The Grandstand plans - a PAS Board update

Greenjock wrote:

Can anyone see in the Herald interview where it suggests that the Trust are considering getting the old Mayflower stand listed? Or where the menacing tone is from Andy Symons when he says the Trust will also be contacting the Friends of Central Park as they will have to have their say?

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

The only sinister tone I can see if from somebody on Pasoti suggesting the Trust are causing trouble Looked a pretty fair interview to me with the only sinister thing being the photo of Andy

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

The Trust has no intention of applying to have any part of Home Park listed. For absolute clarity, The Trust recognises that the old Grandstand is well past its best and is urgent need of replacing. What we want is a replacement Grandstand that gives Home Park the facilities for 7 day a week income, and has a capacity that reflects the ambitions and aspirations of the fans.

Anyone suggesting that we are attempting to derail the building of a new Grandstand is just wrong, pure and simple.

Anyone suggesting that the photo of Andy that the Herald used is about as bad a pic as you could find is right. But then the photographers didn't have much to work with in the first place.

"Wrong"? Or a cheesy dicked thrush carrying shyte stirrer?

Both Hooper and Newell have crawled out from under their stones in an attempt to back Brent's folly and stir up as much crap as they can, it remains that the only one silly smiffy has been taken in. And now for the next hurdle!

How long before Brent indicates that he's had enough as newell is indicating he will in a kinda blackmail kinda way?

GOB wrote:

Both Hooper and Newell have crawled out from under their stones in an attempt to back Brent's folly and stir up as much crap as they can, it remains that the only one silly smiffy has been taken in. And now for the next hurdle!

How long before Brent indicates that he's had enough as newell is indicating he will in a kinda blackmail kinda way?

Wouldnt surprise me if those 2 have been on the payroll of JB all along

Argyle Fans' Trust wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

Can anyone see in the Herald interview where it suggests that the Trust are considering getting the old Mayflower stand listed? Or where the menacing tone is from Andy Symons when he says the Trust will also be contacting the Friends of Central Park as they will have to have their say?

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

The only sinister tone I can see if from somebody on Pasoti suggesting the Trust are causing trouble Looked a pretty fair interview to me with the only sinister thing being the photo of Andy

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

The Trust has no intention of applying to have any part of Home Park listed. For absolute clarity, The Trust recognises that the old Grandstand is well past its best and is urgent need of replacing. What we want is a replacement Grandstand that gives Home Park the facilities for 7 day a week income, and has a capacity that reflects the ambitions and aspirations of the fans.

Anyone suggesting that we are attempting to derail the building of a new Grandstand is just wrong, pure and simple.

Anyone suggesting that the photo of Andy that the Herald used is about as bad a pic as you could find is right. But then the photographers didn't have much to work with in the first place.

He looked great when Radio Devon interviewed him though

Some interesting & useful observations from Tony Hooper .

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

knecht wrote:

Some interesting & useful observations from Tony Hooper

I wonder what part of the HHP scheme Hooper thinks will benefit Argyle?

I received PM's at the time of the takeover telling me to lay off public criticism of Ridsdale as Brent beeded him to get over the line and that Brent was getting nervous about the publicity and was tgreatening to bale out if the deal.

Whilst I can see that tactic being used again on forums/media I can't see him doing it when he's so close to his leisure park complex.

Pokesdown wrote:

I received PM's at the time of the takeover telling me to lay off public criticism of Ridsdale as Brent beeded him to get over the line and that Brent was getting nervous about the publicity and was tgreatening to bale out if the deal.

Whilst I can see that tactic being used again on forums/media I can't see him doing it when he's so close to his leisure park complex.

Janners' own little Coney Island!

Pokesdown wrote:

I received PM's at the time of the takeover telling me to lay off public criticism of Ridsdale as Brent beeded him to get over the line and that Brent was getting nervous about the publicity and was tgreatening to bale out if the deal.

Whilst I can see that tactic being used again on forums/media I can't see him doing it when he's so close to his leisure park complex.

