Akkeron response to WG

In answer to your question Worried I haven't a clue. I'm not so concerned about a part of Central Park being used for other things as some are. What it would do to the Planning stuff I don't know either and don't profess to know. You and others may be concerned about what happens to the land and that's your perogative but in terms of Argyle's future and only that which is what an Argyle website generally is about, I don't see a problem if the club isn't there in terms of PAFC.

GOB wrote:

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.

I'm not naive enough to take the WG's figure as gospel but I certainly wouldn't trust any figures Brent is quoting after having seen how he operates. I'm sure the WG have done everything possible to keep their projected figure as low as possible, but Akkeron's figures are probably based on gold-plated taps and caviar in the solid silver complimentary snack bowls in the lounge.

The real figure could be anything inbetween £800k and Akkeron's total but from past experience I would say that there would be many, many building firms prepared to take the contract to build it with Akkeron's figure as their budget than would want to try it with the WG's budget. I'm sure there would be leeway for a tidy little profit using Mr Brent's experts fag packet maths.

Graham Clarke has it right about needing to ensure that the statement about the horseshoe being easily extended "economically" are scrutinised and made available by Brent. Lets see how eager everyone is to go ahead with the plans if it is proven that "economically" we're destined to remain with a capacity that is nowhere near the 19,800 we have achieved recently as a League 1 club.

It's easy to tell when Brent has been massaging figures or moving the goalposts on previous statements because when pressed about it Newell always claims not to know and is at pains to point out that he doesn't have any inside info, yet has every other fact and figure at his trotters as though he were reading from a script

I do hope that Newell is catered for if the plans go ahead and he doesn't have to mix with rabble once the Mayflower is pulled down. Surely Brent has a temporary solution to the Directors Box being no more? Maybe a cordoned off VIP area in the Lyndhurst End where volunteers could bring him refreshments and fan him if it's a warm day?

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.

It maybe a legitimate question SG but I have no desire or need to answer. I merely post comments on this forum, I am not here to justify myself or to answer to anyone. If you wish to disregard my comments then I am more than happy for you to do so.

Greenjock wrote:

GOB wrote:

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.

I'm not naive enough to take the WG's figure as gospel but I certainly wouldn't trust any figures Brent is quoting after having seen how he operates. I'm sure the WG have done everything possible to keep their projected figure as low as possible, but Akkeron's figures are probably based on gold-plated taps and caviar in the solid silver complimentary snack bowls in the lounge.

The real figure could be anything inbetween £800k and Akkeron's total but from past experience I would say that there would be many, many building firms prepared to take the contract to build it with Akkeron's figure as their budget than would want to try it with the WG's budget. I'm sure there would be leeway for a tidy little profit using Mr Brent's experts fag packet maths.

Graham Clarke has it right about needing to ensure that the statement about the horseshoe being easily extended "economically" are scrutinised and made available by Brent. Lets see how eager everyone is to go ahead with the plans if it is proven that "economically" we're destined to remain with a capacity that is nowhere near the 19,800 we have achieved recently as a League 1 club.

It's easy to tell when Brent has been massaging figures or moving the goalposts on previous statements because when pressed about it Newell always claims not to know and is at pains to point out that he doesn't have any inside info, yet has every other fact and figure at his trotters as though he were reading from a script

I do hope that Newell is catered for if the plans go ahead and he doesn't have to mix with rabble once the Mayflower is pulled down. Surely Brent has a temporary solution to the Directors Box being no more? Maybe a cordoned off VIP area in the Lyndhurst End where volunteers could bring him refreshments and fan him if it's a warm day?

I'm quite sure that the WG figures would have been cut to the bone, I'm also sure that Brent's figures would have been inflated enormously.

There are two motives, one if for the Club and the fans, the other is for greed. It should be obvious which one we would all like to see win.

You made the statement that "I do have a clue" GOB. Fact is though you don't do you which is why the answer is a fudge. You are prepared to believe the WG figure because that's the one you want to believe to be part of the anti gang and not because you know anything at all. I would also point out that it was you who responded to me and in the context of that it isn't a one way street where you get to question someone but they can't reply. It's in the title of the site "Democratic"

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

You made the statement that "I do have a clue" GOB. Fact is though you don't do you which is why the answer is a fudge. You are prepared to believe the WG figure because that's the one you want to believe to be part of the anti gang and not because you know anything at all. I would also point out that it was you who responded to me and in the context of that it isn't a one way street where you get to question someone but they can't reply. It's in the title of the site "Democratic"

Ahhh so it's all about anti gangs, fudges and per the usual, the democracy of ATD. That's OK then

I really don't understand why you use this site so often SG, I really don't. You seem to dislike this site so much yet you return time and again which of course, you are always welcome to do as far as I am concerned.

