Stadium Plans released

The Red Star wrote:

knecht wrote:

My understanding is that the amount paid by Mr Brent for the car-park area was determined by an independent valuation. In that sense he didn't set the price he paid.

2. The crowing on PAFC site is that it will be "the biggest seated area in Devon & Cornwall". The aspiration in this is so small that it is laughable.

That would be incorrect given Exeter Chiefs have approved planning permission to replace 3 stands and increase seated ca[pacity to 20,000. Work starts in September.

well there you go James Brent not one bulldozer ready to go and already Exeter Chiefs have poopooed your biggest seated arena in devon and cornwall.

knecht wrote:

A cynic might say that the minimum that can be got away with is being paid out now.

Although foreshorely the council, in the well publicised deal regarding the stadium/land, would have put in some form caveat in that the redevelopment of the Grandstand part would at least incorporate some form of a minimum capacity?



Or if Brent built a Withdean style stand would that be ok?

Mock Cuncher wrote:

knecht wrote:

A cynic might say that the minimum that can be got away with is being paid out now.

Although foreshorely the council, in the well publicised deal regarding the stadium/land, would have put in some form caveat in that the redevelopment of the Grandstand part would at least incorporate some form of a minimum capacity?



Or if Brent built a Withdean style stand would that be ok?

This is the key point now. It is up to the Council to insist on a minimum capacity before they give the stand the go ahead.

What was the capacity of the whole stand before the seats were removed from the Mayflower? That should be the absolute minimum capacity for the new stand. Or tell Brent to f*ck right off.

punchdrunk wrote:

I know a bit about civil engineering and the bit about adding 2,500 seats onto the top of the horseshoe without much further investment is absolute rubbish.
Again Brent is trying to insult the Argyle fans intelligence

With 12,700 seats divided by the 24 deep rows then fag packet maths at 530 per row they would only need 5 extra rows to get to the 2,500, with your engineering background could they put them in without raising the roof?

A much better wheeze would just be to put smaller seats in, like those ones you see at playschools...except in the Directors Box, of course.

Jaytex2012 wrote:

punchdrunk wrote:

I know a bit about civil engineering and the bit about adding 2,500 seats onto the top of the horseshoe without much further investment is absolute rubbish.
Again Brent is trying to insult the Argyle fans intelligence

With 12,700 seats divided by the 24 deep rows then fag packet maths at 530 per row they would only need 5 extra rows to get to the 2,500, with your engineering background could they put them in without raising the roof?

You would have to remove the roof,...totally, raise the terraced concrete 3-5 rows higher which means removing and off-setting the iron supports and the roof at a higher angle to accommodate this, very expensive and timely to say the least.
cheap option considering these extra folk would have to use the existing catering and toilet facilities. extension will never happen lets be honest.

I can't believe that Brent would be daft enough to submit a plan that does not comply with the council's plan for the park. I also recall something about Love's Field being lost somewhere along the way (made up for by an increase in park land as a result of the Life Centre's footprint being far smaller than that of the combined buildings that were there before). Love's Field would be completely isolated anyway if an access road as described goes ahead.

What concerns me is the avenue of conker trees. I'm sure that there is a preservation order on them so if the road follows the existing path there will be no room for an extra tier to go on what we already have.

That means that the proposed extended capacity could never be achieved.

We would be lumbered with a 17000 capacity forever.

The BARR horseshoe design is modular so can easily be extended. Our's is the same as that of Reading & Southampton but a tier lower,
however we all know it would never happen & if it ever did would make the new "grand" stand look even more ridiculous as the horseshoe would tower over it.
PCC have an obligation to ensure Brent does not devalue the potential of their property by lowering the capacity. They should not accept less than 20k total capacity.

I'm guessing the lower capacity/ single tier is due to Argyle losing land from front to back of the stand with the new development build tight up against or as part of the back of the new stand.

All these who are saying better to stick with what we already have would give Brent the perfect get out clause & he would crack on with the rest of it & leave Argyle with nothing.