Oh they didn't just blast me in private for slating Ridsdale, I got in the neck regularly because Ridsdale was the saviour blah, blah, blah.

Mind you I did have a giggle last night reading some of the screenshots sent to me of a certain persons Flickr account, which doesn't exist apparently, where this certain person is e-mailing Rick Cowdrey threatening allsorts if the ATD Q and A session went ahead. I quote from those screenshots

"The site admin board of Pasoti is alive tonight with the sound of mutiny and revolution"

"Our site has been very supportive in every way, and was one of the prime players in the saving of the club, and all of the co-owners, would be very upset if any official recognition of the Q and A with ATD on your website, was forthcoming. Please do not think that this would be acceptable to us in any way. Please do not think in any way this would be acceptable to us. As I have said this very influential site, deserves better than this. I hope the position is now clearer"

Oooh I do like it when he gets angry and starts making threats, using more commas than TCM and doing the exact same thing he accuses others of.

Those of a sensitive disposition would call those messages 'blackmail'. It is a surprise that the club didn't refuse to talk with Mr Newell or pasoti after that.

knecht wrote:

Those of a sensitive disposition would call those messages 'blackmail'. It is a surprise that the club didn't refuse to talk with Mr Newell or pasoti after that.

Ah but Mr Open Honest and Transparent Brent has many uses for a known trouble-maker and rabble-rouser who isn't afraid to target enemies by clogging up their e-mails and phone lines if they don't do as he requests.

I do wish they'd stop bullshitting us, I really do.

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

Everybody knows it is "possible" to extend the Lyndhurst and rebuild the Devonport End but nobody knows how much it would cost to do it. So, whilst "possible" these plans are "unlikely" to happen due to being "uneconomic" and "impractical".

Half-baked, questionable statements like this just make suspicion grow and grow. Very poor show.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I do wish they'd stop bullshitting us, I really do.

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

Everybody knows it is "possible" to extend the Lyndhurst and rebuild the Devonport End but nobody knows how much it would cost to do it. So, whilst "possible" these plans are "unlikely" to happen due to being "uneconomic" and "impractical".

Half-baked, questionable statements like this just make suspicion grow and grow. Very poor show.

I wouldn't mind if that were the case but I doubt very much it will happen.

Would've been interesting to hear Brent stutter and stammer his way around the question, as is his wont when the subject of money comes up, if the interviewer asked him to expand on these expansion claims, pun intended, and what the cost would be in completely re-building the Devonport End, both in the actual cost of labour and materials etc plus the lost revenue while it was being rebuilt, or what the cost of modifying the roof on the horseshoe to add a couple of thousand extra seats there.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I do wish they'd stop bullshitting us, I really do.

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

Everybody knows it is "possible" to extend the Lyndhurst and rebuild the Devonport End but nobody knows how much it would cost to do it. So, whilst "possible" these plans are "unlikely" to happen due to being "uneconomic" and "impractical".

Half-baked, questionable statements like this just make suspicion grow and grow. Very poor show.

How can they extend Lyndhurst when they plan to put a road through there and if they knock down the Devonport stand how far out can they take the foot print?

Jaytex2012 wrote:

Pokesdown wrote:

I received PM's at the time of the takeover telling me to lay off public criticism of Ridsdale as Brent beeded him to get over the line and that Brent was getting nervous about the publicity and was tgreatening to bale out if the deal.

Whilst I can see that tactic being used again on forums/media I can't see him doing it when he's so close to his leisure park complex.

Janners' own little Coney Island!

And there's the rub, or at least for me. It's not only that the new stand's not fit for purpose, or that the plans preclude any future expansion of the stadium, or that the club doesn't seem to be very high on the list of who benefits financially from all this - important though all this is.

