this is it...... (the phoenix is rising)

[Bermudian Green]

If JB is deliberately not allowing other investors into the boardroom, let's see evidence of the claim before it becomes an established pasoti fact.

On the other side of the coin, we are fully entitled also to ask the question "are other investors being sought, and if not, why not"?

 

[thirskgreen]

Whilst I'm sure we would all love a sugar daddy come on board and splash the cash, it really needs to be done with a clear vision of what is required and what the potential pitfalls are. Perhaps JB has has a look at potential investors and has doubts about their pedigree/background/motives? Perhaps the board have a check sheet similar to the criteria that was used (to great effect so far) to recruit a new manager? Sometimes, things aren't as straight forward as they seem. NEW WORLD anyone? Um, no thanks

 

[IJN]

With regards to the grandstand, I still think Brent wants what is best for his own pocket rather than what is best for the club- but I get crucified every time I express that opinion on this forum.

Yeah, ok, right, of course you do. :sigh:

Why is it people say this sort of thing?

I can't see any evidence on this thread, but if people want to vehemently disagree isn't that their right as well?

My favourite of all time was 'Expect this thread now to be locked' - It never was.

 

[davie nine]

If the posters on here are suspicious of James Brent's motives there is the ideal opportunity for them to pose these questions to him 'face to face' at the Fan's Forum on Saturday 19th September at 10:30 a.m. at the Green Taverners' suite.

Just to elaborate these are the questions that you would need to address to Mr Brent :-

1. Is it true that you became involved with our club because you 'want what is best for your own pocket' ?

2. Have any potential 'other investors' approached PAFC recently?

3. Did you become owner of PAFC because you 'considered that you were investing in a very good commercial opportunity' ?

I, personally, will not be asking these questions because I did not pose them on here.

However, I will have a lot of respect for you if you attend the Forum and ask the questions direct rather than making insinuations.

 

[Biggs]

Definition of philanthropy: 'altruistic concern for human welfare and advancement, usually manifested by donations of money, property, or work to needy persons, by endowment of institutions of learning and hospitals, and by generosity to other socially useful purposes'.

Let's not go over the top, eh? I don't see much that is philanthropic in Brent lending money to PAFC.

This is the same James Brent who has taken on the roles of chairman of both the Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Trust and Plymouth University. As well as previously heading up the Plymouth Development Company. As well as bailing out the local football club despite having no previous interest in the sport, and still not receiving any apparent profit from it. I'd argue that does have an air of philanthropy.

If he solely wanted to make money, they don't sound the best career options to take. Indeed, if money was all he was interested in, I'm assuming a return to the world of banking and finance would have been far more fruitful. He'd certainly have no shortage of takers.

 

[memory man]

i, personally, will not be asking 'my question' because its my opinion im expressing on a public forum, im not really insinuating anything.

i simply stated that JB isnt a messiah and that he has motivations other than on the field success. if you think he would have purchased the club without the future grandstand development then i think you need to reassess your stance. he wont ever admit that of course, which is why asking the question is a rather pointless exercise

this being said, i am happy he owns the club currently, especially considering previous management..

I see where davie nine is coming from here. You say in your post "He won't ever admit that of course". But you don't know for sure. By asking the question direct, the answer you get would then confirm whether or not "the question is a pointless exercise". It would move your position from "my opinion ......on a public forum" to being able to state a fact. In view of some of the stuff I see written on various Forums I am always surprised that some of the topics that people seem most angry or sceptical about never come up.

 

[demportdave]

To those who question James Brent's motives, is their any sensible Argyle fan who doesn't shudder to think what would have become of us if he hadn't stepped in when he did. I don't care if him or his Companies benefit from any Argyle-related investment, for that to happen it would almost certainly require there to be success on the field in the form of at least one Promotion. Then, perhaps a new Grandstand might start to become a reality rather than a pipe dream.

As for wanting to bring in other investors, be careful what you wish for.

When we were a decent Championship Club, Stapleton and Co. not unreasonably thought that we might be an attractive option for would-be investors and actively went looking for them with the aim of taking the club "to the next level"; but instead, we ended up with the likes of Gardener and the others who brought the club to its knees and then as we started to go down the pan, disappeared from whence they had come.

