The Mankover all action Thread.

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

Jimmy gets his fifty!!! fifty days have now passed since the green light, so when is the start date and who is the Main Contractor?

That there Mickey Evans and eez building company. He’s got a couple of strong buuuys from up Ernie way.

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Taken from Dec 2017 report

Discussions have been ongoing with one main contractor to oversee the stadium and ice arena projects while the plans have gone through the democratic process.

Therefore, the hope is work starts very quickly from here. Brent has encouraged that contractor, which remains confidential for now, to engage with a Plymouth supply chain.

“I should just caution it. The disappointment for me, or the public disappointment for me, is if we don’t start on site in a meaningful way in the first quarter of next year, so by the end of March,” said Brent.

A day of celebration is called for on March the thirty first, to celebrate the Non Mankover, Jimmy is preparing the devoted to be disappointed

Noolie reckons the Liverpool money is paying for the roof.

So, not toward the football then, but to the company asset value, and an earner for the owners. Lets not forget the club was "promised" a "free" "new" grandstand under the various deals. Wonder what happened to that ?
You have to laugh

beesrus wrote:

So, not toward  the football then, but to the company asset value, and an earner for the owners. Lets not forget the club was "promised" a "free" "new" grandstand under the various deals. Wonder what happened to that ?
You have to laugh

Or cry.

Hugh Watt wrote:

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Taken from Dec 2017 report

Discussions have been ongoing with one main contractor to oversee the stadium and ice arena projects while the plans have gone through the democratic process.

Therefore, the hope is work starts very quickly from here. Brent has encouraged that contractor, which remains confidential for now, to engage with a Plymouth supply chain.

“I should just caution it. The disappointment for me, or the public disappointment for me, is if we don’t start on site in a meaningful way in the first quarter of next year, so by the end of March,” said Brent.

A day of celebration is called for on March the thirty first, to celebrate the Non Mankover, Jimmy is preparing the devoted to be disappointed

Noolie reckons the Liverpool money is paying for the roof.

dem Illogan bheys aint very bright!

Tgwu wrote:

Taken from Dec 2017 report

Discussions have been ongoing with one main contractor to oversee the stadium and ice arena projects while the plans have gone through the democratic process.

Therefore, the hope is work starts very quickly from here. Brent has encouraged that contractor, which remains confidential for now, to engage with a Plymouth supply chain.

“I should just caution it. The disappointment for me, or the public disappointment for me, is if we don’t start on site in a meaningful way in the first quarter of next year, so by the end of March,” said Brent.

no doubt brents talking to carillion

Angry wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Taken from Dec 2017 report

Discussions have been ongoing with one main contractor to oversee the stadium and ice arena projects while the plans have gone through the democratic process.

Therefore, the hope is work starts very quickly from here. Brent has encouraged that contractor, which remains confidential for now, to engage with a Plymouth supply chain.

“I should just caution it. The disappointment for me, or the public disappointment for me, is if we don’t start on site in a meaningful way in the first quarter of next year, so by the end of March,” said Brent.

no doubt brents talking to carillion

It’s a buyers market

Hugh Watt wrote:

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Taken from Dec 2017 report

Discussions have been ongoing with one main contractor to oversee the stadium and ice arena projects while the plans have gone through the democratic process.

Therefore, the hope is work starts very quickly from here. Brent has encouraged that contractor, which remains confidential for now, to engage with a Plymouth supply chain.

“I should just caution it. The disappointment for me, or the public disappointment for me, is if we don’t start on site in a meaningful way in the first quarter of next year, so by the end of March,” said Brent.

A day of celebration is called for on March the thirty first, to celebrate the Non Mankover, Jimmy is preparing the devoted to be disappointed

Noolie reckons the Liverpool money is paying for the roof.

Hard to know what to believe isn't it?

I've read so often that "we didn't make as much money from the Liverpool games as everybody thinks" and that the roof is going to cost £1m and that the directors are going to finance the roof and now the Liverpool money, which isn't as much as everybody thinks but which everybody thinks is £1m, is going to pay for a £1m roof?

It's all like a kaleidoscope of misinformation wrapped in obfuscation and hardly any of it is ever directly linkable to any kind of official source so the club can just deny or ignore as it sees fit.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Taken from Dec 2017 report

Discussions have been ongoing with one main contractor to oversee the stadium and ice arena projects while the plans have gone through the democratic process.

Therefore, the hope is work starts very quickly from here. Brent has encouraged that contractor, which remains confidential for now, to engage with a Plymouth supply chain.

“I should just caution it. The disappointment for me, or the public disappointment for me, is if we don’t start on site in a meaningful way in the first quarter of next year, so by the end of March,” said Brent.

A day of celebration is called for on March the thirty first, to celebrate the Non Mankover, Jimmy is preparing the devoted to be disappointed

Noolie reckons the Liverpool money is paying for the roof.

Hard to know what to believe isn't it?