GOB wrote:

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.

This. Before Brent even had a whiff of any proposed alternative WG plan to Akeron's, he had already has his mind made up/or advised by those ass licking leaches Newell, Webb and De-Liar, that this is what was going to happen, no matter what. Clearly and obviously he has to much to lose for it not to go ahead.

As Gob alludes to above, he has only gone through the process of 'appearing' to care and listen and digest the WG's plans, just to appease the opposition/dissenters - to give the impression that, hey, I'm a reasonable guy, of course I would like to see the alternative WG's plans. All the while thinking to himself, who the feck are these bunch of wanna be architects? No way am I going to accept their shitty plans. My way or the highway, bitch.

Now get arf moi land

I'm almost done with PAFC. I'm almost at the point of saying feck'em, and spend my money, time and effort on more enjoyable and important things in life. PAFC is becoming less and less important to me the more this contrived shit goes on. In fact - I'm leaving my mothers house as I speak to head back home to North Devon to collect my thoughts on all of this, or maybe quite easily put all of this shit in a box and forget about it for 6 months.

Alternatively, I have had a job offer to work in San Jose recently for 2 years (Semiconductor Industry). You know, I may just take it and completely distance myself from all things PAFC, UK and Jannertopia. It can only do me and my good lady good.

Not a flounce, just speaking as I find.

Feck you Brent. feck you Pasoti, Newell, De-Liar, Webb, Jonesy. Go feck yourselves. I'm outta here.

PS, Rickler, If you're anywhere near SJ, I'm going to put my foot in your ass, as well.

greensleeves wrote:

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

Another in the keepnet, Sad Act Same bait. Same result. Same underlying truth.

An island of sanity, understanding and vision, in a sea of Avivas !

ejh
Post subject: Re: The club responds to the Working Group proposalPosted: Tue May 14, 2013 11:42 pm


Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:51 pm
I don't think any comparable polling work has been commissioned for the stats you require, KFA. However I have followed Argyle around the country throughout the leagues, mixed with many home fans - I don't recall ever hearing about any type of redevelopment that certain fans were disappointed in. I think this is for two reasons 1. Where Local Authorities have been involved, most clubs have invested to match the ambition of the supporters and the council providing the investment 2. Where clubs have invested in their own stadium expansion, they have ensured there is adequate profit making capabilities to justify the development, have been confident of improved support to facilitate repayments, and have been confident of laying foundations for continual growth for the future.

These two reasons generally mean that in the vast majority of cases, a new stadium or stand is popular with supporters - it unlocks potential, provides capacity, brings fantastic new facilities, and the ambition inspires new supporters. Argyle however has found itself on the other side, somehow. Instead of unlocking potential, it restricts expansion (access road). Instead of providing capacity we are reducing it. Instead of investing in facilties we are remodelling existing facilities, and leaving every new facility - along with every square inch of land, to the developers, with no income trail to the club. And it remains to be seen if the ambition of this stand inspires a generation of new supporters - but the bigger the ambition the stronger the influence - and even the supporters of the stand admit that the capacity has left them underwhelmed.

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

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.

Bankers. Worse scum you'll never find anywhere. From f***ing up the countries economy, getting bailed out and their tory scum pals making cuts in the public sector to make up the losses. There are no words to describe how much I hate banker filth. Brent epitomises the perfect banker.

In no particular order:

1. How is the selling of the future income from the units within the stand to partly fund the development any different from mortgaging your future season ticket money with Ticketus which was so roundly condemned?

2. Cinema...why? and how?

3. No concrete and feasible plan/costings to increase the capacity of the stadium

4. The loss of Home Park as the dominating structure within Central Park

5. Lack of explanation as to how the access roads would work, what needs to be made way and what happens on match day

6. The lack of consultation with the AFT and the PASB in preference to engaging the fans view by enlisting the help of Chris Webb and Ian Newell. A truly representative pairing to present the concerns of the supporters and always likely to challenge Brent I don't think.

