Peter Levan

125+1 wrote:

hairy j wrote:

There's no way you could fit two rows in front of the Lyndhurst. How could people get in and out of the ground safely? The only way they could do that would be to have the pitch narrowed - there's space between the touchline and the advertising hoarding/barrier. It's a shit view from row A to E anyway and it's a stupid idea. It's not an alternative.

On topic - do we really need to replace an injured player with another injured player? It's not a very good idea.

I didnt say it was an alternative, i said it was possible to put a few rows of seats there which it is, doesnt make it stupid when its viable, its just a cheap option that would give restricted viewing. The trouble is people just rant rather than look at it properly and say "yes it can be done, but its crap, i wouldnt sit there".

An alternative veiw doesnt make it stupid.

Thats like saying the working groups alternative to brent's plans are stupid, Brent seems to think so, but they are not, they are a viable alternative to his plan, they just didnt do the costings correctly, but seeing all the hard work they went through to produce that plan in the first place, i sure their maths isnt as far out as brent would like us to think.

Does it make you a knobhead though

Peter Levan is a decent footballer and although he has been injured I don't think it is fair to describe him as injury plagued, could be a gamble signing him, but injuries aside probably better than most players on our books, he scored against us last year I think?

When Argyle take a gamble on a player known to be susceptible to injury it usually ends in tears but there will always be exceptions.

So in this case I would say thanks but no thanks

125+1 wrote:

hairy j wrote:

There's no way you could fit two rows in front of the Lyndhurst. How could people get in and out of the ground safely? The only way they could do that would be to have the pitch narrowed - there's space between the touchline and the advertising hoarding/barrier. It's a shit view from row A to E anyway and it's a stupid idea. It's not an alternative.

On topic - do we really need to replace an injured player with another injured player? It's not a very good idea.

I didnt say it was an alternative, i said it was possible to put a few rows of seats there which it is, doesnt make it stupid when its viable, its just a cheap option that would give restricted viewing. The trouble is people just rant rather than look at it properly and say "yes it can be done, but its crap, i wouldnt sit there".

An alternative veiw doesnt make it stupid.

Thats like saying the working groups alternative to brent's plans are stupid, Brent seems to think so, but they are not, they are a viable alternative to his plan, they just didnt do the costings correctly, but seeing all the hard work they went through to produce that plan in the first place, i sure their maths isnt as far out as brent would like us to think.

In general terms, no. In this instance, it is beyond stupid.

People are paying £20 to watch (so called) professional football. Not sitting in ground level rows like you'd see in a school assembly hall to watch the fcuking christmas nativity play.

Czarcasm wrote:

125+1 wrote:

hairy j wrote:

There's no way you could fit two rows in front of the Lyndhurst. How could people get in and out of the ground safely? The only way they could do that would be to have the pitch narrowed - there's space between the touchline and the advertising hoarding/barrier. It's a shit view from row A to E anyway and it's a stupid idea. It's not an alternative.

On topic - do we really need to replace an injured player with another injured player? It's not a very good idea.

I didnt say it was an alternative, i said it was possible to put a few rows of seats there which it is, doesnt make it stupid when its viable, its just a cheap option that would give restricted viewing. The trouble is people just rant rather than look at it properly and say "yes it can be done, but its crap, i wouldnt sit there".

An alternative veiw doesnt make it stupid.

Thats like saying the working groups alternative to brent's plans are stupid, Brent seems to think so, but they are not, they are a viable alternative to his plan, they just didnt do the costings correctly, but seeing all the hard work they went through to produce that plan in the first place, i sure their maths isnt as far out as brent would like us to think.

In general terms, no. In this instance, it is beyond stupid.

People are paying £20 to watch (so called) professional football. Not sitting in ground level rows like you'd see in a school assembly hall to watch the fcuking christmas nativity play.

I pretty certain there are many paying events that you are required to sit at ground level when better seats have been taken.

