The reason nobody else has come up with any other plans is because Brent is the owner so why would anyone else bother. Brent made out at the start that he was reluctantly getting into Argyle but would do it for the benefit of the City because it should have a football club. Not one mention of an Ice Rink or I-Max cinema. Why does the City need another cinema by the way? Why a school? Because it pays well to build them is the answer in case you didn't know. Government handouts. When his plans to develope were first muted it was all about the club be sustained by the development. This said to the masses that income would be for it's benefit. Whatever you say that was the implications. But, here we are some way down the line and it turns out that the club won't benefit that much at all. The big winner out of all of this is Brent and only Brent and please don't give me the one about the citizens of the City gaining. I don't know anyone who would not have agreed with Brent making a profit in the long run but it was never about him making all of the profit. However you dress this up he has misled at best and downright deceived at worst. He has stripped everything out of the club for little or no outlay and made it that if he decides to go then it will be worth nothing. The only time he talks about being ethical now is that he can't bend any rules on wages but doesn't show the same ethics when it comes to telling any other truths. You are right of course, we have been over and over this. I was once in favour of giving him the benefit of the doubt and would tell people that they were assuming a lot without knowing any facts. However, I've seen enough now not to need more facts and it stinks to hell and back. I may be wrong of course but you would have to go a very long way to convince me now given what I've seen and do know.
Sensible i cant see us getting any closer with this. From what I have read and /or had discussions about my understanding has always been that the football side has at worst, to be cost neutral and any profits from the other activities would be used to finance the new stand and then go to the owner. Of course in reality the new stand will be paid for first and then JB will recoup his money from the other activities - no doubt he would also like to recoup the not inconsiderable amount of cash he has already pumped into the club to keep it running last season. I wasn't at the TR event so no idea what the company rep said, but as any revenue from the retail outlets is clearly not football related, it was never going to be ploughed back into the club. perhaps we should agree to differ and reconvene to discuss in 5 years when we should have a better idea of whether JB is Satan or a saviour!
As you say lyndhurst, time will tell. By the way the cash pumped into the club is loan not given and no doubt he will want all of that back as well plus interest of course.
Well said Lyndhurst, many nails hit directly on the head notwithstanding what those at ATD may think. Sensible - if an Akkeron person gave you misleading information you then that is poor but from the official publications I was always clear that the club would only benefit from extra income generated by its "own" facilities. To repeat, we live in a capitalist world and that system provides us with all our shops, offices, factories and much else, including some of our defence facilities, hospitals and schools. The developers take the risk and provide the money and we get the things we need and the jobs that go with them. That's all Brent is doing. Perhaps that's not your preferred system but there doesn't seem to be a viable alternative..... Equally, I've seen nothing to say that Brent has put loans into the club for the stand, if that's what you meant. My understanding is that the stand will be paid for as part of the project and the club will pay rent for it - much as I believe it did when the Council owned the ground and undertook the current "horseshoe" development. Given the risk inherent in football club finances, it could hardly be otherwise. I believe that has put in sums to cover operating deficits and the easiest way of doing that is by way of a loan. Whether club will ever be able to repay it is uncertain.
I didn't say the loans were for the Stand notdistant and am aware they are for running costs or rather to cover losses last season. His own fault by the way for expecting gates of 8000+. Where he ever came up with that number is beyond me. I suspect this years forecasts to the FA will be a tad more realistic and Sheridan's budget will reflect it of course. Yes it was out of order to deceive at the outset and it is questionable that it wasn't done as ordered. I do also believe that they would have said anything at that time to get it off and running and hope to put people off complaining till it was too late. You know what Janners are like. Moan bleddy moan until something becomes a given and then shrug and say Oh well what's for me tea. Attention span of a goldfish and about as much fight as a wet kipper. I do think though that some people will now be put off by the scrimping and might find something else to do on a Saturday. If the team don't get competetive and challenge this season then I think numbers will start to fade away.
