The Grandstand plans - a PAS Board update

Dougie wrote:

I don't usually buy conspiracy theories but this one totally fits the bill. It makes heroes of Brent and his PASB.

Release crap picture. Even Brents proxy director is taken by surprise. It was two. Its changed 36 times already. Get involved in the consultation. The board will listen. Crap picture dissaapears from Higher Home Park website. Where coincidently every other part of the development has always been available in full computerised colourful CGI glory. Brents PASB has a quiet chat and tete a tit. Suddenly extra tier added. Money found. Design found. Seats found.

Stupid games if you ask me.

You should always consider alternative explanations or conspiracies whenever someone like Brent is involved. He didn't get to where he got to, in the world in which he operated, without being clever, ruthless and calculating; never mind the absent-minded professor exterior.

I'm beginning to believe the guy's a fecking ninja or something - these days he seems to be able to hide in plain sight while waving a samurai sword around as long as those watching him are wearing something green.

Dougie wrote:

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

"You have to say that's magnificent".

(Sorry Bazza).

punchdrunk wrote:

PL2 seems to love the new plans, or is he just another belter that feeds of the Nool table?

It wouldn't surprise me if he was one of the filthy 4 who advised Brent that this was a fantastic idea (whilst removing his tongue from his arse in order to keep his directors box seat)

Richard Blight wrote:

Averages work on some figures being lower and some higher.

2003, 10 of our home gates were over 17500....

2003-2004 was a very unusual year. There is nothing in your history since Macmillan was Prime Minister that suggests 17,000 attendances are likely to be anything but a rare occurence in future, unless for some reason you expect to buck the predictable downward trend that has already begun everywhere outside the PL.

You might as well say that we should build a 15'000 seater, no matter what the cost, simply because we sold out a couple of games against Torquay when we were both at the top of the Blue Square Premier and had 7'000s for the odd playoff and cup game.

Quote :

...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.
...

All bar the genuinely big clubs follow that pattern to some degree or other - it means very little in itself. Plastics are like death and taxes unfortunately.

Angry of Manchester wrote:

We may have the better stadium by a mile but our two pitches cant compete with your training ground.

Glad someone's noticed the fantastic work that's been done there. And you know what? It was partly done under the auspices of the Trust, with ordinary fans chipping in, helping out and doing what they could.

It feels SO much better than the cheap (irony intended) unearned, success built with dirty money that is a stain on the game and which so many of you seem to want to cash in on regardless of wha that means.

jabba the gut ecfc wrote:

Angry of Manchester wrote:

We may have the better stadium by a mile but our two pitches cant compete with your training ground.

Glad someone's noticed the fantastic work that's been done there. And you know what? It was partly done under the auspices of the Trust, with ordinary fans chipping in, helping out and doing what they could.

It feels SO much better than the cheap (irony intended) unearned, success built with dirty money that is a stain on the game and which so many of you seem to want to cash in on regardless of wha that means.

I thought the cat and fiddle was owned by a farmer or have you guys moved out? i trained on that training quite a few times it was huge

jabba the gut ecfc wrote:

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?

It's all about the vibe. When we were on the up and the force was with us we had a chance to ride the crest of the wave all the way to the top but once we hit the Championship we were under-funded and eventually it all fell apart leading to all our recent tribulations ending up where we are now.

Even though we made money in the first few Championship seasons we didn't make enough to enable us to keep our talented players. For all the talk of Ebanks-Blake and Buszaky being when the rot set in the real start to it was Capaldi disappearing off to Cardiff where he was offered a fairly modest £10k per week. If he was worth that then the others wondered what they could get and the sums just didn't add up and a few years later we all know where that led.

This was in part because when we were successful we did not capitalise because we could not capitalise. Not only was the capacity too low but the facilities weren't up to it either.

Quite simply the bigger a new stand is the more you can put under it and the more money can be separated from the fans that go there which in turn leads to better players, more success and bigger crowds.

