The Grandstand plans - a PAS Board update

Hugh Watt wrote:

at least we'll have four fit for purpose stands. As opposed to your two.

They may well be fit for purpose, if somewhat under used, and as we all know three sides paid for by the poor long suffering local tax payer with this new bit Brenty's contribution, yet still people are moaning.

It's the same as when they moan about the playing surface despite you never having paid for that either, it beggars belief the lack of gratitude shown by so many.

As for you slagging off poor ol' Sid James Park, it's fine for us, we are not so full of shiite as so many of you Janners. Most of our fans can choose from a modern stand or the largest covered end terrace in football, what do we care if the few travellers that generally make the trip have to exercise a little bladder control and I am old school, I don't mind a bit of open terracing, too many pussies following the game nowadays.

Either way our ramshackle ground is enough to support a serious promotion challenge while your mega ground will just about be the best ground in the Conference next season, my congratulations, you must be so proud.

Points not empty green plastic seats is what counts.

It is StuartC's post on that thread that concerns me the most.

Plus some (or all) of the 1200 sq m of "retail" floorspace under the stand that has been slipped out as being "not for Argyle's benefit"

I was under the impression that ALL of the income from the footprint of the current grandstand - ie the area owned by the council & leased to the club - was designated as club income.

IF it's accurate that some of that area will be used to generate income for Mr Brent then this is despicable and is a reneging on earlier commitments.

If shops there were owned by Mr Brent then it further limits what can be achieved via redevelopment in the future should we be in a position to buy the lease back from the council as we will be able to do every 5 years, I believe.

St James is holding your club back that and lack of outside investment. Exeter could be an established championship club if it wanted. We may have the better stadium by a mile but our two pitches cant compete with your training ground.

I will add another little bombshell to this. The architects thought the roof could be taken off the horseshoe and a second tier added. They consulted with Barr who informed them that to cut costs on the original build the structure WAS NOT built to take a second tier. That will never happen. As the road will be so close to the side of the Lyndhurst and Barn Park, extending those stands is highly unlikely to happen. The possibility of adding 2500 seats to the back of these stands, with the road so close and the expensive cost for so few seats makes it, highly likely to be a complete non starter.

As Knecht was also told the only possibility to substantially increase the capacity would be to knock down the Devonport End and rebuild it. This is because the land to the back, out to where the bricks are, belongs to the club.

Apparently it has been discussed that if Argyle ever needed a stadium approaching 25-30,000 the club would have to build a new stadium elsewhere.

The extra 5 ( FIVE ) rows of seats in the second tier ( shelf) hold 920 seats. The lower tier holds 4100 making 5020 in total. I'm not sure why a couple of others have got 4,800? Maybe I missed something or they did. Still we won't argue over 200.

Another thing I consider to be of concern as did some other fans who spotted it, is the level with all the restaurant / banqueting etc. has on the corner where the offices are a "supporters bar" this takes a massive 180 people. While the corporate restaurant etc. has seats for 600. I know there is more money in corporate sales but the bar that would be replacing the Far Post club and the Fanfests is completely inadequate and smacks of the ordinary fan ( season ticket holders etc.) being pushed out in favour of people who only turn up because they are on a freebee because their company has sponsored the game/ball etc. Some fans were not happy with this. Hopefully this is one of the things that can be changed or one of the units on the ground floor be used as a supporters bar.

I think I'm right in saying the revenue from the retail units on the ground floor would not be Argyle's either but I may have heard that wrong and stand to be corrected if so.

All in all I'm disappointed in being given the idea that the club had listened and put a second tier on, only to find what can only be described as a "shelf". The PASB need to be careful in trying to "big" itself up only for fans to find something different. So we end up with a capacity of less than 18,000 and highly unlikely to be extended. It would all be fine if we stay in Division 2 / 1 but a promotion run in Div.1 or doing reasonably well in the Championship and it will not be big enough.

125+1 wrote:

What was the average attendance of the 5 years in the Championship? I bet its under 17k, and that was with a promotion push.

...Is the right answer.


The average attendance for each of your six seasons in the Championship are as follows;

2010, 23rd place, att 10,316
2009, 21st place, att, 11,427
2008, 10th place, att 13,000
2007, 11th place, att 13,012
2006, 14th place, att 13,776
2005, 17th place, att 16,420

Total attendance in the Championship from 2004-5 to 2009-10 = 77,951
Average season attendance = 12,991.