7. The lack of the grand in any aspect of the main stand - turn right down the alleyway

8. The feeling that you've been sold a pup and are powerless to gain any influence within your own football club. Everything is a done deal...council and jamboys firmly in pocket. Well done James Brent

The only place that these plans can be altered is in the planning but the Newell promotional campaign will be in full swing - quite useful that he owns the most popular fans website isn't it? What good timing for Brent that acquisition was.

Someone, somewhere is going to have to orchestrate one helluva campaign for this not to be signed off by the end of the Summer.

Pokesdown wrote:

In no particular order:

1. How is the selling of the future income from the units within the stand to partly fund the development any different from mortgaging your future season ticket money with Ticketus which was so roundly condemned?

2. Cinema...why? and how?

3. No concrete and feasible plan/costings to increase the capacity of the stadium

4. The loss of Home Park as the dominating structure within Central Park

5. Lack of explanation as to how the access roads would work, what needs to be made way and what happens on match day

6. The lack of consultation with the AFT and the PASB in preference to engaging the fans view by enlisting the help of Chris Webb and Ian Newell. A truly representative pairing to present the concerns of the supporters and always likely to challenge Brent I don't think.

7. The lack of the grand in any aspect of the main stand - turn right down the alleyway

8. The feeling that you've been sold a pup and are powerless to gain any influence within your own football club. Everything is a done deal...council and jamboys firmly in pocket. Well done James Brent

The only place that these plans can be altered is in the planning but the Newell promotional campaign will be in full swing - quite useful that he owns the most popular fans website isn't it? What good timing for Brent that acquisition was.

Someone, somewhere is going to have to orchestrate one helluva campaign for this not to be signed off by the end of the Summer.

That may well be so but the recriminations and downright hostility towards these self interested 'suerfans' , for pushing through the banker's brief,will be immediate and never forgotten. They will be held responsible for limiting the ambition of the club for generations to come and any amount of bucket rattling , flag waving and sandwiches in the school, will not save them from total and utter scorn.

If Argyle (Football club not property arm) had any brains (or even the trust for that matter) would get together and raise funds to purchase the main large matchday carpark where the P&R departs from.

This is the most affordable part of the club at the moment as the ground will inevitably rise in value when the mini grandstand is complete.

Subsequently, planning permission could then be gained for this piece of large land for a development, boosting the value of the land, of which could be subsequently sold on to fund a complete move for Argyle (Football club) to a new stadium elsewhere.

Not much money would be profited based on the figures and conditions ive seen with the club purchasing the stadium.

The most direct route to scupper these plans would be to demand Brent out. He is at total opposites to the needs of the club. We have gone from reluctant bidder here to save the club, to someone who is going decease the capacity of the ground (after cleverly shutting some of it for safety and police worries so the size of the stand needed is smaller.) build retail units underneath the stand for his own personal gain not for non match day income as promised, build a school in the BP corner, build the stand right at the front of the pitch and pinch the land at the back of the stand for the ice rink meaning we can't expand in the future, throws his toys out when fans want the information he promised to provide us with, has obviously tried to sideline the fans and the trust, and now to cap it all we are asked to not worry because if god forbid we made it to the promised land we can move up the A feckin 38! I would have loved to see the CPers get that lot pushed through.
BRENT OUT!
We are the only club in the country who is being ruthlessly asset stripped by a gang of property developers who are being protected by the fans that saved the club, where the feck is the media in all this? Superfans will be remembered for a long long time.

Having now witnessed how Brent operates I don't only want him out of the Club, I want him out of Plymouth!

GOB wrote:

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

You made the statement that "I do have a clue" GOB. Fact is though you don't do you which is why the answer is a fudge. You are prepared to believe the WG figure because that's the one you want to believe to be part of the anti gang and not because you know anything at all. I would also point out that it was you who responded to me and in the context of that it isn't a one way street where you get to question someone but they can't reply. It's in the title of the site "Democratic"

Ahhh so it's all about anti gangs, fudges and per the usual, the democracy of ATD. That's OK then

I really don't understand why you use this site so often SG, I really don't. You seem to dislike this site so much yet you return time and again which of course, you are always welcome to do as far as I am concerned.

Sensible uses this site because it is open and democratic.....you do seem to have a problem GOB with that.

