Akkeron response to WG

Well, Sensible parks him self slap bang on the fence once again and tells everyone the "authority" knows everything, and "we" know nothing. No surprise there then

The "cost" quoted in this context is irrelevant when there are so many deals taken into consideration regarding property assets, projected and accruing losses, stretching all over the city between Akkeron and the Council. Of course, I would add that the council itself has a responsibility in providing it's long term tennant with adequate accommodation, and yet this is the best they can come up with between them. This really does signal some sort of long term move out of the city in my mind. Unbelievable given our prime position in such a park over the years, one that has always put the club streets ahead of most. And with the access road hemming in everything else, I don't think a worse plan for the club could have been dreamed up.

Outside of the national scaling down of the all seated process, we must be just about the first league club ever to find themselves in a new stadium with a smaller capacity. Plymouth really doesn't have a clue when it comes to these matters. The new Sandy Park will hoover up anything within a hundred miles. Still, we've got a mahoosive incinerator, and astounding nuclear reactors and facilities ... that'll bring them in. Bull Point is looking an absolute picture at the moment.

PJs new branding for Central Park ....Come to Plymouth for a small time... what a dive.

Yep, agree with Penz, cost isn't relevant here, whether WG figures or Akkerons, the truth is Brent could build the larger stand if he wanted to. It is quite clear to everyone that he doesn't want to - his profit margins would fall by probably 5% or so.

Philanthropic or what?

From being one of the City's potential economic drivers (should the Premier League ever be reached), the club is forever destined to remain one of the also -rans.

Completely short sighted from PCC, but expected - I have never met a leader of a Council who demonstrated anything like vision for his/her City.

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.

Knecht, you often talk the most sense on this site and now is no different. Totally agree the future expansion is the key issue - everything else is a sideshow

Sufferedsince68 wrote:

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.

He's a total dick. Ignore the tw@t - he wants attention

Greenjock wrote:

Dougie wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

How civil of Brent to not even respond directly to the AFT. You can read my response on the PASB website where my friends Tony Hooper and Jon Back are members.

Wanker

As well as being foretold despite his internet exile by the 2nd worse club president ever

Old pl2 faced had the info pretty sharpish too. Oh he couldn't wait to post it, his thread had traces of semen on it where he didn't quite wipe his screen thoroughly.

Oh well if your wife and mother both abandon you I suppose you have nothing better to do.

Agree with that - he loved it, didn't he?

Innocent Egbunike wrote:

Sufferedsince68 wrote:

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.

He's a total dick. Ignore the tw@t - he wants attention

innocent you will always have a friend on this site

I'm not parking myself anywhere Mr Worried. I happen to want a bigger stand as well but I still have no idea how much it would cost or what would be needed to achieve it. People were coming down or accepting the WG figures as if they knew it was the right ones and dismissing the Brent figures because they didn't suit the argument. I would guess that you wouldn't know the true figures either as I suggested to punchdrunk when he asked me the question. For all I know the Brent figures could be spot on and I wouldn't have a clue where to start to work them out.

If we are only to get what is on offer now then of course expansion is the key question and if there isn't a real posibility of any then it is going to make a huge difference if Argyle ever get back to challenging. That might be a while away however as just because we spent a few years in the Championship recently it does not make us naturally a Championship club historically.

In this day and age I don't think you would get much for £800.000,....with the cost of property not a lot......so how can the Trust's working group come up with such a low pricing ?

how does chris webb sleep at night knowing he is responsible for this eton boy killing our club for personal profit when he "fought" so hard to prevent another guy doing the same but on a lesser scale?

ZYPH wrote:

In this day and age I don't think you would get much for £800.000,....with the cost of property not a lot......so how can the Trust's working group come up with such a low pricing ?

Have you considered asking the AFT? - If you're still unsure there would be no harm in getting your own valuation as I am sure Brent has.