If we couldn't get decent and genuine investors then, what chance is there now?

 

[Andy S]

i, personally, will not be asking 'my question' because its my opinion im expressing on a public forum, im not really insinuating anything.

i simply stated that JB isnt a messiah and that he has motivations other than on the field success. if you think he would have purchased the club without the future grandstand development then i think you need to reassess your stance. he wont ever admit that of course, which is why asking the question is a rather pointless exercise

this being said, i am happy he owns the club currently, especially considering previous management..

Because you're all mouth and trousers!

A genuine, bedouin keyboard warrior!

Gaspargobshite is another one - put up or shut up!

 

[chronicgreen]

i, personally, will not be asking 'my question' because its my opinion im expressing on a public forum, im not really insinuating anything.

i simply stated that JB isnt a messiah and that he has motivations other than on the field success. if you think he would have purchased the club without the future grandstand development then i think you need to reassess your stance. he wont ever admit that of course, which is why asking the question is a rather pointless exercise

this being said, i am happy he owns the club currently, especially considering previous management..

Because you're all mouth and trousers!

A genuine, bedouin keyboard warrior!

Gaspargobshite is another one - put up or shut up!

Oh dear, more uncalled for abuse. Why should they shut up? Because you disagree with them?

 

[Andy S]

i, personally, will not be asking 'my question' because its my opinion im expressing on a public forum, im not really insinuating anything.

i simply stated that JB isnt a messiah and that he has motivations other than on the field success. if you think he would have purchased the club without the future grandstand development then i think you need to reassess your stance. he wont ever admit that of course, which is why asking the question is a rather pointless exercise

this being said, i am happy he owns the club currently, especially considering previous management..

Because you're all mouth and trousers!

A genuine, bedouin keyboard warrior!

Gaspargobshite is another one - put up or shut up!

Oh dear, more uncalled for abuse. Why should they shut up? Because you disagree with them?

No!

Because there is an opportunity for these naysayers to put their questions direct to Mr Brent at a Q & A session.

They won't attend, they won't ask their question in a face to face, one on one situation. Why?

They would much rather spout bile under the anonymity of a pseudonym.

IF those with the problems want answers, then the place to ask them is the Q & A session.

Allegations against Mr Brent, who has no right of reply, is allowed then is it? Or do you not consider that Mr Brent is fair game?

 

[chronicgreen]

i, personally, will not be asking 'my question' because its my opinion im expressing on a public forum, im not really insinuating anything.

i simply stated that JB isnt a messiah and that he has motivations other than on the field success. if you think he would have purchased the club without the future grandstand development then i think you need to reassess your stance. he wont ever admit that of course, which is why asking the question is a rather pointless exercise

this being said, i am happy he owns the club currently, especially considering previous management..

Because you're all mouth and trousers!

A genuine, bedouin keyboard warrior!

Gaspargobshite is another one - put up or shut up!

Oh dear, more uncalled for abuse. Why should they shut up? Because you disagree with them?

No!

Because there is an opportunity for these naysayers to put their questions direct to Mr Brent at a Q & A session.

They won't attend, they won't ask their question in a face to face, one on one situation. Why?

They would much rather spout bile under the anonymity of a pseudonym.

IF those with the problems want answers, then the place to ask them is the Q & A session.

Allegations against Mr Brent, who has no right of reply, is allowed then is it? Or do you not consider that Mr Brent is fair game?

OK, but no need to be so harsh in your criticism of them imo. As for attending the Q&A to question Brent in person, isn't that a bit simplistic? For instance, if you had a problem with his running of the club should you be forbidden from mentioning it on here in case you were forced to fly halfway around the World to tell him to his face? Not everyone is willing or able to attend the Q&A but that shouldn't mean they are denied a voice, whether positive or negative.

 

[gaspargomez]

I have no evidence that Brent has turned down potential investors. What I would say, however, that its not a healthy situation having 95% of the club in the hands of one individual. If Brent goes under, the club are likely to go under. Plus all of his decisions can progress unchallenged and unquestioned.

