Supply and Demand...

On my mobile. So a little difficult using this site. But in response to the above

Punchdrunk - my mistake, I should have put 'I assume' the added seats would be at the bottom of the shoe.

Greenjock - get a grip. Just because someone has other things to do other than sit at their computer staring at at forum it doesn't mean anything other than 'they have other things to do'

It seems everyone is looking fo a bloody conspiracy

As for inside info. Renne Howe to sign within a week. Lets see how good my alledged inside info is!!!!!!!!!!!!

125+1 wrote:

On my mobile. So a little difficult using this site. But in response to the above

Punchdrunk - my mistake, I should have put 'I assume' the added seats would be at the bottom of the shoe.

Greenjock - get a grip. Just because someone has other things to do other than sit at their computer staring at at forum it doesn't mean anything other than 'they have other things to do'

It seems everyone is looking fo a bloody conspiracy

I don't buy that explanation at all. Your statement didn't imply that was your opinion and why on earth would you assume that the added seats would be at the bottom when everyone else has been talking about the roof being removed and extra seats bolted on at the top

And let's face it, you're hardly in love with this site are you? You post for an argument usually and I'm happy to oblige

maybe 125+ is referring to seats like those at pompey that are under the pitch level but give a pitch level view ? sounds weird but if you've been to pompey youll know what I mean.

125+1 wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Dougie wrote:

It a point worth pursuing. I mentioned it yesterday in relation to Anfield where prices will be going up once a new stand is built. It's a question I think the Trust/PASB should be asking to prices in the new stand. Certain REAL fans will accept any price and expect everyone else to as well as we are getting a free stand after all.

But it is an approach , doomed to failure. There are only at best 6k addicted supporters. Those others who require ambition to be shown by the club will switch off unless the team is top 6 in the table. No new or potential supporters will be inspired by the boxed in mini stand, down a draughty alleyway.
The superfans will be trying to suck money out of the same dull tent dwellers and bucket rattlers.

It is so predictably sad and frankly, janner.

Meanwhile Brent can complete his real business and disappear without so much as a quiver of the lip.

But thats always been the way with Plymouth supporters and always will be, all you have to do is look at our first year aberage attendance in the Championship, then look at our third year average, better players, like SEB,Halmosi,Norris,Nalis,and many more, but the attendances dropped hugely despite a charismatic manager and the team pushing further up the league.

Nothing to do with the stadium,team, or manager. Plymouth IS NOT a footballing city, never will be 260,00 population and less than 4% go and support the club, also we are one of the lowest earning City's with a high cost of living.

I will also add i think we are also the very few city's or towns, that have a Saturday Youth league (DJM), this affects attendances hugely aswell.

That was always my view on why attendances started to fall. I remember thinking that 24 quid was a hell of a lot of money just to watch a football match, even if it was one of the most (admittedly briefly) successful Argyle teams ever. Easy to say "apathetic Janners", but not if they simply don't feel they can afford to go.

Greenjock wrote:

Innocent Egbunike wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

125+1 wrote:

Im a little torn on this now, i am really tired of the drab looking grandstand, I agree 20k would be the ideal but how many games hit that target in recent times, i think someone on here (cant be assed to go through the threads, showed it was only 7-10 games over the time we were in the championship that we achieved bigger attendances.

I think 17500 is sufficient for the moment and if we can increase it to 20k even if it is restricted viewing, when or if we get back to the championship then thats not to much of an issue. On the restricted veiw issue, i have been anfield a few times and sat in the bottom row of seats just behind the goal, but still enjoyed myself, and if like its been proven how many times would we need to use huzzahthese seats anyway.

On the attendance rise that someone posted, with Reading,Hull, and a few others, i dont really see how this can be compared. They all relocated to completely new build stadiums, we are just building a stand!

I have to admit i like the development myself, Homepark will be a nicer place to be, and Central Park will become the hub of Social activities in the city.

Im not tainted, a Brent lover or liking the actual capacity i think it should be bigger, but 17500 seems sufficient at the moment and moving forward hopefully we can get a new owner who is more football based rather than development thirsty to take the club forward.

