Will the Mini Stand rebellion force out the speculator

Tringreen wrote:

gil. wrote:

Sadly I'm not sure that there is a rebellion. Plenty of discord but no one actually presenting a united front.

The Trust must and I'm sure, will step forward to lead the objections and provide a rallying point. The vast majority of long standing, respected and articulate Argyle people are against this development.

That's a pretty bold claim and a good example of why the fan debate about the proposed development is going nowhere fast at the moment.

There are plenty of articulate views about what is being planned across the spectrum of opinion and rather than the 'vast majority' being against it, I would say most people are for it - but many (myself included) don't like it in its current form.

Unfortunately, the vast majority are probably in favour of it as it is is and just because that doesn't fit the thinking on this site, it doesn't make those people thick, or stupid. Most Argyle fans just want to see an end to 5 years of relegation battles and under Sheridan, with Brent as owner, they're sensing it's about to happen....and the crumbling Mayflower will be consigned to history in the process.

In line with a significant minority, I love the WG proposal but it's clearly not going to happen. The onus now seems to have shifted to trying to squeeze an extra 2,000 seats into the 'grandstand'. For me, that's almost a 'why bother?'....the real issue is the inability to effectively expand in the future and the lack of imagination in creating a decent space around the ground, with the stand as centrepiece. The former appears to have been dropped as an issue and the latter is a non-starter.

Pretty much at the point where I move on from this and just start concentrating on the fact we have a decent chance of seeing progress on the pitch.

The point of the extra 2200 seats IB is that Argyle won't be shrinking.
20,000 is a reasonable capacity for a Championship Club.

Innocent Egbunike wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

gil. wrote:

Sadly I'm not sure that there is a rebellion. Plenty of discord but no one actually presenting a united front.

The Trust must and I'm sure, will step forward to lead the objections and provide a rallying point. The vast majority of long standing, respected and articulate Argyle people are against this development.

That's a pretty bold claim and a good example of why the fan debate about the proposed development is going nowhere fast at the moment.

There are plenty of articulate views about what is being planned across the spectrum of opinion and rather than the 'vast majority' being against it, I would say most people are for it - but many (myself included) don't like it in its current form.

Unfortunately, the vast majority are probably in favour of it as it is is and just because that doesn't fit the thinking on this site, it doesn't make those people thick, or stupid. Most Argyle fans just want to see an end to 5 years of relegation battles and under Sheridan, with Brent as owner, they're sensing it's about to happen....and the crumbling Mayflower will be consigned to history in the process.

In line with a significant minority, I love the WG proposal but it's clearly not going to happen. The onus now seems to have shifted to trying to squeeze an extra 2,000 seats into the 'grandstand'. For me, that's almost a 'why bother?'....the real issue is the inability to effectively expand in the future and the lack of imagination in creating a decent space around the ground, with the stand as centrepiece. The former appears to have been dropped as an issue and the latter is a non-starter.

Pretty much at the point where I move on from this and just start concentrating on the fact we have a decent chance of seeing progress on the pitch.

Most articulate and intelligent people offering their views on Pasoti, ATD and elsewhere, don't want the club boxed in for generations. A 20k minimum capacity with the ability to expand easily, is the only way we have any chance of emulating the likes of Swansea, Reading, Hull, Brighton etc. The wider public, might just start to 'believe', if the ground is finished well and with further ability to expand. They certainly won't be inspired by the current draughty alley way, ice rink and school in the corner, proposed by brent. Only those already hooked and wanting to 'move on' will buy in.
Make a statement of intent and with success on the pitch, they might just come. An obvious and concrete statement of intent, is something this club has never done.

You may be able to 'move on' but I certainly can't, knowing that the future is eternal lower league.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

The point of the extra 2200 seats IB is that Argyle won't be shrinking.
20,000 is a reasonable capacity for a Championship Club.

I get that, Damon - but it's a small win compared to the bigger issue of being able to expand the ground. Actually, 17.5K is ample for us in Leagues One/Two.

I agree that there is then nowhere for us to go if we can't get past that in the 2nd tier

Innocent Egbunike wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

gil. wrote:

Sadly I'm not sure that there is a rebellion. Plenty of discord but no one actually presenting a united front.

The Trust must and I'm sure, will step forward to lead the objections and provide a rallying point. The vast majority of long standing, respected and articulate Argyle people are against this development.

That's a pretty bold claim and a good example of why the fan debate about the proposed development is going nowhere fast at the moment.

