Capacity, capacity, capacity! Why we need more!

Old tcm is talking like someone desperate for a solution, whereby self interest and no loss of position is achievable ,,,,,,, ?

Tringreen wrote:

Old tcm is talking like someone desperate for a solution, whereby self interest and no loss of position is achievable ,,,,,,, ?

just join the debate for once tring,,,not everthing in life is a concpericy,,you are are allowd you know,,( ADTS answer to mr x)go on give it a go ? join the debate without getting personel,,have you got it in you to do that?

Did anybody else notice that the Pres. exit his retirement on pasoti last night?

The Pres. speaks,

This poll at the moment is a bit like asking a kid if they want 5 sweets or 10. Of course they'd want 10. What they may not know though is that mum possibly doesn't have the money for 10 and that 10 could end up making the kid sick.

I've seen a couple of posts asking where I am and what my views are. Laughable really because people asking are that against the proposals they could always do what I and others have done - get off their behinds.

All that said, as I have previously said I have stepped right back from the net because I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. If I said the stadium design by akkerongroup was great then the knockers would say 'he's up Brent's arse' if I criticised then the same people would say 'he should keep his nose out as president'. I'm not playing those games.

There is though, I feel room for a balanced post, which hopefully I can provide.

Firstly this debate / vote is based on a situation which is totally unclear. The fans do not have the full facts.

I will take the proposals one by one.

AFT.

Is everything in the proposals totally correct / verified? For example I note that the pack says that in the akkerongroup proposal there are two levels of seating lower than pitch level. I have checked and this is untrue. The fans need the proposal to be absolutely water tight.

Cottage field. The proposal rightly exposes that the field is up for potential development. It isn't however recorded that one of the 100 labour manifesto pledges in the City was to protect central parks green areas. My understanding of this from speaking to Tudor some time ago is that cottage field is covered by this pledge so the proposal faces significant opposition there. The next unknown is the reaction of the people of Plymouth. Again (someone correct me if I am wrong) I understand friends of Central Park have been very warm towards akkerongroups proposal but would oppose a cottage field redevelopment.

Bigger stand - fantastic. What fans need to know is would this add cost to the proposal. If not, great and the details of that can be shared. If yes then everyone needs to know how that is going to be paid for. This is for real and not monopoly.

JB

From speaking to James (and relaying fans concerns) I know that the updated proposals will be shared with the PASB on Saturday morning. This, again may change the ball game. The design could be better? Fans views on key matters maybe incorporated.

Overall what I am saying is that there are a lot of questions to be answered about both proposals.

If the AFT can come out and show their plan is viable, they have council/people support for building on cottage field and that it costs in then their plan can really be judged.

If JB can show the fans the final plans then they can be judged.

To me a lot of responsibility now falls to the PASB / AFT.

On Saturday I would like to see three things

1. A nailing down of the AFT proposals clearly determining whether it can get off the ground.

2. A full report on JBs proposals.

3. An effective and timely communication to the fans. None of this agreement a week later by 100 emails. Nail a statement on this on the day before you leave the ground. This issue is absolutely massive for the club and Argyle fans.

This debate has to be had but can only be a quality debate when everything is on the table.

Finally I won't be getting into a row or back and forth with anyone on this thread. If people want to pop then that's fine. I just want the best for the argyle fans and that can only happen if a real drill down of both proposals take place.

Ps - COYG!!!!! [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Chris

Edited to add - I have massive respect for Graham and Richard who have helped form the alternative proposal.

He uses the analogy of kids and sweets when "giving us" the grandstand and is worried we will be sick if we get what we want, what a monumental bellend!
Graham Clarke has asked that the WG be present at the meeting Akkeron are having with the Pasb. It does amuse me that we are being told after about 4 weeks of the plans being released and a long period of fan consultation that we the fans don't have the facts, well why not? Also it it obvious that Brent and Akkeron don't like to have to discuss the plans with the proles, but Chris, new spirit of openess and communication, Webb is here to put us all straight.

If anyone needed convincing then a scan of this thread alone should convince them that the requirement is far a larger stadium then the stadium that Brent would like to build, but I don't think anyone needs to be convinced, it's the will and desire that needs to be changed along with the possibility of less profit for Brent's empire.

