James Brent admits that nearly a year later he is no nearer finding a Chairman to take over the role that he inherited when buying the club. He is honest in admitting that the club needs a chairman with far more football knowledge than he has....to guide the club foreward. Most of us would agree that that does seem to be a problem at present.......is this why the club is not really going foreward. Would an experienced Chairman be able to improve the running of the team and challenge Fletchers record of how the team is performing.....and even tell Brent that as a club we should be doing more in regards winning games, You do get the feeling that the Directors box has literally no football knowledge to guide the club towards getting out of this Sunday Pub League that we seem to be too settled in........its bad enough not having experienced men there...let alone no one bringing money to the boardroom.....whilst we find people like Newell sitting there every week....home or away......so he sells bits and pieces and raises money......does that warrant sitting in the Directors box. Brent is keen to improve the match day experience ......and developing the ground etc seems to be the priority for him,...... If we had a Football Chairman surely he would tell Brent that he is putting the cart before the horse........the team should be the first priority.....to get out of this basement league and climb the leagues...... so drawing in the fans and putting money into the club.........doing it Brent's way could mean great facilities....but no fans coming in to use them.
James Brent says that extra money has been pumped into PAFC.....after lower than expected attendance figures.......is this the sign of a chink appearing in James Brent's plans for Argyle. As mentioned in the post above.....can it be that he has got his priorities for PAFC back to front.....and he should make the team his first priority and development to then follow. Surely it is in no ones interest to have the best facilities in the Conference next season. The finding of a Football Chairman seems more important than ever ......why can't we attract the right person ?
So do you think Brent might have identified possible contenders....but couldn't agree financial terms with them ?
Our local squirrels love running up your leg and into your hand to have a peanut.......even stick their heads into your back pack if you leave it on the ground searching as well. James Brent must be looking in the wrong place.......OR the people he has been talking to....think he is putting his priorities in development and not the FOOTBALL TEAM.
I was about to put elastic bands on my trouser bottoms when I started reading your first sentence plym. Relaxed when I got to the "hand" bit. When Brent talks about having to put money into the club the one thing he misses out is how much money. Or, what is a break even supporter through the gates figure where we could have some idea what he means or has done. Somebody on ATD asks a very pertinent question. Is the break even figure +1 or +100 or what. This could mean a very small amount of money so doesn't tell us a thing about his committment. As for the Chairman well I'm not sure what to think with that. Does this mean that nobody sees Argyle as a worthwhile set up to get into. Are the possible candidates told what the plans are and exit stage left at the first opportunity or are there no plans at all. Is he going for cheap and not offering any sort of going rate. To be honest it sounds poor. Brent keeps bigging up what he is doing at Argyle but it seems nobody else, including possible investors who might like to buy into the dream, agree. A year without finding a candidate is bloody poor going on the face of it.
Personally, I don't see the need for a football chairman at this level; it's an expense which adds very little. The purpose of the chairman & the board is to run the business and that business should be run like any other. Amongst other things, the board sets a budget for transfers and wages and the manager has to live with in that. It's also for the board to say what it will and what it won't accept in player contracts. The club has a manager, reporting to the board, to do the football bit within those guidelines, why do we need someone else? If the workload of training and transfer dealing is considered too much, get another coach, it's cheaper. Or get a director of football & a head coach. You can argue whether Fletcher's the right man [I see nothing to say he isn't at present] but it's the role we're talking about that, not the person. And as regards a chairman telling Brent to change the plans for the ground, don't be so ****** daft. Brent took the club on ONLY for the property deals and the stadium development is an integral part of that, not least to get the council to give planning permission. It's up to the fans to make the club pay its way and ultimately where the club ends up will depend on that, no matter who's on the board. The only way of changing the present plan is to get Brent out, which would leave the club back where it was a year ago: looking liquidation in the face. Nobody else wanted it then and I don't suppose anybody else wants it now. It would be a lot healthier if everyone got that into their skulls.
notDistant.....how on earth can it be "up to the fans to make the club pay it's way and ultimately where the club ends up will depend on that, no matter who's on the board". The quality of what is produced on the pitch is more likely to help the club pay it's way.......that will bring the fans back and the finances will improve with every click of the turnstiles. No improving team results will not help .... whatever James Brent does to the infrastructure, and who want's to have the best ground in the Conference.