That 16'420 average attendance was your highest since 1961. It should be remembered that it came during an economic boom, was on the back of a four-year period of unprecedented success (two title-winning seasons in three years) and was almost certainly additionally inflated by the promotion bounce that almost always occurs, especially when a club is promoted to a division it has rarely played in, or in which it has not played for some time. You had not played in the 2nd tier for 12 years prior to 2004-5 and have in fact only played there 14 times in the 45 years since 1967-68. In 30 of those 45 seasons you have averaged less than 10'000 for the season and have only exceeded a 13'000 average 7 times.

The average attendances in each of your remaining 2nd tier seasons between 1967-68 and 2004-5 are as follows (by year ending)

1991; 6,851
1990; 8,749
1989; 8,628
1988; 10,280
1987; 6,674
1986; 7,672
1977; 13,329
1976; 14,800


The overall total attendance for your 14 seasons in the 2nd tier since 1968 = 154'934

Average season attendance = 11,067.

(Don't let Brent see this, FFS).

Greenjock wrote:

So how many turned up for the Torquay game last season when Argyle were bottom of League 2? Around 11-12k I think it was, at the bottom of League 2...

You can't plan for the future on an aberration. In the two seasons Oxford and ourselves were both in non-league they had two regular season attendances of 11'000 or so (against Cambridge IIRC). By that rationale they should be extending the Kassam to 40'000. (Mind you they do have a free end to play with I suppose).

Quote :

If 12k can turn up for a bottom of the table clash then you can add a few thousand on to that if Argyle are pushing for promotion.

You must be joking. There's no way you can sensibly extrapolate like that.

You've only managed a 14'000 average in five seasons in the last fifty years - in 1964, '67, '75 and '76 and in 2004. All bar one of those attendances was achieved in the 2nd tier and the other was achieved when Blackburn only beat you to the third tier title by a single point. When you WON the bleddy fourth tier you averaged under 9'000 - and people had a lot more money in their pockets back then.

Quote :

So a couple of years in League 1 before pushing for promotion and getting crowds of 15k? Is that wildly optimistic?

I refer to the right honourable gentlemen to the answer I gave a moment ago.

Since Harold Wilson resigned, you've achieved a season average of 15k a grand total of...


...(drum roll maestro)


...once.

*ba-doom tish*.

You have no idea how much it really hurts me to say this, but you should start listening to my grecian friend Lord Tisdale. *projectile vomit smiley*

do folk on here care what jealous city fans think?

even with 18000 it still better than your stadium

Richard Blight wrote:

........
I think I'm right in saying the revenue from the retail units on the ground floor would not be Argyle's either but I may have heard that wrong and stand to be corrected if so.
.......

And again! If this is true, we have been lied to.

And, if you take out the necessary separation of fans we have a still smaller capacity. With no realistic space for expansion should we ever need it.

jabba the gut ecfc wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

So how many turned up for the Torquay game last season when Argyle were bottom of League 2? Around 11-12k I think it was, at the bottom of League 2...

You can't plan for the future on an aberration. In the two seasons Oxford and ourselves were both in non-league they had two regular season attendances of 11'000 or so (against Cambridge IIRC). By that rationale they should be extending the Kassam to 40'000. (Mind you they do have a free end to play with I suppose).

Quote :

If 12k can turn up for a bottom of the table clash then you can add a few thousand on to that if Argyle are pushing for promotion.

You must be joking. There's no way you can sensibly extrapolate like that.

You've only managed a 14'000 average in five seasons in the last fifty years - in 1964, '67, '75 and '76 and in 2004. All bar one of those attendances was achieved in the 2nd tier and the other was achieved when Blackburn only beat you to the third tier title by a single point. When you WON the bleddy fourth tier you averaged under 9'000 - and people had a lot more money in their pockets back then.

Quote :

So a couple of years in League 1 before pushing for promotion and getting crowds of 15k? Is that wildly optimistic?

I refer to the right honourable gentlemen to the answer I gave a moment ago.

Since Harold Wilson resigned, you've achieved a season average of 15k a grand total of...


...(drum roll maestro)


...once.

*ba-doom tish*.

You have no idea how much it really hurts me to say this, but you should start listening to my grecian friend Lord Tisdale. *projectile vomit smiley*

None of your business.Go and paint the Centre Spot toilets with your mate,no-one is interested in your puffed up tracts on here.

jabba the gut ecfc wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

So how many turned up for the Torquay game last season when Argyle were bottom of League 2? Around 11-12k I think it was, at the bottom of League 2...

