Will the Mini Stand rebellion force out the speculator

Brent has and never will provide any of his personal fortune for the benefit of PAFC (not that I think he should or shouldn't, pro's and con's) as any debt belongs to the club. This is what all club owners do to an extent and is part of the reason they take over, MUFC are a good example. When Brent took over it was for the club to be self-sufficient but how is this possible when all the revenues for creating an income (all but the club shop) will not be going into the club. Brent has also stated, I believe, that he will not be putting any more money into the club, so by minimising the stand and preventing room for further expansion (viably), the club will never become self-sufficient unless the wages are at a minimum and the ground is full whilst charging the fans an extortionate rate. Therefore there will be no hope for progression to the higher leagues, without incurring more debt to finally reach the money pit that is the premiership, to pay it off

PlymptonPilgrim wrote:

Also he's 'surprised' at Sheridan's proposals (money wise) for next season.

So does that mean Sheridan wants to spend more on players than Brent will allocate to him or...?

GreenSam wrote:

PlymptonPilgrim wrote:

Also he's 'surprised' at Sheridan's proposals (money wise) for next season.

So does that mean Sheridan wants to spend more on players than Brent will allocate to him or...?

All managers should do this. If they don't, they lack ambition. If they get what they want is another matter. I'm currently negotiating with senior management at the moment for some equipment - I've started high and over specced what I want but when it comes down to it, they'll say "no" and I'll end up with the middle specced equipment I want that is a little better than I need. I would doubt Sheridan is saying "I want to sign Michu" but he's unlikely to be asking for someone of Chadwick's standards.

hairy j wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

PlymptonPilgrim wrote:

Also he's 'surprised' at Sheridan's proposals (money wise) for next season.

So does that mean Sheridan wants to spend more on players than Brent will allocate to him or...?

All managers should do this. If they don't, they lack ambition. If they get what they want is another matter. I'm currently negotiating with senior management at the moment for some equipment - I've started high and over specced what I want but when it comes down to it, they'll say "no" and I'll end up with the middle specced equipment I want that is a little better than I need. I would doubt Sheridan is saying "I want to sign Michu" but he's unlikely to be asking for someone of Chadwick's standards.

So you aimed high with these...

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

but ended up with these...

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

I wish it was as fun as a bike.

It's more

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

And we'll get this

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

Flip me Hairy, you live life on the edge

We won Brent is lifting the roof to increase the size of the stand

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

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

I like this one. Put it to JB immediately!

mannameadbabe wrote:

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

I like this one. Put it to JB immediately!

I seen this one but thought mine was better

^^^^ Thats far too big and ambitious, be careful youll have Newell, Hooper,and XIsle on your case in a minute.

Tgwu wrote:

We won Brent is lifting the roof to increase the size of the stand

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

And the good folk of Peverell still have their panoramic views of Plymouth Sound

It needs more of a shelf I feel. It's the new thing dontchaknow

mannameadbabe wrote:

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

I like this one. Put it to JB immediately!

It's got 2 tiers. Brent would never agree to that.

Bert Large wrote:

Flip me Hairy, you live life on the edge

Bert, if you ever want me to do an after dinner speech, I do a mean 45 minute talk on the legacy of Gutenburg's moveable type print press.

He's scouring Gumtree at the moment and has Newell waiting with the engine running on a hire van to pick these up from Plymouth and her surrounding areas.

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

1,000 of these on the curent Mayflower will do it.

Don't forget one of these bolted on one end of the stand. We can't have any areas devoid of an Akkeron revenue stream. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Who flounced in the night then?

Bert Large has gone again.

Do not forget the Grandstand do not belong to Plymouth Argyle or Mr Brent but to PCC, is PCC given the land inside Home Park that Argyle lease to Brent Development Company in return for the stand. What are PCC getting in return for given the land from Outland Rd and around Lyndhurst and Barn Park to Brent Development Company to built the road, who is going to pay for the road and junction alterations which is needed?

As I understand it, the land that the ground is built on belongs to PCC, along with Harper's Park - this is what PAFC pay rent for. The buildings aren't owned by PCC. It was that way before Stapleton et al bought the land and I'm sure it's that way now.

hairy j wrote:

As I understand it, the land that the ground is built on belongs to PCC, along with Harper's Park - this is what PAFC pay rent for. The buildings aren't owned by PCC. It was that way before Stapleton et al bought the land and I'm sure it's that way now.

When PCC brought Home Park from the administer, this was part of the agreement to come of admin sure they took over the stands as well

It has just occurred to me (I know it takes a while) but if the grandstand cannot be built higher than the Life Centre, how does that affect the hotel?
Does that mean the hotel can be as high as Brent wants or kept lower which will mean a token gesture size of hotel?

Tgwu wrote:

hairy j wrote:

As I understand it, the land that the ground is built on belongs to PCC, along with Harper's Park - this is what PAFC pay rent for. The buildings aren't owned by PCC. It was that way before Stapleton et al bought the land and I'm sure it's that way now.

When PCC brought Home Park from the administer, this was part of the agreement to come of admin sure they took over the stands as well

I'm in the vicinity of the property team at work, I'll ask them but I am fairly sure the buildings belong to the club.

I went on this

Quote

Plymouth City Council will pay £1.6m for Home Park and rent it back to the club for £135,000 a year.

The club, which bought the ground from the council for £2.7m in 2006, went into administration in March.

The council's purchase of the ground was a proviso of a rescue bid by businessman James Brent, who hopes to complete the deal this week.

The council deal means Argyle would have an option to buy back the ground every five years for a sum equal to 12 times the then annual rent.

The rent would rise by 150% if the club reached the Championship and 300% if it reached the Premier League.

The deal also removes covenants preventing non-football development around the ground.

mcfry wrote:

It has just occurred to me (I know it takes a while) but if the grandstand cannot be built higher than the Life Centre, how does that affect the hotel?
Does that mean the hotel can be as high as Brent wants or kept lower which will mean a token gesture size of hotel?

I'd reckon that hotels are quite low on the banker's priorities as well - his main concern is in land. If hotels have land attached to them or are well located, he's interested no matter how poorly they are doing.

mcfry wrote:

It has just occurred to me (I know it takes a while) but if the grandstand cannot be built higher than the Life Centre, how does that affect the hotel?
Does that mean the hotel can be as high as Brent wants or kept lower which will mean a token gesture size of hotel?

#

the hotel is a very weird one in terms of design so i think that is ok