The Mankover all action Thread.

Tgwu wrote:

With winter closing in, it be the wrong time of year to try to put a new roof on and that needs to be completed before the refurbishment underneath

Yep the danger money guys will be airborne in freeze your nuts off time of the year weather
Mind you the horseshoe was built similar time of year

All coming along nicely.

What a fiasco.

Punchdrunk wrote:

All coming along nicely.

What a fiasco.

Cant believe its possibly true but someone in the Farmyard was claiming yesterday that the new roof wont even cover the new Mayflower terracing seats
I mean nobody could be that stupid.......

harvetheslayer wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

With winter closing in, it be the wrong time of year to try to put a new roof on and that needs to be completed before the refurbishment underneath

Yep the danger money guys will be airborne in freeze your nuts off time of the year weather
Mind you the horseshoe was built similar time of year

Yes, but not so high and it got one medium slop, not anywhere as tricky has the Mayflower.

Tgwu wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

With winter closing in, it be the wrong time of year to try to put a new roof on and that needs to be completed before the refurbishment underneath

Yep the danger money guys will be airborne in freeze your nuts off time of the year weather
Mind you the horseshoe was built similar time of year

Yes, but not so high and it got one medium slop, not anywhere as tricky has the Mayflower.

Am sure Bungo will have everything in hand. Its all gone swimmingly well since April when it started

harvetheslayer wrote:

Am sure Bungo will have everything in hand. Its all gone swimmingly well since April when it started

Well despite the obvious delays, we can be thankful there doesn't seem to be the huge "asbestos problem" you predicted, Harve?

Rickler wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

Am sure Bungo will have everything in hand. Its all gone swimmingly well since April when it started

Well despite the obvious delays, we can be thankful there doesn't seem to be the huge "asbestos problem" you predicted, Harve?

Agreed they seemed to have dealt with the asbestos well. They were suited and booted for couple weeks in the summer but seemed to be related to the outhouses. My post from last week has probably got cullled with the thread page reduction but my lads mothers boyfriend who is a building surveyor blah blah blah saw it all just prior to the roof coming off. He had seen the associated outhouses originally when down here
His words 7-10 days tops for a proper building contractor.

April they have been on the job. 7 months ago.

harvetheslayer wrote:

Punchdrunk wrote:

All coming along nicely.

What a fiasco.

Cant believe its possibly true but someone in the Farmyard was claiming yesterday that the new roof wont even cover the new Mayflower terracing seats
I mean nobody could be that stupid.......

it was obvious from the drawings it wasn't going too. But feck em they backed this shit makeover so they can reap what they sow including the buildings going into the corners now like the dressing rooms.

I really can't be fooked to search, but did the mythical Stage 2 plan pics with the corners nicely filled (with seats!) include the pretty major changing room structure that is currently going in, down on the old Chisholm Lounge corner??

Keeping pillars which will obstruct the view from loads of seats.

Keeping pillars which might even be so corroded they need replacing anyway.

Putting on a roof that offers no shelter from the rain to hundreds of seats.

Keeping a grandstand, because of the obstructive and corroding pillars, that doesn't run the entire length of the pitch.

Starting with an arbitrary £5m budget that was never going to enough and then upping to whatever it is now and it still won't be enough.

Setting a timetable that will never be adhered to.

And then appointing somebody to oversee the build who has no experience at all in any sort of similar project.

Only a Argyle.

Keeping pillars which will obstruct the view from loads of seats.

Keeping pillars which might even be so corroded they need replacing anyway.

Putting on a roof that offers no shelter from the rain to hundreds of seats.

Keeping a grandstand, because of the obstructive and corroding pillars, that doesn't run the entire length of the pitch.

Starting with an arbitrary £5m budget that was never going to enough and then upping to whatever it is now and it still won't be enough.

Setting a timetable that will never be adhered to.

And then appointing somebody to oversee the build who has no experience at all in any sort of similar project to report to somebody who has never built anything.

Only at Argyle.

Bungo is lurching from Pillar to Post.

I'm assuming the plan is to add the banked terracing of the mighty new corners up and over the top of the changing rooms. But I could be wrong, looking a bit of a tight fit..
One more thing, not extending the grandstand further under a cost saving pretence doesn't half leave a lot more land that could be hived off under some contrived excuse.

beesrus wrote:

I'm assuming the plan is to add the banked terracing of the mighty new corners up and over the top of the changing rooms. But I could be wrong, looking a bit of a tight fit..
One more thing, not extending the grandstand further under a cost saving pretence doesn't half leave a lot more land that could be hived off under some contrived excuse.

The corners, and what Brent tried to initially do with them six years ago(Doctors, dentists etc etc) was one of the most glaringly outrageous pointers as to where his true money-making priorities lay. Joyfully he no longer has the required shareholding ability to unilaterally try and drive something like that through any more.

I'd be staggered if Hallett ever thought that would be a good idea to try and replicate.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Putting on a roof that offers no shelter from the rain to hundreds of seats.