Quote :

The 'doodle' picture is an awful representation of the Grandstand it really is.

Why that was used, is beyond me, not the best PR in the world, that's for sure.

I love the design of the two tiered stand, it looks great. It's certainly not an awful identikit bowly thing (a technical term).

says IJN

So some fans have seen a better representation of the new (not grand) stand. Bad PR from the club. Who'd have thunk with a PR expert on the board.

Goes to show again some REAL fans are more equal than real fans.

So the main image is misleading.

I wonder what else is?

quote
Sir Francis Drake

What concerns me is the avenue of conker trees. I'm sure that there is a preservation order on them so if the road follows the existing path there will be no room for an extra tier to go on what we already have.quote

Is the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] site still live as I cannot log on?

Just to balance the view that if we build a stand/ground bigger than the crowds we are currently attracting and that would create a soul-less atmosphere ........ if we build a ground that is so cramped when we rise up to our true position (or at least above Exeter - with all due deference to the wise sages from that Club who we are proud to call one of us on ATD) that will also put off some people from attending. And if we have the success without the capacity we will have lost an income opportunity.

In short we need a bigger grandstand NOW than the one proposed.

(But anyone basing their full response on the silly artist's impression currently available is just plain silly. If you can, go to the open day .... or whatever they're calling it. Just don't expect to quiz any of the board.)

Some fans seem to think JB is doing us a favour. In some ways he is but he has to build us a new grandstand for the council to give the go ahead for his other developments. It is part of the deal. No stand, no Ice Rink etc.

No Ice Rink means he can't get on with the Pavilions development.

I'm more concerned with the " we can just bolt on another 2500 seats to the horseshoe".

A member of my family is a building project manager, frequently involved with civil engineering projects. I've been having a chat to them about this "little bolt on job". In terms of the engineering and building it is relatively easy to do but it isn't a case of Monday we decide to extend the stadium and the tower cranes arrive on Friday. More importantly it would be expensive. The educated guesstimate was a minimum £2 - £2.5 Million and very likely to be a lot more, particularly depending on how much steelwork was needed. The idea of the horseshoe ending up a tier higher than the main stand seemed a very odd thought as well. The phrase " joined up thinking" was used to suggest the grandstand was built to that height first and then the horseshoe could be brought up to the same level at a later date if it was required. Our discussion ended in the thought we really couldn't see this ever happening, even if Argyle did have the money.

Knecht no huge disagreement from me I just think its silly for the club to release such a rubbish doodle. The Higher Home Park has fully rendered pics of the ice rink and cinema to which no one is going to have an iota of emotional attachment. Home Park is as sacred as church to some people and definitely has a pull greater than the sum of the bricks and mortar. Ad such the club has rather shot itself in the foot again PR wise by releasing such a shoddy image.

Richard Blight wrote:

Some fans seem to think JB is doing us a favour. In some ways he is but he has to build us a new grandstand for the council to give the go ahead for his other developments. It is part of the deal. No stand, no Ice Rink etc.

No Ice Rink means he can't get on with the Pavilions development.

........

You mean, in a sense, that we would be doing him a favour? Surely not!

knecht wrote:

Just to balance the view that if we build a stand/ground bigger than the crowds we are currently attracting and that would create a soul-less atmosphere ........ if we build a ground that is so cramped when we rise up to our true position (or at least above Exeter - with all due deference to the wise sages from that Club who we are proud to call one of us on ATD) that will also put off some people from attending. And if we have the success without the capacity we will have lost an income opportunity.

In short we need a bigger grandstand NOW than the one proposed.

(But anyone basing their full response on the silly artist's impression currently available is just plain silly. If you can, go to the open day .... or whatever they're calling it. Just don't expect to quiz any of the board.)

Most people are basing their response on the stated 4100 capacity of said new stand, knecht.

