want it all!

Why would he want to share any profit with PAFC?

He purchased PAFC (including the adjoining land) when no-one else would go anywhere near the Club. He took responsibility for it when it was at its lowest ebb. He helped the Club survive extinction. He purchased the ground and gave it and the Club back to the fans. He is refurbishing and extending the grandstand in order for the football club to extend its profit margins, and thus improve the clubs position in the league.

Why would the fans want any more from him, why would he want to give away even more?

I'm afraid you are in a small minority trying to make a loud noise, enough for others to take notice of your misguided opinions, but the larger fanbase are more than happy to have its Club back, with the prospect of the Club returning to a better position than it had been in, certainly before he took over, and hopefully to a better position than before the Club started its downward spiral towards oblivion.

Let's be thankful for small mercies and also appreciate what Brent has done for us all, with no or little return so far.

Let's not get above ourselves and ask for the earth. He's already done more than could have been expected of him. Look around and ask yourself "What other Chairman of a football club would have done this?" Do you think Peter Ridsdale would have done this? Do you think Kevin Heaney would have done this (if he had the money?).

Just look at yourself for a moment. Would you have done this if YOU had the money?
 
Jan 21, 2017
37
0
Actually Jimsimg if there was a way to share profits in a fair and equitable manner, then the answer to your question is yes I would. The trouble is corporate and individual greed has become god. PAFC is a community asset which will be around hopefully long after you and I are long gone. I am not comfortable with JB making as much money out of PAFC as possible. As said to my lads last night, for the first time in 40 years my love for Argyle is sadly in danger of dying. A sanitised club with no passion, no ability to be vociferous in challenging the board will lead to a dead club, as the family support dream of JB drift away when things go wrong on the pitch. Sad times indeed.
 
May 8, 2011
5,788
793
Martin":2x1pr8va said:
Actually Jimsimg if there was a way to share profits in a fair and equitable manner, then the answer to your question is yes I would. The trouble is corporate and individual greed has become god. PAFC is a community asset which will be around hopefully long after you and I are long gone. I am not comfortable with JB making as much money out of PAFC as possible. As said to my lads last night, for the first time in 40 years my love for Argyle is sadly in danger of dying. A sanitised club with no passion, no ability to be vociferous in challenging the board will lead to a dead club, as the family support dream of JB drift away when things go wrong on the pitch. Sad times indeed.


The only way James Brent is going to make a profit out of Argyle if he sells his shares for more than he paid for them. For that to happen Argyle will have to be a success on and off the field that someone else wants to buy.

I would think that as Argyle fans we would welcome that.
 

Lundan Cabbie

⚪️ Pasoti Visitor ⚪️
Sep 3, 2008
4,475
1,418
Plymouth
Martin":ys3bk9ia said:
Yes but he will profit from the rental which could be shared with PAFC, from land he would never have acquired without PAFC at a knockdown price!

What about the families/decendants of those who owned that land before PAFC. Should they not get a share of the profits too? By your reckoning, every previous owner is entitled to piece of the cake.