A Statement

[Daz]

Just because people disagree how does that make them a bully?

I like Graham, I don't know him that well but when I've had a conversation with him in the past I've always thought it was friendly. He is worried about the future if Brent buys the freehold, but I'm not, it's just a difference of opinion. No one has a crystal ball.

The title of the thread was done in jest as i thought that the signatories and their 'titles' was an absolute joke. My opinion, your opinion and any other Argyle fans opinion is equally as valid. The fact that no one could be arsed to put themselves forward to go on the AFT board so people became the chairman by default makes them no more of an expert on what may happen in the future as anyone else.

Les leave the accusations of bullying out shall we?

 

[Phil Sloggett]

I'm not sure who changed it to a poll as I haven't checked the Mod Log but it doesn't matter, someone did it.

As a matter of interest there has been no discussion about Graham Clarks thread up on the Mod Board, only about how some people have reacted.

I only became involved when GC did his usual thing, which is to pop at Pasoti because unlike others (like young birds in a nest) no doubt devoured every word as gospel.

I think some Mods are in favour of it, I have a few mates who are. I'd also point out that this thread was created so not as to spoil the other one.

I'm confused. This thread was created so as to 'not spoil the other thread'. Created by who?

 

[IJN]

Daz, taking the mick out of the 'Never Again' thread.

Here to help, Phil. :greensmile:

 

[Daz]

I'm not sure who changed it to a poll as I haven't checked the Mod Log but it doesn't matter, someone did it.

As a matter of interest there has been no discussion about Graham Clarks thread up on the Mod Board, only about how some people have reacted.

I only became involved when GC did his usual thing, which is to pop at Pasoti because unlike others (like young birds in a nest) no doubt devoured every word as gospel.

I think some Mods are in favour of it, I have a few mates who are. I'd also point out that this thread was created so not as to spoil the other one.

I'm confused. This thread was created so as to 'not spoil the other thread'. Created by who?

It's not that confusing is it Phil?

There was a thread from some people who thought that their opinion was highly thought of as they used to be on the AFT and held other positions so I thought I'd start another thread as a plain old Plymouth Argyle fan that had a different opinion.

 

[Phil Sloggett]

I'm not sure who changed it to a poll as I haven't checked the Mod Log but it doesn't matter, someone did it.

As a matter of interest there has been no discussion about Graham Clarks thread up on the Mod Board, only about how some people have reacted.

I only became involved when GC did his usual thing, which is to pop at Pasoti because unlike others (like young birds in a nest) no doubt devoured every word as gospel.

I think some Mods are in favour of it, I have a few mates who are. I'd also point out that this thread was created so not as to spoil the other one.

I'm confused. This thread was created so as to 'not spoil the other thread'. Created by who?

It's not that confusing is it Phil?

There was a thread from some people who thought that their opinion was highly thought of as they used to be on the AFT and held other positions so I thought I'd start another thread as a plain old Plymouth Argyle fan that had a different opinion.

Seemed to be a suggestion by Ian that this thread was split from the original one. I can see now that this wasn't the case.

Thank you gents for clarifying this matter.

 

[Bonehead]

No, I'm Tony D.

I'm Tony D and so's my wife


Chill out FFS

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

The bit I don't get in all this is why some people think that ownership of the ground by the local authority is a safer bet than the club itself. Every year councils up and down the country are forced to make cuts and sell assets as central Government reduces their funding. One day, someone at PCC is going to suggest they could postpone some local cuts by selling Home Park and quite frankly that would be a sensible move on their part. Who might then buy it if the club are not in a position to do so and despite the ACV, the Trust can find nobody to match the best offer on the table?

 

[Argylegames]

The bit I don't get in all this is why some people think that ownership of the ground by the local authority is a safer bet than the club itself. Every year councils up and down the country are forced to make cuts and sell assets as central Government reduces their funding. One day, someone at PCC is going to suggest they could postpone some local cuts by selling Home Park and quite frankly that would be a sensible move on their part. Who might then buy it if the club are not in a position to do so and despite the ACV, the Trust can find nobody to match the best offer on the table?

There are two other points which I think I made some time ago.

1. The ACV order does not effect the agreements/clauses in the lease of HP which were made prior to the order. So Argyle can buy the ground as per the lease.
2. Once the ACV has been sold, the ACV order is cancelled as the ownership has changed and the ACV order applies to the owner at the time.

The ACV order on HP is only of value if the council decide to sell it other than as per the lease to Argyle, and they can't do that unless Argyle formally decline to take up the options.

 

[Quizmike]

The bit I don't get in all this is why some people think that ownership of the ground by the local authority is a safer bet than the club itself. Every year councils up and down the country are forced to make cuts and sell assets as central Government reduces their funding. One day, someone at PCC is going to suggest they could postpone some local cuts by selling Home Park and quite frankly that would be a sensible move on their part. Who might then buy it if the club are not in a position to do so and despite the ACV, the Trust can find nobody to match the best offer on the table?

There are two other points which I think I made some time ago.

1. The ACV order does not effect the agreements/clauses in the lease of HP which were made prior to the order. So Argyle can buy the ground as per the lease.
2. Once the ACV has been sold, the ACV order is cancelled as the ownership has changed and the ACV order applies to the owner at the time.

