F
Frazer Lloyd-Davies
Guest
PL2 3DQ":1jptwp3t said:
Other websites are available, as well as other platforms, and whether you agree with them or not, other polls show other results.
-
This site is sponsored by Lang & Potter.
'NEVER AGAIN' - Now **UPDATED ** (merged)
- Thread starter N I Green
- Start date
Other websites are available, as well as other platforms, and whether you agree with them or not, other polls show other results.
Damon.Lenszner":1pfi7uwm said:
If I am incorrectly informed I apologise. It still doesn't alter my view that as the AFT doesn't have the financial clout to challenge JB he should be allowed to get on with the job which ever way the board considers best without outside interference. I am sure that 99% of clubs own their grounds and stadium's without any problems from the fans.
I am sat in front of the radio, awaiting the start of the match, looking through the threads and, for what it is worth, my statement (it seems that we all have to make a statement nowadays) is as follows:
The AFT are only delaying the sale in the interests of greater transparency. If the board want to purchase the freehold then they will purchase the freehold, albeit six months later than when they show their intention to do so.
This should not be a problem, either to the board or to the fanbase.
Brent, although being majority shareholder, has to have the approval of his fellow board members and they will have to be united in that decision. A board in disharmony is not a good thing to have.
Tony Wrathall (who purportedly lost a six figure sum) will know what happened last time and he will have to give his approval to the purchase again.
It is normal for the supporter to not want to get anywhere near administration again. God knows what it has cost the Club, not just in financial terms, not just in 'look where we are in the league' terms, not just loss of jobs terms, but the "we almost died" terms.
We are slowly coming out of a prolonged period of instability. Brent, who didn't want anything to do with the football club to begin with, picked up the pieces and has steered us to where we are today.
However, we need to now look ahead and think how we are going to im,prove our lot in the future. How are we going to build a new grandstand, how are we going to improve our facilities, and how are we going to get back to the Championship?
We need money to do all of these things.
We need lots of money to build a new grandstand.
Brent will not provide us with any more money than what is required for self sufficiency. A good thing when we came out of administration, but we need to go further. Brent has said that he will pass the Club onto others, when he is unable to improve the Club further.
What have we got that would entice others to take over from Brent?
Nothing, Nada, Zilch.
However, the purchase of the freehold would be a start.
It would be collateral, it would be an asset, it would be something that would increase in value as the Club improved its position in the footballing world.
However, we must know HOW the freehold is to be purchased. Where is the money coming from? How will it be repaid? And, most importantly we must know WHO has possession of it.
The Club has repaid quite a large amount of debt since we came out of administration, and it is reported that we may become debt clear by October (although I know we will still have some debt covered by Hallett). Why can the Club not do the same with the freehold? The amounts are similar. I'm sure there will be a way this can be done.
Actually, the purchase of the freehold was NOT the reason we went into administration.
We nearly died, not because we owned our own ground, not because we borrowed money against it, but because the then board took a huge gamble, an extremely risky gamble, a gamble that should not have been taken in hindsight.
They spent money they didn't have, they gambled on getting the money from being part of the England World Cup grounds. They could even have had reassurances from the FA that they would have used Home Park when England got the go ahead.
Personally, I blame Sepp Blatter and his criminal cohorts for the downfall of our Club, but there is no doubt that their decision to hold the World Cup elsewhere other than in England, put the mockers on the boards plans. They couldn't pay the debts, and the rest is history as they say.
The purchase of the lease may have triggered the opportunity for the Club to enter the World Cup dream, but the purchase of the lease did not directly lead to our demise. The board took an unprecedented risk with the Club and lost. THAT is the reason why we went into administration, not the purchase of the lease per se.
There are many other football clubs out there that own their own grounds. Their boards have not risked all or nothing because of it. Most have found that an appreciating asset is a boon and have been able to improve their lot because of it.
It is natural not to want history to repeat itself, but the purchase of the ground does NOT lead to the inevitable ruin of the Club and I say the Club must purchase the freehold if it has any chance of improving and progressing into the future. Not purchasing the freehold will hinder the Club's continued progress and the club will stagnate without progress.
The AFT are only delaying the sale in the interests of greater transparency. If the board want to purchase the freehold then they will purchase the freehold, albeit six months later than when they show their intention to do so.
This should not be a problem, either to the board or to the fanbase.
Brent, although being majority shareholder, has to have the approval of his fellow board members and they will have to be united in that decision. A board in disharmony is not a good thing to have.
Tony Wrathall (who purportedly lost a six figure sum) will know what happened last time and he will have to give his approval to the purchase again.
It is normal for the supporter to not want to get anywhere near administration again. God knows what it has cost the Club, not just in financial terms, not just in 'look where we are in the league' terms, not just loss of jobs terms, but the "we almost died" terms.
We are slowly coming out of a prolonged period of instability. Brent, who didn't want anything to do with the football club to begin with, picked up the pieces and has steered us to where we are today.
However, we need to now look ahead and think how we are going to im,prove our lot in the future. How are we going to build a new grandstand, how are we going to improve our facilities, and how are we going to get back to the Championship?
We need money to do all of these things.
We need lots of money to build a new grandstand.
Brent will not provide us with any more money than what is required for self sufficiency. A good thing when we came out of administration, but we need to go further. Brent has said that he will pass the Club onto others, when he is unable to improve the Club further.
What have we got that would entice others to take over from Brent?
Nothing, Nada, Zilch.