There are plenty of articulate views about what is being planned across the spectrum of opinion and rather than the 'vast majority' being against it, I would say most people are for it - but many (myself included) don't like it in its current form.

Unfortunately, the vast majority are probably in favour of it as it is is and just because that doesn't fit the thinking on this site, it doesn't make those people thick, or stupid. Most Argyle fans just want to see an end to 5 years of relegation battles and under Sheridan, with Brent as owner, they're sensing it's about to happen....and the crumbling Mayflower will be consigned to history in the process.

In line with a significant minority, I love the WG proposal but it's clearly not going to happen. The onus now seems to have shifted to trying to squeeze an extra 2,000 seats into the 'grandstand'. For me, that's almost a 'why bother?'....the real issue is the inability to effectively expand in the future and the lack of imagination in creating a decent space around the ground, with the stand as centrepiece. The former appears to have been dropped as an issue and the latter is a non-starter.

Pretty much at the point where I move on from this and just start concentrating on the fact we have a decent chance of seeing progress on the pitch.

You see I don't agree with the fact that people that don't like the stand plans are a minority. In my circle of Argo supporting mates a lot of them want a new stand, I do. They don't want a smaller capacity than what we have. My old man is the voice of reason and you sjphould hear his views! The point of all this is that there is enough money in this development for us to get what we want, the fact is that Brent is too greedy to compromise on his profits.
I won't even start on the over development of the park and what the non football interested park users think.

Tringreen wrote:

Innocent Egbunike wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

gil. wrote:

Sadly I'm not sure that there is a rebellion. Plenty of discord but no one actually presenting a united front.

The Trust must and I'm sure, will step forward to lead the objections and provide a rallying point. The vast majority of long standing, respected and articulate Argyle people are against this development.

That's a pretty bold claim and a good example of why the fan debate about the proposed development is going nowhere fast at the moment.

There are plenty of articulate views about what is being planned across the spectrum of opinion and rather than the 'vast majority' being against it, I would say most people are for it - but many (myself included) don't like it in its current form.

Unfortunately, the vast majority are probably in favour of it as it is is and just because that doesn't fit the thinking on this site, it doesn't make those people thick, or stupid. Most Argyle fans just want to see an end to 5 years of relegation battles and under Sheridan, with Brent as owner, they're sensing it's about to happen....and the crumbling Mayflower will be consigned to history in the process.

In line with a significant minority, I love the WG proposal but it's clearly not going to happen. The onus now seems to have shifted to trying to squeeze an extra 2,000 seats into the 'grandstand'. For me, that's almost a 'why bother?'....the real issue is the inability to effectively expand in the future and the lack of imagination in creating a decent space around the ground, with the stand as centrepiece. The former appears to have been dropped as an issue and the latter is a non-starter.

Pretty much at the point where I move on from this and just start concentrating on the fact we have a decent chance of seeing progress on the pitch.

Most articulate and intelligent people offering their views on Pasoti, ATD and elsewhere, don't want the club boxed in for generations. A 20k minimum capacity with the ability to expand easily, is the only way we have any chance of emulating the likes of Swansea, Reading, Hull, Brighton etc. The wider public, might just start to 'believe', if the ground is finished well and with further ability to expand. They certainly won't be inspired by the current draughty alley way, ice rink and school in the corner, proposed by brent. Only those already hooked and wanting to 'move on' will buy in.
Make a statement of intent and with success on the pitch, they might just come. An obvious and concrete statement of intent, is something this club has never done.

You may be able to 'move on' but I certainly can't, knowing that the future is eternal lower league.

Really though, what you mean is that most people on Pasoti and ATD......unless I'm missing some other obvious easily-accessible forum? I would argue that neither - or both combined - offer a definitive cross-section of opinion about this, or anything else. For example, none of my 4 season ticket holding friends post on either site - and they are bang on the demographic for frustrated football internet posters (middle aged men with children).

To emulate any of the clubs you mention would mean a completely different solution - they all moved. Perhaps that is the solution for Argyle? Up the A38. I'm starting to think this makes much more sense.

I don't really disagree with your sentiments but I'm also sick of the polemics involved with this argument - it's being reduced to personalities (a bit like the two websites really), rather than the issues.

I can see trouble stored up for the future with the lack of easy expansion but I don't believe having 17.5K now really makes a blind bit of difference.