The ACV order on HP is only of value if the council decide to sell it other than as per the lease to Argyle, and they can't do that unless Argyle formally decline to take up the options.

So what is the ACV actually on? If Brent buys the freehold it gets cancelled? And what's to stop the AFT putting on another one?

 

[Mike Greening]

I think a number of people would formally object if JB bought the freehold and the AFT pulled that stunt again.

 

[Stan]

I think a number of people would formally object if JB bought the freehold and the AFT pulled that stunt again.

Why ?

It would only mean that any future takeover would be made public so as to allow an opportunity for the bid/bidder to be scrutinized to ensure that the best interests of PAFC were being protected. Transparency ?

 

[Mike Greening]

I think a number of people would formally object if JB bought the freehold and the AFT pulled that stunt again.

Why ?

It would only mean that any future takeover would be made public so as to allow an opportunity for the bid/bidder to be scrutinized to ensure that the best interests of PAFC were being protected. Transparency ?

Because I trust JB and his board. I do find, after all that JB has done for the club the impression of mistrust appalling.

 

[Knibbsworth]

The following is a statement from a fan of the Plymouth Argyle Football Club.

James, My interest in Argyle is seeing the football team play on a Saturday afternoon, having a few beers with friends and just having an enjoyable afternoon watching a game of football and having a shout, swear and general release of tension that the working week has bought.

I trust you to look after the club with your best intentions, I don't care if you make money from your investment (I hope you do as that will clearly be better for pafc than losing money), but I'm honestly not interested in every nook and cranny of what is going on behind the scenes. I just want to be able to see Plymouth Argyle play on a Saturday afternoon. I'd love us to be in the premier league, but actually some of the best times I've had were in the dark days of administration with fans that didn't care what the score was but just wanted to be there with likeminded people supporting their team.

Until the day that you actually give me a reason to fear that you are affecting my ability to watch my local team play football (good or bad) you have my backing 100%. Keep up the good work you and the board are doing.

P.s I like the q and a's you do with fans, forget the 'fans bodies', talk to us directly and you will win more friends.

Daz :thumbup:
Plymouth Argle supporter 1985-20....

This post reads better if you imagine it under Paul Stapleton in 2008 or similar.

''You are a great chairman, I have no reason to doubt you, I am just a simple man who likes a few beers at the football with my mates, I trust you to get on with it and prefer not to poke my nose in your business" etc.

What if fans didn't poke their nose into the business back then?

Before James Brent came in it was supporters who cottoned on to some horrendous mishaps behind the scenes.

Fair enough I understand some of the individuals involved might get up noses, perhaps, but a little accountability can be no bad thing surely?

I for one am a little dismayed at how distant James Brent seems to want his boardroom to be from the fans. He came into the club with promises of an entirely different approach to this.

A little insight to the finances, to know we are doing well isn't too much to ask for surely? But Brent seems to seal his boardroom door watertight. I don't understand the need for it. Me not understanding this leads to slight worry and apprehension, which would multiply considerably if the mortgage to the ground is to be on the line.

 

[Ceebs]

I think a number of people would formally object if JB bought the freehold and the AFT pulled that stunt again.

Why ?

It would only mean that any future takeover would be made public so as to allow an opportunity for the bid/bidder to be scrutinized to ensure that the best interests of PAFC were being protected. Transparency ?

Because I trust JB and his board. I do find, after all that JB has done for the club the impression of mistrust appalling.

Apologies if I have misunderstood, but this sounds as though you'd rather protect the feelings of the owner of our club than have a mechanism in place that would provide a level of insight into his future plans.

 

[TonyD]

Totally agree Paul, one of Daz's posts is my favourite of all time on here, I'll never forget that one.

However, it's interesting to note the reaction of CoP and Chancellor. Once again, an amazing arrogance shown to people who don't happen to agree with the "Undersigned'. Yes this is site that is intolerant? Amazing, totally amazing.

Some of us will not be bullied from what WE believe.

Whether it be the usual vile stuff or even the hints that this site must be less than it was because us fans don't fawn over Graham's post.

So I am amazingly arrogant? Actually I think I am pretty tolerant, I just hate the bullying tactics used against those who speak out against anything to do with Brent.

For the record I did agree with Graham Clarks post but with 1 very fundamental caveat. I DO want the club to buy the ground from the council, it makes perfect sense to me but for me the purchase must be so that it is the club that owns the ground and that the club and the ground can never be separated. I also happen to think that that should have been the case with the HHP land.

Just as a matter of interest are there any on this forums administration who agreed with Grahams post? I have no idea how many mods etc are involved in this site but broadly speaking around half ought to be supportive of Grahams post if the mod team are in any way representative of the general support.

And that was kind of my point in the first place but all you have appeared to have done is to bully and chastise those who do not tow the line, and by turning Grahams perfectly acceptable post into a vote which just trivialises the whole thing.

Is it me or are some of your claims totally illogical...

Why should at least 50% of the Mods agree with graham ?

surely the mods are all individual people and think and speak for themselves ( not committed to agree with everything the owner says)

I also find it strange you start using words like bully and chastise ... when It was Graham who actually started bad mouthing pasoti and accusing of underhand rules, censorship because people dared to speak out that they didn't agree with his opinion...

care to back up your claims ?