What we have proposed is a venture that can attract too few fans and which will be out of bounds to the fans who use the other 3 sides of the ground. Just how much money can you extract from the 5020 who could use it? Not enough.

Argyle needs to completely change the perception that people have of it. Most importantly in the minds of the people who live in or near Plymouth. Tring loosely represents the mindset of many who support Argyle but want to see some swaggering confidence, some bravado so that next time we come up against Leeds Utd, or whoever, we go to see us beat them and not because Eddie Gray was their favourite player when they were 10.

Anyway we've already proven that a 20000 capacity cannot compete for long in the Championship so if we want to go back there and stay there we need more.

There is no point in us have the oft mentioned "potential" if there is no viable way of exploiting it.

While we are staring the BSP in the face and struggling to beat anybody in the 4th tier, and we don't deserve to be anywhere else right now, that is not something we should accept as being our lot forever. We might not be Manchester United but we aren't bloody Accrington Stanley either.

We should never ever be in the 4th tier at all, and I totally accept that the league table doesn't lie, but we'll never get higher than the 3rd if we limit ourselves so obviously.

Following a team is all about, to quote Ridsdale, living the dream. For Exeter City the dream is beating Argyle more than once every 20 years but for us it is the, admittedly remote, possibility that one day we might, we just might convince the world that Plymouth isn't 20 miles from Southampton. I have no idea what Torquay fans dream about. I can't get my head around that one at all.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

for us it is the, admittedly remote, possibility that one day we might, we just might convince the world that Plymouth isn't 20 miles from Southampton.

If only that *were* true!

tim

Richard Blight wrote:

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.

I got a different number of seats because on the picture (No 20) from gos it states total seats 4100 lower tier. Then on picture 21 upper tier 920 seats which equals 5020 seats in total the same as you got. But if you look at picture 20 it states 600 hospitality seats are included in the 4100 figure(the ones behind the glass in the business lounge in blue) and 18 companion seats for stewards.

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


A quick maths session works out the stand will not hold 4800 as we have been told. see below

Lower tier 4100
upper tier 920
total 5020
minus 600 hospitality/ business lounge behind glass
minus 18 seats for stewards

Total 4402
So not 4800 or 5020 what is the real number.

As someone said, Speccy has got the press in his pocket!

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

De-rail this crap at all cost now, blood now boiling!

I hate the Herald. If there is a worse 'newspaper' in the country I'd like to see it. Everything looks like it was investigated and written by an 8 year old. A couple of comments from brent loving Avivafest regulars at the 'consultation' event yesterday and as far as the Erald is concerned its universal approval. With a local 'press' like this arse paper rag clearly on brent's side it's going to be a tougher fight to stop this development/change the stand design.

Freathy wrote:

I hate the Herald. If there is a worse 'newspaper' in the country I'd like to see it. Everything looks like it was investigated and written by an 8 year old. A couple of comments from brent loving Avivafest regulars at the 'consultation' event yesterday and as far as the Erald is concerned its universal approval. With a local 'press' like this arse paper rag clearly on brent's side it's going to be a tougher fight to stop this development/change the stand design.

This Shilabeer character has been spooked I think!

So we have Shilabeer, Hooper, Two Faced and Pedlar in support. I expect they will be joined by other pasoti mods sooner rather than later.

Brent has played a blinder and no mistake. Herald is frightened to cross him. PCC frightened to cross him. The PASB frightened to cross him. And the one body that did (mildly) excommunicated.

jabba the gut ecfc wrote:

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?

Millwall? In the FA Cup semi final and 11 points off the play offs with 2 games in hand as far as i'm aware.not bad for a club of their limitations.How are the recipients of recent parachute payments getting on,you know clubs such as Wolves,Birmingham,Blackburn and Blackpool,who by your definition should be occupying the top spots in the champioship? Can't recall Palace,Watford,Leicester,Forest or Brighton receiving parachute payments in recent times.How very odd and contradictory.