You can't plan for the future on an aberration. In the two seasons Oxford and ourselves were both in non-league they had two regular season attendances of 11'000 or so (against Cambridge IIRC). By that rationale they should be extending the Kassam to 40'000. (Mind you they do have a free end to play with I suppose).

Quote :

If 12k can turn up for a bottom of the table clash then you can add a few thousand on to that if Argyle are pushing for promotion.

You must be joking. There's no way you can sensibly extrapolate like that.

You've only managed a 14'000 average in five seasons in the last fifty years - in 1964, '67, '75 and '76 and in 2004. All bar one of those attendances was achieved in the 2nd tier and the other was achieved when Blackburn only beat you to the third tier title by a single point. When you WON the bleddy fourth tier you averaged under 9'000 - and people had a lot more money in their pockets back then.

Quote :

So a couple of years in League 1 before pushing for promotion and getting crowds of 15k? Is that wildly optimistic?

I refer to the right honourable gentlemen to the answer I gave a moment ago.

Since Harold Wilson resigned, you've achieved a season average of 15k a grand total of...


...(drum roll maestro)


...once.

*ba-doom tish*.

You have no idea how much it really hurts me to say this, but you should start listening to my grecian friend Lord Tisdale. *projectile vomit smiley*

[b]

If that is the 2001/2 season it was when phase 1 was being built and the capacity was about 9k total until the end of December (as only the mayflower was open). Once phase 1 was built the average was around 12k for the second part of the season culminating in an 18.5 k attendance for the last game against Cheltenham.

I went to see the plans in more detail today along with quite a few others. This is obviously going to fly in the face of what seems the majority on here but in general terms I thought it looked ok. Not fantastic as it appears most were expecting but ok for the club certainly at the moment. All this angst about lack of ambition is one thing but I have seen absolutely no sign, and I go to every home match, that Argyle are anywhere near filling what they have now let alone filling a 20k plus stadium. This is being pointed out continually by our Exeter contributor but seems lost on most. We have been nowhere near filling 16k for a very long time. I also asked about extending what we have. I was told also that it was not straighforward. But I was also told that it isn't impossible either albeit it will take a bit more doing than it appears. As long as there is the potential to extend even if difficult then why the charge of lack of ambition. Should it ever be needed then it can be done and more likely would be.

The one question that I wanted to ask is what the projected income for the club would be and therefore did. Disappointingly the answer was it was not yet known as it seems the number crunchers hadn't crunched them yet. All I was told was that the club was expected to benefit. This was not very satisfactory really mainly in my opinion because people want that sort of information it being very important and if they were going to have an exhibition then this sort of information should be available. People are more bothered about substance than appearance. The impression I got, and I may have been nudged to think this way by slight of words, was that the club would benefit from the content of the new stand side and nobody else.

From what I could see it didn't seem as if loads of extra land was being piled into this build and the absolute vast majority was on land currently within the limits of the ground. A worst a small area between the away end and the old Zoo was being included and the old lane that ran beside the ground. As I said it seemed ok to me rather than superb. I cannot see why extra seating is needed for the occasional match when for the majority it would be empty. I was trying to look at the thing without bringing in personalies in the sense of distrusting Brent or looking for obstacles because it was Brent. A dispassionate viewing if you like and did it do the job needed now.

Angry of Manchester wrote:

St James is holding your club back that and lack of outside investment. Exeter could be an established championship club if it wanted...

You must be joking. Have you seen the sort of money sloshing around in the Championship these days? Hull - £50 million in 2 years, 'boro - £60 million plus written off by Gibson, with the promise to fund the playing side as much as is necessary to try and return to the PL "before the door shuts"? (His words, not mine, before those of you who refuse to entertain the possibility that the top flight is being gradually sewn up start having another go). I could go on.

It's only going to get worse - the team that finishes bottom of the Premier League next year will trouser more fillthy lucre than Manchester City did when they won the title - and that's before even considering the £48 million in parachute payments they can look forward to.

I would die a happy man if we could even achieve one season in the 2nd tier - and only then as long as we weren't stupid enough to spend a cent we couldn't really, really afford trying to stay there. However I try to be philosophical about things. Southend's chairman said that reaching the Championship and trying to stay there was the worst thing to ever happen to his club and they're in a far more favourable location than the rugby-loving football backwater that is the South-West.

Methinks some football fans in our part of the world need a reality check. I used to think the Turks had their heads screwed on and were more content with their lot, until I started debating with one of their number who was adamant that the example of Villareal (pop. 50'000 - odd) proves that "the Sky's the limit" and that his fellow fans were "too defeatist".