You only have to look back to the climax of Luggy's first promotion to see how quickly limited capacity could come back to bite us on the arse.

As the ground starts to fill how many floaters will think "I probably won't get a seat anyway so I may as well not bother". These type of fans don't want to plan ahead, they want to get up on Saturday morning, see it's not raining and toddle along to see a winning team. An easy experience with no problem or delay getting in and a win and they'll be back again.

We're running the risk of losing this type of "glory hunter" forever if we cut our capacity to 50% of what it was 20 odd years ago.

Iggy wrote:

Innocent Egbunike wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

gil. wrote:

Sadly I'm not sure that there is a rebellion. Plenty of discord but no one actually presenting a united front.

The Trust must and I'm sure, will step forward to lead the objections and provide a rallying point. The vast majority of long standing, respected and articulate Argyle people are against this development.

That's a pretty bold claim and a good example of why the fan debate about the proposed development is going nowhere fast at the moment.

There are plenty of articulate views about what is being planned across the spectrum of opinion and rather than the 'vast majority' being against it, I would say most people are for it - but many (myself included) don't like it in its current form.

Unfortunately, the vast majority are probably in favour of it as it is is and just because that doesn't fit the thinking on this site, it doesn't make those people thick, or stupid. Most Argyle fans just want to see an end to 5 years of relegation battles and under Sheridan, with Brent as owner, they're sensing it's about to happen....and the crumbling Mayflower will be consigned to history in the process.

In line with a significant minority, I love the WG proposal but it's clearly not going to happen. The onus now seems to have shifted to trying to squeeze an extra 2,000 seats into the 'grandstand'. For me, that's almost a 'why bother?'....the real issue is the inability to effectively expand in the future and the lack of imagination in creating a decent space around the ground, with the stand as centrepiece. The former appears to have been dropped as an issue and the latter is a non-starter.

Pretty much at the point where I move on from this and just start concentrating on the fact we have a decent chance of seeing progress on the pitch.

You see I don't agree with the fact that people that don't like the stand plans are a minority. In my circle of Argo supporting mates a lot of them want a new stand, I do. They don't want a smaller capacity than what we have. My old man is the voice of reason and you sjphould hear his views! The point of all this is that there is enough money in this development for us to get what we want, the fact is that Brent is too greedy to compromise on his profits.
I won't even start on the over development of the park and what the non football interested park users think.

But isn't the point that there is no coherent definition of 'what people want'? You mention that you and your friends don't want a smaller capacity than what we have. Fair enough but I don't give a fig about that - in my view, 17.5K is OK now but if we can't go up to 25K easily, then that's a problem. If people in opposition can't agree, then all opposition is sunk - because it isn't really opposition - it's just shouting (from behind a keyboard).

It's a 'fact that Brent is too greedy to....'. Is it? I don't buy into this evil ex-banker theory. I'm no apologist for him but I'm still glad he's there - we would have been f*cked without him. His ownership should most certainly be held to account and the proposals should not get an easy ride as they go through the planning stage - hopefully being modified along the way. But Machiavelli he is not - yes, the guy is in business to make a profit but how does that mark him out from any other capitalist?

Of course, football clubs are different and he might just want to be mindful that his stakeholders are a little different to that of Sainsburys, or Costa Coffee - and he'll ignore that at his peril. But, pure greed? No, I don't believe that.

I.B. you too have bought into the myth that without JB there wouldn't have been a football club. He was not the only credible buyer on the scene.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

I.B. you too have bought into the myth that without JB there wouldn't have been a football club. He was not the only credible buyer on the scene.

If you have details of a solid, credible alternative offer which was on the table at the time, I'd bow to your superior knowledge.

As I remember it - as a fan on the outside looking in - we were a shambles ready to go out of existence if something didn't happen pretty damn quick to alleviate Heaneygate.

That 'something' was James Brent's plan......it was the one that was clearly going to get over the line at the time. To court other options would have seemed to be fiddling whilst Rome burned.

Genuinely interested to hear of what other viable alternatives were in place though.

Charlie Wood wrote:

As the ground starts to fill how many floaters will think "I probably won't get a seat anyway so I may as well not bother". These type of fans don't want to plan ahead, they want to get up on Saturday morning, see it's not raining and toddle along to see a winning team. An easy experience with no problem or delay getting in and a win and they'll be back again.