Sheer short-sightedness Plymborn, I said ULTIMATELY; in the long term, a club's position will be determined by how many fans come through the gates in any given set of circumstances. Simple arithmetic. You managed also to overlook the most significant thing Brent said; "Football is a business, and not that different to other businesses, APART FROM THE FACT YOU HAVE NO REASONABLE PROSPECT OF MAKING A PROFIT". That's entirely consistent with all the published data and learned comment, which show that outside the Top 10 names in the Premier League, no football club makes a statistically significant profit, most make losses, with a good number making thumping great losses. That tells you 2 things: 1) Suggestions that directors make money out of running football clubs are utter and complete rubbish because the money isn't there to take and 2) No sane person would buy a football club. Consider if you will the significance of that second statement if PAFC didn't have Brent, whether or not he's the man you'd like to have at the helm.
So didn't Argyle get a pat on the back earlier this century for being financially well run...showing a small profit....and that was under Stapletons watch.....or did I read that wrong at the time.
Firstly, "small" is the operative word and that was during a period when the club went up from League 2 to the top half of the Championship. Like any business indeed: it's easy to make money in the good times. The problem is that those sort of runs come along rarely and as we know, even when they do, the cost of bringing in new players to maintain a higher status swallows up any increased income. Secondly, football finances have got worse since then, not better. Are you holding the pre-Gardner Stapleton era as being a golden one? Because if so, I agree, although we'd better keep it to ourselves or we might get lynched......
Stapleton tried to kick on for that push to reach the Premiership........he got involved with the big boys.....and he was out of his depth and gobbled up. He was badly hurt and became the man carrying the can....and was proved with the other directors to be at fault........but there were others who slipped into the darkness who were the money men who hastily retreated.
Well, actually I think he made what must have seemed very sensible choices. I still can't understand how, given the track record of the people he brought in, things went so horribly wrong, how they lost sight of the business practices they must have followed all their lives . But they did...... maybe football has a corrosive effect on anyone & everyone.
I think the Stapleton thing is a load of balony. He got £ signs in his eyes and got greedy is what he did. To sell all of the clubs assets and not spend it on improving the assets was sheer stupidity. I take the point notdistant that it is the numbers through the gate that ultimately decides what a club can or cannot do in the absense of a walleted owner who doesn't mind losing money. The one problem I have with that though is that if you offer crap for a high reletive cost then you are not going to get those people anytime soon. You have to give these people something for their money and it isn't on offer very often at Home Park. How they have managed to retain 6000 is slightly beyond my comprehension. If the mediocrity and failure goes on then that will go down. If you offer an attraction then in business there is a need to spend something on the thing to attract the customer base. You cannot start with an empty bit of ground telling people there will be a state of the art cinema on it if only they hand over money for an outside slide show now. You need to build the cinema first and put on films they would want to see. Eventually you will get you money back after that event. The other side of the coin is that it is likely that Argyle would not be an attractive object for anyone to buy. Less attractive now that the assets it had are gone and the development opportunities about to be used up. Brent is getting his pound of flesh for very little outlay. It would be ok to say get rid of Brent if he had left anything other than a pile of bones for anyone else to have. I'm still not convinced, having done his building and stuff, that Brent will not smile contentedly and stroll off leaving Argyle to die. He says he won't but where have we heard that sort of talk in football before.
He's said the club must be self-sustaining - a combination of bums on seats and managing costs within the resulting income. I agree whole heartedly with that. If it's done, then the club pays it's own way and has nothing to fear, Brent or no Brent. If it doesn't, it's likely doomed. If the comments here and made elsewhere and reported here are anything to go by, the fans haven't got this simple message and doom seems the likely outcome.
Ok notdistant jump on the train on Wednesday and Saturday and come pay YOUR £20 at the turnstyle. With all due respect you don't and won't be here. Now that isn't anyone is a better fan than anyone else. You don't come because it is not that simple for you as with mexijan and plym as other examples. But please don't sit a few hundred miles away and tell the people who are here that they should spend there hard earned on utter rubbish most of the time. Stop being an appologist for the club in that it is not them who have to encourage people into the ground. Any business has to encourage it's core income base and why should Argyle be any different. I will still go no matter what so it isn't the likes of me they have to persuade. However, the fact that I don't need to be attracted to the ground makes people like myself best placed to comment on the product. It is mostly poor even now with the odd bit of good thrown in. One good meal in five does not bring customers to resturants. Stop defending Brent. He has paid next to nothing and done himself a lot of good in other ways. There does need to be self sufficiency but if a patient can't breath on it's own right now then there needs to be oxygen supplied to help it along a bit whilst waiting. He will not do this but he won't donate anything from his other lucrative interests he has gained solely because he is involved with the club either. I am sick and tired of people blaming the supporters or would be supporters. What does he do for me exactly? I pay my money and get rubbish back for most of it. If you want people to support then give them something to support. Rant over.
