The Mankover all action Thread.

Earwegoagain wrote:

I'm sure Hallett mentioned a £1.5m overspend on the mankover which should be added.

The original quote for the mankover was £5m so it's already included. Add the GT's bar if you like to my figure and you come to around £8m. We're being told £9-10m including professional fees. £1-2m is excessive, especially when we shaved costs using the club secretary?

Rickler wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

More personal abuse big boy eh.  Late 2020....??  Try actually rereading and comprehending what I wrote about late next year...Keep trolling you're obssessed as a current prominent Argyle fan in power said a few weeks go. For 20 years he said you've been the same over any issue and will never let go. In 2039 you'll still be burbling over the drainage that never was but wait surprise surprise yes there was as you were told



Geddon. Am keeping an eye on passenger manifests. Jub Jub.

Do you actually read what you write.  If you did, you'd see you're as illiterate as you are stupid....

Your timescale is the stadium will open late February to not at all next season.  I'd say that counts as late next year.

..and you can't be keeping much of an eye out on those passenger manifests, as I've been booked to come to the UK for months now.  Won't be too long now til you made another fool of yourself!  Well actually you're doing that now.  Only a few days ago we had this.

harvetheslayer wrote:

How would I know if Ricks has had a tug yet. I'm not party to passenger manifests.  

Oh, dear me...  A complete contradiction.

Gawd, you're a glutton for punishment.

Jesus you're getting desperate.

Coxside_Green wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

I'm sure Hallett mentioned a £1.5m overspend on the mankover which should be added.

 £1-2m is excessive, especially when we shaved costs using the club secretary?

Brent was propping up Saltrock from somewhere. Cash cow that was Argyle contributed nicely

Coxside_Green wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

I'm sure Hallett mentioned a £1.5m overspend on the mankover which should be added.

The original quote for the mankover was £5m so it's already included.  Add the GT's bar if you like to my figure and you come to around £8m.  We're being told £9-10m including professional fees.  £1-2m is excessive, especially when we shaved costs using the club secretary?

No you're right. I think the Gts is included in the ten mill as you say. I completely agree about the costs but then the term "costs" can cover a multitude of sins. Were Jim and Natasha both paid an hourly rate or salary for all their hard work? And as I've said before how much has it cost t extricate HP from Jims shelved big build? We will never know of course although it's obvious why the squad is being bled dry. (To anyone with eyes and ears that is before Graiser pipes up).

Wouldn't surprise me if Brent is still taking money out of the team some how.

Earwegoagain wrote:

Coxside_Green wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

I'm sure Hallett mentioned a £1.5m overspend on the mankover which should be added.

The original quote for the mankover was £5m so it's already included.  Add the GT's bar if you like to my figure and you come to around £8m.  We're being told £9-10m including professional fees.  £1-2m is excessive, especially when we shaved costs using the club secretary?

No you're right. I think the Gts is included in the ten mill as you say. I completely agree about the costs but then the term "costs" can cover a multitude of sins. Were Jim and Natasha both paid an hourly rate or salary for all their hard work? And as I've said before how much has it cost t extricate HP from Jims shelved big build? We will never know of course although it's obvious why the squad is being bled dry. (To anyone with eyes and ears that is before Graiser pipes up).

We can't afford to keep Bradley but we can afford no end of 'professional fees', like the headhunters who scraped that female off our doorstep only for her to resign a few months later. A board of 10 feckin directors, all offering skills at top feckin whack, the history of Argyle explained right here.

Coxside_Green wrote:

 A board of 10 feckin directors, all offering skills at top feckin whack, the history of Argyle explained right here.

Looking in from the outside it does seem extraordinary that the costings appear to have been made on the back of a fag packet, with contradictory estimates made about who's paying for what, and what the eventual cost is going to be. I know that the redevelopment of SJP is not the engineering feat that the grandstand at Home Park is, but even so it was brought in at a cost of £3.5m, which is what the original estimate was, finished on time and earning revenue from day 1. It's sad to see and read about your reconstruction which appears to be the equivalent of the jointly designed horse i.e. an elephant.

Coxside_Green wrote:

 A board of 10 feckin directors, all offering skills at top feckin whack, the history of Argyle explained right here.

The directors are all unpaid.

Rickler wrote:

Coxside_Green wrote:

 A board of 10 feckin directors, all offering skills at top feckin whack, the history of Argyle explained right here.

The directors are all unpaid.

Yeah, like Stapleton was unpaid but still charged for his accountancy. That's where we're at with our esteemed property developers, why on earth are you defending this?

I'm not "defending" it. I'm just informing you (and others) that what you claim is false.

Sorry if 'the truth' hurts. But the directors are not paid. Fact.

Grace Less wrote:

Coxside_Green wrote:

 A board of 10 feckin directors, all offering skills at top feckin whack, the history of Argyle explained right here.

Looking in from the outside it does seem extraordinary that the costings appear to have been made on the back of a fag packet, with contradictory estimates made about who's paying for what, and what the eventual cost is going to be. I know that the redevelopment of SJP is not the engineering feat that the grandstand at Home Park is, but even so it was brought in at a cost of £3.5m, which is what the original estimate was, finished on time and earning revenue from day 1. It's sad to see and read about your reconstruction which appears to be the equivalent of the jointly designed horse i.e. an elephant.

I laugh at your laptop stand but envy the way your club has progressed. I just know we could've done so much better without certain unnamed obstacles in the way.

Rickler wrote:

I'm not "defending" it.  I'm just informing you (and others) that what you claim is false.

Sorry if 'the truth' hurts.  But the directors are not paid.  Fact.

