The Political Campaign

nzgreen wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Upside down Andy

He is losing it.

EJH has just handed the president, IJN, pl2 and Andy_s their arses in a hat, in what must rank as one of the all time top posts ever on that site.

Can't do links on this chuffing phone but its on the Webb thread.

Just read that NZG. If Messi sunk that from 40 yards it would be talked about forever, as should that post by ejh. The silence from the usual fucktards, Newell, De-Liar et al is defening - they have been OWNED. Boooooooooooooooooooooooom!

That post by ejh should be kept for posterity, stickied somewhere here maybe ? It'll get buried on the farm.

All visitors to this site can then see the bigger picture concerning what is really happening at Home Park and more oimportantly, why.

ejh post on PASOTI was the best that I have seen on there for a long time and like I said on PASOTI it hits the nail right on the head. Good for you ejh I salute you!!!

green_genie wrote:

wozzer wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Another little chunk of Central Park gone - apparently there is now, awaiting approval, a site for a permanent Circus at the Park.

Damon,

That is just scaremongering. The new events field will be used eventually for most if not all events in the park and yes the circus will use it when in town.

Agree with wozzer on this one.

Wozzer, have the PCC Parks dept been consulted about the access road shown and more importantly the rerouted access road Chris Webb describes required for significant Lyndhurst expansion? I know you are passionate about the integrity of the Coronation Avenue.

Not at my level.

If you look at the tarmac that skirts the outside of the stands there is quite a gap between that and the Horse Chestnuts. Enough to extend out and make a 2 way road.

wozzer wrote:

green_genie wrote:

wozzer wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Another little chunk of Central Park gone - apparently there is now, awaiting approval, a site for a permanent Circus at the Park.

Damon,

That is just scaremongering. The new events field will be used eventually for most if not all events in the park and yes the circus will use it when in town.

Agree with wozzer on this one.

Wozzer, have the PCC Parks dept been consulted about the access road shown and more importantly the rerouted access road Chris Webb describes required for significant Lyndhurst expansion? I know you are passionate about the integrity of the Coronation Avenue.

Not at my level.

If you look at the tarmac that skirts the outside of the stands there is quite a gap between that and the Horse Chestnuts. Enough to extend out and make a 2 way road.

That piece of land is nothing to do with Argyle

You seem to be identifying me individually for insults at JB. Whilst criticising this development and the damaging legacy of the stand, I think with the exception of once (and it was a very minor word at that) I haven't been insulting or offensive to JB at all. It is the actions and the agenda of Brent's circle that are doing the campaign which agitate me, if anything.

I am not exactly proud of the way my posts have descended into squabbles, but when all I can see if the same handful of figures with an agenda pushing argument after argument in why we need to support JB, often contradictory, then of course I will point out the inconsistencies. IJN is the master here - one minute the Friends of Central Park is a militant environmental organisation, and the Trust is jeopardising the development just by inviting them for consultation. Then when the WG recommends the Cottage Field compromise, IJN's reveals his family has long tradition in the Friends of Central Park, every blade of grass is important to him and the whole WG idea sickens him. It goes from branding them a potentially damaging environmentalist group that shouldn't be acknowledged (when they potentially stood in the way of JB's plans) to picking up their exact cause (when it was time to block the WG proposal). Then a while later, we can't build the Mayflower too big, as there is planning restrictions on the height and IJN's parents' view of the Sound from Outland Road will be jeopardised. But in other threads, he is reassuring fans on the capacity issue that we can always demolish the Devonport in the future and rebuild according to our needs - which if we needed 20,000 plus in the Championship - would mean a Devonport twice the height of any other stand at Home Park. There is no explanation as to why both the planners on Plymouth City Council or IJN's parents are comfortable with a towering Devonport in the future, but can't accept a moderate sized Mayflower now. Constant inconsistencies and hypocrisies like that on a daily basis of course need pointing out, and inevitably lead into squabbles - but this is important - and the arguments being used to shoot down the WG proposals, we are supposed to overlook for Brent's reassurances on expansion options for the future.

As for me meeting Brent, it wouldn't be appropriate for several reasons. 1. I don't represent anyone except myself, a grumpy miserable exile who wants better for his club (unlike the Trust leaders, who represent hundreds, are Plymouth based, and have been legitimately elected) 2. I am at the more opinionated end of those who share my views, and these delegations are suited to more ambassadorial characters (John Lloyd for example.) 3. Many of the engineering and technical aspects of the development I haven't studied, whereas others would be more robust on the technical and engineering detail (esmer, Stu Caskey, the individuals on the WG etc.).

You have mentioned about ending the point scoring, the 'agendas' - but what are the agendas from this side? I haven't met anyone in person listed as in my gang by Andy S, haven't spoken to them on the phone even. I haven't met Brent, and have no vested interest in blocking his success as a chairman or whatever fanciful idea you have. So what is my 'agenda'? All I have is a passionate viewpoint - and that is that the stand is not good enough to facilitate the ambitions of this club for the next generations.

