Help needed on PCC and Media

Hi All

A quick update.

FULL COUNCIL MEETING - LETS PACK IT OUT.

A full Council meeting has been called for 1630 next Tuesday (18/10/11) for the vote on PCC purchasing Home Park. The signs are very positive but we never take anything for granted.

Therefore we are calling on the Green Army to pack out the public gallery at the Council House. We want a sea of Green behind the Councillors as they cast what will be a historic vote.

Doors will open from 1530 and we will get more finite organisational details out nearer the time.

Lets back the councillors in their bid to save Argyle whilst at the same time giving any waverers a gentle reminder of just how much Argyle means to this City.

MEDIA

It has become apparent that the procedural delay in the process of PCC purchasing the ground has led to a new influx of views from Plymouth residents. It is fair to say these have been "mixed". We need to do exactly as we did last time and make sure that the Green Army win the media battle!

So.............

Emails supporting the Councils plan to buy the ground if you can to...........

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

Now this is a real toughie!

As an Argyle fan I’ve long argued in favour that HP should have remained in the ownership of PCC and fought bitter battles over it, thanks to “some” on pasoti and, as an Argyle fan I would also be very relieved to see Home Park back under the wing of PCC and safeguarded. But, being involved in areas of social care, both personally and professionally, I’m well aware of huge difficulties and pressures that really are having a dramatic and depressing effect on people’s lives where money makes a huge difference.

I’m also aware that monies come from different pots and all the blah blah blah etc. But being involved with PCC I’m also aware that monies can and often are, moved from pot to pot, so in effect the money spent on Home Park could be put towards less fortunate people’s quality of life.

I'm also aware that it maybe possible for PCC to make a decent return of income via rent, but if I wanted a Council to speculate in a business deal I would sooner invest my money in a property development company rather then pay council tax.

So, can someone convince me that there would not be a hope in hell that a single penny spent on the purchase of Home Park could be used for services to improve those that are less fortunate, quality of life? - If so I would be happy to support this campaign, if not I support people's quality of life over my interest and hobby.

GOB wrote:

Now this is a real toughie!

As an Argyle fan I’ve long argued in favour that HP should have remained in the ownership of PCC and fought bitter battles over it, thanks to “some” on pasoti and, as an Argyle fan I would also be very relieved to see Home Park back under the wing of PCC and safeguarded. But, being involved in areas of social care, both personally and professionally, I’m well aware of huge difficulties and pressures that really are having a dramatic and depressing effect on people’s lives where money makes a huge difference.

I’m also aware that monies come from different pots and all the blah blah blah etc. But being involved with PCC I’m also aware that monies can and often are, moved from pot to pot, so in effect the money spent on Home Park could be put towards less fortunate people’s quality of life.

I'm also aware that it maybe possible for PCC to make a decent return of income via rent, but if I wanted a Council to speculate in a business deal I would sooner invest my money in a property development company rather then pay council tax.

So, can someone convince me that there would not be a hope in hell that a single penny spent on the purchase of Home Park could be used for services to improve those that are less fortunate, quality of life? - If so I would be happy to support this campaign, if not I support people's quality of life over my interest and hobby.

Don Tin hat and prepare for incoming - you're not allowed to question anything.

Your comment is a fair one, however, as far as I understand it, the purchase will be made using the Council's financial reserves, which are substantial. So, either it remains in a bank, earning not very much interest, or it's put to good use by buying back the ground at a commercial rent, which will earn the Council more money that it would sat in a not very safe financial institution.

Either way it won't affect current budgets.

PlymptonPilgrim wrote:

GOB wrote:

Now this is a real toughie!

As an Argyle fan I’ve long argued in favour that HP should have remained in the ownership of PCC and fought bitter battles over it, thanks to “some” on pasoti and, as an Argyle fan I would also be very relieved to see Home Park back under the wing of PCC and safeguarded. But, being involved in areas of social care, both personally and professionally, I’m well aware of huge difficulties and pressures that really are having a dramatic and depressing effect on people’s lives where money makes a huge difference.

I’m also aware that monies come from different pots and all the blah blah blah etc. But being involved with PCC I’m also aware that monies can and often are, moved from pot to pot, so in effect the money spent on Home Park could be put towards less fortunate people’s quality of life.

I'm also aware that it maybe possible for PCC to make a decent return of income via rent, but if I wanted a Council to speculate in a business deal I would sooner invest my money in a property development company rather then pay council tax.