I hope you find another multimillionaire ceramics magnate before he does.

Averages work on some figures being lower and some higher.

2003, 10 of our home gates were over 17500.

Argyle is well known for having attendances that bounce along quite nicely and then a big game comes along, FA Cup, Xmas game, big club or we go on a promotion run and the gates go through the roof. Take out segregation areas and we'll be lucky to have 17000. We can fill 17000 easily on a good day.

2500 fans at £20 is £50,000. Do that once a season and it's worth having those "extra" seats. If we haven't got them, we can't moan if we don't get the money.

jabba the gut ecfc wrote:

Angry of Manchester wrote:

St James is holding your club back that and lack of outside investment. Exeter could be an established championship club if it wanted. We may have the better stadium by a mile but our two pitches cant compete with your training ground.

You must be joking. Have you seen the sort of money sloshing around in the Championship these days? Hull - £50 million in 2 years, 'boro - £60 million plus written off by Gibson, with the promise to fund the playing side as much as is necessary to try and return to the PL "before the door shuts"? (His words, not mine, before those of you who refuse to entertain the possibility that the top flight is being gradually sewn up start having another go). I could go on.

It's only going to get worse - the team that finishes bottom of the Premier League next year will trouser more fillthy lucre than Manchester City did when they won the whole title - and that's before even considering the £48 million in parachute payments they can look forward to.

I would die a happy man if we could even achieve one season in the 2nd tier - and only then as long as we weren't stupid enough to spend a cent we couldn't really, really afford trying to stay there. However I try to be philosophical about things. Southend's chairman said that reaching the Championship and trying to stay there was the worst thing to ever happen to his club and they're in a far more favourable location than the rugby-loving football backwater that is the South-West.

Methinks some football fans in our part of the world need a reality check. I used to think the Turks had their heads screwed on and were more content with their lot, until I started debating with one of their number who was adamant that the example of Villareal (pop. 50'000 - odd) proves that "the Sky's the limit" and that his fellow fans were "too defeatist".

I hope you find another multimillionaire ceramics magnate before he does.

If you look at it from the outside in Exeter is a thriving area ATM international airport and all. If you carry on growing it wont be long till you attract interest with money that will take you there,

I'm partly comforted by the possibility that none of this Higher Home Park development will ever be built. And so neither will this abomination of a 'stand'. There's a long way to go yet before any of these contemptous plans are realised. I'm hopeful we may yet see the odious scumbag brent disappearing up the A38, preferably with his equally less than fragrant entourage behind him, before a single bulldozer appears at Home Park.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

I went to see the plans in more detail today along with quite a few others. This is obviously going to fly in the face of what seems the majority on here but in general terms I thought it looked ok. Not fantastic as it appears most were expecting but ok for the club certainly at the moment. All this angst about lack of ambition is one thing but I have seen absolutely no sign, and I go to every home match, that Argyle are anywhere near filling what they have now let alone filling a 20k plus stadium. This is being pointed out continually by our Exeter contributor but seems lost on most. We have been nowhere near filling 16k for a very long time. I also asked about extending what we have. I was told also that it was not straighforward. But I was also told that it isn't impossible either albeit it will take a bit more doing than it appears. As long as there is the potential to extend even if difficult then why the charge of lack of ambition. Should it ever be needed then it can be done and more likely would be.

The one question that I wanted to ask is what the projected income for the club would be and therefore did. Disappointingly the answer was it was not yet known as it seems the number crunchers hadn't crunched them yet. All I was told was that the club was expected to benefit. This was not very satisfactory really mainly in my opinion because people want that sort of information it being very important and if they were going to have an exhibition then this sort of information should be available. People are more bothered about substance than appearance. The impression I got, and I may have been nudged to think this way by slight of words, was that the club would benefit from the content of the new stand side and nobody else.

From what I could see it didn't seem as if loads of extra land was being piled into this build and the absolute vast majority was on land currently within the limits of the ground. A worst a small area between the away end and the old Zoo was being included and the old lane that ran beside the ground. As I said it seemed ok to me rather than superb. I cannot see why extra seating is needed for the occasional match when for the majority it would be empty. I was trying to look at the thing without bringing in personalies in the sense of distrusting Brent or looking for obstacles because it was Brent. A dispassionate viewing if you like and did it do the job needed now.

Sensible, the problem is, it only takes 2 seasons to get back to the Championship ( unlikely but you never know) and there would be plenty of games where it just won't be big enough. It's highly unlikely the ground would be extended.

