My Take On Mr Brent & His Plans

The mini stand is a done deal, its a four and a half thousand conference fourth division stand ,brent might chuck in a couple of murals to keep the knobbers happy but there is no more room for argyle ,the rest of the site is for the ice rink and his hotel.

knecht wrote:

punchdrunk wrote:

knecht wrote:

What have people on here done to work for an improvement on the current offer from Mr Brent?

Ahhh the old "what did you do during the war" i was wondering when that was coming, you're starting to sound like Nool, i just think it would be appropriate for it to come from the trust, the organisation that claims to represent our views
Dont worry, im drafting a letter to the council as we speak.

How does that sound like "What did you do during the war"?

How does that sound like "Nool"?

So are you leaving it to the Trust or are you writing a letter? It's not clear from what you've said. Do you think the Trust aren't doing anything?

Im writing a letter, i thought i made that abundantly clear?

Im sure the trust have got something up their sleeve, as i already said they'll need to hurry up as the Council will be giving this the green light next month.They just give of the impression that they are scared of upsetting the apple cart after they "rightfully" criticized the board just before the Barnet game, if Brent excommunicates the trust then he excommunicates a large portion of the fanbase.

Czarcasm wrote:

knecht wrote:

What have people on here done to work for an improvement on the current offer from Mr Brent?

"Working for an improvement on the offer" may take many different forms. For a few on here, it may not mean taking the most obvious form, i.e. attending a presentation and voicing displeasure.

There are other ways of getting your point across and your message 'out there'.

knecht is alway very concerned that the clubs bigwigs and top throbbers be they trust pasb or the farm controllers dont come in for two much stick from atds rank and file, it make things awkward at the sponsors christmas do.

Czarcasm wrote:

knecht wrote:

What have people on here done to work for an improvement on the current offer from Mr Brent?

"Working for an improvement on the offer" may take many different forms. For a few on here, it may not mean taking the most obvious form, i.e. attending a presentation and voicing displeasure.

There are other ways of getting your point across and your message 'out there'.

Absolutely, Czar, I agree there are many ways of doing it. And it's important that all avenues are pursued. There are certainly some unlikely bed-fellows at the moment.....

Sufferedsince68 wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

knecht wrote:

What have people on here done to work for an improvement on the current offer from Mr Brent?

"Working for an improvement on the offer" may take many different forms. For a few on here, it may not mean taking the most obvious form, i.e. attending a presentation and voicing displeasure.

There are other ways of getting your point across and your message 'out there'.

knecht is alway very concerned that the clubs bigwigs and top throbbers be they trust pasb or the farm controllers dont come in for two much stick from atds rank and file, it make things awkward at the sponsors christmas do.

Ah! My ruse has been uncovered!!! Zounds!!! Foiled again!!! Nothing gets past you!!!

Richard Blight wrote:

Punchy,

give the Trust a chance! Remember they all have jobs and there is helluva lot of information to inwardly digest and consider. They have said they will be consulting other people with knowledge or expertise in building projects and other related subjects about the proposals.

The last thing we need is for the Trust to make statements that turn out to be factually incorrect or indeed wrong. That would just leave the door wide open for others to dismiss any findings the Trust might or might not declare.

I'm sure they are very aware that a lot of fans are very worried about the clubs league position, the new grandstand and whether it is the best deal for Argyle, both in the short term and more specifically the long term.

I'm afraid some patience will be needed.

I agree with this but they can't hang around too long or the horse might have already bolted.

Not being like Nool surrounded by experts constantly, when the plans are submitted to the council will they have to give more definitive details about the vague points like capacity and what the retail units will be?

In all honesty I think Brent's cosy relationship with the council makes it a foregone conclusion already and nothing much will change from what we've already seen and there are too many favours being called in from when he bought the club. It was probably one of the conditions of him taking the club on.

The way the details have been kept deliberately vague or contradict what was stated originally suggest that Brent doesn't give a toss what the fans want but he's got Nool acting as cheerleader on Pasoti to shout down any real opposition, and that's before Webb rides into town having multiple orgasms over the design and the generosity of his lord and master.

I hope I'm wrong but everything does seem to have fallen into Brent's lap with alarming ease and extremely rapidly.

The End Game in all of this will come down solely to how far the Council are prepared to try and push Brent. The Council still very much hold all the Aces. No planning permission means no lucrative development wonga for the Lip Quiverer. We just have to hope that they listen intently and act accordingly when it comes to public objections to the plans as they currently stand.

Is the traffic nightmare of Outland Road being considered in these developments? It's already stop start at key times of the day without the attractions of a cinema and ice rink.

I wouldn't worry. No one will use either

Once this is officially placed for planning permissions we'll see the game start to be played out, that's when the Trust will need support & the protest and opposition commence.

It'll be the real war, not newell's make believe war.

Youuum naaaat a praaaaaper janner Sam !