Well done Czarcasm a well thought out reply

I've just had a meeting with someone close to Oxford United who has confirmed that Levan is a tremendous player at this level. A major reason Oxford did not make the play offs was due to injuries. The owner is also the owner of Wigan Warriors and is a big fan of sports science. By all accounts he has released anyone who is unlikely to be fit for 40 games a season. With the wage cap he believes that a league 2 club cannot afford the luxury of decent players missing large chunks of the season. This alows them to carry a smaller, but better paid and hopefully for them more talented squad.

Is Peter Leven something to do with the mini stand development and is he helping to dig up the front of the Lyndhurst for more seats

Chemical Ali wrote:

Is Peter Leven something to do with the mini stand development and is he helping to dig up the front of the Lyndhurst for more seats

Nope

125+1 wrote:

hairy j wrote:

There's no way you could fit two rows in front of the Lyndhurst. How could people get in and out of the ground safely? The only way they could do that would be to have the pitch narrowed - there's space between the touchline and the advertising hoarding/barrier. It's a shit view from row A to E anyway and it's a stupid idea. It's not an alternative.

On topic - do we really need to replace an injured player with another injured player? It's not a very good idea.

I didnt say it was an alternative, i said it was possible to put a few rows of seats there which it is, doesnt make it stupid when its viable, its just a cheap option that would give restricted viewing. The trouble is people just rant rather than look at it properly and say "yes it can be done, but its crap, i wouldnt sit there".

An alternative veiw doesnt make it stupid.

Thats like saying the working groups alternative to brent's plans are stupid, Brent seems to think so, but they are not, they are a viable alternative to his plan, they just didnt do the costings correctly, but seeing all the hard work they went through to produce that plan in the first place, i sure their maths isnt as far out as brent would like us to think.

I've raised the health and safety issue. You need adequate space in front of a large seated area. Putting two rows in front of the Lyndhurst seating area would mean thay adequate space is gone - thus creating a health and safety issue. H&S is in the top 1 when it comes to public buildings - I.e non-domestic. That's not a rant, it's pointing out a fact. Your proposed alternative, in this instance, is stupid.

hairy j wrote:

125+1 wrote:

hairy j wrote:

There's no way you could fit two rows in front of the Lyndhurst. How could people get in and out of the ground safely? The only way they could do that would be to have the pitch narrowed - there's space between the touchline and the advertising hoarding/barrier. It's a shit view from row A to E anyway and it's a stupid idea. It's not an alternative.

On topic - do we really need to replace an injured player with another injured player? It's not a very good idea.

I didnt say it was an alternative, i said it was possible to put a few rows of seats there which it is, doesnt make it stupid when its viable, its just a cheap option that would give restricted viewing. The trouble is people just rant rather than look at it properly and say "yes it can be done, but its crap, i wouldnt sit there".

An alternative veiw doesnt make it stupid.

Thats like saying the working groups alternative to brent's plans are stupid, Brent seems to think so, but they are not, they are a viable alternative to his plan, they just didnt do the costings correctly, but seeing all the hard work they went through to produce that plan in the first place, i sure their maths isnt as far out as brent would like us to think.

I've raised the health and safety issue. You need adequate space in front of a large seated area. Putting two rows in front of the Lyndhurst seating area would mean thay adequate space is gone - thus creating a health and safety issue. H&S is in the top 1 when it comes to public buildings - I.e non-domestic. That's not a rant, it's pointing out a fact. Your proposed alternative, in this instance, is stupid.

Sorry i forgot in front of the lyndhurst there is a brick wall, not open space, which could be encroached onto.

Try again

125+1 wrote:

hairy j wrote:

125+1 wrote:

hairy j wrote:

There's no way you could fit two rows in front of the Lyndhurst. How could people get in and out of the ground safely? The only way they could do that would be to have the pitch narrowed - there's space between the touchline and the advertising hoarding/barrier. It's a shit view from row A to E anyway and it's a stupid idea. It's not an alternative.

On topic - do we really need to replace an injured player with another injured player? It's not a very good idea.

I didnt say it was an alternative, i said it was possible to put a few rows of seats there which it is, doesnt make it stupid when its viable, its just a cheap option that would give restricted viewing. The trouble is people just rant rather than look at it properly and say "yes it can be done, but its crap, i wouldnt sit there".