But then let's look at your gang, so conveniently painted as the good guys. Half of them are site moderators, which is a bit of an issue really when the mud is being thrown. And what is the 'agenda' there? Constantly sniping at the Trust, the Site Manager even writing to the Herald a very spiteful and baseless letter which he never explained. Constant anti-Trust comments on a daily basis. Extremely personal offensive and I would even call bullying of Damon Lenzsner for reasons I still don't understand. Intimidation of John Petrie, which made him stand down from it all. Constantly referring to Andy Symons like some sort of ogre, with no reasons or explanations as to why. You all know each other personally, referring to phone calls, discussing conversations at games. Most of you have positions either within the club hierarchy, positions on this messageboard, relationships with key figures, seats in the director's box. All totally pro-JB, not a bad word to say about the chairman and everything going on is constantly tickety boo - (even when the club is making losses every month, or struggles on the pitch). Every issue seems to fall along this very basic divide - those who have a status to protect who just happen to see everything exactly as Brent does, his stewardship of the club and vision for the future is always above question. And then there are realists like myself who are looking at the prospect of the club's future with increasing concern, and increasingly find ourselves lumbered in with the Trust which seems to be the only organisation that doesn't play emperor's new robes with JB.

So if you want to discuss agendas and all that - well there you are.

I have read ejh's post it is brilliant the clampetts can't answer it, I am however quite surprised the big banning hammer hasn't fallen on him as yet under some trumped up charge or other but no doubt he would be more than welcome on here

superb.

MASSACRE !
MASSACRE !

U forgot the IKEA on the park and ride carpark on those plans greengenie

Seems to me theres a few 'suspicious' posters appearing !

Just the opposition from the other side having a sniff. Nothing to worry about. It's like the Cornish coming over the Tamar Bridge once a year just to be in awe of the big city lights and what's going on, going down.

They even stop in the street and point at planes.

Disclaimer: That was a piss porr attempt at berating our Cornish friends and was in now way intended to cause offence.

argyl3 wrote:

U forgot the IKEA on the park and ride carpark on those plans greengenie

Sorry, i's been a busy week. You've lost me.

I don't believe I've mentioned the WC2018 enormo bowl plans.
BTW It was a decathlon to keep it sports related, so Tony Campbell told me at the consultation in the tent.
For a bunch of crooks they were very open about their plans. They had architects and engineers who'd worked on the Emirates.

Newell is getting absolutely feckin owned on that thread. Bollcoks to the pub tonight. My entertainment is sorted by the looks of it!

I wonder if Newell will turn into Ribena man. go all purple and explode with rage?

wozzer wrote:

green_genie wrote:

wozzer wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Another little chunk of Central Park gone - apparently there is now, awaiting approval, a site for a permanent Circus at the Park.

Damon,

That is just scaremongering. The new events field will be used eventually for most if not all events in the park and yes the circus will use it when in town.

Agree with wozzer on this one.

Wozzer, have the PCC Parks dept been consulted about the access road shown and more importantly the rerouted access road Chris Webb describes required for significant Lyndhurst expansion? I know you are passionate about the integrity of the Coronation Avenue.

Not at my level.

If you look at the tarmac that skirts the outside of the stands there is quite a gap between that and the Horse Chestnuts. Enough to extend out and make a 2 way road.

Thanks for the input wozzer


Quite a few mature trees would need to be sacrificed, which makes it highly unlikely under Tudor Evans and his manifesto.

Akkeron are claiming the existing apron will take a two way road but the way they have drawn it on their plans isn't up to Dept of Transport regs.

Person Of Interest wrote:

Just the opposition from the other side having a sniff. Nothing to worry about. It's like the Cornish coming over the Tamar Bridge once a year just to be in awe of the big city lights and what's going on, going down.

They even stop in the street and point at planes.

Disclaimer: That was a piss porr attempt at berating our Cornish friends and was in now way intended to cause offence.

wass a plane?

What is great is that by sticking to the facts Graham Clark keeps seeming to favour the sceptics. the latest is Newell's 12 feet of land grab of parkland is actually 8000 feet. By finishing every post with "sticking to the facts" it leaves Newell nowhere to go.

He must be spitting feathers.

I see Postey's had a day off. I wonder if he's too distraught after crashing a 737 into Hong Kong harbour at night

About the size of a penalty area.

You would have thought all of James Brent's experts would have made sure that everything sat on the existing footprint.

Mapperley, darling wrote:

Person Of Interest wrote:

Just the opposition from the other side having a sniff. Nothing to worry about. It's like the Cornish coming over the Tamar Bridge once a year just to be in awe of the big city lights and what's going on, going down.

They even stop in the street and point at planes.

Disclaimer: That was a piss porr attempt at berating our Cornish friends and was in now way intended to cause offence.

wass a plane?

Planes trains and automobiles, init, loik, meeeeeht!