Good on Graham Clark for voicing his opinion on the stand. This part stood out-

Quote :

Having viewed the plans and listened to the explanations of the Akkeron representatives it is clear to me that this proposal in its present fluid incarnation places an unacceptable constraint on the future potential of the football club and equally as important upon the strategic and iconic publicly owned asset that is Home Park.

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

jabba the gut ecfc wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

So how many turned up for the Torquay game last season when Argyle were bottom of League 2? Around 11-12k I think it was, at the bottom of League 2...

You can't plan for the future on an aberration. In the two seasons Oxford and ourselves were both in non-league they had two regular season attendances of 11'000 or so (against Cambridge IIRC). By that rationale they should be extending the Kassam to 40'000. (Mind you they do have a free end to play with I suppose).

Quote :

If 12k can turn up for a bottom of the table clash then you can add a few thousand on to that if Argyle are pushing for promotion.

You must be joking. There's no way you can sensibly extrapolate like that.

You've only managed a 14'000 average in five seasons in the last fifty years - in 1964, '67, '75 and '76 and in 2004. All bar one of those attendances was achieved in the 2nd tier and the other was achieved when Blackburn only beat you to the third tier title by a single point. When you WON the bleddy fourth tier you averaged under 9'000 - and people had a lot more money in their pockets back then.

Quote :

So a couple of years in League 1 before pushing for promotion and getting crowds of 15k? Is that wildly optimistic?

I refer to the right honourable gentlemen to the answer I gave a moment ago.

Since Harold Wilson resigned, you've achieved a season average of 15k a grand total of...


...(drum roll maestro)


...once.

*ba-doom tish*.

You have no idea how much it really hurts me to say this, but you should start listening to my grecian friend Lord Tisdale. *projectile vomit smiley*

When we won the 4th tier the horseshoe was being built and we only had the Grandstand side of the ground for half of the season meaning that capacity was restricted to about 7000. This would have significantly reduced the final average figure as did the hundreds of empty seats not filled by away fans once the horseshoe opened. That 9000 figure actually represents near 100% attendance in the bits available to our supporters.

Angry of Manchester wrote:

do folk on here care what jealous city fans think?

even with 18000 it still better than your stadium

Trust me, looking in at the rotten state of Greenmark, labouring under a ruler who happily spent ten years at the top of one of the most venal, amoral and corrupt financial institutions in the world (an organisation with blood on its hands no less, in the case of such things as the Liberian civil war) and watching the way in which he is fostering personality cults, exploiting divisions in the fanbase and leaving the gullible chasing their own tails while managing to do as little as he can get away with on the playing side, the very, very last thing I feel is jealously.

In fact if I was really the jealous type, I would be happy for the Merchant Banker to rule for all eternity, instead of wishing somebody would take him on a one-way trip to downtown Larnaca with his CV pinned to his forehead. I suspect a few angry cypriots might be tempted to tear this "good man" limb from limb once they read it.

Rivalry is all well and good most of the time. However some things are just not right and so the situation makes me frustrated, sometimes angry and genuinely sorry for all you Gargoyles who know the score.

I must be going soft in my old age.

I hate those wankers that say "I told you so"/

I'm talking about the old stands being extended that made me one of the bad guys on pasoti all those years ago. When will the daft half wits listen!

From what I can tell, it's RIP PAFC in about 5 years time with no future and, no income.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

jabba the gut ecfc wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

So how many turned up for the Torquay game last season when Argyle were bottom of League 2? Around 11-12k I think it was, at the bottom of League 2...

You can't plan for the future on an aberration. In the two seasons Oxford and ourselves were both in non-league they had two regular season attendances of 11'000 or so (against Cambridge IIRC). By that rationale they should be extending the Kassam to 40'000. (Mind you they do have a free end to play with I suppose).

Quote :

If 12k can turn up for a bottom of the table clash then you can add a few thousand on to that if Argyle are pushing for promotion.

You must be joking. There's no way you can sensibly extrapolate like that.

You've only managed a 14'000 average in five seasons in the last fifty years - in 1964, '67, '75 and '76 and in 2004. All bar one of those attendances was achieved in the 2nd tier and the other was achieved when Blackburn only beat you to the third tier title by a single point. When you WON the bleddy fourth tier you averaged under 9'000 - and people had a lot more money in their pockets back then.

Quote :

So a couple of years in League 1 before pushing for promotion and getting crowds of 15k? Is that wildly optimistic?

I refer to the right honourable gentlemen to the answer I gave a moment ago.

Since Harold Wilson resigned, you've achieved a season average of 15k a grand total of...