That's fine to quote those figures as long as you are resigned to never amounting anything. I thought James Brent "got it"? I thought his lip quivered and he wanted the club to be successful?

If you're saying Brent's full of shit then I have to agree but there are some very high profile fans who say he's the messiah and yet these plans are big enough for League 1 and that's all

So if you back Brent and say that he is an Argyle fan now and has the best interests of the club at heart then the proposed stand is nowhere near big enough is it?

If he wants to come out and say "Look guys I'll build this because I only want to go as far as League 1" then we would know, but throbber Newell is praising him and the plans at every turn. Won't hear a bad word about the man. If the plans are good then it is short term and then we are fecked if we want to progress further. No expansion of the feckin horseshoe will take place ffs. His own team have admitted that. The foundations weren't dug properly for the horseshoe to be expanded.

If Brent wasn't heralded as the second coming then I wouldn't mind so much, but he is.

Admit it then Mr Brent. The plans are sufficient for what you have in mind, a possible promotion taking a few years and then you're off.

The irony of this is that it is only a few on here who imagine that many people see him as such. Most sensible fans don't herald him as anything of the sort but they do see him as the least worst current option.

The obsession with people like Ian Newell on this board is embarrassing and detracts from real decent debate about the football club - because none of you can see past personalities.

Utter bollocks. If you take a look at Pasoti there are threads started all the time thanking Brent for this that and another and the owner is like his personal bodyguard.

After surviving relegation to non division by a single point the fans were chanting his name and giving him a hero's welcome, despite the fact it was his choosing to stick with Fletcher far too long that almost relegated us.

If you're embarrassed by this forum why don't you toddle off and read a United forum?

Not so sure. My take on that was that he inserted himself in between the players (oo-er) and was milking the applause that THEY were getting. Would have been interesting to have seen what had happened if he'd come out alone. There were definitely a few uncomplimentary shouts from where I was.

The seats in front of the horseshoe were actually part of the plan for original Phase 2.
PAFC found they had fallen foul of disabled equality with the only wheelchair vantage points being at pitch level, so they said it would be rectified in Phase 2 by dropping pitch level.

As the latest CGI had moved the disabled sections to pitch level they may try and play the same trick again

The additional seats in the Horseshoe were to be at the top & would have involved using the space in the existing cantilever.

I had totally missed the change in provision for supporters with disabilities. If it's true that their provision has been further limited it shows up the proposals as falling still further from the claim to be providing top rate facilities.

And I will say again that if our only focus is on the capacity issue we will be totally missing the wider picture.

City clubs with little or no history of top flight exposure and resultant fanbase growth, need to make a statement of intent if they are to attract those people through the turnstyles, not already addicted.
It has nothing much to do with apathy or ticket cost and is not particular to Plymouth. The potential fanbases of the likes of Hull, Swansea, Reading and Brighton were 'apathetic' prior to the construction of stadiums that clearly demonstrated ambition. John Petrie, with a little help from his friends, provided the facts and figures on Pasoti and ATD recently. See link below.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

IF Home Park were to be 'finished' with an imposing grandstand and with the ability to expand easily at a future date, through not boxing in the stadium with the ice rink, the wider public might just 'buy in' once the club gets on a roll on the pitch.The vision provided by the AFT Working group has the appeal, so important in bringing in new and lapsed fans. Home Park is in a great location and could be the envy of many currently bigger clubs if we ever realise our undoubted potential.
What is being proposed by brent and his associates will inspire none but the already addicted, self promoting and generally those lacking in vision.

It may just be the incompetence of the CGI draughtman, BUT.

The Akkeron plans show the disabled areas correctly elevated halfway back lower tier.
The CGI moving them pitchside will not be approved.

If you want to see the details of how the "UEFA standard" (Akkeron's words, not mine) stand fall short of their disabled access guidelines details in pdf below. Pages 66-67 explain why the pitchside seats aren't enough.