An alternative veiw doesnt make it stupid.

Thats like saying the working groups alternative to brent's plans are stupid, Brent seems to think so, but they are not, they are a viable alternative to his plan, they just didnt do the costings correctly, but seeing all the hard work they went through to produce that plan in the first place, i sure their maths isnt as far out as brent would like us to think.

I've raised the health and safety issue. You need adequate space in front of a large seated area. Putting two rows in front of the Lyndhurst seating area would mean thay adequate space is gone - thus creating a health and safety issue. H&S is in the top 1 when it comes to public buildings - I.e non-domestic. That's not a rant, it's pointing out a fact. Your proposed alternative, in this instance, is stupid.

Sorry i forgot in front of the lyndhurst there is a brick wall, not open space, which could be encroached onto.

Try again

I'm sure that definitely makes you a knobhead if not worse

Greenjock wrote:

125+1 wrote:

hairy j wrote:

125+1 wrote:

hairy j wrote:

There's no way you could fit two rows in front of the Lyndhurst. How could people get in and out of the ground safely? The only way they could do that would be to have the pitch narrowed - there's space between the touchline and the advertising hoarding/barrier. It's a shit view from row A to E anyway and it's a stupid idea. It's not an alternative.

On topic - do we really need to replace an injured player with another injured player? It's not a very good idea.

I didnt say it was an alternative, i said it was possible to put a few rows of seats there which it is, doesnt make it stupid when its viable, its just a cheap option that would give restricted viewing. The trouble is people just rant rather than look at it properly and say "yes it can be done, but its crap, i wouldnt sit there".

An alternative veiw doesnt make it stupid.

Thats like saying the working groups alternative to brent's plans are stupid, Brent seems to think so, but they are not, they are a viable alternative to his plan, they just didnt do the costings correctly, but seeing all the hard work they went through to produce that plan in the first place, i sure their maths isnt as far out as brent would like us to think.

I've raised the health and safety issue. You need adequate space in front of a large seated area. Putting two rows in front of the Lyndhurst seating area would mean thay adequate space is gone - thus creating a health and safety issue. H&S is in the top 1 when it comes to public buildings - I.e non-domestic. That's not a rant, it's pointing out a fact. Your proposed alternative, in this instance, is stupid.

Sorry i forgot in front of the lyndhurst there is a brick wall, not open space, which could be encroached onto.

Try again

I'm sure that definitely makes you a knobhead if not worse

For someone who said everyone will know to ignore my posts you sure like jumpin on them, like a kid in a sandpit

There's a big green rectangular thing in front of the Lyndhurst that people in Argyle kits run around on. A man in a black outfit runs up and down a white line on the edge of it and he's holding a flag. I suppose though, that's the very last consideration of our friend Brent The Saviour.

I'll say it again, your ALTERNATIVE is very stupid indeed. Seriously, if you want an alternative view, that's just great but at least make it mildly plausible.

We could attach helium balloons to smaller supporters and that would free up some seats.

125+1 wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

125+1 wrote:

hairy j wrote:

125+1 wrote:

hairy j wrote:

There's no way you could fit two rows in front of the Lyndhurst. How could people get in and out of the ground safely? The only way they could do that would be to have the pitch narrowed - there's space between the touchline and the advertising hoarding/barrier. It's a shit view from row A to E anyway and it's a stupid idea. It's not an alternative.

On topic - do we really need to replace an injured player with another injured player? It's not a very good idea.

I didnt say it was an alternative, i said it was possible to put a few rows of seats there which it is, doesnt make it stupid when its viable, its just a cheap option that would give restricted viewing. The trouble is people just rant rather than look at it properly and say "yes it can be done, but its crap, i wouldnt sit there".

An alternative veiw doesnt make it stupid.

Thats like saying the working groups alternative to brent's plans are stupid, Brent seems to think so, but they are not, they are a viable alternative to his plan, they just didnt do the costings correctly, but seeing all the hard work they went through to produce that plan in the first place, i sure their maths isnt as far out as brent would like us to think.