...(drum roll maestro)


...once.

*ba-doom tish*.

You have no idea how much it really hurts me to say this, but you should start listening to my grecian friend Lord Tisdale. *projectile vomit smiley*

When we won the 4th tier the horseshoe was being built and we only had the Grandstand side of the ground for half of the season meaning that capacity was restricted to about 7000. This would have significantly reduced the final average figure as did the hundreds of empty seats not filled by away fans once the horseshoe opened. That 9000 figure actually represents near 100% attendance in the bits available to our supporters.

Fair point. However you can't say what the attendance would have been otherwise - that is counterfactual history. Notwithstanding that point, the economy was not in the same state - we are in the middle of an economic crisis that is going nowhere soon and attendances are down virtually everywhere outside the PL. Oxford have lost 2'000 from their average for example.

For how many of the other seasons where you demonstrably failed to get close to the attendances you all seem to believe are waiting somewhere in the ether, just tantalisingly out of reach, could the failure be attributed to ground redevelopment?

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

I went to see the plans in more detail today along with quite a few others. This is obviously going to fly in the face of what seems the majority on here but in general terms I thought it looked ok. Not fantastic as it appears most were expecting but ok for the club certainly at the moment. All this angst about lack of ambition is one thing but I have seen absolutely no sign, and I go to every home match, that Argyle are anywhere near filling what they have now let alone filling a 20k plus stadium. This is being pointed out continually by our Exeter contributor but seems lost on most. We have been nowhere near filling 16k for a very long time. I also asked about extending what we have. I was told also that it was not straighforward. But I was also told that it isn't impossible either albeit it will take a bit more doing than it appears. As long as there is the potential to extend even if difficult then why the charge of lack of ambition. Should it ever be needed then it can be done and more likely would be.

The one question that I wanted to ask is what the projected income for the club would be and therefore did. Disappointingly the answer was it was not yet known as it seems the number crunchers hadn't crunched them yet. All I was told was that the club was expected to benefit. This was not very satisfactory really mainly in my opinion because people want that sort of information it being very important and if they were going to have an exhibition then this sort of information should be available. People are more bothered about substance than appearance. The impression I got, and I may have been nudged to think this way by slight of words, was that the club would benefit from the content of the new stand side and nobody else.

From what I could see it didn't seem as if loads of extra land was being piled into this build and the absolute vast majority was on land currently within the limits of the ground. A worst a small area between the away end and the old Zoo was being included and the old lane that ran beside the ground. As I said it seemed ok to me rather than superb. I cannot see why extra seating is needed for the occasional match when for the majority it would be empty. I was trying to look at the thing without bringing in personalies in the sense of distrusting Brent or looking for obstacles because it was Brent. A dispassionate viewing if you like and did it do the job needed now.

Sensie, I was probably there when you were. I would have let you buy me a coffee if I knew who you were.

I think you are wrong. The nominal capacity is one thing but if you allow that a block will be taken out for fan separation then it is reduced. I heard the same conversation as you about the possibility of additional seating (it may even have been you whose question I was earwigging) but, if we are talking about the same thing, it is only a limited number at the back of the existing horseshoe. Any more than that would require extensive work and cost. And why shackle ourselves with future substantial cost if that can be mitigated now, at least to some degree, by a better development for the club. The facility to accommodate at least the occasional (and hopefully more often than that) larger gate should be within possibility. At the very least this could generate extra income.

I also heard the same answer as you re the number crunching around the projected income. I share your "disappointment" that this wasn't available.

I also asked the club rep & the Akkeron rep about whether the catering facilities within the grandstand could be open during the week. The reply was only the conferencing facilities. That seemed to me to be an opportunity missed. Maybe it would be seen as being in competition with the income-generators of the restaurants in the commercial development. And, [i]if[/i] it is accurate what I am now hearing from more than one source, that some of the retail outlets will fall within the footprint of the old grand-stand then the club will be further restricted on income generation.

I too try to take personality out of it. I thought that Mr Brent could be good for the club and have been ridiculed for that. My patience is now almost exhausted.

I had not fully understood the implication of the new road along the Lyndy & behind the Barn Park End. Of course this makes any future development of those stands even more problematic.

Greenskin wrote:

...

None of your business.Go and paint the Centre Spot toilets with your mate,no-one is interested in the facts on here.

Edited for the infamous factuals.

Talking of facts, how are Millwall doing these days? You know - the same Millwall whose fifth place in December was your proof that PAFC can go all the way to the top? Playoffs? Top half?