I've read so often that "we didn't make as much money from the Liverpool games as everybody thinks" and that the roof is going to cost £1m and that the directors are going to finance the roof and now the Liverpool money, which isn't as much as everybody thinks but which everybody thinks is £1m, is going to pay for a £1m roof?

It's all like a kaleidoscope of misinformation wrapped in obfuscation and hardly any of it is ever directly linkable to any kind of official source so the club can just deny or ignore as it sees fit.

While it may not have been as high we certainly did make a big profit on both games and not one penny saw daylight in del's transfer budget nor did quite a few more pay days. Where they went exactly is a mystery.

LOL love it POI

should be the header imo.

^^
that is just brilliant top work mate

sticky it somewhere guys

Great work POI

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Taken from Dec 2017 report

Discussions have been ongoing with one main contractor to oversee the stadium and ice arena projects while the plans have gone through the democratic process.

Therefore, the hope is work starts very quickly from here. Brent has encouraged that contractor, which remains confidential for now, to engage with a Plymouth supply chain.

“I should just caution it. The disappointment for me, or the public disappointment for me, is if we don’t start on site in a meaningful way in the first quarter of next year, so by the end of March,” said Brent.

A day of celebration is called for on March the thirty first, to celebrate the Non Mankover, Jimmy is preparing the devoted to be disappointed

Noolie reckons the Liverpool money is paying for the roof.

Hard to know what to believe isn't it?

I've read so often that "we didn't make as much money from the Liverpool games as everybody thinks" and that the roof is going to cost £1m and that the directors are going to finance the roof and now the Liverpool money, which isn't as much as everybody thinks but which everybody thinks is £1m, is going to pay for a £1m roof?

It's all like a kaleidoscope of misinformation wrapped in obfuscation and hardly any of it is ever directly linkable to any kind of official source so the club can just deny or ignore as it sees fit.

I thought the Liverpool money, which wasn't as much as everyone thought, was used to pay for a fence and a few drainage channels at Harpers?

On a similar note, last season we were told by James Brent no less that we didn't make as much money from Wembley as everyone thought because it gots split between 4 clubs. However this was proven to be barefaced lie as Exeter claim to have made £150,000 from their run last season, their Wembley crowd was 23,380, ours was nigh on 58,000. Go figure.

The guy just plucks things out of thin air when it suits. No wonder Citi went bust with 50 billion missing just after he pulled his emergency parachute routine. And he's the person sermonising evryone about proberty and austerity. Extraordinary that anyone takes him at face value, from hospitals, universities, to football fans. There's a lot of institutionalised deceit out there which people go along with as long as there's something in it for them.

Seems to me we are all aware that the cost of the refurb is ever-increasing as time goes by. This is why there has been talk of "pencil sharpening" and a contractor is yet to be announced.

We also know that the grandstand is being refurbed to save money. Essentially it is a cheaper option than building a proper new one like Torquay, for all their iproblems, has and Exeter is. We also now know that the roof needs to replaced which was never incorporated into the original costings and so the club is taking on those costs in some form or another.

Well with every passing day it seems the pencil sharpening is becoming less and less of an option because the gap between funding and costs is simply too great for it to save the day. This in turn means either some compromise, or "value engineering" or some such as I believe it is known in trade jargon, regarding all aspects is necessary.

So where could money be saved? It seems as if there's two major areas: the roof and the Mayflower Terrace seating. In fact the two combine to create something of a conundrum because if the roof is to be extended to cover seating on that terrace it needs to extend quite a distance beyond where it currently comes to an end where it might be the case that the existing supportive structures, pillars to you and me, might need some, er, assistance to bear the load. This will incur even more unbudgeted expense. The obvious solution would be to leave that terrace empty which would save the cost of installing seating and allow for a smaller, cheaper roof but that smaller roof might not provide decent enough cover for, say, keeping the Director's Box dry should it rain and that would never do. Terrible in PR terms too.

Just imagine how half-arsed a new grandstand that didn't keep the toffs dry and still had a gaping chasm of emptyness in front of it that came in at twice the original estimated cost... Not good. Not good at all. Embarassing all around should it ever transpire. What sort of bungling incompetent would go for that?

But those supportive structures, pillars to you and me, are a problem partly because they interfere with sightlines but mostly because they affect the possibilities for the architecture underneath the stand and this a potential headache for future flexible adaptability of usage which is what we need if we are to follow the Exeter Chiefs model so beloved of our esteemed chairman... 'Tis a thorny old problem for sure.

A potential solution could be to put a cantilevered roof over the whole shebang which would eradicate the need for supportive structures/pillars entirely and everybody would rejoice, shout "huzzah!!" and throw their caps into the air - but it is a more expensive option.

Strangely with every passing day the costs of the refurb rise and it is reaching, and might already have reached, the point where the refurb no longer offers enough benefit in comparison to justify it and the cantilevered roof is charging up on the outside as the best way forward - if it could be paid for.