So, can someone convince me that there would not be a hope in hell that a single penny spent on the purchase of Home Park could be used for services to improve those that are less fortunate, quality of life? - If so I would be happy to support this campaign, if not I support people's quality of life over my interest and hobby.

Don Tin hat and prepare for incoming - you're not allowed to question anything.

Your comment is a fair one, however, as far as I understand it, the purchase will be made using the Council's financial reserves, which are substantial. So, either it remains in a bank, earning not very much interest, or it's put to good use by buying back the ground at a commercial rent, which will earn the Council more money that it would sat in a not very safe financial institution.

Either way it won't affect current budgets.

Cheers PP.

Maybe my comments are more political then football related. I mean, I pay council tax for services, if I want to earn interest then I can use a bank.

I'm still not convinced but then, maybe my questions should be aimed at a local Councillor and not the Trust.

Chris, how about a Q & A session with Ms Pengelly?.....Ooops sorry, wrong site! Not that it matters because I can't use that "other" site!

I don't have a problem as such with it Gob... although I have parallel concerns. I do have to laugh though at Webby yet again jumping on a winning horse a few yards from the finishing post.
At a time of cuts when the likes of IJN will be clamouring to cut, cut, cut, I rest quite easily with more public investment, and buying back Home Park has always been a good thing in my mind. HOWEVER, it must NOT be in place of public services. This is a capital investment, but I do have worries when public money is used on the downswing to buy land at too high a price, and then sell it off cheap on the upswing .... a good example of 'Plymouth prices'

Here's what I posted to my councillor a day or two ago:-

I'll be quite clear, I'm a long time Argyle fan and Plymouth citizen, but also a long time socialist.... well, a green actually, far more left in today's terms.
I have no problem with Home Park being bought back by PCC in the interests of the city in general.
However, it needs to be a commercially viable proposition and the Council MUST stick to their guns and the AAP in any negotiations, no secret deals with inappropriate planning nods to a Citibank man in our beautiful park, and no removing of the commercial uplift clause in the Home Park covenants, while myself and many others attend "Stop the cuts" rallies hoping to roll back some of the worst impending cuts.... simply, money is short.
PCC is here to put into action the desires of the people of the city, not a minority of football fans attempting to gain an advantage for a private company who have sadly made it quite clear over the last few years how much they wanted to despoil our park. I use that park regularly to cleanse myself from the rest of the city, swim at Central Park every week, am an allotment holder at Swarthmore, and an Argyle regular of 40 years. It's a park, not a place to lay down concrete. Please, please remember that when you vote on anything to do with central Park. Come on you greens.

On purely commercial terms they sold it for two point something million just a few short years ago and will be buying it back for £1.6M - any organisation that could turn a £1m profit on like for like deals would ordinarily be applauded. Add to that they'll even get their £1.6M back within a decade too AND turn twenty years of solid profit thereafter PLUS the park is easier to protect as they'll own it.

I really can't see what the local objections could possibly be .

And Penz, on Chris Webb, whilst I don't share a desire to bash him for his efforts I did like your jumping on the horse analagy*. Speaking as one who backed JB from hour one day one to the passionate exclusion of all others there used to be a lot of room in the saddle. In the last month or so though the saddle has suddenly become very crowded and others are now whipping my horse and calling him theirs .

*Note to self - don't post in a hurry before teatime!. Having re-read that it doesn't make it as clear as i'd intended that I DIDN'T mean Chris was the one doing the horse jumping. I know he has his knockers on here (I thank yaaaw!) but i'm not one of them. I mean the many many many posters on PASOTI who were telling me to shut up and get behind Heaney/ Ridsdale when that deal was being pushed through. I was variously accused of being disloyal and anti-Argyle for wanting my prized values back at the club - as many of you were too for boycotting financial support for Heaney/Ridsdale. They tried to send us on a guilt trip about the staff even though we were supporting them directly by other means. I wish for the life of me I could recall the posters names who in Argyle's darkest hour took a pop at us for daring not to sleep with the enemy but Chris definately wasn't one of them. I was in PM contact with Chris a bit but Graham Clark and PJ more often and they've never switched horses.

Exactly Smiffy, it was only a month ago, these jockeys were backing BIL.... and make no mistake, they would have fallen in behind Heaney and Ridsdale if they had succeeded.... opportunists.
If three months ago, one wing or the other of Pasoti Trust had laid into Heaney, this would all be done and dusted way before now. But they didn't trust eachother, or more pertinently, Pasoti, and I suspect the ego of Mr Newell in particular, didn't want to be left behind by the new boys on the block ... that's the underlying truth of the matter.