Quite right Charlie, it's called accessibility. It's amazing how many businesses haven't a clue what it is like to actually be a customer. I went on about it time and time again when Tony Campbell was in charge of the ticketing. He didn't have clue how frustrating it was to pick up paid for tickets on match days. The queues were ludicrous sometimes, not that it inconvenienced me, I just sauntered through the cash turnstile with a smile and without a queue... so few pay cash.
I have spoken to so many people over the years that thought if you didn't have a ticket in advance, you couldn't turn up. I seriously think the club are quite happy to run a ghetto even if it means less support, at least they can budget for that sort of business.

As for "glory hunting", I have never had a problem at all with lots of extra part-timers turning up, the more the merrier and the better the atmosphere sometimes... doesn't every fan want a full ground ? apparently not the superfans it would seem. I would say all fans are glory hunters as we all like to feel better on a Saturday through the exploits of other people on a pitch that have nothing to do with us... it's all satisfaction by proxy, any spectator sport. How the super fans have always seen it so different is quite beyond me but then maybe they are somehow inadequate and need to be the "special one" .

Innocent Egbunike wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

I.B. you too have bought into the myth that without JB there wouldn't have been a football club. He was not the only credible buyer on the scene.

If you have details of a solid, credible alternative offer which was on the table at the time, I'd bow to your superior knowledge.

As I remember it - as a fan on the outside looking in - we were a shambles ready to go out of existence if something didn't happen pretty damn quick to alleviate Heaneygate.

That 'something' was James Brent's plan......it was the one that was clearly going to get over the line at the time. To court other options would have seemed to be fiddling whilst Rome burned.

Genuinely interested to hear of what other viable alternatives were in place though.

I don't believe that Brent was the only viable alternative.

There were other interested parties who were threatened and scared off by the dogs of war to ensure their boy got the deal.

When the ice rink and cinema fail commercially, and are left as huge hulks of decaying concrete in the park, that'll be Brents (and his band of cheer leaders) legacy.

Czarcasm wrote:

When the ice rink and cinema fail commercially, and are left as huge hulks of decaying concrete in the park, that'll be Brents (and his band of cheer leaders) legacy.

Once permission has been granted for certain initial uses, any failing business can simply change that business, or sell on, with very little protection from planning law.
For instance, a supermarket could quite easily waltz straight into Central Park and set up shop where the failed "retail" units have been.
I don't have a problem with a sporting facility in the park such as an ice rink, that's what is supposed to be there, that is what has been there for decades now. If it doesn't pay it's way, will someon tell me if the life centre pays it's way without subsidy ? will someone please tell me what qualifies for subsidy in this country ? banking or community sport facilities ?

Innocent is absolutely spot on. People on both sides of this talk about "the majority" when they have absolutely no proof that the majority exists for their point of view. This is the equivalent of people who make the statement which starts with "95% of the silent majority are.........". Fill in the blank to suit your own point of view. The only place it is not ok to be somebody who isn't that bothered about having at least 25000 seats is on a website but this doesn't prove the argument for having it is a majority view.

I also keep hearing this argument that there were other interested parties in acquiring Argyle. However, not once when it is aired have I seen any name put forward as one of them. I notice that it was stated earlier today and yet several hours later there is still no name to go with the claim. Who were these people? To shut the "Brent was the only one" argument up surely it only takes the naming of a second party who were viable to prove the point. I suspect however this second party will not appear in print anytime soon.

IE is glad to have a club to support, I have been right about JB so far, the man has lied to us about what he would deliver, why shouldn't he do as he said he would? Over and out.

And Sensi, the majority of fans that I know, who don't use the web don't think we should accept a smaller capacity ground than we have now, I am not trying to speak for other people.

You said it right there Iggy, "the majority of fans YOU KNOW". That is hardly a majority for anyone to be certain it is actually a majority of fans is it. How many do you know and have spoken with except on here.

The second point was who were these other people who were interested in buying the club. So far I've heard this argument trotted out but have never seen a name put forward yet. Somebody please tell me who it was because genuinely I would like to know. The absence of any name says to me that people "assumed" there was somebody or they "believed" somebody else would turn up but in fact didn't really know if there was one at all. It is a question that seems to be avoided frequently when these discussions take place.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

You said it right there Iggy, "the majority of fans YOU KNOW". That is hardly a majority for anyone to be certain it is actually a majority of fans is it. How many do you know and have spoken with except on here.

