Ken Bates wants us

Thanks YM- in fairness I only wasn't able to send PMs to a certain user. This led me to think that perhaps he had blocked me or put me on his foe list, but I'm guessing from your reply that it was more along the lines of a technical fault. Thanks for looking into it in any case.

How old are you Sam? 18, 19? You're a bright kid. No question.

I just think sometimes you're waaaaaay too serious. Rightly or wrongly that will occasionally make you a little bit of a target on here.

Maybe that's just the way you are, I dunno. Old beyond your years perhaps. I just think you should lighten up a bit. The fact that you're happy to co-habit here as well as Pasoti tends to point to you having a less serious side.

It's no crime for someone of your age to show it once in a while.

GreenSam wrote:

Thanks YM- in fairness I only wasn't able to send PMs to a certain user. This led me to think that perhaps he had blocked me or put me on his foe list, but I'm guessing from your reply that it was more along the lines of a technical fault. Thanks for looking into it in any case.

It could well be that you're on the foe list, the settings on your profile are correct for sending/receiving PM's so if it still doesn't work I guess they aren't your friend

Czar, again that's probably fair. I'd add in my defence that I'm a lot lighter outside of internet forums than I am on them. But that's probably a bit too close to the 'only the internet' line that has gained such notoriety lately

punchdrunk wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

I accept you don't particularly like me and that's fair enough- I was caught in a snappy mood last night and I don't want to get involved in a feud. To say that I'm responsible for us being bottom of the league is in my opinion extremely harsh- but then I would say that. Surely the people more to blame are those who have mismanaged the club so badly rather than those like me who mistakenly beleived they were doing a good job.

And fwiw, whilst I did hold Brent in a much higher regard than I do now, I would never have backed a statue. Have always said that should be reserved for if we ever make the top flight- but the way it's going at the moment I may have to revise that to Championship as the odds of us making the PL in any kind of foreseeable future are about the same as you, punchdrunk and I becoming best friends!

In the name of Aviva

Give the guy a break. At least he's on here arguing his corner.

Why would Bates be interested when Harry Potter has the redevelopment value covered ?

Id rather just some yank or Russian mafia oil tycoon come in to be fair. but failing that id have Bates over Brent

Bates will put money into the football team. YES THATS RIGHT BRENT. THIS IS A FOOTBALL CLUB

Dane. wrote:

Id rather just some yank or Russian mafia oil tycoon come in to be fair. but failing that id have Bates over Brent

Bates will put money into the football team. YES THATS RIGHT BRENT. THIS IS A FOOTBALL CLUB

You reckon ?

More chance of him doing so than brent

Dane. wrote:

Id rather just some yank or Russian mafia oil tycoon come in to be fair. but failing that id have Bates over Brent

Bates will put money into the football team. YES THATS RIGHT BRENT. THIS IS A FOOTBALL CLUB

In the form of loans and when he dies, his family/heirs will no doubt want those loans repaid so we'd be back to owing millions again. That's what happened when Matthew Harding died at Chelsea and the main reason Bates sold the club to the Russian billionaire.

In our position, we need to be self sustaining and that means years of being a club that doesn't spend money.

It's not quite as simple as selling up to a new owner - look at Liverpool and Villa and Man Utd - the fans at those clubs are hardly enamoured with their current owners.

Ken Bates, no thanks.

hairy j wrote:

Dane. wrote:

Id rather just some yank or Russian mafia oil tycoon come in to be fair. but failing that id have Bates over Brent

Bates will put money into the football team. YES THATS RIGHT BRENT. THIS IS A FOOTBALL CLUB

In the form of loans and when he dies, his family/heirs will no doubt want those loans repaid so we'd be back to owing millions again. That's what happened when Matthew Harding died at Chelsea and the main reason Bates sold the club to the Russian billionaire.

In our position, we need to be self sustaining and that means years of being a club that doesn't spend money.

It's not quite as simple as selling up to a new owner - look at Liverpool and Villa and Man Utd - the fans at those clubs are hardly enamoured with their current owners.

Ken Bates, no thanks.

Ah yes,self sustaining.How exactly does that fit in with the fact that Argyle lost money last season and are going to lose more this season,apparently covered by Mr Brent's own pocket-has that money been input into the club on a similar basis to that of Bates at Chelsea? That wouldn't seem to be by any means "self sustaining",always struck me as a nonsense concept anyway.By your logic of "not spending money for years",then the costs of sacking Fletcher,employing Sheridan and instigating the influx and outgoings [which would obviously have cost money in terms of contract compensation,unless it's being repaid at 17.5 pa in the interests of consistency] of recent times would not have taken place and Argyle would already have been relegated instead of having half a chance of escaping. Dread to think where these years of not spending money would leave us-the mind boggles,actually.

mouldyoldgoat wrote:

Greensam, I wouldn't worry too much about what friio says. We all make mistakes and we all have the right to change our minds. You just have to be big enough to admit you made a mistake. You are big enough and have.