I never suggested nor stated they've been 'paid'. Getting paid and charging for services are two completely different things. I'll stand by the latter charges for services we're not getting value for money.

Coxside_Green wrote:

Rickler wrote:

I'm not "defending" it.  I'm just informing you (and others) that what you claim is false.

Sorry if 'the truth' hurts.  But the directors are not paid.  Fact.

I never suggested nor stated they've been 'paid'.  Getting paid and charging for services are two completely different things.  I'll stand by the latter charges for services we're not getting value for money.

Pointless "charging for services" if you are not going to get "Paid" for them.  It's all semantics!

So name which directors have "charged for services".  Name 'the services' and how much they received.

Rickler wrote:

Coxside_Green wrote:

Rickler wrote:

I'm not "defending" it.  I'm just informing you (and others) that what you claim is false.

Sorry if 'the truth' hurts.  But the directors are not paid.  Fact.

I never suggested nor stated they've been 'paid'.  Getting paid and charging for services are two completely different things.  I'll stand by the latter charges for services we're not getting value for money.

Pointless "charging for services" if you are not going to get "Paid" for them.  It's all semantics!

So name which directors have "charged for services".  Name 'the services' and how much they received.

We all knew Stapleton charged for his accountancy services... but he never got paid as a director.

I can't possibly tell you who's charging for what, that's impossible.  

Akkeron aka Jimmy aka property developers would appear to be on a nice little earner though.  Which 'professional' services do they use to headhunt non exec directors whom resign after a few months?  You'd have to be nuts to believe the club has been receiving the best VFM over the last 8 years or so.  Or you'd just have to be a cnut who doesn't care because you have no commitment to the cause.

Coxside_Green wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Coxside_Green wrote:

Rickler wrote:

I'm not "defending" it.  I'm just informing you (and others) that what you claim is false.

Sorry if 'the truth' hurts.  But the directors are not paid.  Fact.

I never suggested nor stated they've been 'paid'.  Getting paid and charging for services are two completely different things.  I'll stand by the latter charges for services we're not getting value for money.

Pointless "charging for services" if you are not going to get "Paid" for them.  It's all semantics!

So name which directors have "charged for services".  Name 'the services' and how much they received.

We all knew Stapleton charged for his accountancy services... but he never got paid as a director.

I can't possibly tell you who's charging for what, that's impossible.  

Akkeron aka Jimmy aka property developers would appear to be on a nice little earner though.  Which 'professional' services do they use to headhunt non exec directors whom resign after a few months?  You'd have to be nuts to believe the club hads been receiving the best VFM over the last 8 years or so.  Or you'd just have to be a cnut who doesn't care because you have no commitment to the cause.

So basically you got nothing, except a belief that it's happening. Another stupid conspiracy theory with no facts at all to back up what you state as fact. You're moving into Harve and Beezy territory.

Rickler wrote:

Coxside_Green wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Coxside_Green wrote:

Rickler wrote:

I'm not "defending" it.  I'm just informing you (and others) that what you claim is false.

Sorry if 'the truth' hurts.  But the directors are not paid.  Fact.

I never suggested nor stated they've been 'paid'.  Getting paid and charging for services are two completely different things.  I'll stand by the latter charges for services we're not getting value for money.

Pointless "charging for services" if you are not going to get "Paid" for them.  It's all semantics!

So name which directors have "charged for services".  Name 'the services' and how much they received.

We all knew Stapleton charged for his accountancy services... but he never got paid as a director.

I can't possibly tell you who's charging for what, that's impossible.  

Akkeron aka Jimmy aka property developers would appear to be on a nice little earner though.  Which 'professional' services do they use to headhunt non exec directors whom resign after a few months?  You'd have to be nuts to believe the club hads been receiving the best VFM over the last 8 years or so.  Or you'd just have to be a cnut who doesn't care because you have no commitment to the cause.

So basically you got nothing, except a belief that it's happening.  Another stupid conspiracy theory with no facts at all to back up what you state as fact.  You're moving into Harve and Beezy territory.

Let's stick to facts then. How do you justify £1-2m professional fees for a £5m project?

There you go again..  Just making shit up.  It's not a five million dollar project.

...and firstly I would want to know who the fees were paid to and what for?

Maybe Andy Symons could actually do something useful and ask?

Rickler wrote:

There you go again..  Just making shit up.  It's not a five million dollar project.

...and firstly I would want to know who the fees were paid to and what for?

Maybe Andy Symons could actually do something useful and ask?

So you can't justify feck all, so blame the trust lol.

We're done, cheers.

Not "blaming" the trust at all.  Just asking the trust leader to do his job instead of doing fluffy interviews with Bristol Live about the return of Graham Coughlan to HP.

I could attempt to justify those fees, but then I don't know any of the facts so it would be pointless.   I know not knowing any of the facts doesn't seem to concern you when making an allegation, but it does me.

Regardless of all the above, 1-2m is still a ridiculous amount to pay in professional fees for a project that began at £5m. The 'professionals' are the clear winners.

Wonder how much Tony Hopwood who recommended PCC sell JB the Pavilions has been paid in professional fees by Akerron / PAFC?

The may not get paid but I bet the directors can or do claim expenses.

lawnmowerman wrote:

The may not get paid but I bet the directors can or do claim expenses.

They do not.

I asked that question in light of Beezy's ridiculous assertion that Hallet was claiming expenses for first class air travel from the USA to the UK.

What information you basing that on?

Last time full accounts published Peter Jones received £30k in expenses.

green_genie wrote:

What information you basing that on?

Last time full accounts published Peter Jones received £30k in expenses.

I'm basing that on a question directly answered by Simon Hallett.