Pokesdown wrote:

What is great is that by sticking to the facts Graham Clark keeps seeming to favour the sceptics. the latest is Newell's 12 feet of land grab of parkland is actually 8000 feet. By finishing every post with "sticking to the facts" it leaves Newell nowhere to go.

He must be spitting feathers.

I see Postey's had a day off. I wonder if he's too distraught after crashing a 737 into Hong Kong harbour at night

No he's at a geek's flight simulation weekend in Weston super Mare

It's like the Mecca for FS fans I'm told.

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

Whatever floats yer boat!

wozzer wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Another little chunk of Central Park gone - apparently there is now, awaiting approval, a site for a permanent Circus at the Park.

Damon,

That is just scaremongering. The new events field will be used eventually for most if not all events in the park and yes the circus will use it when in town.

I actually agree with Wozzer on this point. It's been well publicised that the Council want the circuses etc/funfairs that have always visited Central Park to continue, and that an all weather pitch, if you like, would be the preferred option in the vicinity of the old swimming pool area.
These temporary seasonal cheering events have to go somewhere in the park and I would imagine a little less mud that used to cover people on the old hockey pitch would not go amiss. However, this circus site is all about how it is delivered, and I really hope it's not a cover for yet another tarmac car park area that serves as an overflow car park outside of occupied dates.
Those of us that care for the park have to keep the argument factual.

Of course, with such valuable land there is always the danger of sliding agendas. The big wheel creeks around on the Hoe still when it's got enough customers, when it was only supposed to be a temporary structure, especially considering it's towering proximity to the War memorial. And the latest fly-by-night limited company owners of that wheel are trying big time to dig their heels in, and make the site something quite different with eating facilities etc etc.

Person Of Interest wrote:

Just the opposition from the other side having a sniff. Nothing to worry about. It's like the Cornish coming over the Tamar Bridge once a year just to be in awe of the big city lights and what's going on, going down.

They even stop in the street and point at planes.

Disclaimer: That was a piss porr attempt at berating our Cornish friends and was in now way intended to cause offence.

Reply from one of my e- mail sent to Labour Concilors, who past it on to Mr Evans to make the reply

Dear

RE: Home Park Development

Thank you for your correspondence regarding the Home Park Development proposals.
The owner of Plymouth Argyle Football Club, Akkeron Group LLP, is currently in discussion with the Plymouth City Council as Local Planning Authority over a redevelopment proposal that will include the redevelopment of the Mayflower Stand. We exercise our statutory duties as Local Planning Authority through officers in the Planning Department and councillors who sit on the Planning Committee.
These discussions are completely separate from any land owner discussions and are subject to the legislation that governs how planning matters must be considered by local authorities. At the moment Akkeron has not submitted a formal planning application, but is seeking the advice of the Planning Department on issues that will need to be considered as part of any planning application.
As part of the discussions Planning Officers are involving particular specialists to advise on different aspects of the proposals. They are also strongly advising Akkeron to undertake as much public consultation as possible before any planning application is made, as this will help Akkeron to understand public concerns and have a chance to address them before the planning application is formally submitted.
Once a planning application has been submitted it will be subject to a formal consultation process which will include giving all interested parties and members of the public the chance to give their views. An application of this nature will undoubtedly need to be considered by the Planning Committee which is an open, public meeting at which the applicant, ward councillors and objectors can speak. The Planning Committee will be required to consider all comments received on the planning application before a decision is reached.


Finally, I have passed on your comments to the Planning Officers who will in turn ensure that Akkeron are aware of the comments. However please be aware that it will be very important to also voice any concerns you have through the formal planning application process.

Yours sincerely,
Councillor Tudor Evans
Leader, Plymouth City Council

It's a pity that Akkeron didn't take on board the advice regarding public consultation because providing misleading information and with holding information is hardly a consultation.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Who from the council was responsible for agreeing the contract that Brent builds a new stand with a minimum as low as 3800 seats?

That decision has well and truly shafted the club and I'd like to know who signed it off just so I can make sure that they never get my vote again.

This is such a bad deal for the club, park and city that somebody somewhere should be held to account for it.

Something has been nagging away at me about this and I think the penny has just dropped. The 3800 capacity stipulated by the council is being exceded in the plans released so far by around 1000 seats. This has very handily been trumpeted as "James is building it bigger than he needs to. What a guy!"

Well it is true that he is beating the minimum size stipulated by the council. The thing that has been bugging me is why would he when he doesn't need to? After all he's giving us the square root of sod all anywhere else in the development.

Well perhaps he does need to. Now that Akkeron has educated us wankers regarding C values and sightlines is the proposed capacity dictated by two separate but linked factors?

The first being that the stand has to have a certain height in order not to look utterly ridiculous compared to the horseshoe. Then given that height combined with the C value for sightlines and the actual base area needed structurally we end up with the stand they plan to build.

The second being in order to fit the various elements inside of the stand the outside of the stand needs to be a certain size.

After all most of the arguments that can be made in support of us not having a 25000, 22000 or 20000 capacity stadium could also be made against us having a 17000 stadium. All you need to do is change the number.