A stand of 4100 seat capacity, running the full length of the current South Stand, would mean a stand that basically mirrors the Lyndhurst, plus a few boxes. By any stretch of the imagination, that's taking a f8cking liberty on the part of Mr Brent.

My hunch is that he is testing the water. Seeing what the absolute minimum he can get away with. A bit like seeing a car that you're happy to pay 10 grand for. Offer 9, and let the other fella barter you up to 10 to make him feel he's done a number on you.

I reckon Brent is looking at being pushed to a 5,000 capacity.

Dougie wrote:

Knecht no huge disagreement from me I just think its silly for the club to release such a rubbish doodle. The Higher Home Park has fully rendered pics of the ice rink and cinema to which no one is going to have an iota of emotional attachment. Home Park is as sacred as church to some people and definitely has a pull greater than the sum of the bricks and mortar. Ad such the club has rather shot itself in the foot again PR wise by releasing such a shoddy image.

I agree and would suggest it is indicative of where the priorities are. But then that was probably clear already......

I have read somewhere this evening the suggestion that the new stand should be of equivalent size as the old grandstand - with modern facilities and income generation of course (as promised) - that seems to me to be a starting point!

Czarcasm wrote:

.......
Most people are basing their response on the stated 4100 capacity of said new stand, knecht.

A stand of 4100 seat capacity, running the full length of the current South Stand, would mean a stand that basically mirrors the Lyndhurst, plus a few boxes. By any stretch of the imagination, that's taking a f8cking liberty on the part of Mr Brent.

My hunch is that he is testing the water. Seeing what the absolute minimum he can get away with. A bit like seeing a car that you're happy to pay 10 grand for. Offer 9, and let the other fella barter you up to 10 to make him feel he's done a number on you.

I reckon Brent is looking at being pushed to a 5,000 capacity.

It's the traditional market stall patter - "I'm not asking you £20, lady. I'm not asking you £10. Lady, I'm not even asking you £5. To you, because you've got a lovely smile, I'm selling this at £1.50 and that's taking the bread out of my children's mouth."

IJN says

Quote :

Chaps, this is an error on my part, I've been away as many of you know.

There were two tiers when I saw the plans, and I assumed it will still was.

It certainly looks likes only one tier now. So basically I seem to be talking out of an alternative orifice

Pick the bones out of this one.

So in a matter of a couple of weeks it's gone from two tiers to one. More questions for the PASB to ask.

Seems like even the SUPER fans are out of the loop these days.

Dougie wrote:

IJN says

Quote :

Chaps, this is an error on my part, I've been away as many of you know.

There were two tiers when I saw the plans, and I assumed it will still was.

It certainly looks likes only one tier now. So basically I seem to be talking out of an alternative orifice

Pick the bones out of this one.

So in a matter of a couple of weeks it's gone from two tiers to one. More questions for the PASB to ask.

Seems like even the SUPER fans are out of the loop these days.

I think that means that Mr Brent waited until he was away and changed the plans as he knew that IJN would cause waves.....

It seems that the 'fan involvement' (ie IJN) was shown a different plan - one with 2 tiers - significantly different to the one released yesterday. Perhaps us mere plebs could be shown the original plan, rather than this somewhat rough sketch that could not be taken seriously.

Where's the Pres when you need him

He'll be on his way back now - he always promised that, despite his elevation to the prawn sandwich brigade, he would always stand up for the interests of PAFC and its loyal fans. It seems that at last even IJN realises he's been duped.

Dingle wrote:

He'll be on his way back now - he always promised that, despite his elevation to the prawn sandwich brigade, he would always stand up for the interests of PAFC and its loyal fans. It seems that at last even IJN realises he's been duped.

He doesn't mind though, seems pretty happy with the plans...

What a feckin numpty Newell is. The one I saw had two tiers.

Oh please, please, please criticise Brent. Please let this be the jaw dropping moment when fatty realises he's been had over and wants to mobilise the dogs of war, wants ATD's help. Yes Pete I agree matey, Brent's nothing but a cnut and a scumbag.