Akkeron response to WG

punchdrunk wrote:

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

X Isle and his latest fixation with the excessive use of smileys, telling everyone to button it.
That creep makes my blood boil.

yes x throbber is the type of happy clapper arse lick brents relying on to push through his money making scheme.

knecht wrote:

Sadly, this may be an important comment made by Graham Clark on pasoti......

"It is about time the true facts are made known. On 31st October 2011 Green Pilgrim Ltd (now PAFC Ltd) and Akkeron Leisure Ltd. signed a lease of Home Park with Plymouth City Council. The document is a public one and available from the Land Registry for a small charge.

In paragraph 3 of the First schedule of the lease it is written

"The right subject to obtaining all the consents to redevelop the Grandstand provided any new development will include a modern replacement grandstand with a MINIMUM SEATING CAPACITY OF 3,800 which faces onto the remainder of the Premises, save as otherwise be agreed."

That means by building a grandstand of 4,800 Akerron are building 1,000 seats MORE than they are bound to do by the terms of their lease agreement with the Council.

Why, 3,800? That is because the horseshoe has a capacity of 12,600 and the ground is currently licenced for 16,388. Therefore, the minimum requirement of the Council is for Akkeron to match the existing capacity with the new grandstand. Akkeron have gone a step further and increased the seating by 1,000 seats or so.

As always I am only interested in making the facts more widely known and given the intensity of the debate I felt it appropriate to do so.."

An interesting extra piece of information to be thrown into the discussion.

Just re-inforces the fact that PCC are a bunch of Cnuts and if Brent thinks he is the Savior by increasing it by 1k he is an even bigger cnut

"As a group of volunteers who, to my knowledge, have no experience of building similar structures"

Nearly word for word what De-Liar has been spouting. He's had his tongue up Brent's arse advising him not to listen to a bunch of wanna-be architects in return for his continuing cosy perch in the directors box.

Makes me feckin sick. Well done De-Lar. Happy now? A lot of fans won't forget this.

knecht wrote:

Sadly, this may be an important comment made by Graham Clark on pasoti......

"It is about time the true facts are made known. On 31st October 2011 Green Pilgrim Ltd (now PAFC Ltd) and Akkeron Leisure Ltd. signed a lease of Home Park with Plymouth City Council. The document is a public one and available from the Land Registry for a small charge.

In paragraph 3 of the First schedule of the lease it is written

"The right subject to obtaining all the consents to redevelop the Grandstand provided any new development will include a modern replacement grandstand with a MINIMUM SEATING CAPACITY OF 3,800 which faces onto the remainder of the Premises, save as otherwise be agreed."

That means by building a grandstand of 4,800 Akerron are building 1,000 seats MORE than they are bound to do by the terms of their lease agreement with the Council.

Why, 3,800? That is because the horseshoe has a capacity of 12,600 and the ground is currently licenced for 16,388. Therefore, the minimum requirement of the Council is for Akkeron to match the existing capacity with the new grandstand. Akkeron have gone a step further and increased the seating by 1,000 seats or so.

As always I am only interested in making the facts more widely known and given the intensity of the debate I felt it appropriate to do so.."

An interesting extra piece of information to be thrown into the discussion.

Horseshoe = 12,600 (?)
+
New Stand = 4,800

Total = 17,400.

Is that correct? Because if it is, then segregation and other factors (media etc) mean that the realistic capacity will be sub-17,000. And that's the first time that possibility has been raised.

Everything about Plymouth Argyle FC, from the ground development to the corrupt sycophantic superfans and the now permanently set lack of ambition and ability to achieve anything worthwhile is just so -

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


RIP Pilgrims

Under brent and the superlickers we be the biggest city with the smallest football ground

let it happen before we judge it ? FFS. The club IS doomed.

unlikely to ever be able to challenge above bottom 5 of 2nd tier.
great.


clueless & doomed

knecht wrote:

Sadly, this may be an important comment made by Graham Clark on pasoti......

"It is about time the true facts are made known. On 31st October 2011 Green Pilgrim Ltd (now PAFC Ltd) and Akkeron Leisure Ltd. signed a lease of Home Park with Plymouth City Council. The document is a public one and available from the Land Registry for a small charge.

In paragraph 3 of the First schedule of the lease it is written

"The right subject to obtaining all the consents to redevelop the Grandstand provided any new development will include a modern replacement grandstand with a MINIMUM SEATING CAPACITY OF 3,800 which faces onto the remainder of the Premises, save as otherwise be agreed."