Again without revised plans backing up changed CGI detail It is difficult to be certain but would be interesting to work out how a wheelchair user reaches the demport side disabled area, as access to the turnstiles and exits is down a flight of stairs.

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

Greenjock wrote:

Innocent Egbunike wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

125+1 wrote:

Im a little torn on this now, i am really tired of the drab looking grandstand, I agree 20k would be the ideal but how many games hit that target in recent times, i think someone on here (cant be assed to go through the threads, showed it was only 7-10 games over the time we were in the championship that we achieved bigger attendances.

I think 17500 is sufficient for the moment and if we can increase it to 20k even if it is restricted viewing, when or if we get back to the championship then thats not to much of an issue. On the restricted veiw issue, i have been anfield a few times and sat in the bottom row of seats just behind the goal, but still enjoyed myself, and if like its been proven how many times would we need to use huzzahthese seats anyway.

On the attendance rise that someone posted, with Reading,Hull, and a few others, i dont really see how this can be compared. They all relocated to completely new build stadiums, we are just building a stand!

I have to admit i like the development myself, Homepark will be a nicer place to be, and Central Park will become the hub of Social activities in the city.

Im not tainted, a Brent lover or liking the actual capacity i think it should be bigger, but 17500 seems sufficient at the moment and moving forward hopefully we can get a new owner who is more football based rather than development thirsty to take the club forward.

That's fine to quote those figures as long as you are resigned to never amounting anything. I thought James Brent "got it"? I thought his lip quivered and he wanted the club to be successful?

If you're saying Brent's full of shit then I have to agree but there are some very high profile fans who say he's the messiah and yet these plans are big enough for League 1 and that's all

So if you back Brent and say that he is an Argyle fan now and has the best interests of the club at heart then the proposed stand is nowhere near big enough is it?

If he wants to come out and say "Look guys I'll build this because I only want to go as far as League 1" then we would know, but throbber Newell is praising him and the plans at every turn. Won't hear a bad word about the man. If the plans are good then it is short term and then we are fecked if we want to progress further. No expansion of the feckin horseshoe will take place ffs. His own team have admitted that. The foundations weren't dug properly for the horseshoe to be expanded.

If Brent wasn't heralded as the second coming then I wouldn't mind so much, but he is.

Admit it then Mr Brent. The plans are sufficient for what you have in mind, a possible promotion taking a few years and then you're off.

The irony of this is that it is only a few on here who imagine that many people see him as such. Most sensible fans don't herald him as anything of the sort but they do see him as the least worst current option.

The obsession with people like Ian Newell on this board is embarrassing and detracts from real decent debate about the football club - because none of you can see past personalities.

Utter bollocks. If you take a look at Pasoti there are threads started all the time thanking Brent for this that and another and the owner is like his personal bodyguard.

After surviving relegation to non division by a single point the fans were chanting his name and giving him a hero's welcome, despite the fact it was his choosing to stick with Fletcher far too long that almost relegated us.

If you're embarrassed by this forum why don't you toddle off and read a United forum?

And there are also threads started all the time criticising him - plus some others which are neutral on the subject. What is utter bollocks is the obsession here with the people close to Brent from the fanbase - it clouds everything else.

I agree with you that sticking with Fletcher too long almost relegated us - I wanted him out weeks/months before he went.....but a misguided loyalty there doesn't make Brent the antichrist does it?

The club might end up getting a raw deal out of the current plans and I think they should be sensibly challenged, with the process scrutinised for fairness and legality - but the level of personal vitriol which is dragged into it is unhelpful and misleading.

Somebody else on pasoti accused somebody as painting Brent as the anti Christ even though nobody actually has, if they did would you like to provide a link?
I accuse Brent of a lot of things I am still waiting for reasoned response giving me the reasons I am wrong.

Without the support of those he regards as friends. The influence they wield through Pasoti and their brent given status at the club. His plans to box argyle in for generations would be receiving almost universal opposition imo.
Most articulate and thinking fans are demonstrably unhappy. Newell, Webb and co. are fighting an uphill struggle to justify brent's plans and the only visible support they can muster is from a handful of sycophants on Pasoti and through their orchestrated mobilisation of salsa nerdie on tw@tter and f/b.