However, the purchase of the freehold would be a start.
It would be collateral, it would be an asset, it would be something that would increase in value as the Club improved its position in the footballing world.
However, we must know HOW the freehold is to be purchased. Where is the money coming from? How will it be repaid? And, most importantly we must know WHO has possession of it.
The Club has repaid quite a large amount of debt since we came out of administration, and it is reported that we may become debt clear by October (although I know we will still have some debt covered by Hallett). Why can the Club not do the same with the freehold? The amounts are similar. I'm sure there will be a way this can be done.
Actually, the purchase of the freehold was NOT the reason we went into administration.
We nearly died, not because we owned our own ground, not because we borrowed money against it, but because the then board took a huge gamble, an extremely risky gamble, a gamble that should not have been taken in hindsight.
They spent money they didn't have, they gambled on getting the money from being part of the England World Cup grounds. They could even have had reassurances from the FA that they would have used Home Park when England got the go ahead.
Personally, I blame Sepp Blatter and his criminal cohorts for the downfall of our Club, but there is no doubt that their decision to hold the World Cup elsewhere other than in England, put the mockers on the boards plans. They couldn't pay the debts, and the rest is history as they say.
The purchase of the lease may have triggered the opportunity for the Club to enter the World Cup dream, but the purchase of the lease did not directly lead to our demise. The board took an unprecedented risk with the Club and lost. THAT is the reason why we went into administration, not the purchase of the lease per se.
There are many other football clubs out there that own their own grounds. Their boards have not risked all or nothing because of it. Most have found that an appreciating asset is a boon and have been able to improve their lot because of it.
It is natural not to want history to repeat itself, but the purchase of the ground does NOT lead to the inevitable ruin of the Club and I say the Club must purchase the freehold if it has any chance of improving and progressing into the future. Not purchasing the freehold will hinder the Club's continued progress and the club will stagnate without progress.
Just caught up with this comment.GreenThing":1rjzdr7d said:
Awaiting the teams entrance onto the field here at Truro.
I'll come back later on if it's ok with you and answer your question. I'm having a life with my son at the football at the moment.
Thanks
F
Frazer Lloyd-Davies
Guest
PL2 3DQ":2x0ljhlv said:
As stated, this isn't an AFT initiative. The ACV is nothing new, but an AFT initiative nonetheless and one that was supported by the fan base.
As for the EFL Trophy, this has been discussed and there will be a comment made by the AFT yes.
ThisMark Pedlar":30unpeuc said:
As for the validity of the poll, I question it's usefulness as asking a view on the freehold is like voting in the EU referendum based in immigration.
Would anyone like to publicly explain what is really going on here and why because I simply refuse to believe that it is about property.
On a point of principle I will vote against anything that any of the old guard says.
Mr Lenszner is a signatory so I vote against.
Mr Lenszner is a signatory so I vote against.
SwimWithTheTide":37fplkf0 said:
Indeed, plus one other member. I am opposed to them too and have told Peter Jones so to his face.
None of the old guard deserve any part of JB's Plymouth Argyle. However I have no influence on who he allows on his board. It doesnt meant i have to like it.
The morning after the night (and day) before.LG":1slezwyl said:
What did I mean about 'or something else?'
simple really. we all know that polls on internet forums are a snapshot of opinion from those that read and actively take part in responding to these things.
And then the results of the polls are used to back up peoples arguements on the issues involved.
But as has been seen many times, polls can be so wrong in gauging the true opinions of the mass of people who have an interest and a vote in real life (the last general election poll for example)
There are currently 3 polls on the sites that I frequent and surprise surprise they all have different outcomes.
But they are not necessarily what the Argyle fanbase as a whole think about the subject, because i'm pretty sure that the vast majority of them are more interested in our 1-0 win away at Blackpool yesterday, our 3rd win on the trot.
And of course we can not be sure who is voting in these polls. I won't vote in a man of the match poll if I've not seen the match, but due to the beauty of the internet, and listening to the game on the radio, there are people that do. So polls can be not really be relied upon to support certain arguments unless you know the people who are voting on them.
As for not posting on Argyle, well i'm very sorry but I've made postings on various Argyle subjects. You call me a Troll, well thanks for letting me know your forthright opinion of me. I'm going to maintain my silence as I clearly can see that you want me banned from here, and that is not what I want to happen.
Now, if you don't mind, to coin a phrase from IJN, i'm off to have a life. nearing the culmination of my 1 Million step challenge for Diabetes UK. hopefully will complete it with a month to spare. I reached my fundraising target yesterday, but any further donations would be gratefully received.
Have a good day.
If there is one person who isn't a troll it's LG, those are harsh and unfair words.
And to back up his point my Dad (a ST holder) and many other ST holders I know have never heard of Pasoti and if they have care little for it. (No offence)
So agreed little if any notice of any poll on here should be given any credence.
Which highlights the fact whilst a few 'noisy' people on the internet try to influence the club, there are many thousands more that just want to watch the football and don't give a crap about the rest.
The AFT, pasoti etc do not represent the whole fan base in any way.
And to back up his point my Dad (a ST holder) and many other ST holders I know have never heard of Pasoti and if they have care little for it. (No offence)
So agreed little if any notice of any poll on here should be given any credence.
Which highlights the fact whilst a few 'noisy' people on the internet try to influence the club, there are many thousands more that just want to watch the football and don't give a crap about the rest.
The AFT, pasoti etc do not represent the whole fan base in any way.