GreenSam
Post subject: Re: PASB Terms Of Reference. Any sign yet?Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:49 pm


Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:54 pm
Location: Southampton
I for one am very interested in the political stuff (and a janner).

When I say political, I mean Trust and PASB relations with the club. Interpersonal conflicts and rows I have no interest at all in but the former is of utmost importance imo. Fan engagement on a better scale is lacking and has long been overdue in football- when JB took over, this is what he promised so I think there's almost a duty to make sure it's done right. And if that means some scrutiny of the minutiae of it of it all, so be it. It's not that difficult to compartmentalize a love for the team and desire to see us stay up with the desire to see the bigger picture done well and the ability to constructively question, analyise and criticise.


Youum an Educated w@nker !!!

Tringreen wrote:

Youuum naaaat a praaaaaper janner Sam !

GreenSam
Post subject: Re: PASB Terms Of Reference. Any sign yet?Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:49 pm


Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:54 pm
Location: Southampton
I for one am very interested in the political stuff (and a janner).

When I say political, I mean Trust and PASB relations with the club. Interpersonal conflicts and rows I have no interest at all in but the former is of utmost importance imo. Fan engagement on a better scale is lacking and has long been overdue in football- when JB took over, this is what he promised so I think there's almost a duty to make sure it's done right. And if that means some scrutiny of the minutiae of it of it all, so be it. It's not that difficult to compartmentalize a love for the team and desire to see us stay up with the desire to see the bigger picture done well and the ability to constructively question, analyise and criticise.


Youum an Educated w@nker !!!

he will be banned next for speaking his mind sadly

Dingle wrote:

Is the traffic nightmare of Outland Road being considered in these developments? It's already stop start at key times of the day without the attractions of a cinema and ice rink.

That may be one of the important issues.

Interesting conversation from Pasoti where it appears that there was another serious bidder for the club before Brent took over, who was also interested in developing the area around Home Park, much like Brent is proposing, but who would've paid back the staff debt straight away and given the Trust part ownership of the club.

The only problem was that the big players, IJN, Webb et al had already looked into Brent's eyes and once Webb had conducted his own financial checks on this multi-millionaire former League club CEO, he decided that Brent was the man to throw his and the Trust's weight behind.

And of course IJN was privvy to an e-mail which said that Damon would've gained personally by this other bidder becoming the new owner, except as usual with Nool that's bullshit.

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

Let's get something straight, if you want to know the detail of the plans talk to someone in planning, they would have already been poring over the detail for a month or two, once the plans get submitted they are already approved by the planners, Brent (nor I for that matter and I am. Mere minnow in his world) would submit the plans without the nod of approval first.

Iggy wrote:

Let's get something straight, if you want to know the detail of the plans talk to someone in planning, they would have already been poring over the detail for a month or two, once the plans get submitted they are already approved by the planners, Brent (nor I for that matter and I am. Mere minnow in his world) would submit the plans without the nod of approval first.

I understand that there is "discomfort" amongst councillors and they are interested in what the planners will have to say about this. I understand that the cinema may be an issue within the agreed plan for the area. I also understand that the increased traffic may be a concern.

One key comparison that I don't think has been made is Brighton. Whilst they've played in the top flight and reached an FA Cup Final in the early 80's they've had much the same ups and downs over the past 20 years as us.

Until they moved to their new stadium they haven't averaged over 15k over a season since 1983. Of course there were the Withdean years but 14 of those seasons were spent at the Goldstone Ground where there was capacity.

Last night under progressive ownership, a forward thinking manager, exciting players and a chance of the Premiership they achieved 28k for a game and their average attendance this year is nearly 26,000.

This is despite years of mediocrity and playing at a glorified schools athletics track since 1999.

If their capacity was 18k they would have lost nearly a quarter of a million pounds last night alone.

Give them good facilities and crucially belief that a team is going places and people will turn up.

Pokesdown wrote:

One key comparison that I don't think has been made is Brighton. Whilst they've played in the top flight and reached an FA Cup Final in the early 80's they've had much the same ups and downs over the past 20 years as us.

Until they moved to their new stadium they haven't averaged over 15k over a season since 1983. Of course there were the Withdean years but 14 of those seasons were spent at the Goldstone Ground where there was capacity.

Last night under progressive ownership, a forward thinking manager, exciting players and a chance of the Premiership they achieved 28k for a game and their average attendance this year is nearly 26,000.

This is despite years of mediocrity and playing at a glorified schools athletics track since 1999.

If their capacity was 18k they would have lost nearly a quarter of a million pounds last night alone.



Give them good facilities and crucially belief that a team is going places and people will turn up.

Spot on. Argyle with the current plans are hoping to challenge in league 2 and have the occasional foray into league 1.

With no revenue being brought in from the majority of the retail units we will struggle to ever become self sufficient and with the new stand not adding anything to the existing capacity, we never will.

Build a notable grandstand the fans are proud of and I for one think attendances will rise considerably. Especially if there is investment in the playing side as well.