Greenjock wrote:

125+1 wrote:

On my mobile. So a little difficult using this site. But in response to the above

Punchdrunk - my mistake, I should have put 'I assume' the added seats would be at the bottom of the shoe.

Greenjock - get a grip. Just because someone has other things to do other than sit at their computer staring at at forum it doesn't mean anything other than 'they have other things to do'

It seems everyone is looking fo a bloody conspiracy

I don't buy that explanation at all. Your statement didn't imply that was your opinion and why on earth would you assume that the added seats would be at the bottom when everyone else has been talking about the roof being removed and extra seats bolted on at the top

And let's face it, you're hardly in love with this site are you? You post for an argument usually and I'm happy to oblige

You mean because im my own person and look at pro and cons rather than following everyone else that means i post for an argument?, interesting view unlike yourself im not a sheep.

and secondly, i havent really studied the plans like some people, so when i was at Home Park on B/H Monday i was looking at where the seats could go at such a cost. Ground level seemed to make more sense and be the cheapest option.

Tringreen wrote:

Without the support of those he regards as friends. The influence they wield through Pasoti and their brent given status at the club. His plans to box argyle in for generations would be receiving almost universal opposition imo.
Most articulate and thinking fans are demonstrably unhappy. Newell, Webb and co. are fighting an uphill struggle to justify brent's plans and the only visible support they can muster is from a handful of sycophants on Pasoti and through their orchestrated mobilisation of salsa nerdie on tw@tter and f/b.

100% agree with that, BUT, its down to people to do something about it, posting on forums moaning about the situation is not taking action. Hopefully with the anouncement of the cinema complex residents in the surrounding area's will complain and planning permission will not go through. An appeal against planning permission for legitimate reasons is the only way the stand will not be built. People moaning about the size of the stand isnt classed as a legitimate reason to stop planning unfortunately.

Tringreen wrote:

Without the support of those he regards as friends. The influence they wield through Pasoti and their brent given status at the club. His plans to box argyle in for generations would be receiving almost universal opposition imo.
Most articulate and thinking fans are demonstrably unhappy. Newell, Webb and co. are fighting an uphill struggle to justify brent's plans and the only visible support they can muster is from a handful of sycophants on Pasoti and through their orchestrated mobilisation of salsa nerdie on tw@tter and f/b.

Like you, I am unhappy with his plans, so we share that.

I think you're wrong about 'universal opposition' though. I think many Argyle fans are very happy about the direction the club is taking, irrespective of Newell, Webb, Postcode etc and are looking forward to Argyle possibly not fighting a relegation battle for the first time in 5 years, with a new stand to replace the Mayflower 10 years down the line from the horseshoe.

I just think you over-estimate the power of the unofficial Pasoti administration-led PR machine. I guess we just have to agree to disagree on that.

125+1 wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Without the support of those he regards as friends. The influence they wield through Pasoti and their brent given status at the club. His plans to box argyle in for generations would be receiving almost universal opposition imo.
Most articulate and thinking fans are demonstrably unhappy. Newell, Webb and co. are fighting an uphill struggle to justify brent's plans and the only visible support they can muster is from a handful of sycophants on Pasoti and through their orchestrated mobilisation of salsa nerdie on tw@tter and f/b.