Those with a self interest will do exactly as they are told by Brent, they will never be convinced unless somehow a better offer for their personal interest is provided, but who cares, there's no need to convince them and their "fans forum" is dying on its ass.

I also believe that a significant number of Councillors are concerned and those Councillors that aren't will be concerned about the potential impact of going against what will be a very sizable turn out of Argyle fans should a protest of some kind be arranged in the next local elections.

So we will just have to sit back and see how Brent manages to desperately knock out excuses so as not to produce something that is more favorable for the Club because I like a few others believe that Brent's eyes are firmly fixed on Cottage Field for other money making activities.

I think Brent will persist with his B&Q type basic under capacity stand, we have wooden dugouts, which says a lot about the level of imagination that permeates H.P.
Good bit of research though.

Agree with Gob about the cottage field.

Surely GOB J.B would never have an underlying agenda for his financial/development plans?

akagreengull wrote:

Surely GOB J.B would never have an underlying agenda for his financial/development plans?

No, silly me


There really are some cracking undeniable arguments being put forward that I think will genuinely have Brent and his Newell's, Jones's and Webb's twitching.

tcm wants me to join the debate

FFS Ian, stop pissing about and just use your real name!

GOB wrote:

FFS Ian, stop pissing about and just use your real name!

,,,,,,,,

tcm wrote:

,not everthing in life is a concpericy,,

Heh heh heh, you're fooling nobody.

Good to see ol' Webby out earning his privileges at long last, always good for a laugh reading his patronising TAF missives.

Jamison seems to be firmly against a larger stadium joining Newell and Webb in their extremely small minority. It'll be interesting to read Hooper's views when he finally provides his "personal opinion". I have yet to read a single comment of why they believe a small stadium would be a benefit to PAFC, they seem only able to comment of why a slightly larger stadium would be an imaginary disaster despite the fact that we had a 40,000 capacity stadium for most of the life of PAFC and without any problem what-so-ever.

I know it's no surprise when you consider their associations with the developer James Brent, the gifts received, their past activities of Deep Throat scandals, personal smears and campaigns of pasoti corruption that were/are determined to undermine anything that does not fit snugly with the James Brent vision, but isn't it time that we discounted the opinions as these people as "fans" and placed them firmly in the bracket of having motives that are not aligned for the benefit of the Club and the fans, but more aligned to a personal involvement and benefits?

GOB wrote:

Jamison seems to be firmly against a larger stadium joining Newell and Webb in their extremely small minority. It'll be interesting to read Hooper's views when he finally provides his "personal opinion". I have yet to read a single comment of why they believe a small stadium would be a benefit to PAFC, they seem only able to comment of why a slightly larger stadium would be an imaginary disaster despite the fact that we had a 40,000 capacity stadium for most of the life of PAFC and without any problem what-so-ever.

I know it's no surprise when you consider their associations with the developer James Brent, the gifts received, their past activities of Deep Throat scandals, personal smears and campaigns of pasoti corruption that were/are determined to undermine anything that does not fit snugly with the James Brent vision, but isn't it time that we discounted the opinions as these people as "fans" and placed them firmly in the bracket of having motives that are not aligned for the benefit of the Club and the fans, but more aligned to a personal involvement and benefits?

Seconded.

GOB wrote:

Jamison seems to be firmly against a larger stadium joining Newell and Webb in their extremely small minority. It'll be interesting to read Hooper's views when he finally provides his "personal opinion". I have yet to read a single comment of why they believe a small stadium would be a benefit to PAFC, they seem only able to comment of why a slightly larger stadium would be an imaginary disaster despite the fact that we had a 40,000 capacity stadium for most of the life of PAFC and without any problem what-so-ever.

I know it's no surprise when you consider their associations with the developer James Brent, the gifts received, their past activities of Deep Throat scandals, personal smears and campaigns of pasoti corruption that were/are determined to undermine anything that does not fit snugly with the James Brent vision, but isn't it time that we discounted the opinions as these people as "fans" and placed them firmly in the bracket of having motives that are not aligned for the benefit of the Club and the fans, but more aligned to a personal involvement and benefits?

So the role of honour for defending the Akkeron stadium plans are:

Tony Hooper
Chris Webb
The property developing Derriford nurse
Lee Jameson

Well who would have thought that lot all agreeing.