Regarding AFT's cost quote (I am a a keen member by the way) £800.000 is rather on the cheap....you would get only two average houses for that around my area...ok that is on the outskirts of London, but that is not a realistic costing....and it looks to me that AFT could shoot themselves in the foot by sticking to that.

I am interested in hearing what their reply will be.

We can't live in a dream world forever.......the promised land of the Premiership might never arrive.....in 126yrs we have only been in touching distance twice so why do we have to cry over what is on offer.........not many clubs within two years of administration are even considering a new stand.....it might not be the all singing all dancing one that we dream of but the reality is James Brent will build one as part of a package of other developments.....lets accept what is now on offer and support Sheridan and his team.....and hope one day that success will bring us into the realms of having a too small stadium.....that would be a nice problem to have.........Brent's comment about when we reach the promised land....that will release money for future development either at Home Park or elsewhere, many teams have moved and not looked back.

ZYPH wrote:

GOB wrote:

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

You made the statement that "I do have a clue" GOB. Fact is though you don't do you which is why the answer is a fudge. You are prepared to believe the WG figure because that's the one you want to believe to be part of the anti gang and not because you know anything at all. I would also point out that it was you who responded to me and in the context of that it isn't a one way street where you get to question someone but they can't reply. It's in the title of the site "Democratic"

Ahhh so it's all about anti gangs, fudges and per the usual, the democracy of ATD. That's OK then

I really don't understand why you use this site so often SG, I really don't. You seem to dislike this site so much yet you return time and again which of course, you are always welcome to do as far as I am concerned.

Sensible uses this site because it is open and democratic.....you do seem to have a problem GOB with that.

Regarding AFT's cost quote (I am a a keen member by the way) £800.000 is rather on the cheap....you would get only two average houses for that around my area...ok that is on the outskirts of London, but that is not a realistic costing....and it looks to me that AFT could shoot themselves in the foot by sticking to that.

I am interested in hearing what their reply will be.

We can't live in a dream world forever.......the promised land of the Premiership might never arrive.....in 126yrs we have only been in touching distance twice so why do we have to cry over what is on offer.........not many clubs within two years of administration are even considering a new stand.....it might not be the all singing all dancing one that we dream of but the reality is James Brent will build one as part of a package of other developments.....lets accept what is now on offer and support Sheridan and his team.....and hope one day that success will bring us into the realms of having a too small stadium.....that would be a nice problem to have.........Brent's comment about when we reach the promised land....that will release money for future development either at Home Park or elsewhere, many teams have moved and not looked back.

Cardiff,Swansea,Hull,Reading and Brighton all completed their moves BEFORE they embarked on their periods of success.

ZYPH wrote:

Regarding AFT's cost quote (I am a a keen member by the way) £800.000 is rather on the cheap....you would get only two average houses for that around my area...ok that is on the outskirts of London, but that is not a realistic costing....and it looks to me that AFT could shoot themselves in the foot by sticking to that.

That's really not a helpful analogy. First, you're talking about what it costs to buy property, not what it costs to build it. And second, the WG costings don't relate to a whole structure, but to the cost of adding a relatively small extension to a structure.

There are people on the WG who know exactly what they're talking about. We were happy to trust them when they first produced their alternative plan, so why are we so quick to dismiss them because Akkeron - who've never built a stadium to my knowledge - say so?

ZYPH wrote:

GOB wrote:

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

You made the statement that "I do have a clue" GOB. Fact is though you don't do you which is why the answer is a fudge. You are prepared to believe the WG figure because that's the one you want to believe to be part of the anti gang and not because you know anything at all. I would also point out that it was you who responded to me and in the context of that it isn't a one way street where you get to question someone but they can't reply. It's in the title of the site "Democratic"

Ahhh so it's all about anti gangs, fudges and per the usual, the democracy of ATD. That's OK then

I really don't understand why you use this site so often SG, I really don't. You seem to dislike this site so much yet you return time and again which of course, you are always welcome to do as far as I am concerned.

Sensible uses this site because it is open and democratic.....you do seem to have a problem GOB with that.

Regarding AFT's cost quote (I am a a keen member by the way) £800.000 is rather on the cheap....you would get only two average houses for that around my area...ok that is on the outskirts of London, but that is not a realistic costing....and it looks to me that AFT could shoot themselves in the foot by sticking to that.

I am interested in hearing what their reply will be.