Saw the plans yesterday, what struck me most was apart from the dire asthetic qualities of the designs for ice rink etc on a par with the Drake circus disaster in terms of architectual merit. Was that Brent is selling the ethos of having a state of the art leisure experiences in Plymouth and yet frankly when it comes to a new stand it really looks the basic cheap model in terms of design and capacity.
Particularly in view of the fact that the vulture was spinning us the notion that we could yet again soar to the dizzy heights of the championship and beyond - with an 18,000 capacity ground! Pathetic really considering the new stand will be designed for at least 50yrs life. It's so obvious the football is always going to take second fiddle to the Plymouth leisure experience.

Jaytex2012 wrote:

Freathy wrote:

I hate the Herald. If there is a worse 'newspaper' in the country I'd like to see it. Everything looks like it was investigated and written by an 8 year old. A couple of comments from brent loving Avivafest regulars at the 'consultation' event yesterday and as far as the Erald is concerned its universal approval. With a local 'press' like this arse paper rag clearly on brent's side it's going to be a tougher fight to stop this development/change the stand design.

This Shilabeer character has been spooked I think!

The Torbay Herald Express makes the 'Erald' look like the Guardian, believe me luckily it's only weekly now.

Dougie wrote:

Brent has played a blinder and no mistake. Herald is frightened to cross him. PCC frightened to cross him. The PASB frightened to cross him. And the one body that did (mildly) excommunicated.

You've heard of 'Padstein' we are heading towards being labled as 'Brentmouth'

lawnmowerman wrote:

Richard Blight wrote:

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.

I got a different number of seats because on the picture (No 20) from gos it states total seats 4100 lower tier. Then on picture 21 upper tier 920 seats which equals 5020 seats in total the same as you got. But if you look at picture 20 it states 600 hospitality seats are included in the 4100 figure(the ones behind the glass in the business lounge in blue) and 18 companion seats for stewards.

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


A quick maths session works out the stand will not hold 4800 as we have been told. see below

Lower tier 4100
upper tier 920
total 5020
minus 600 hospitality/ business lounge behind glass
minus 18 seats for stewards

Total 4402
So not 4800 or 5020 what is the real number.

I think (?) the lower tier has 600 hospitality seats so the people who have been in dining / got corporate boxes, can come out into the cold air with the rest of us and savour the match atmosphere. So basically they have a seat behind glass and in the stand. Is that a waste of seats? If I'm right.

akagreengull wrote:

Saw the plans yesterday, what struck me most was apart from the dire asthetic qualities of the designs for ice rink etc on a par with the Drake circus disaster in terms of architectual merit. Was that Brent is selling the ethos of having a state of the art leisure experiences in Plymouth and yet frankly when it comes to a new stand it really looks the basic cheap model in terms of design and capacity.
Particularly in view of the fact that the vulture was spinning us the notion that we could yet again soar to the dizzy heights of the championship and beyond - with an 18,000 capacity ground! Pathetic really considering the new stand will be designed for at least 50yrs life. It's so obvious the football is always going to take second fiddle to the Plymouth leisure experience.

Yes but................'Ee gets it !'..........I've looked him in the eyes and.............. ee gets it !

Ee certainly knew how easily Nool n Where's Webby could have their heads turned with delusions of grandeur. Once he's got what he wants development wise, he'll hope the club miraculously goes on a charge, so that he can 'sell'. Failing that he'll hand the loss making Avivafest over to his jamboys and their sponsor.

looking at the original plans again the second tier was already included. take a look at the first picture released carefully and you will see it.

Listen to the fans piss off did you,

I've pleased to say I've beaten the mighty Argyle board and Akkeron to the punch and produced a full colour online brochure of plans and amendments to the new stand

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

Nice work. Send them to Brent, Akkeron, IJN and the PASB. Something uniquely Argyle about it.