The question then arises of how this expense might be met? Any further injection of cash at Director level, unless pro rata, might upset the overall balance of share holdings. Should either of Wrathall or Hallett be keen on funding the cantillevered roof their investment might reasonably expect to be converted into more shares and if Brent was unable or unwilling to match that investment the result would be that his 50.1% stake in the club might diminish to, say, 49.9% at which point he wouldn't have majority control anymore...

Wouldn't it be ironic if the grandstand refurb didn't ever happen at all due directly to the added complications of the hybrid planning application making the costs rise beyond funding and that the person responsible for the delay then blocked the solution so that he could maintain overall control of the club without putting his hand in his pocket?

No idea if any of this is true, of course. It is all idle speculation really and, not having the ear of anybody on the board, none of it is verifiable. Just chit chat, probably. Sprinkled with, perhaps, a little mischief making... Who knows? I certainly don't. I'm just throwing it out there.

So in a nutshell its freathys fault for not backing brent?

i thought the initial stage one whilst having seating on the terrace doesn't have a roof cover over said terrace? and a cantilevered lightweight roof extension is planned for the terrace whenever (never) the corners are done.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

No idea if any of this is true, of course. It is all idle speculation really and, not having the ear of anybody on the board, none of it is verifiable. Just chit chat, probably. Sprinkled with, perhaps, a little mischief making... Who knows? I certainly don't. I'm just throwing it out there.

So utter bullshit then.

Same as your thesis that the Hallet loan was costing the club money in interest. Another theory that was shot down in flames.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Seems to me we are all aware that the cost of the refurb is ever-increasing as time goes by. This is why there has been talk of "pencil sharpening" and a contractor is yet to be announced.

We also know that the grandstand is being refurbed to save money. Essentially it is a cheaper option than building a proper new one like Torquay, for all their iproblems, has and Exeter is. We also now know that the roof needs to replaced which was never incorporated into the original costings and so the club is taking on those costs in some form or another.

Well with every passing day it seems the pencil sharpening is becoming less and less of an option because the gap between funding and costs is simply too great for it to save the day. This in turn means either some compromise, or "value engineering" or some such as I believe it is known in trade jargon, regarding all aspects is necessary.

So where could money be saved? It seems as if there's two major areas: the roof and the Mayflower Terrace seating. In fact the two combine to create something of a conundrum because if the roof is to be extended to cover seating on that terrace it needs to extend quite a distance beyond where it currently comes to an end where it might be the case that the existing supportive structures, pillars to you and me, might need some, er, assistance to bear the load. This will incur even more unbudgeted expense. The obvious solution would be to leave that terrace empty which would save the cost of installing seating and allow for a smaller, cheaper roof but that smaller roof might not provide decent enough cover for, say, keeping the Director's Box dry should it rain and that would never do. Terrible in PR terms too.

Just imagine how half-arsed a new grandstand that didn't keep the toffs dry and still had a gaping chasm of emptyness in front of it that came in at twice the original estimated cost... Not good. Not good at all. Embarassing all around should it ever transpire. What sort of bungling incompetent would go for that?

But those supportive structures, pillars to you and me, are a problem partly because they interfere with sightlines but mostly because they affect the possibilities for the architecture underneath the stand and this a potential headache for future flexible adaptability of usage which is what we need if we are to follow the Exeter Chiefs model so beloved of our esteemed chairman... 'Tis a thorny old problem for sure.

A potential solution could be to put a cantilevered roof over the whole shebang which would eradicate the need for supportive structures/pillars entirely and everybody would rejoice, shout "huzzah!!" and throw their caps into the air - but it is a more expensive option.

Strangely with every passing day the costs of the refurb rise and it is reaching, and might already have reached, the point where the refurb no longer offers enough benefit in comparison to justify it and the cantilevered roof is charging up on the outside as the best way forward - if it could be paid for.

The question then arises of how this expense might be met? Any further injection of cash at Director level, unless pro rata, might upset the overall balance of share holdings. Should either of Wrathall or Hallett be keen on funding the cantillevered roof their investment might reasonably expect to be converted into more shares and if Brent was unable or unwilling to match that investment the result would be that his 50.1% stake in the club might diminish to, say, 49.9% at which point he wouldn't have majority control anymore...

Wouldn't it be ironic if the grandstand refurb didn't ever happen at all due directly to the added complications of the hybrid planning application making the costs rise beyond funding and that the person responsible for the delay then blocked the solution so that he could maintain overall control of the club without putting his hand in his pocket?

No idea if any of this is true, of course. It is all idle speculation really and, not having the ear of anybody on the board, none of it is verifiable. Just chit chat, probably. Sprinkled with, perhaps, a little mischief making... Who knows? I certainly don't. I'm just throwing it out there.

Halfway through I couldn’t help but think about Sir Humphrey Appleby.

You may think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

I've merged this into the Mankover thread. We really don't need another thread on it.

PlymptonPilgrim wrote:

You may think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

Very good PP. You’ll be a moral vacuum yet.

PlymptonPilgrim wrote:

You may think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

Disappointed you didn't make your point in triplicate Garry.