I've raised the health and safety issue. You need adequate space in front of a large seated area. Putting two rows in front of the Lyndhurst seating area would mean thay adequate space is gone - thus creating a health and safety issue. H&S is in the top 1 when it comes to public buildings - I.e non-domestic. That's not a rant, it's pointing out a fact. Your proposed alternative, in this instance, is stupid.

Sorry i forgot in front of the lyndhurst there is a brick wall, not open space, which could be encroached onto.

Try again

I'm sure that definitely makes you a knobhead if not worse

For someone who said everyone will know to ignore my posts you sure like jumpin on them, like a kid in a sandpit

On a scale of 1-10, how stupid was Seadog's post that you jumped on and called him a knobhead? Then using the same scale, how stupid are your repeated attempts to convince people that extra rows of seats can be played around on the pitch without spoiling the game?

You could always just apologise for being a dick and jumping down someone's throat for no reason? Or you can tell people again how stupid they are because your idea doesn't involve adding more seats on top of the horseshoe

hairy j wrote:

We could attach helium balloons to smaller supporters and that would free up some seats.

Watch it Hairy Brent will snap you up and you'll be part of his "professional team" next.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
My lego friend has read the thread and he wants to respond to 125+1

Greenjock wrote:

125+1 wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

125+1 wrote:

hairy j wrote:

125+1 wrote:

hairy j wrote:

There's no way you could fit two rows in front of the Lyndhurst. How could people get in and out of the ground safely? The only way they could do that would be to have the pitch narrowed - there's space between the touchline and the advertising hoarding/barrier. It's a shit view from row A to E anyway and it's a stupid idea. It's not an alternative.

On topic - do we really need to replace an injured player with another injured player? It's not a very good idea.

I didnt say it was an alternative, i said it was possible to put a few rows of seats there which it is, doesnt make it stupid when its viable, its just a cheap option that would give restricted viewing. The trouble is people just rant rather than look at it properly and say "yes it can be done, but its crap, i wouldnt sit there".

An alternative veiw doesnt make it stupid.

Thats like saying the working groups alternative to brent's plans are stupid, Brent seems to think so, but they are not, they are a viable alternative to his plan, they just didnt do the costings correctly, but seeing all the hard work they went through to produce that plan in the first place, i sure their maths isnt as far out as brent would like us to think.

I've raised the health and safety issue. You need adequate space in front of a large seated area. Putting two rows in front of the Lyndhurst seating area would mean thay adequate space is gone - thus creating a health and safety issue. H&S is in the top 1 when it comes to public buildings - I.e non-domestic. That's not a rant, it's pointing out a fact. Your proposed alternative, in this instance, is stupid.

Sorry i forgot in front of the lyndhurst there is a brick wall, not open space, which could be encroached onto.

Try again

I'm sure that definitely makes you a knobhead if not worse

For someone who said everyone will know to ignore my posts you sure like jumpin on them, like a kid in a sandpit

On a scale of 1-10, how stupid was Seadog's post that you jumped on and called him a knobhead? Then using the same scale, how stupid are your repeated attempts to convince people that extra rows of seats can be played around on the pitch without spoiling the game?

You could always just apologise for being a dick and jumping down someone's throat for no reason? Or you can tell people again how stupid they are because your idea doesn't involve adding more seats on top of the horseshoe

Just for you little boy, got back and read through the posts again, get an adult to supervise you this time, because i am 100% certain i havent said anything about not spoiling the game, hence the restricted veiw!!!!!!!!!

And just for the record i dont really care where they put the seats top bottom, none at all, there are plenty unused seats there already where i can happily sit, lets see 17000 seats with an average crowd of 7000! spoilt for choice.

Who's the knobhead know

Who's the knobhead know. Who's the knobhead know?

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

125+1 wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

125+1 wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

125+1 wrote:

hairy j wrote:

125+1 wrote:

hairy j wrote:

There's no way you could fit two rows in front of the Lyndhurst. How could people get in and out of the ground safely? The only way they could do that would be to have the pitch narrowed - there's space between the touchline and the advertising hoarding/barrier. It's a shit view from row A to E anyway and it's a stupid idea. It's not an alternative.

On topic - do we really need to replace an injured player with another injured player? It's not a very good idea.