100% agree with that, BUT, its down to people to do something about it, posting on forums moaning about the situation is not taking action. Hopefully with the anouncement of the cinema complex residents in the surrounding area's will complain and planning permission will not go through. An appeal against planning permission for legitimate reasons is the only way the stand will not be built. People moaning about the size of the stand isnt classed as a legitimate reason to stop planning unfortunately.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick here actually, I would be prepared to be as bloody minded as Brent and if he wouldn't compromise -which is a word not in his dictionary IMO- I would be happy to block his plans in their entirety, however I think that I speak for a large proportion of fans when I say that I hate the cinema and it should have no place in the park. As for the stand I want a capacity the same as it was before Brent took over and the promised non match day revenue. How we achieve that would be better through the route of dialogue with fans however if Brent is going to be bloody minded then direct action will follow. Firstly we need to find out what we are objecting to and with plans not in yet we can't formulate an opinion, I would call our moaning discussion although it is one sided with no coherent argument being offers on why Brent shouldnt compromise.
If it is Brent tub thumping you are after you are in the wrong place, if you really want discussion, have it, don't just say we are moaning.

worried of penzance wrote:

Innocent Egbunike wrote:

Most sensible fans don't herald him as anything of the sort but they do see him as the least worst current option.
- because none of you can see past personalities.

He's the least worst current option ? ... what does that mean Innocent ? there are no current options ... he's the owner. You're just putting out words that mean nothing.

And as for lumping everyone together who disagrees with you, well.... you'll have Sensible on your case.


And.. GS... I know what you mean not that old chestnut. When I played in the DJM, you couldn't drag most players up to Home Park. Most of them really weren't interested then, and I would bet the same applies. They just want to play themselves, not watch a team that was often laughed at.... and that was nothing to do with apathy, they just really didn't WANT to go watch.

DJM - averages 33 teams per age group, 14 players + managers, coaches and parents, roughly 5000 people attending junior football and i havent included mini soccer which usually has 16 teams per age group, on a saturday morning, 2500 attending matches with 12.30pm KO.

I think that will go some way to affecting attendances, i personally know alot of people that dont go Argyle because of this, and a hell of alot that would like to go but cant make it.

Iggy wrote:

125+1 wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Without the support of those he regards as friends. The influence they wield through Pasoti and their brent given status at the club. His plans to box argyle in for generations would be receiving almost universal opposition imo.
Most articulate and thinking fans are demonstrably unhappy. Newell, Webb and co. are fighting an uphill struggle to justify brent's plans and the only visible support they can muster is from a handful of sycophants on Pasoti and through their orchestrated mobilisation of salsa nerdie on tw@tter and f/b.

100% agree with that, BUT, its down to people to do something about it, posting on forums moaning about the situation is not taking action. Hopefully with the anouncement of the cinema complex residents in the surrounding area's will complain and planning permission will not go through. An appeal against planning permission for legitimate reasons is the only way the stand will not be built. People moaning about the size of the stand isnt classed as a legitimate reason to stop planning unfortunately.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick here actually, I would be prepared to be as bloody minded as Brent and if he wouldn't compromise -which is a word not in his dictionary IMO- I would be happy to block his plans in their entirety, however I think that I speak for a large proportion of fans when I say that I hate the cinema and it should have no place in the park. As for the stand I want a capacity the same as it was before Brent took over and the promised non match day revenue. How we achieve that would be better through the route of dialogue with fans however if Brent is going to be bloody minded then direct action will follow. Firstly we need to find out what we are objecting to and with plans not in yet we can't formulate an opinion, I would call our moaning discussion although it is one sided with no coherent argument being offers on why Brent shouldnt compromise.
If it is Brent tub thumping you are after you are in the wrong place, if you really want discussion, have it, don't just say we are moaning.

So your moaning about me saying people are moaning!

I think it is you that is missing the point. When the plans are finalised and released if people write to the planning office and say "the stand does'nt hold enough people" i dont think that will be a legitimant reason for the planning to be blocked especially when the planners will be looking more at the whole development rather than just Argyle.

And as for speaking for a large number of fans who dont like the cinema, again your missing the point, its NOT just about Argyle its about the whole park, if the planners recieve little objection from local residents and the people of Plymouth and they feel it will not affect any of the so called green area's they will not turn it down especially if it is boosting the local economy

So tell me something that I don't know, yet again you are trying to guess my opinion instead of actually reading my opinion. I know about planning I have worked in building for about 30 years. Like I say if you want discussion crack on.