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

how does chris webb sleep at night knowing he is responsible for this eton boy killing our club for personal profit when he "fought" so hard to prevent another guy doing the same but on a lesser scale?

Indeed Angry but remember, never judge anyone by your own standards. Obviously Webb's standards are significantly lower.

Perhaps PCC want argyle to relocate? Hence the desire to box in the club

I mean imagine the size of the IKEA u could build on the main large park and ride car park..

GOB wrote:

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

how does chris webb sleep at night knowing he is responsible for this eton boy killing our club for personal profit when he "fought" so hard to prevent another guy doing the same but on a lesser scale?

Indeed Angry but remember, never judge anyone by your own standards. Obviously Webb's standards are significantly lower.

he's is a sellout he cant sink any lower in my eyes.

argyl3 wrote:

Perhaps PCC want argyle to relocate? Hence the desire to box in the club

I mean imagine the size of the IKEA u could build on the main large park and ride car park..

its going to happen argyl3 as soon as a new owner comes in oneday it will be one of the first agendas they will look at. Argyle playing days at Home Park are numbered now.

I agree mayfair

I wouldn't have a lot of confidence in the projections of a man who left something like Citigroup in such a pickle. And let's be honest he was a bit wide of the mark in his first full year's budget.. I mean, what sane businessman would take notice of Ridsdale's sales projections ?
This is long term property investment for him (he said it was his pension), not just the intial build and revenue, and he really doesn't want to be overshadowed by a rather large football stadium for ever.
In my opinion, I still think there are dreams of Marjons or some such deal in the future if there's still money to be made from education then. Make for a nice posh campus wouldn't it with all Harpers Park and everything. What better scenario than the club needing extra capacity and wanting to move out ? I can't see there being much public park left in 50 years the way successive councils are treating it. We only bought it 80 years ago. It hasn't taken long for the same old people to come sniffing around. We have just this week seen how the likes of Sutton Harbour can outflank a planned city for it's own ends.
I don't like casting bad thoughts about individuals, and I don't know the man from Adam, but this whole deal opens up the way for others that follow in terms of useage. Maybe it would be as simple as someone buying the football club from him and then just saying they want out of the park or were prepared to go bust ... what then ?
The world is on the change as it always was.

But that's the rub GOB. Brent has said he has his own valuation so there is no "I'm sure he has" about it. However, it seems everyone against the Brent plan suddenly knows the costings better than his estimate and accepts the WG figure which now become internet gospel. But it isn't necessarily the right costings and those who quote them as if they are don't really have a clue.

Let me pose another question seeing as the argument has now moved on. Would it really be that terrible if Argyle moved out of Central Park into a state of the art stadium with the right capacity one day? Many clubs have relocated in their time and it hasn't affected then particularly. Home Park is the traditional home for the club but does it have to be the permanent home. I have been going there for many years and kind of quite like it and have gotten used to it. However, I used to shop in Woollies but it isn't there now and to be honest I don't miss it that much now it isn't. Habits can be changed with no particular affect on the individual.

lets not forget bankers like brent ruined our countries economy.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

But that's the rub GOB. Brent has said he has his own valuation so there is no "I'm sure he has" about it. However, it seems everyone against the Brent plan suddenly knows the costings better than his estimate and accepts the WG figure which now become internet gospel. But it isn't necessarily the right costings and those who quote them as if they are don't really have a clue.

Let me pose another question seeing as the argument has now moved on. Would it really be that terrible if Argyle moved out of Central Park into a state of the art stadium with the right capacity one day? Many clubs have relocated in their time and it hasn't affected then particularly. Home Park is the traditional home for the club but does it have to be the permanent home. I have been going there for many years and kind of quite like it and have gotten used to it. However, I used to shop in Woollies but it isn't there now and to be honest I don't miss it that much now it isn't. Habits can be changed with no particular affect on the individual.

I have a clue Sensible and I am happy to accept the WG figures. You're not...that's life.