However, on the point of what Plymouthians might object to, there are many reasons... not least being the football club is not the mot popular entity in the city of late.
And as for the price, if I read it right, Brent was only ever going to sell back the actual Stadium itself, and thereby divest himself of all expensive regeneration responsibility. As far as I am aware he still intends to own the most lucrative part South of the Grandstand ... the car park. And who knows whether any deals are being done involving the Devil's cricket ground that Stapleton/Wrathall coveted in some sort of Angel Heart manner.

As an argyle supporter I am very happy to see the ground bought by the council, I'm just not sure it is the "no brainer" it is being portrayed as.

I can understand why a non argyle supporting taxpayer might not feel the deal is the best for them. It's all very well comparing it to putting the money in a bank account but a big difference is that if the council decide they need to free up the money invested in buying back the freehold there will be a limited number of buyers unless there are huge changes to the planning restrictions.

Secondly no one has addressed the main reason the council sold the land in tthe first place and that was to absolve itself of any obligation to finish the ground. With an estimated 10+ million needed to redevelope the grandstand and upgrade the facilities within it, I wouldn't imagine the council will want to spend anything other than their initial investment. The club is unlikely to be in a position to fund any redevelopements in the near future, which leaves private investment, something that neither stapleton and co or the NWO managed to attract when they owned the ground.

There's always private money for prime sites in prime cities, but figures for expensive develoment have never added up in Central Park.

It's a bit like the postal service ( Webby'll like this ), anyone can make a profit delivering letters in a city, it's the social responsibilities of outlying unprofitable areas that private investors run a mile from. Hence Brent wanting nothing to do with an expensive build for a small provincial football club with little to no likliehood of ever making a profit.

Being in the lower leagues makes it viable for PCC to own the stadium as there's no requirement to build a new stand. If however we gain a Championship standard again and PCC are hounded to build the new stand their investment suddenly becomes a bum deal. For all concerned, it will pay to keep the club in the lower leagues for as long as possible.

I asked the following on PASOTi as I'm genuinely confused. However, I must now be deemed not worthy and a disciple of the dark side as no replies were received. Anybody on here ACTUALLY know the facts?

Can somebody ITK clarify a few questions for me.

1). Are PCC buying back the whole land package for the suggested £2m that the club paid £2.7m for, or are they just buying back the ground footprint?

2). If, as I assume, it's the whole package, what's in it for JB. Will Akkeron be the preferred development partner?

3). Is there the slightest chance the council will finally fulfill their previous committment to build the South stand, and if not, why not?

Ta.

It appears to me that in the drive to push Mr Brent over the line those ITK are keeping all info in a need to know basis and anything which may be construed as unhelpful is not being divulged.

The details will emerge after, no doubt, and I have no doubt that it will be to JB's advantage and the council's loss.

Although long term if the club ultimately rises again through the divisions then it could once more become an asset to the greater community.

Hava just penned an eloquent and heart-wrenching email to the council about the standing of our city in the UK and how without an airport the loss of the football club as well is nothing short of an insult to Drake, Gilbert, Foot and the brave people of Plymouth who repelled none other than the King of England himself during the Siege of Plymouth 1644.

Seriously. It'll make the recipient cry.

Mock Cuncher wrote:

Hava just penned an eloquent and heart-wrenching email to the council about the standing of our city in the UK and how without an airport the loss of the football club as well is nothing short of an insult to Drake, Gilbert, Foot and the brave people of Plymouth who repelled none other than the King of England himself during the Siege of Plymouth 1644.

Seriously. It'll make the recipient cry.

I can fully believe it

Bit annoyed at Viv's generic response, exactly the same as received by others on the farm who probs only wrote 'plz save argo me hearty'.

I'd email Tud's, but what sort of pretentious ponce has a first name of 'Tudor'? Plus I remember his promises of yesterday. The man reeks of popularism. He'd never last within the feudal system of Kingsbridge.

Yeah but it's pretty cool that if you ever had a child together you could call it Mock Tudor.

X Isle wrote:

Yeah but it's pretty cool that if you ever had a child together you could call it Mock Tudor.

If nothing else .... that has made coming on here this evening all worthwhile

X Isle wrote:

Yeah but it's pretty cool that if you ever had a child together you could call it Mock Tudor.

Was his chat up line, "Where have you beam all of my life?"