We can't live in a dream world forever.......the promised land of the Premiership might never arrive.....in 126yrs we have only been in touching distance twice so why do we have to cry over what is on offer.........not many clubs within two years of administration are even considering a new stand.....it might not be the all singing all dancing one that we dream of but the reality is James Brent will build one as part of a package of other developments.....lets accept what is now on offer and support Sheridan and his team.....and hope one day that success will bring us into the realms of having a too small stadium.....that would be a nice problem to have.........Brent's comment about when we reach the promised land....that will release money for future development either at Home Park or elsewhere, many teams have moved and not looked back.

To quote a Sensible question, how qualified are you to state that 800k is rather cheap ZYPH, in a democratic kinda way?

OK Peggy.....I take on board your point about the difference between buying property and adding an extension......but £800.000 will not get you much of a deal......health & safety will make sure of that.

H&S, why ZYPH?

ZYPH wrote:

GOB wrote:

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

You made the statement that "I do have a clue" GOB. Fact is though you don't do you which is why the answer is a fudge. You are prepared to believe the WG figure because that's the one you want to believe to be part of the anti gang and not because you know anything at all. I would also point out that it was you who responded to me and in the context of that it isn't a one way street where you get to question someone but they can't reply. It's in the title of the site "Democratic"

Ahhh so it's all about anti gangs, fudges and per the usual, the democracy of ATD. That's OK then

I really don't understand why you use this site so often SG, I really don't. You seem to dislike this site so much yet you return time and again which of course, you are always welcome to do as far as I am concerned.

Sensible uses this site because it is open and democratic.....you do seem to have a problem GOB with that.

Regarding AFT's cost quote (I am a a keen member by the way) £800.000 is rather on the cheap....you would get only two average houses for that around my area...ok that is on the outskirts of London, but that is not a realistic costing....and it looks to me that AFT could shoot themselves in the foot by sticking to that.

I am interested in hearing what their reply will be.

We can't live in a dream world forever.......the promised land of the Premiership might never arrive.....in 126yrs we have only been in touching distance twice so why do we have to cry over what is on offer.........not many clubs within two years of administration are even considering a new stand.....it might not be the all singing all dancing one that we dream of but the reality is James Brent will build one as part of a package of other developments.....lets accept what is now on offer and support Sheridan and his team.....and hope one day that success will bring us into the realms of having a too small stadium.....that would be a nice problem to have.........Brent's comment about when we reach the promised land....that will release money for future development either at Home Park or elsewhere, many teams have moved and not looked back.

You have missed the all important fact that in order for others to 'buy in' support wise [other than the addicted no matter what, 6k], there has to be a statement of intent and the ability to expand. Brent's plan does neither. Petrie's 'Capacity' thread clearly demonstrated the effect a stadium can have on the wider potential fanbase.
It was a similar situation after the last promotion with 16k plus average attendances, followed by no cash backed ambition to further interest and entice the wider potential fanbase. No sign of the ground being finished and no serious investment at crucial moments, as with Holloway. When Argyle 'inspire' and people start to believe, the potential is there for all to see. We have no top flight history. If we did, we would have the sort of fanbases that Norwich and Southampton enjoy, because they've been there, got the T shirt and as a result the fanbase 'believes'.

ps Zyph, old boy. ATD is democratic enough to allow you a voice. Have a word with your mates on Pasoti and see if they will be democratic enough to allow me and others, the same freedoms. I promise not to break any forum rules, in fact, I never did

ZYPH wrote:

OK Peggy.....I take on board your point about the difference between buying property and adding an extension......but £800.000 will not get you much of a deal......health & safety will make sure of that.

You're treading very close to something I do know about. Know a lot about, in fact. And I can say in full confidence that that's bollocks.

Peggy * wrote:

ZYPH wrote:

OK Peggy.....I take on board your point about the difference between buying property and adding an extension......but £800.000 will not get you much of a deal......health & safety will make sure of that.

You're treading very close to something I do know about. Know a lot about, in fact. And I can say in full confidence that that's bollocks.

Bang on the button Peggy!

GOB....common sense alone........having seen the cost of mini-roundabouts and sleeping policemen and laying bricks in shopping precincts recently around here....sweetners to the council by Tesco's to build a giant Superstore on a busy road junction.....plus extra traffic lights to get into their underground carpark....chaos in the name of progress.