The second point was who were these other people who were interested in buying the club. So far I've heard this argument trotted out but have never seen a name put forward yet. Somebody please tell me who it was because genuinely I would like to know. The absence of any name says to me that people "assumed" there was somebody or they "believed" somebody else would turn up but in fact didn't really know if there was one at all. It is a question that seems to be avoided frequently when these discussions take place.

So because you haven't seen the name Sensible you are claiming it doesn't exist. You are wrong. I have proof. The interest was serious and financed. The person wasn't a 'Michael Jackson bodyguard' in it for the publicity but a serious, well intentioned businessman making his approach quietly.

The offer would have seen property development at HHP. But importantly it would have paid the football creditors debt and paid all the back wages, leaving the club debt free.

I only have proof of the one other offer but I believe there was another. Hopefully Ed will persuade the unsuccessful bidders to allow their names to be published in his book.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

The second point was who were these other people who were interested in buying the club. So far I've heard this argument trotted out but have never seen a name put forward yet. Somebody please tell me who it was because genuinely I would like to know. The absence of any name says to me that people "assumed" there was somebody or they "believed" somebody else would turn up but in fact didn't really know if there was one at all. It is a question that seems to be avoided frequently when these discussions take place.

Wrong again Sensy...

If you want to know the names, write to Brendon Guilfoyle.

Because in his official report about the club he said the following:


“The joint administrators identified several alternative interested parties between August 2011 and October 2011 but all withdrew their interest following a campaign instigated by the fans”.

Item 6.15 and the report can be found here:

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

Rickler wrote:

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

The second point was who were these other people who were interested in buying the club. So far I've heard this argument trotted out but have never seen a name put forward yet. Somebody please tell me who it was because genuinely I would like to know. The absence of any name says to me that people "assumed" there was somebody or they "believed" somebody else would turn up but in fact didn't really know if there was one at all. It is a question that seems to be avoided frequently when these discussions take place.

Wrong again Sensy...

If you want to know the names, write to Brendon Guilfoyle.

Because in his official report about the club he said the following:


“The joint administrators identified several alternative interested parties between August 2011 and October 2011 but all withdrew their interest following a campaign instigated by the fans”.

Item 6.15 and the report can be found here:

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

Ah but these were horrible people only interested in property development. Not lip quivering Argyle owners who go to every home game and most away games. That proves your'e a real supporter who is concerned about the height of stands and unobstructed views of the sea.

Gawd, be ready for the "you're no different to pasoti" comment!


Nobody has been knocking on doors to ask questions and nobody has direct evidence that one argument is more right or more powerful than the other, but if you are a logical and rational type of person that ask those that you know, both Argyle fans and others, than it really is possible to reach a conclusion that will assist you to gain an opinion. It's the methods that we use daily to survive, if we needed to evaluate things on a proof basis then just getting out of bed would take days and probably weeks.

All I can say is that after doing such a thing both on the Internet and off, I have concluded that a hugely overwhelming number are very unhappy with James Brent's proposal.

Was his lip quivering or was he just cold, or is newell bullshitting? You decide!

I think he had a mouth ulcer which the salty prawn sandwiches stung.

herpes?

You see it isn't a case of blindly following Brent and believing what he says. It seems the majority who post on here (see what I did there? I said who post not members) don't believe him but with nobody named then we should believe both you and Guilfoyle who everyone called a liar throughout incidentally that somebody did exist in reality. You may have proof Damon but I don't so until I see a name then I'll stick with the idea there wasn't anyone.

There are many statements of fact made on the internet which have no basis in fact at all. To spot which ones are true or made up to prove some point or other is impossible.

You may indeed conclude anything you like GOB from your straw poll of the majority of people you know but you cannot say it is the majority of supporters. In the absence of a real poll of supporters then it is just a guess. It may be that the majority don't want anything to do with Brent's plans and I'm not saying I know enough supporters to know different but I'm not claiming a majority to have to prove a point. A little defensive with the pasoti comment as well.

In many things a lot of people are more in the middle than on one side or the other. They aren't particularly happy with what ever it is but are philisophical enough to not want to man a baricade. You might even call it apathetic if you like. I do not believe there will be a concerted effort that has any meaning to get the plans for HP thrown out. I don't believe there will be a proper poll of supporters and I don't believe a name will be put forward as an interested party for purchasing the club pre Brent. If you can get a 25000 seater then you will have my thanks but I expect it to be as big as announced in the end and contain exactly what has been stated officially on the tin. That is just my opinion and I speak for nobody else whatsoever.