If Brent isn't really bothered about the club once he rakes in his millions then we're fecked anyway.

This is the one chance to show ambition and I honestly get the feeling that some high profile fans, Nool and Postey included, actually like where we are and don't have the ambition of the rest of the fanbase.

Why else would these so called intelligent people be happy to accept something that ties us down for decades? The horseshoe will not be expanded in anyway while I've got a hole in my ass, and these people know it. Got so comfy backing Brent they dare not speak out against him for fear of angering him and losing their privileges.

All these people who claim to have the clubs best interests at heart are showing their true colours now the chips are down.

The shelf could be reserved for these assholes to sit together alongside Jones and brent so they can survey their surroundings and take credit for it "Look how far we've come"

Iggy wrote:

Let's get something straight, if you want to know the detail of the plans talk to someone in planning, they would have already been poring over the detail for a month or two, once the plans get submitted they are already approved by the planners, Brent (nor I for that matter and I am. Mere minnow in his world) would submit the plans without the nod of approval first.

Yes I think you're right Iggy and they can only provide a negative if there is a reason to do so, I would not have thought that a few thousand fans discontent at the size of a stand would be a good enough reason to provide a negative, but there maybe other reasons for doing so and that is what needs to be explored and concentrated on.

No matter what, I really cannot see a good outcome for the Club in this. We have been shafted by people that many thought they could trust and the consequence of giving that Trust will probably darken Home Park for generations.

It's time to put on hold the scabs that have sold their souls and concentrate on genuine reasons why this development should not be allowed to get off the ground in its present form.

It's also the time to consider the consequence if the stand isn't built, are we happy to retain the existing structure? Although I think it is unlikely because of the bad PR, are we happy to face the possibility of the Club being wound up? etc?

knecht wrote:

Iggy wrote:

Let's get something straight, if you want to know the detail of the plans talk to someone in planning, they would have already been poring over the detail for a month or two, once the plans get submitted they are already approved by the planners, Brent (nor I for that matter and I am. Mere minnow in his world) would submit the plans without the nod of approval first.

I understand that there is "discomfort" amongst councillors and they are interested in what the planners will have to say about this. I understand that the cinema may be an issue within the agreed plan for the area. I also understand that the increased traffic may be a concern.

Here's the rub though Knecht, if the application is turned down for example traffic congestion, how on earth can there be an argument for a larger stand that would add to the traffic congestion? - By doing so it would play straight into Brent's hands and provide the reason why HP cannot and should not be expanded to hold a larger capacity.

There's much to consider!

Football crowds at HP have happened on average, for a few hours, once a fortnight for the last 100 yrs. Nothing will change there but the hotel, ice rink and other outlets will have a more general impact on traffic volume.
Everything about this plan seems designed to block the football club in, with the obvious outcome being a permanent, lower league club.

Tringreen wrote:

Football crowds at HP have happened on average, for a few hours, once a fortnight for the last 100 yrs. Nothing will change there but the hotel, ice rink and other outlets will have a more general impact on traffic volume.
Everything about this plan seems designed to block the football club in, with the obvious outcome being a permanent, lower league club.

I agree. The area has become accustomed to having a greater volume of traffic for, say, up to an hour before & after the game once or twice a fortnight. Anyone living there will know all about that. Presumably the council will require the necessary improvements for access to be paid for by the developers.

On a related issue - whilst there is proposed to be an underground car-park, will that car-park be available to fans on match-days? If not, then the traffic & parking problems will only get worse. For free?

.... and has anyone else made contact with Akkeron as suggested on their web-site devoted to their Higher Home Park proposals?

It's almost about two weeks since I filled in their form with two fairly simple questions and I'm yet to receive a response which, when you consider that you were required to provide email & telephone contact details, is a little surprising.

HERE.

knecht wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Football crowds at HP have happened on average, for a few hours, once a fortnight for the last 100 yrs. Nothing will change there but the hotel, ice rink and other outlets will have a more general impact on traffic volume.
Everything about this plan seems designed to block the football club in, with the obvious outcome being a permanent, lower league club.

I agree. The area has become accustomed to having a greater volume of traffic for, say, up to an hour before & after the game once or twice a fortnight. Anyone living there will know all about that. Presumably the council will require the necessary improvements for access to be paid for by the developers.

On a related issue - whilst there is proposed to be an underground car-park, will that car-park be available to fans on match-days? If not, then the traffic & parking problems will only get worse. For free?

Yup I also agree with Tring, so traffic congestion is ONE possibility of preventing the folly. There needs to be more!

Templates for users to copy, sign and post, to oppose the plans?

Would PCC lose the Park and Ride at Milehouse?

knecht wrote:

.... and has anyone else made contact with Akkeron as suggested on their web-site devoted to their Higher Home Park proposals?

It's almost about two weeks since I filled in their form with two fairly simple questions and I'm yet to receive a response which, when you consider that you were required to provide email & telephone contact details, is a little surprising.

HERE.

Just have.