I see Swansea City have today unveiled plans to increase the capacity of their stadium
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It's plainly obvious that some do not wish the club to be a success in the way of having a larger stadium, at least not at the expense of a personal gain of some sort. - That's the way it seems to me, why else attempt to derail such a positive alternative with the use of such weak arguments that seem intent to undermine such a good and well intentioned vision from the AFT?

Their arguments are so weak that they appear not as a logical and rational debate, but more of words of desperation. Their desire for the AFT’s alternative to be rubbished is very apparent and their motives should most certainly be questioned.

It was interesting to see the President's comments yesterday.

To imply that a working group of (albeit gifted) amateurs (albeit using some professional experience) should be held to the same standard and account in putting together a plan in two weeks that a professional team has taken months and months to pull together suggests to me two things:

1) The detatchment from reality continues.

2) They're rattled.

They should be rattled, without the support of the fanbase, never mind keeping the Friends of Central Park onside, this proposal will not just get rubber stamped at the planning meeting, even having the application put over to a committee and subsequent site visits will add months to an already tight schedule, the question is though, this project has obviously been planned for years now, why are you leaving it so late to drip feed details now? Chris Webb really is laugable when asking the fans to keep quiet until we know the facts, yet the facts have to be prised out of Akkeron and Brent who it now seems have a pissy on with us for asking questions?

I am quite happy for people to post support of Akkeroon's proposals, what I find upsetting is the fact that not one single post has been made in support which discusses the facts and explains why the person supporting the plans genuinley beleives this project is in the best interests of PAFC.

Its hard to have a cohenet discussion when one side is ontent to peddle scare stories and talk about Brent "walking away" if the janners wont roll over. These are the people politisiing the arguement, the majority of people in favour have come to that position by analysing facts and historic evidence to reach thier conclusions.

I read that Jon B is suggesting that by voicing an opinion of objection there is an intent to undermine lawful process.

I would be very interested to know how or why that is the case, it's certainly not something that has been mentioned to me from the Councillors that I have spoken to and even more confusing when considering that the process was born from the desire to influence the opinion of those that represent us.

Jon also suggest that by doing so the process will be dragged out into a lengthy & costly period of enduring limbo. - Is Jon suggesting that we accept James Brent's proposal or else?

I'm confused of the points you are trying to make Jon, if you read this.

Gareth Nicholson wrote:

It was interesting to see the President's comments yesterday.

To imply that a working group of (albeit gifted) amateurs (albeit using some professional experience) should be held to the same standard and account in putting together a plan in two weeks that a professional team has taken months and months to pull together suggests to me two things:

1) The detatchment from reality continues.

2) They're rattled.

i got the impression he was calling them liars too when he brought up the rows of seats below pitch level

GOB wrote:

I read that Jon B is suggesting that by voicing an opinion of objection there is an intent to undermine lawful process.

I would be very interested to know how or why that is the case, it's certainly not something that has been mentioned to me from the Councillors that I have spoken to and even more confusing when considering that the process was born from the desire to influence the opinion of those that represent us.

Jon also suggest that by doing so the process will be dragged out into a lengthy & costly period of enduring limbo. - Is Jon suggesting that we accept James Brent's proposal or else?

I'm confused of the points you are trying to make Jon, if you read this.

If Brent and Akkeron followed due process and kept us informed all of this could have been avoided, however reducing the capacity of Home Park was never going to be accepted by the fans so this furore is inevitable. JB can get as pissy as he likes but this whole thing has been handled very badly by him. I am just waiting for the reluctant one to deliver an ultimatum of accept this or I'm off, I think he will have his bluff called on that one TBH.

GOB wrote:

I read that Jon B is suggesting that by voicing an opinion of objection there is an intent to undermine lawful process.

I would be very interested to know how or why that is the case, it's certainly not something that has been mentioned to me from the Councillors that I have spoken to and even more confusing when considering that the process was born from the desire to influence the opinion of those that represent us.

Jon also suggest that by doing so the process will be dragged out into a lengthy & costly period of enduring limbo. - Is Jon suggesting that we accept James Brent's proposal or else?

I'm confused of the points you are trying to make Jon, if you read this.

North Korean police laws perhaps lol

Webb would not be the decent people's prez without brent, nool would not get anywhere near the directors box without brent, delar would not be brent's website manager without brent. the rest who want brents mini stand are brent groupie/gratefuls who would accept any old shit from their hero.