And in a part of the country where the weather during the winter is almost permanent rainfall even considering a NEW roof that doesn't cover a large swathe of paying home supporters seats is totally unacceptable. Ponchos FFS!

Scrap this shit mankover, knock that crumbling and rusty pile of crap down and build a proper stand!

Freathy wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Putting on a roof that offers no shelter from the rain to hundreds of seats.

And in a part of the country where the weather during the winter is almost permanent rainfall even considering a NEW roof that doesn't cover a large swathe of paying home supporters seats is totally unacceptable.  Ponchos FFS!

Scrap this shit mankover, knock that crumbling and rusty pile of crap down and build a proper stand!

I can pretty much guarantee that that those giving the mankover their seal of approval will be nowhere near the seats exposed to the elements.

Czarcasm wrote:

beesrus wrote:

I'm assuming the plan is to add the banked terracing of the mighty new corners up and over the top of the changing rooms. But I could be wrong, looking a bit of a tight fit..
One more thing, not extending the grandstand further under a cost saving pretence doesn't half leave a lot more land that could be hived off under some contrived excuse.

The corners, and what Brent tried to initially do with them six years ago(Doctors, dentists etc etc) was one of the most glaringly outrageous pointers as to where his true money-making priorities lay. Joyfully he no longer has the required shareholding ability to unilaterally try and drive something like that through any more.

I'd be staggered if Hallett ever thought that would be a good idea to try and replicate.

I wish I had your confidence in Hallet. What's he going to do then ? just let the "undeveloped" areas of HHP and the stadium corners go to rack and ruin ? I don't believe that.  Rather than pushing it to one side, think through his thought process and the actual reality of the situation, and the "inevitable" sale/change of use of part of the stadium. If he were a big new wealthy broom, and life long addict to the cause, he would NOT be going through with this mankover.

beesrus wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

beesrus wrote:

I'm assuming the plan is to add the banked terracing of the mighty new corners up and over the top of the changing rooms. But I could be wrong, looking a bit of a tight fit..
One more thing, not extending the grandstand further under a cost saving pretence doesn't half leave a lot more land that could be hived off under some contrived excuse.

The corners, and what Brent tried to initially do with them six years ago(Doctors, dentists etc etc) was one of the most glaringly outrageous pointers as to where his true money-making priorities lay. Joyfully he no longer has the required shareholding ability to unilaterally try and drive something like that through any more.

I'd be staggered if Hallett ever thought that would be a good idea to try and replicate.

I wish I had your confidence in Hallet. What's he going to do then ? just let the "undeveloped" areas of HHP and the stadium corners go to rack and ruin ? I don't believe that.  Rather than pushing it to one side, think through his thought process and the actual reality of the situation, and the "inevitable" sale of part of the stadium. If he were a big new wealthy broom, and life long addict to the cause, he would NOT be going through with this mankover.

Until Hallett clearly demonstrates and communicates his desire to monumentally ffcuk Argyle over with a similar level of clusterfuck strokes that would see PAFC hamstrung for a generation a la Brent, then I'm not going to go in on him.

As far as the mankover goes, yeah, it's underwhelming in the extreme. And yeah we'd all love it if Hallett rode into town with a Grand Plan. But I wouldn't expect him to simply gift Argyle millions. If he's not gifting it, then he's pretty much doing the next best thing. To criticise him for being the one to lend Argyle the money, as you have done, is silly.

My personal take is I'd have preferred him to lend 4 or 5 million more to do it semi-properly - and he stated that he could have done that, but as a Board they decided they didn't want to borrow that much. Small-time thinking if you ask me, but hardly Halletts fault, in isolation.

It's pretty simple for me as far as the here and now goes, Hallett is the sole reason Argyle finally don't have to worry about Brent's next personal crusade to get rich quick whilst keeping Argyle crap.

So there we go.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Keeping pillars which will obstruct the view from loads of seats.

Keeping pillars which might even be so corroded they need replacing anyway.

Putting on a roof that offers no shelter from the rain to hundreds of seats.

Keeping a grandstand, because of the obstructive and corroding pillars, that doesn't  run the entire length of the pitch.

Starting with an arbitrary  £5m budget that was never going to enough and then upping to whatever it is now and it still won't be enough.

Setting a timetable that will never be adhered to.

And then appointing somebody to oversee the build who has no experience at all in any sort of similar project to report to somebody who has never built anything.

Only at Argyle.

Only at BRENTS Argyle, over to SH.

So, Czarky, you would have preferred Argyle to have a 8 or 9 million mortgage rather than the £4 million ? Ad all to be paid for by a mythical planetary increase in scoffing turnover ? Just how would that have been possible on a balance sheet with little equity declared ?
Weird
I'm clearly reading a different book.

beesrus wrote:

So, Czarky, you would have preferred Argyle to have a 8 or 9 million mortgage rather than the £4 million ?  Ad all to be paid for by a mythical planetary increase in scoffing turnover ? Just how would that have been possible on a balance sheet with little equity declared ?  
Weird  
I'm clearly reading a different book.