It's also the level of commercial development in a park. As I see it, we lose a bit of the park, the doors are potentially open to further commercial development of our green space, and the benefits to the rest of the city are questionable. We've already got two cinemas, one of which (the old ABC) is struggling as it is. Hotels can go pretty much anywhere - and as somebody who used to have to travel all over for work, I'd have been pretty hacked off if I'd been sent to the seaside only to find myself stuck some distance from the sea and the city centre: who on earth is going to stay in this hotel? The shops and restaurants are going to compete with those elsewhere, which are also struggling, so the jobs the development could create (mostly McJobs, as if we haven't got enough of those as it is) will probably only offset jobs lost in the city centre, the Barbican and so on. Construction jobs are always welcome, of course, but they're short term - and, to my mind, about the only positive about any of this.

I'm pleased the Trust is going to work with the so-called tree-huggers on all of this. And for anybody who argues the park is underused and a bit tatty, I suggest a visit to Devonport Park, even on a not-very-nice day. Once an overgrown wilderness which people avoided using even in daylight, it's now amazing, used to the point of being overcrowded in the summer, full of people playing, walking, sitting ... And with no commercial development whatsoever - just a lovely community cafe.

Whoever asked what I think of the plans - there's your brief answer

The footprint won't change. The extra few rows of seats will be added to the back of the existing rows and will sit on the existing framework. It just means that the roof needs to be raised. That's all. Quite easy apparently. The new rows would add about 2500 seats all the way around the horseshoe. Mark Jones, the Akkeron guy, said it could be done but the cost would be prohibitively expensive. The only viable, his word not mine, extension would be a new Devonport End.

Perhaps he hasn't pointed that out to James.

How can they upgrade that stand when reps say it cant and the drawings show it would be impossible almost to increase that stand to be a double tier stand with 8000-10000 seats.

Also The Lyndhurst cant be extend due to public access and that new road being built same for Barn Park and although the Devonport End can be increased albeit by knocking it down and building a new stand that too would be restricted due to public access outside.

If there were plans inplace to easliy increase the mainstand once its built then they would have been included in the blueprints.

The second tier on the Lyndhurst is a complete non-starter. Forget it.

The extension to the Lyndhurst is a red herring. Forget it.

The only viable options there will ever be are the Grandstand or a completely new ground elsewhere.

So is the new grandstand a gift from Lord Brent then?

Maybe someone who hasn't been banned from making comments on the Herald website, damn I must really frighten them with the truth, could post what the Akkeron rep said which makes Brent's claim laughable?

Be good for anyone who doesn't read ATD to point out his hypocrisy and then when Postey makes his sycophantic views he'll look like an ever bigger fucktard and coward than he already does.

I see that Newell's abuse on Pasoti knows no bounds as esmer is now called rip it down Richard and the friends of central park are the tree huggers! As expected cerbera's straight in there telling Newell how hilarious he is, and good looking and kind, compassionate as well as the best friend a man could ever have. Ok he stopped just short of that but he really is the biggest ass-licker I've ever come across. Quite degrading to watch a grown man want anything so badly they will completely blank out everything they know, just like with Webby really.

In our first season back in the Championship, we averaged 16,420. Nine of the 23 home games, had attendances of over 17,500. Two over 20,000 and another two over 19,000.

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

Taking a new 17,500 capacity (without segregation), then the average falls to 15,872.

Add a segregated section of say 500 seats (1 block) and the average falls even further to 15,676.

With a capacity of 17,500 (or say 17,000 with segregation), means that Argyle would have "lost" 17,093 attendees, probably all POTDers.

Say at an average of £15 per ticket and not including any "other" sales, then that would have been over £250,000 in lost revenue for that season.

That's, for me why we need as a minimum, a 20,000 capacity stadium.

Who put this plans forward?


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

After all is said and done, is there even a need for another 10 cenima screens in plymouth ?

GOB wrote:

Both Hooper and Newell have crawled out from under their stones in an attempt to back Brent's folly and stir up as much crap as they can, it remains that the only one silly smiffy has been taken in. And now for the next hurdle!

How long before Brent indicates that he's had enough as newell is indicating he will in a kinda blackmail kinda way?

Brent was never going to walk away, (the whole development is £180m I read somewhere although the HP development is about £50m of that) he was never a reluctant bidder, he either conned Webb and Newell into believing this or worse than that they knew the truth and have been lying for him ever since, I could believe either really.