The Mankover all action Thread.

harvetheslayer wrote:

So it appears they are going to add extra protection from the rain which am sure will be welcomed by some

Bungo Back wrote

"Once this is done, over and above the contracted project scope, we have just agreed to procure a rather expensive but very effective new water-proofing system that will be applied to the first few rows of the upper-tier, and to fit an angled translucent side to the Devonport End of the Grandstand, to better protect both stands and the people sitting within them"

Love the way Bungo thinks he's doing the paying punters a favour by half protecting them from the rain, what other club in the football l
eague has done such an expensive botch job as this semi roofless crap which will be a millstone around the clubs neck for thirty years?

Any normal club wouldn't have done an expensive half arsed refurb on a stand which when finished is more less the same configuration as before i.e. way too short and with half a roof.  But if they had done it they would have at the very least invested in a modern fit for 21st century cantilever roof which extended far enough to cover all the seats.  As well as anything else the ground would have looked MUCH better for it.  As it is it will look shit.

Seen an article Millmoor rotherhams old ground is still standing why didn't we just buy one of their old stands and tripped it down here....

All for preserving heritage, but Gnome Park isn't exactly Craven Cottage or Goodison, basically the blinkered cheapskates have built on a 60yr old heap of rusting scrap that should have been sent to the smelters.

The 'Leitch' grandstand is not even an actual Leitch design.  It's only based on the Leitch design.  Not worth saving - only fit for demolishing.

That is my understanding also, the Cornish site owner loves to say otherwise!

Preserving heritage is one thing, using 'heritage' to rip off stakeholders is another. We were told 7 or so years ago the stand had no future, it had to be ripped down. Every feckin word since then has been a complete lie.

Coxside_Green wrote:

Preserving heritage is one thing, using 'heritage' to rip off stakeholders is another.  We were told 7 or so years ago the stand had no future, it had to be ripped down.  Every feckin word since then has been a complete lie.

Indeed , did you expect anything else?

Freathy wrote:

The 'Leitch' grandstand is not even an actual Leitch design.  It's only based on the Leitch design.  Not worth saving - only fit for demolishing.

Ours was designed by Archibald Leitch's son.

But it's a bit like boasting of J. Lennon singing at your wedding. Technically it may be true. But it was Julian, not John.

akagreengull wrote:

Coxside_Green wrote:

Preserving heritage is one thing, using 'heritage' to rip off stakeholders is another.  We were told 7 or so years ago the stand had no future, it had to be ripped down.  Every feckin word since then has been a complete lie.

Indeed , did you expect anything else?

At the very beginning? No

What pisses me off more than anything now is how they can get away with press release after press release of blatant lies. When I say pisses me off... it's the reaction after a loss to the village Fleetwood.. my own life continues lol. The club died years ago.

The club died years ago.

About seven years ago?

akagreengull wrote:

The club died years ago.

About seven years ago?

Exactly , have no desire to go to a game for so many reasons and being village is just the tip of the iceberg,
But they got their 10k a saturday to cream some more money away from the first team with,
They don't need my £20,

the liklihood is lads give it ten years and a new owner and that pathetic mankover of that stand will be demolished as its not going to be fit purpose football wise. Everything fans have complained about concerning the mayflower sand the club has gone to great lengths to keep.

the steal structure alone is very outdated and why the club insist it stands over building a decent stand shows all who are on the outside looking in that we are a club thats planning for today only and has zero ambition.


as a side note its grates me that the club call the new club shop a mega store when its smaller than the old one and is the size of a corner shop.

akagreengull wrote:

The club died years ago.

About seven years ago?

The day Holloway left.

