I compliment you all on a polite and interesting debate.
Lyndhurst's categorisation of the types of club owner is a good one.
I suppose the best owner is someone with a huge fortune, has strong business management skills and who most importantly has a die-hard commitment to the club in question. That way, the club gets access to a disproportionate playing budget, has strong and successful general management and is at no risk of the owner walking away. The closest I can think of is Dave Whelan's connection with Wigan Athletic although even that hasn't prevented them dripping into League 1 after his 20 years of ownership gave 8 years in the PL, an FA Cup victory, a brief foray into Europe and a new stadium.
We know of no such creature and so thereafter it's all a question of compromise. At least Brent's motivations are crystal clear. He expected profits from the land developments around Home Park and to put enough into PAFC to lift it one or two divisions when, no doubt, he'd have sought to sell it on at sufficient value to recover his investment. We'd have to worry who he sold it to but if by then we were in the Championship, with a new stand replacing the current wreck and with sound finances, I don't think we'd be able to complain about Brent's era.
We know the Home Park development has been hit by the Bretonside project just when a recovering economy might have made funding it easier. Brent also remarked recently in relation to Sheridan's departure that as the original 5-Year Plan had PAFC higher up the league by now, both he (Brent) and Sheridan had to be regarded as having failed, which you can't disagree with. It may be that he hasn't bailed out because there isn't an escape hatch available to him but it seems he remains committed to doing something for the club and the Home Park development. Until there's a better alternative, I think we have to give Brent the benefit of the doubt.
Has he become enough of an Argyle fan to retain ownership of the club once it's self sustaining? I don't know but I am sure that if that was the case, I'd rather stick with him, despite his intention not to provide sugar-daddy, subsidies rather than run the risk of a change in ownership in the hope of "jam tomorrow".
Lyndhurst's categorisation of the types of club owner is a good one.
I suppose the best owner is someone with a huge fortune, has strong business management skills and who most importantly has a die-hard commitment to the club in question. That way, the club gets access to a disproportionate playing budget, has strong and successful general management and is at no risk of the owner walking away. The closest I can think of is Dave Whelan's connection with Wigan Athletic although even that hasn't prevented them dripping into League 1 after his 20 years of ownership gave 8 years in the PL, an FA Cup victory, a brief foray into Europe and a new stadium.
We know of no such creature and so thereafter it's all a question of compromise. At least Brent's motivations are crystal clear. He expected profits from the land developments around Home Park and to put enough into PAFC to lift it one or two divisions when, no doubt, he'd have sought to sell it on at sufficient value to recover his investment. We'd have to worry who he sold it to but if by then we were in the Championship, with a new stand replacing the current wreck and with sound finances, I don't think we'd be able to complain about Brent's era.
We know the Home Park development has been hit by the Bretonside project just when a recovering economy might have made funding it easier. Brent also remarked recently in relation to Sheridan's departure that as the original 5-Year Plan had PAFC higher up the league by now, both he (Brent) and Sheridan had to be regarded as having failed, which you can't disagree with. It may be that he hasn't bailed out because there isn't an escape hatch available to him but it seems he remains committed to doing something for the club and the Home Park development. Until there's a better alternative, I think we have to give Brent the benefit of the doubt.
Has he become enough of an Argyle fan to retain ownership of the club once it's self sustaining? I don't know but I am sure that if that was the case, I'd rather stick with him, despite his intention not to provide sugar-daddy, subsidies rather than run the risk of a change in ownership in the hope of "jam tomorrow".
.