That means by building a grandstand of 4,800 Akerron are building 1,000 seats MORE than they are bound to do by the terms of their lease agreement with the Council.

Why, 3,800? That is because the horseshoe has a capacity of 12,600 and the ground is currently licenced for 16,388. Therefore, the minimum requirement of the Council is for Akkeron to match the existing capacity with the new grandstand. Akkeron have gone a step further and increased the seating by 1,000 seats or so.

As always I am only interested in making the facts more widely known and given the intensity of the debate I felt it appropriate to do so.."

An interesting extra piece of information to be thrown into the discussion.

Sad that the 16,388 figure was used as the base point and the Mayflower terrace's potential capacity (totalling 19,500? with seats) completely ignored.

knecht wrote:

Size isn't everything.

It's what you are able to do with what you've got that's more important.

That's why I'm less bothered by the size of the proposed grandstand than the club's ability to expand said grandstand in the future. That's why I'm more bothered about the ability to make reasonable extensions to the horseshoe without the constraint of the road. That's why I'm far more bothered about the loss of income caused by the purloining of space within the footprint that belongs to PCC and leased by the club.

I can see where you're coming from and largely agree but for me, the 'statement' that could be made to the sceptics among the fanbase and to the wider public, should the grandstand in fact be a grandstand, in addition to the ability to easily expand, is the key to making more people 'believe' and turn up.
If Brent gets away with this, none but the current active fanbase will be inspired or interested.
The club will be less likely to achieve the income it needs to make progress on the pitch and he will not have a baton to hand on, as he suggested he would should we return to the championship. With a complete rebuild required elsewhere, nobody will be interested.

Brent is in this for the property gains and will pass the club onto his jamboys and their sponsors, as soon as he can.

PAFC will be dead meat.

No surprise having seen the PCC response about a smaller stand being commercially better for br*nt. The effort now must be to derail the whole HHP 'development' and send the poisonous banker packing

BRENT OUT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Freathy...about time you changed the record or is that it for eternity.You certainly add a lot to this site.

I think most people have failed to allow for the two crucial factors that pertain to a development such as is proposed:


a) there is only a finite area that can be developed
&
b) the football stand is the less profitable part of the development, ergo the less space it takes up, the more profit for the developer


For future reference, it would be wise not to confuse property development with building a successful football club-the two are usually mutually exclusive.

Have you ever heard of a successful football club owner who went into property development/investment banking/Newspaper tycoon/the "energy"(oil or gas) industry etc.etc. in order to spend the wealth he accrued in football?


Brent ain't going to make money out of building a new stand for PAFC, so he ain't gonna do it guys.

It's all or nothing. The stand gets built right ot not at all. When brent has gone he may be replaced by someone with class, vision and ambition who may want to build a stand worthy of Argyle's potential. Don't allow brent to destroy our future with his shite ministand.

Eggs ackly Freathy

Freathy wrote:

It's all or nothing. The stand gets built right ot not at all. When brent has gone he may be replaced by someone with class, vision and ambition who may want to build a stand worthy of Argyle's potential. Don't allow brent to destroy our future with his shite ministand.

The trouble is, Freathy, that Brent may well so "Stuff the stand...I'll just keep the money"


I expect his minions are writing the Press Release as we speak....

"In view of the failure of the supporters to back my plans for the new stand, or support the club in the numbers needed to make it "sustainable" the new stand will not be built at this time.........the money that would have been spent on the stand will now be used to cover the continuing shortfall in income that is a result of not getting 8-9,000 people coming to watch a fourth division football team."

Grovehill wrote:

Freathy wrote:

It's all or nothing. The stand gets built right ot not at all. When brent has gone he may be replaced by someone with class, vision and ambition who may want to build a stand worthy of Argyle's potential. Don't allow brent to destroy our future with his shite ministand.

The trouble is, Freathy, that Brent may well so "Stuff the stand...I'll just keep the money"


I expect his minions are writing the Press Release as we speak....

"In view of the failure of the supporters to back my plans for the new stand, or support the club in the numbers needed to make it "sustainable" the new stand will not be built at this time.........the money that would have been spent on the stand will now be used to cover the continuing shortfall in income that is a result of not getting 8-9,000 people coming to watch a fourth division football team."