I've slated this rehash all over social media but can honestly say if it looked and sounded good I would have been happy and proud for the club - it is rubbish and a waste of the cash thrown at it!! I've pointed out that unless us fans actually dug in to the roof issue, the powers that be wouldn't have ever brought it up and that it is just sly - I stated that only about 40% of the seats would be covered in the lower section and some know all corrected me to say 46%, as if that should placate the masses and followed by the inevitable 'when you putting in your cash'? This whole side should have been levelled and a joined up stand created, incorporating all the 4 ancillary parts (GT's, changing rooms, watchtower & club shop) in to one decent fit for purpose fcuk off stand to last the 30years repayments. If they couldn't afford it, should have left it as it was!!

Bandwagon wrote:

I've slated this rehash all over social media but can honestly say if it looked and sounded good I would have been happy and proud for the club - it is rubbish and a waste of the cash thrown at it!! I've pointed out that unless us fans actually dug in to the roof issue, the powers that be wouldn't have ever brought it up and that it is just sly - I stated that only about 40% of the seats would be covered in the lower section and some know all corrected me to say 46%, as if that should placate the masses and followed by the inevitable 'when you putting in your cash'? This whole side should have been levelled and a joined up stand created, incorporating all the 4 ancillary parts (GT's, changing rooms, watchtower & club shop) in to one decent fit for purpose fcuk off stand to last the 30years repayments. If they couldn't afford it, should have left it as it was!!

Freathy wrote:

I'm struggling to visualise what an "angled translucent slide" is.  And why would the first few rows of the upper tier need "waterproofing".  Doesn't make much sense to me.

At the end of the day the roof is far too small and not fit for purpose. And that's the roof we're going to be stuck with for many many decades to come - if Argo don't relocate to another site or a proper owner doesn't take over to finish the job properly.  Forget stage 2 under hallett and 30% as that is just fantasy.

Graham Clark has just asked this very question over on the farm.

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

to stop water leaking through the clapped out upper tier onto the fans sat below....

Hugh Watt wrote:

Freathy wrote:

I'm struggling to visualise what an "angled translucent slide" is.  And why would the first few rows of the upper tier need "waterproofing".  Doesn't make much sense to me.

At the end of the day the roof is far too small and not fit for purpose. And that's the roof we're going to be stuck with for many many decades to come - if Argo don't relocate to another site or a proper owner doesn't take over to finish the job properly.  Forget stage 2 under hallett and 30% as that is just fantasy.

Graham  Clark has just asked this very question over on the farm.

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

I'm surprised he can still log in!

P.O.I wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

Freathy wrote:

I'm struggling to visualise what an "angled translucent slide" is.  And why would the first few rows of the upper tier need "waterproofing".  Doesn't make much sense to me.

At the end of the day the roof is far too small and not fit for purpose. And that's the roof we're going to be stuck with for many many decades to come - if Argo don't relocate to another site or a proper owner doesn't take over to finish the job properly.  Forget stage 2 under hallett and 30% as that is just fantasy.

Graham  Clark has just asked this very question over on the farm.

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

I'm surprised he can still log in!

Looking forward to the Bungos response....

Hugh Watt wrote:

Freathy wrote:

I'm struggling to visualise what an "angled translucent slide" is.  And why would the first few rows of the upper tier need "waterproofing".  Doesn't make much sense to me.

At the end of the day the roof is far too small and not fit for purpose. And that's the roof we're going to be stuck with for many many decades to come - if Argo don't relocate to another site or a proper owner doesn't take over to finish the job properly.  Forget stage 2 under hallett and 30% as that is just fantasy.

Graham  Clark has just asked this very question over on the farm.

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

‘Tis reassuring that someone like Graham Clark also can’t decipher wtf is happening.

Shorely when a brand new (extended out by 4 metres) roof goes on the Grandstand, this brand new roof should be all that’s needed to keep the upper tier dry and water-free?

The project manager is clearly far too busy right now to answer Graham's very sensible question.

Ronseal innit.

The only thig that makes sense to me is if there is some single skin block work on the exterior that they have had tanked or waterproofed?

Coxside_Green wrote:

akagreengull wrote:

The club died years ago.

About seven years ago?

The day Holloway left.  

The nearest PAFC will get to the exalted Prem probably for generations to come.