I didnt say it was an alternative, i said it was possible to put a few rows of seats there which it is, doesnt make it stupid when its viable, its just a cheap option that would give restricted viewing. The trouble is people just rant rather than look at it properly and say "yes it can be done, but its crap, i wouldnt sit there".

An alternative veiw doesnt make it stupid.

Thats like saying the working groups alternative to brent's plans are stupid, Brent seems to think so, but they are not, they are a viable alternative to his plan, they just didnt do the costings correctly, but seeing all the hard work they went through to produce that plan in the first place, i sure their maths isnt as far out as brent would like us to think.

I've raised the health and safety issue. You need adequate space in front of a large seated area. Putting two rows in front of the Lyndhurst seating area would mean thay adequate space is gone - thus creating a health and safety issue. H&S is in the top 1 when it comes to public buildings - I.e non-domestic. That's not a rant, it's pointing out a fact. Your proposed alternative, in this instance, is stupid.

Sorry i forgot in front of the lyndhurst there is a brick wall, not open space, which could be encroached onto.

Try again

I'm sure that definitely makes you a knobhead if not worse

For someone who said everyone will know to ignore my posts you sure like jumpin on them, like a kid in a sandpit

On a scale of 1-10, how stupid was Seadog's post that you jumped on and called him a knobhead? Then using the same scale, how stupid are your repeated attempts to convince people that extra rows of seats can be played around on the pitch without spoiling the game?

You could always just apologise for being a dick and jumping down someone's throat for no reason? Or you can tell people again how stupid they are because your idea doesn't involve adding more seats on top of the horseshoe

Just for you little boy, got back and read through the posts again, get an adult to supervise you this time, because i am 100% certain i havent said anything about not spoiling the game, hence the restricted veiw!!!!!!!!!

And just for the record i dont really care where they put the seats top bottom, none at all, there are plenty unused seats there already where i can happily sit, lets see 17000 seats with an average crowd of 7000! spoilt for choice.

Who's the knobhead know

Are you actually Postey?

You made a pretty stupid suggestion about having more seats at the front because you jumped in on someone elses's comments about the bullshit being spouted that extra seats can just be tacked on to the horseshoe. Your idea has been laughed at so much that even you had to admit you're talking shit.

My comment was taking the piss. Saying that the seats could be played around on the pitch And you feel the need to explain why that's not a great idea

I like your last comments about not caring where the extra seats go. That really does just confirm that you're quite happy with 7000 seats and having to play chicken to get to the ground, avoiding the delivery trucks and the massive amount of people arriving for a skate.

It takes a while sometimes but eventually the agenda is revealed

Greenjock wrote:

125+1 wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

125+1 wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

125+1 wrote:

hairy j wrote:

125+1 wrote:

hairy j wrote:

There's no way you could fit two rows in front of the Lyndhurst. How could people get in and out of the ground safely? The only way they could do that would be to have the pitch narrowed - there's space between the touchline and the advertising hoarding/barrier. It's a shit view from row A to E anyway and it's a stupid idea. It's not an alternative.

On topic - do we really need to replace an injured player with another injured player? It's not a very good idea.

I didnt say it was an alternative, i said it was possible to put a few rows of seats there which it is, doesnt make it stupid when its viable, its just a cheap option that would give restricted viewing. The trouble is people just rant rather than look at it properly and say "yes it can be done, but its crap, i wouldnt sit there".

An alternative veiw doesnt make it stupid.

Thats like saying the working groups alternative to brent's plans are stupid, Brent seems to think so, but they are not, they are a viable alternative to his plan, they just didnt do the costings correctly, but seeing all the hard work they went through to produce that plan in the first place, i sure their maths isnt as far out as brent would like us to think.

I've raised the health and safety issue. You need adequate space in front of a large seated area. Putting two rows in front of the Lyndhurst seating area would mean thay adequate space is gone - thus creating a health and safety issue. H&S is in the top 1 when it comes to public buildings - I.e non-domestic. That's not a rant, it's pointing out a fact. Your proposed alternative, in this instance, is stupid.