Yup! I used to be a big staplewallet fan back in the early noughties. I thought this bloke was the business with Sturrock (albeit appointed by Mad Dan) and the team that Sturrock assembled winning two promotions as Champions. When Sturrock left I was impressed by the way he relatively quickly dealt with Bobby Williamson's failure and made the genious appointment in Tony Pulis which kept us up. I was over the moon with him when he appointed Ian Holloway! But then...........well you know the rest.

PlymptonPilgrim wrote:

That nice Mr Bates - I won't have a bad word said about that man and his lovely family.

There is no other alternative for our great club.

If Bates is a football man why would be he be interested in this crock of shite, especially if we were non league. the only reason we give any credence to the Bate's story is because of our utter dislike of Brent and his incompetent band of helpers.

hairy j wrote:

Dane. wrote:

Id rather just some yank or Russian mafia oil tycoon come in to be fair. but failing that id have Bates over Brent

Bates will put money into the football team. YES THATS RIGHT BRENT. THIS IS A FOOTBALL CLUB

In the form of loans and when he dies, his family/heirs will no doubt want those loans repaid so we'd be back to owing millions again. That's what happened when Matthew Harding died at Chelsea and the main reason Bates sold the club to the Russian billionaire.

In our position, we need to be self sustaining and that means years of being a club that doesn't spend money.

It's not quite as simple as selling up to a new owner - look at Liverpool and Villa and Man Utd - the fans at those clubs are hardly enamoured with their current owners.

Ken Bates, no thanks.

how many more years though, its been at least forty already, and thats just since ive been sectioned supported argyle

Freathy wrote:

mouldyoldgoat wrote:

Greensam, I wouldn't worry too much about what friio says. We all make mistakes and we all have the right to change our minds. You just have to be big enough to admit you made a mistake. You are big enough and have.

Yup! I used to be a big staplewallet fan back in the early noughties. I thought this bloke was the business with Sturrock (albeit appointed by Mad Dan) and the team that Sturrock assembled winning two promotions as Champions. When Sturrock left I was impressed by the way he relatively quickly dealt with Bobby Williamson's failure and made the genious appointment in Tony Pulis which kept us up. I was over the moon with him when he appointed Ian Holloway! But then...........well you know the rest.

It might be a PASOTI fact or I heard it somewhere else but am pretty sure pulis was phil gills doing.

Ken bates would not be my first choice, but i've judged brent on his argyle record so far so its fair to say i'd take anyone over the speccy messiah. so uncle ken come on down!

I'm shocked that anybody thinks Bates a) has even heard of Argyle b) even knows where Plymouth is on a map c) would consider buying any club with no land, no assets and huge debts d) would invest in the team in any way whatsoever if he did buy it. This was not ever going to happen, is not happening and will not ever happen because since Brent separated the land from the club there is nothing left for anybody, apart from lunatics and money launderers, to invest in.

He's not a fan of cuddly ken by the look of it then!

Mock Cuncher wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

That's exactly my perception of Ken Bates as well.

Whether that's better than James Brent I don't know as I haven't had the privilege of looking JB in the eye, but I wouldn't like to have my suspicious confirmed all the same.

The cynic in me says that Bates' name has been tactically leaked/made up to remind us all how wonderfully lucky we are to have the lip quivering property developer 'in charge' of us.

Mock Cuncher wrote:

The cynic in me says that Bates' name has been tactically leaked/made up to remind us all how wonderfully lucky we are to have the lip quivering property developer 'in charge' of us.

Yet many would prefer him, what does that tell us about the present junta!

GOB wrote:

Mock Cuncher wrote:

The cynic in me says that Bates' name has been tactically leaked/made up to remind us all how wonderfully lucky we are to have the lip quivering property developer 'in charge' of us.

Yet many would prefer him, what does that tell us about the present junta!

I'd take him and whoever he brings with him over this current amateur, tinpot excuse for a board we have now.

Greenjock wrote:

Mock Cuncher wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

That's exactly my perception of Ken Bates as well.

Whether that's better than James Brent I don't know as I haven't had the privilege of looking JB in the eye, but I wouldn't like to have my suspicious confirmed all the same.

looks like we are well and truly fecked either way does'nt it?

Mock Cuncher wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Pretty damning comments from Leeds fans there.

But any potential takeover by Ken Bates is reliant on us still being a league club. So we'll now get the president and superfans telling us saint brent the saviour saved the club a second time by getting us ejected from the FL hence preventing a takeover by the great satan Bates. For me the future as a non-league club under brent with very little chance of ever seeing league football again is infinitely worse than being a league club under Bates.