Well no I haven't said anything about scoffing turnover have I?

It'd be increased annual repayments, coupled perhaps with an extended period of repayment. No magic wand and I wouldn't ever pretend there would be one. But with a new stand capable of housing perhaps 7500-8000, and conversely an overall working capacity north of 20,000 then right there is potential bigger revenue.

Coming at it from a different angle with your balance sheet worry, Beez, the massive hike in the amount of tv revenue available from just a single-season foray to to Championship means that Argyle could - if they so wished - put in a Brent-esque austerity style playing budget and near on wipe out the mortgage debt in one foul swoop! Championship clubs got £7m tv revenue last year. That rises by a few million in coming years under the new tv deal.

So even for a Village outfit like Argyle, the sort of debt we are talking about is more than manageable.

What, using championship football income to pay for property/shareholder value uplifts ? Sounds like Brentism to me.  Tsk tsk.

I'm with you on the championship value thing, scoffing and quaffing profit would be absolutely dwarfed by a return to the second tier and even the footy virgins like brent and Hallett know that.  So, easier to just invest in the L1 squad for a season if that were the object of the exercise, and then build something.  To follow Brent's current plan just doesn't make sense, and as it happens, I don't think Hallett's overriding desire is to make a killing like Brent. But I am just not getting what his play is, and usually that means a property wheeze in this present climate or a continuation of the present course, with a safe haven to doze while unloading your New World booty back into blighty . Plymouth certainly has a history in offering such services. Ask Sir Frank.

It isn't absolutely essential that anybody gets lumbered with a mortgage at all.

Just consider your own house. In tolerable order it is worth one price, if the roof is shot it is worth less and if it is newly replaced then it is worth more.

Now apply that to Argyle.

[The following figures are all indicative and are plucked out of thin air. They are not important. The model suggested is the focus here.]

Let's assume that Argyle is worth £10m normally. "Not with that grandstand!!" I hear you cry - and quite right too. So we're down to £5m.

Spend £5m on a new grandstand and the club is now worth £15m so the money spent sees an increase in the asset value. It isn't lost. When the club is sold and the enhanced value of the asset realised the £5m and then some is recovered.

On top of that Argyle needs to function as business. Bunging that £5m onto the club as debt means it can't invest that £5m in players as it is repaid and it is a decent team, with players recruited to supply it, that will fill the grandstand's seats, corporate functions and sell the advertising spaces as we storm the ramparts of the PL.

The idea that the £5m simply must and only can come from club revenue in the form of a mortgage or debt of some kind is very James Brent. It is all take take take with no speculate to accumulate at all. Totally safe and lucrative for him but there is nothing in it for us except even more years of under-funded mediocrity imposed by the strict adherence to austerity that the model demands.

The very fact that Czarcasm has so routinely reinforced the model in such a flatly matter-of-fact and accepting way just goes to show how far and how effectively the expectations of the fan base have been managed in the last 7 years.

It might be like that but it doesn't have to be.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

It isn't absolutely essential that anybody gets lumbered with a mortgage at all.

Just consider your own house. In tolerable order it is worth one price, if the roof is shot it is worth less and if it is newly replaced then it is worth more.

Now apply that to Argyle.

[The following figures are all indicative and are plucked out of thin air. They are not important. The model suggested is the focus here.]

Let's assume that Argyle is worth £10m normally. "Not with that grandstand!!" I hear you cry - and quite right too. So we're down to £5m.

Spend £5m on a new grandstand and the club is now worth £15m so the money spent sees an increase in the asset value. It isn't lost. When the club is sold and the enhanced value of the asset realised the £5m and then some is recovered.

On top of that Argyle needs to function as business. Bunging that £5m onto the club as debt means it can't invest that £5m in players as it is repaid and it is a decent team, with players recruited to supply it, that will fill the grandstand's seats, corporate functions and sell the advertising spaces as we storm the ramparts of the PL.

The idea that the £5m simply must and only can come from club revenue in the form of a mortgage or debt of some kind is very James Brent. It is all take take take with no speculate to accumulate at all. Totally safe and lucrative for him but there is nothing in it for us except even more years of under-funded mediocrity imposed by the strict adherence to austerity that the model demands.

The very fact that Czarcasm has so routinely reinforced the model in such a flatly matter-of-fact and accepting way just goes to show how far and how effectively the expectations of the fan base have been managed in the last 7 years.

It might be like that but it doesn't have to be.

So where would the initial £5m come from?

If I own my house I pay for the new roof.

Similarly if I own the football club, the ground and the land around it then I pay for the £5m.

In reality were I chairman of the club I would expect the shareholders to make the £5m up on a pro-rata basis because it is they who will see the value of their holding rise (just as mine does).