Sorry i forgot in front of the lyndhurst there is a brick wall, not open space, which could be encroached onto.

Try again

I'm sure that definitely makes you a knobhead if not worse

For someone who said everyone will know to ignore my posts you sure like jumpin on them, like a kid in a sandpit

On a scale of 1-10, how stupid was Seadog's post that you jumped on and called him a knobhead? Then using the same scale, how stupid are your repeated attempts to convince people that extra rows of seats can be played around on the pitch without spoiling the game?

You could always just apologise for being a dick and jumping down someone's throat for no reason? Or you can tell people again how stupid they are because your idea doesn't involve adding more seats on top of the horseshoe

Just for you little boy, got back and read through the posts again, get an adult to supervise you this time, because i am 100% certain i havent said anything about not spoiling the game, hence the restricted veiw!!!!!!!!!

And just for the record i dont really care where they put the seats top bottom, none at all, there are plenty unused seats there already where i can happily sit, lets see 17000 seats with an average crowd of 7000! spoilt for choice.

Who's the knobhead know

Are you actually Postey?

You made a pretty stupid suggestion about having more seats at the front because you jumped in on someone elses's comments about the bullshit being spouted that extra seats can just be tacked on to the horseshoe. Your idea has been laughed at so much that even you had to admit you're talking shit.

My comment was taking the piss. Saying that the seats could be played around on the pitch And you feel the need to explain why that's not a great idea

I like your last comments about not caring where the extra seats go. That really does just confirm that you're quite happy with 7000 seats and having to play chicken to get to the ground, avoiding the delivery trucks and the massive amount of people arriving for a skate.

It takes a while sometimes but eventually the agenda is revealed

Move along nothing to see

I reckon he fancies you Jock, he can't keep away from you

hairy j wrote:

I've raised the health and safety issue. You need adequate space in front of a large seated area.

Seems it's the day for posting bull shit on here.

Real grounds like Old Trafford, Stamford Bridge and Liverpool, to name just three which are far larger than Gnome Park will ever be, have seating which is far closer to the field of play, wrong issue dumb ass.

In fact there is a load of space around the outside of your pitch which you never paid for, it is also larger than the minimum requirement for League football, it would be fairly simple to whip the pitch off, it's just a few rubber bands after all, dig down a few feet and stick a couple or three extra rows in at the new pitch level, certainly a lot easier and cheaper than taking the roof off..

Lord Tisdale wrote:

hairy j wrote:

I've raised the health and safety issue. You need adequate space in front of a large seated area.

Seems it's the day for posting bull shit on here.

Real grounds like Old Trafford, Stamford Bridge and Liverpool, to name just three which are far larger than Gnome Park will ever be, have seating which is far closer to the field of play, wrong issue dumb ass.

In fact there is a load of space around the outside of your pitch which you never paid for, it is also larger than the minimum requirement for League football, it would be fairly simple to whip the pitch off, it's just a few rubber bands after all, dig down a few feet and stick a couple or three extra rows in at the new pitch level, certainly a lot easier and cheaper than taking the roof off..

And it takes an exeter fan to look logically at what ive been saying and getting mocked for.

indeed. At Old Trafford if you're sat in the front seat you can rest your feet on the wall seperating the stand from the pitch. On a seperate note the pitch slopes away downhill very sharply. I'm surprised more aren't injured.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

hairy j wrote:

I've raised the health and safety issue. You need adequate space in front of a large seated area.

Seems it's the day for posting bull shit on here.

Real grounds like Old Trafford, Stamford Bridge and Liverpool, to name just three which are far larger than Gnome Park will ever be, have seating which is far closer to the field of play, wrong issue dumb ass.

In fact there is a load of space around the outside of your pitch which you never paid for, it is also larger than the minimum requirement for League football, it would be fairly simple to whip the pitch off, it's just a few rubber bands after all, dig down a few feet and stick a couple or three extra rows in at the new pitch level, certainly a lot easier and cheaper than taking the roof off..

I've always wondered why we have such a big space between the stands and the pitch.

Could easily get a few rows around the horseshoe closer to the pitch.

You raise a very good idea Lord Tis sir.