I would prefer to see some attempt to get some local argyle-supporting businessmen in the boardroom. It would help diversify things and bring in potential investment. Maybe some effort should be put into finding some good candidates? I'm not suggesting there are any sugar-daddies out there, but there maybe inviduals willing to buy a 5% or 10% stake. If these people are honest and well intentioned then it has to be healthy.

I always felt that the club was in decent hands under Stapleton's board- the fatal mistake they made was letting in inappropriate investors who behaved like sharks and ruined a decade of work. Before then, things seemed to be going well- both on and off the pitch.

Brent has done well enough so far, but my concern is what happens next.

 

[Andy S]

I have no evidence that Brent has turned down potential investors. What I would say, however, that its not a healthy situation having 95% of the club in the hands of one individual. If Brent goes under, the club are likely to go under. Plus all of his decisions can progress unchallenged and unquestioned.

I would prefer to see some attempt to get some local argyle-supporting businessmen in the boardroom. It would help diversify things and bring in potential investment. Maybe some effort should be put into finding some good candidates? I'm not suggesting there are any sugar-daddies out there, but there maybe inviduals willing to buy a 5% or 10% stake. If these people are honest and well intentioned then it has to be healthy.

I always felt that the club was in decent hands under Stapleton's board- the fatal mistake they made was letting in inappropriate investors who behaved like sharks and ruined a decade of work. Before then, things seemed to be going well- both on and off the pitch.

Brent has done well enough so far, but my concern is what happens next.

It's a funny old game eh Saint!

Firstly, I apologise to you unreservedly for the inappropriate comments made towards you earlier - sorry!

For the majority of your post, I agree with you! Where we differ is in the ownership of the club. To my way of thinking, there is no difference in Mr Brent owning 95% or a "sugar daddy" owning 95%. I don't see Mr Brent going belly up in the near future. Long term? Who knows...we may have even reached the promised land by that time and if that is the case, money won't be an object.

I agree with you 100% about Stapleton's Board AND the following statement about inappropriate investors. However, to me, that is where the problem lies with "local" investors. Do they, would they have the where with all to further invest on top of, say, the 100 grand that they have already put in.

 

[Metal Green Mickey]

I have no evidence that Brent has turned down potential investors. What I would say, however, that its not a healthy situation having 95% of the club in the hands of one individual. If Brent goes under, the club are likely to go under. Plus all of his decisions can progress unchallenged and unquestioned.

I would prefer to see some attempt to get some local argyle-supporting businessmen in the boardroom. It would help diversify things and bring in potential investment. Maybe some effort should be put into finding some good candidates? I'm not suggesting there are any sugar-daddies out there, but there maybe inviduals willing to buy a 5% or 10% stake. If these people are honest and well intentioned then it has to be healthy.

I always felt that the club was in decent hands under Stapleton's board- the fatal mistake they made was letting in inappropriate investors who behaved like sharks and ruined a decade of work. Before then, things seemed to be going well- both on and off the pitch.

Brent has done well enough so far, but my concern is what happens next.

Firstly, I have no opinion of Mr Brent either way yet. Although I agree, its not healthy he owns so much of Argyle.

Now on to Paul Stapleton.

The guy that basically sold Argyle down the river. All I kept hearing was Argyle improved year upon year but I stood strong in my belief that he was in it for himself, and not like he claimed, for the love of Argyle.

Basically, Paul Sturrock on a budget delivered two championship winning teams.

Paul Stapleton was in charge and its him that allowed Sir Roy and Co and the Kagami Crew to get their hands on Argyle and run up the debts they did. He should have done some dew diligence to at least make sure their attentions were honourable.

The fatal mistake is believing he ever had the best of attention for Argyle. He sucked fans in because he said the right thing. He just got caught out by his own actions proving the end game was about himself benefitting from selling his shares.

 

[budock]

I guess somebody has to ask the questions, "But" right now I'm very happy just to see stability and growth on and off the pitch. Not wearing blinkers, its just nice to wake up on a Saturday morning and for the first time in 5 years feel excited about our future!