Iggy wrote:

So tell me something that I don't know, yet again you are trying to guess my opinion instead of actually reading my opinion. I know about planning I have worked in building for about 30 years. Like I say if you want discussion crack on.

By the looks of it i just did.

Innocent Egbunike wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

Innocent Egbunike wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

125+1 wrote:

Im a little torn on this now, i am really tired of the drab looking grandstand, I agree 20k would be the ideal but how many games hit that target in recent times, i think someone on here (cant be assed to go through the threads, showed it was only 7-10 games over the time we were in the championship that we achieved bigger attendances.

I think 17500 is sufficient for the moment and if we can increase it to 20k even if it is restricted viewing, when or if we get back to the championship then thats not to much of an issue. On the restricted veiw issue, i have been anfield a few times and sat in the bottom row of seats just behind the goal, but still enjoyed myself, and if like its been proven how many times would we need to use huzzahthese seats anyway.

On the attendance rise that someone posted, with Reading,Hull, and a few others, i dont really see how this can be compared. They all relocated to completely new build stadiums, we are just building a stand!

I have to admit i like the development myself, Homepark will be a nicer place to be, and Central Park will become the hub of Social activities in the city.

Im not tainted, a Brent lover or liking the actual capacity i think it should be bigger, but 17500 seems sufficient at the moment and moving forward hopefully we can get a new owner who is more football based rather than development thirsty to take the club forward.

That's fine to quote those figures as long as you are resigned to never amounting anything. I thought James Brent "got it"? I thought his lip quivered and he wanted the club to be successful?

If you're saying Brent's full of shit then I have to agree but there are some very high profile fans who say he's the messiah and yet these plans are big enough for League 1 and that's all

So if you back Brent and say that he is an Argyle fan now and has the best interests of the club at heart then the proposed stand is nowhere near big enough is it?

If he wants to come out and say "Look guys I'll build this because I only want to go as far as League 1" then we would know, but throbber Newell is praising him and the plans at every turn. Won't hear a bad word about the man. If the plans are good then it is short term and then we are fecked if we want to progress further. No expansion of the feckin horseshoe will take place ffs. His own team have admitted that. The foundations weren't dug properly for the horseshoe to be expanded.

If Brent wasn't heralded as the second coming then I wouldn't mind so much, but he is.

Admit it then Mr Brent. The plans are sufficient for what you have in mind, a possible promotion taking a few years and then you're off.

The irony of this is that it is only a few on here who imagine that many people see him as such. Most sensible fans don't herald him as anything of the sort but they do see him as the least worst current option.

The obsession with people like Ian Newell on this board is embarrassing and detracts from real decent debate about the football club - because none of you can see past personalities.

Utter bollocks. If you take a look at Pasoti there are threads started all the time thanking Brent for this that and another and the owner is like his personal bodyguard.

After surviving relegation to non division by a single point the fans were chanting his name and giving him a hero's welcome, despite the fact it was his choosing to stick with Fletcher far too long that almost relegated us.

If you're embarrassed by this forum why don't you toddle off and read a United forum?

And there are also threads started all the time criticising him - plus some others which are neutral on the subject. What is utter bollocks is the obsession here with the people close to Brent from the fanbase - it clouds everything else.

I agree with you that sticking with Fletcher too long almost relegated us - I wanted him out weeks/months before he went.....but a misguided loyalty there doesn't make Brent the antichrist does it?

The club might end up getting a raw deal out of the current plans and I think they should be sensibly challenged, with the process scrutinised for fairness and legality - but the level of personal vitriol which is dragged into it is unhelpful and misleading.

Sticking with Fletcher was bad enough but it's the way the smiling assasin has bullshitted the fans and now is starting to show his true colours that sticks in my craw the most about him.

If you're a fan of having a school built into the new grandstand and like having state of the art facilities all around that don't give anything back to the club at all then I expect you're over the moon right now.

answer this pro brents: if he saved the club, how come it still has a massive debt? how come if he left, the club would fold, for if he has actually saved argo there would be no problem with him selling up. shirley?