AFT Chair's Update Club Statement

[L G]

Yep totally agree. Naivety comes to my mind. I reckon with hindsight he wouldn't have said it. Then again he might had to have said it to convince the FL that he was the right man for the club to survive! Trouble is we don't know all the facts. None of us do!

The FL had to take that 'leap of faith' didn't they.

 

[Pettgreen]

Yes they did having wanted to make an example of us. We as fans only found out about this recently as well. Which really hammers home the fact that we don't know all the facts about everything!!

 

[Pettgreen]

It's his club, he saved us, it's his money.

Let him get on with it. He doesn't owe the AFT anything, particularly freebies and perks.

Unless the bank sheet is telling us red or he's doing anything illegal leave him to it.

He's a successful businessman and this is one of his ventures.

In how many industries would you expect a say at board level because you didn't like a product?

Freebies and perks !!! plenty of them going on, in and around the Directors Box over the last few years.

Care to back that up?

 

[Ottawa Green]

Club Statement

http://www.pafc.co.uk/news/article/2016 ... 72174.aspx

 

[jimsing]

I do like the bit that says:

The option to buy the stadium at Home Park sits with ‎Plymouth Argyle Football Club, not with James Brent.

 

[justanotherfan]

Well I for one am glad the Trust has grown itself a purpose instead of the usual Dibley parish council feel of its minutes.

James Brent seems determined to get the freehold, and now seems aghast that the fans want an input into the decision making on the future of the ground.

It is important for any club to have fans representatives that put representing the fans independently before pleasing the emperor in charge, whoever he may be. Good on the Trust in that regard.

I feel James Brent would be well advised that the club belongs all of us supporters, and not just himself, Wrathall and Hallett. Learn to deal with the Trust; however frustrating you may find them, they are the largest expression of a voice you will find in the Argyle fan base. And listening to the fans is an important process. I personally thought Mr Brent got it badly wrong the last time he tried to impose his idea of a grandstand on the club without consulting or listening to the supporters, and I was glad the whole thing failed to materialise. It just wasn't big or good enough in my view, and many others, whose views were not lelven properly listened to in the first instance.

Engage with the supporters properly Mr Brent and you may find that you get more on board. Denying fans a voice and having no concern for their views does not create a positive image, and judging by other forums Brent has created a considerable group of fierce critics as it is.

This is the populist load of rollocks that is always trotted out at times like this. We as fans support the club (well some of us do), James Brent, Hallett and Wrathall actually own the club, like it or not this is fact, no amount of posturing or handwringing will change this. Whether JB is the correct person to have stewardship of PAFC is another discussion altogether, at this present time I believe he is, I have seen nothing which makes me fear for the consequences of JBs ownership, should this change then I would reappraise my position. We have no god given right to be privy to the inner workings of JBs business dealings whether PAFC related or not, if you want an insight into good/bad owners then speak to some of the home support on Saturday.

 

[SWTT]

Im sorry JAF, but that's a hands over the eyes approach that suggests we support the ride Brent takes us, whatever the direction. Pipe down whichever passenger asks where exactly it is he's taking us.

You say you'll reconsider your position if something was to happen that would cause you to feel concerned, but I feel that that would be in a situation where it's too late. Fans are invested in the club, it's only natural that an interest in what's going on would occur. James Brent recognised this when he took over and made promises about transparency, but he's rescinded on those.

Talking about the club solely as if it's a business, comparable with the like of Marks and Spencer's or Saltrock, I absolutely hate that. The AFT took out the ACV, because Home Park is more than a few rows of seats and a lawn in the middle. It's means something to the community and the wider fan base.

 

[memory man]

It's his club, he saved us, it's his money.

Let him get on with it. He doesn't owe the AFT anything, particularly freebies and perks.

Unless the bank sheet is telling us red or he's doing anything illegal leave him to it.

He's a successful businessman and this is one of his ventures.

In how many industries would you expect a say at board level because you didn't like a product?

Freebies and perks !!! plenty of them going on, in and around the Directors Box over the last few years.

Care to back that up?

Yes daniel m, I too would be interested too in a factual, perhaps itemised back-up to that statement.

 

[xmastree]

I do like the bit that says:

The option to buy the stadium at Home Park sits with ‎Plymouth Argyle Football Club, not with James Brent.

Means nothing. Easy to transfer ownership to a nominee company owned by directors.

 

[cheshiregreen]

I do like the bit that says:

The option to buy the stadium at Home Park sits with ‎Plymouth Argyle Football Club, not with James Brent.

Means nothing. Easy to transfer ownership to a nominee company owned by directors.

There are already a number of companies associated with PAFC and the associated land (HHP). James Brent is, I think, associated with all of them. See Graham Clark's post on the Ownership thread for details.

 

[PL2 3DQ]

Club Statement

http://www.pafc.co.uk/news/article/2016 ... 72174.aspx

It's good to read the other side of the story.

 

[Chancellor]

I am confused as to who isnt talking to who?

Who was first to stop talking to the other and if whoever it was that was first to stop talking started talking again would the other reply?

 

[jimsing]

Unbelievable that the AFT would walk away from the Club, regardless of the circumstances.

The Club do not require the AFT, they have more than appeased any criticism by holding more than the two fans forums required.

What now for the AFT? How will they respond? Will they return to the table? Will the Club allow them to return? How will they square their deeds with their supporters? Has their time come to an end?

Interesting times.

 

[Mannamead Green]

Club Statement

http://www.pafc.co.uk/news/article/2016 ... 72174.aspx

Never in the AFT statement was it indicated that the AFT don't want to meet with the club. I've no idea why the club have decided to say that.

Pathetic response from the club that basically confirms it's doing the bare minimum but trying to pin the blame on a trust that's hardly been at loggerheads with the club. The questions the club have to answer have not been answered.

 

[PL2 3DQ]

Unbelievable that the AFT would walk away from the Club, regardless of the circumstances.

The Club do not require the AFT, they have more than appeased any criticism by holding more than the two fans forums required.

What now for the AFT? How will they respond? Will they return to the table? Will the Club allow them to return? How will they square their deeds with their supporters? Has their time come to an end?

Interesting times.

Indeed. Whatever happened surely the best way was to remain in dialogue with the club or at least ask the membership if, after explaining the situation, the club should be cut off completely.

It's telling in the club statement that other fan groups are mentioned so it looks like the club will move forward with these groups.