Then result! I'd rather temporary seating on the Mayflower terrace until sometime in the future when a proper owner takes over.

greensleeves wrote:

Freathy...about time you changed the record or is that it for eternity.You certainly add a lot to this site.

if freathy farted greensleeves, he would add more to this site than you

then why do you keep replying to my posts.the day that you post something interesting hell will freeze over.

greensleeves wrote:

then why do you keep replying to my posts.the day that you post something interesting hell will freeze over.

come on then greensleeves lets talk about something interesting, who do you think is the biggest wanker on pasoti nooly or the site puppet?

Grovehill wrote:

Freathy wrote:

It's all or nothing. The stand gets built right ot not at all. When brent has gone he may be replaced by someone with class, vision and ambition who may want to build a stand worthy of Argyle's potential. Don't allow brent to destroy our future with his shite ministand.

The trouble is, Freathy, that Brent may well so "Stuff the stand...I'll just keep the money"


I expect his minions are writing the Press Release as we speak....

"In view of the failure of the supporters to back my plans for the new stand, or support the club in the numbers needed to make it "sustainable" the new stand will not be built at this time.........the money that would have been spent on the stand will now be used to cover the continuing shortfall in income that is a result of not getting 8-9,000 people coming to watch a fourth division football team."

That can't happen. The deal when Brent and the other (two?) directors bought the HHP car park was that either they build a new grandstand at no cost to the club or the club gets a percentage (50% from memory - it's on the HHP thread anyway) of the windfall profits from any development on the car park. All in the public domain.

This is just an observation rather than a vote for or against the size/capacity of the proposed build. I for one have absolutely no idea if the cost per extra seat would be £1 or £1000. I have no idea what would be required aka building regulations or anything else. I have no idea how much a ton of cement costs let alone material to build a football stand, mini or otherwise, a cinema a resturant a hotel or even a small house extention. On one hand you have the working group made up of people with experties in these fields and the other the professionals employed by Brent. Both quote differing figures which are poles apart. Which one is right? Do you really know or are you assuming one is right and the other wrong depending on what you want rather than knowledge? I repeat again before the Aviva tag comes out that this is not a vote for either side but an observation only.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

This is just an observation rather than a vote for or against the size/capacity of the proposed build. I for one have absolutely no idea if the cost per extra seat would be £1 or £1000. I have no idea what would be required aka building regulations or anything else. I have no idea how much a ton of cement costs let alone material to build a football stand, mini or otherwise, a cinema a resturant a hotel or even a small house extention. On one hand you have the working group made up of people with experties in these fields and the other the professionals employed by Brent. Both quote differing figures which are poles apart. Which one is right? Do you really know or are you assuming one is right and the other wrong depending on what you want rather than knowledge? I repeat again before the Aviva tag comes out that this is not a vote for either side but an observation only.

So who do you think is right and why?

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

This is just an observation rather than a vote for or against the size/capacity of the proposed build. I for one have absolutely no idea if the cost per extra seat would be £1 or £1000. I have no idea what would be required aka building regulations or anything else. I have no idea how much a ton of cement costs let alone material to build a football stand, mini or otherwise, a cinema a resturant a hotel or even a small house extention. On one hand you have the working group made up of people with experties in these fields and the other the professionals employed by Brent. Both quote differing figures which are poles apart. Which one is right? Do you really know or are you assuming one is right and the other wrong depending on what you want rather than knowledge? I repeat again before the Aviva tag comes out that this is not a vote for either side but an observation only.

It's like court witnesses. The defence will produce a Doctor who says one thing and the prosecution bring out a Doctor who says the complete opposite. It means you have to make up your own mind about what is being said, much like a jury has to.

I expect, as has been stated elsewhere, that the cost would probably lie somewhere between the two amounts quoted.

Now I want to hear more specific details from Akkeron about how the existing stands can be extended to give 2500 more seats because I don't believe this will ever happen and 17,000 will be the most fans ever inside Home Park from now on

Sufferedsince68 wrote:

greensleeves wrote:

Freathy...about time you changed the record or is that it for eternity.You certainly add a lot to this site.

if freathy farted greensleeves, he would add more to this site than you

punchdrunk, in your haste you forgot to read the actual post. I said I have no idea because I have no idea. Let me ask you a question then. Do you have any experties to price up a complete redevelopment of that area and what it entails to know what any of it would cost and regulations you would need to comply with? I've already answered that one twice now so you give it a go.

You could also answer the one about your belief being the one which suits your purpose or you having costed it yourself and agreed one is right and the other wrong.

I agree jock it is a bit like being a jury and it is well known that juries don't always get it right. Like I said I'm not saying the proposed Brent build is ok all I was asking was what others based their jury decision on.