I have seen no serious suggestion that the Club should move one day, I have seen just hints that only came into existence after the WG provided its suggestion. To even consider such a thing at this stage without any considering factors is to be frank, stupid and only diverts from the present situation so I am really not prepared to enter debate regarding it.

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

lets not forget bankers like brent ruined our countries economy.

Not only the countries economy but also the countries moral standards and, all done in the name of greed and self interest.

GOB wrote:

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

lets not forget bankers like brent ruined our countries economy.

Not only the countries economy but also the countries moral standards and, all done in the name of greed and self interest.

exactly the 1% have fecked this country up for years and for more ytears to come and one of the culpricks (sic) is doing the same to our club.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

Would it really be that terrible if Argyle moved out of Central Park into a state of the art stadium with the right capacity one day? .

In my opinion, yes. This is about 2 entities .... the club and the park. Just how do you think a privately owned club could afford to do that if they didn't sell their current home for a very big sum ? which is why Argyle WILL buy the stadium back in the near future once this development has gone through.
I don't think there's much money for developers in paying Argyle a fortune for prime parkland just to allow residents to cycle and feed ducks in it. Any club move would lead to intolerable pressure on very inappropriate development, with almost all planning protection law bust wide open. Surely you can see that.

And yes, Gob, most economists agree, capitalism goes to hell in a handcart without the ethical dimension.

Is that the reason for not wanting anything Brent then? Because he is a Banker and helped ruin the Country? If this awful Banker who ruined the world and this country suddenly changed tack and decided to invest all his ill gotten gains in Argyle then he would be ok I suppose. The thing I keep getting hit upon for is looking at individual things being quoted and not just chucking my toys out because it wasn't or isn't what I personally wanted. Because I don't always dismiss it because it was Brent's idea. It just seems that whatever is proposed, and I do mean anything, that comes from him has to be bad because that's the way people see the man rather than the proposal. I've learned in life that I'm not always going to get what I want or even part of what I want and just sometimes you have to accept the disappointment and move on in the hope that one day things might change. I can't afford to buy Argyle and doubt I ever will be rich enough like the rest of you and will always be in the hands of someone else in that respect.

What experties in the field of development do you have then GOB? Given your answer I think that's a legitimate question. I didn't start the move elsewhere point it was above mine in the list of posts. I just responded to it so the debate was already there.

Brent's response was no more that I expected, it was the most convenient way to duck the conflict and the easiest. Even if the AFT were to produce evidence to back up their claims and I think they may, the response will be "my builder maybe more expensive but he's good and I want him to do it".

The AFT were never going to win this one but it was a process that had to be carried out to prevent the "what was your idea then, what did you do" comments.

Sit back and wait for Round 2 to start because from what I can tell stronger footings for future extension would be considerable cheaper but of course, we all know that Brent doesn't really want this as it will screw up his development around the back because really, that's what it's all about.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

Is that the reason for not wanting anything Brent then? Because he is a Banker and helped ruin the Country? If this awful Banker who ruined the world and this country suddenly changed tack and decided to invest all his ill gotten gains in Argyle then he would be ok I suppose. The thing I keep getting hit upon for is looking at individual things being quoted and not just chucking my toys out because it wasn't or isn't what I personally wanted. Because I don't always dismiss it because it was Brent's idea. It just seems that whatever is proposed, and I do mean anything, that comes from him has to be bad because that's the way people see the man rather than the proposal. I've learned in life that I'm not always going to get what I want or even part of what I want and just sometimes you have to accept the disappointment and move on in the hope that one day things might change. I can't afford to buy Argyle and doubt I ever will be rich enough like the rest of you and will always be in the hands of someone else in that respect.

What experties in the field of development do you have then GOB? Given your answer I think that's a legitimate question. I didn't start the move elsewhere point it was above mine in the list of posts. I just responded to it so the debate was already there.

speak for yourself