How Much Does It Cost To "Buy" The 'erald ?

Hello fellow Greens, this is my first post on this site and i'm pretty new to all this interweb stuff so please go easy on me !!

Having received my first laptop as a gift last Christmas and being a lifelong (40+years) Argyle fan i started to read the 'erald website, particularly the sport section to keep up on the latest at my beloved club. Things went well for the first month or two and i even submitted the occasional post bemoaning the performance of the team and the then manager Mr Fletcher. I once even praised JB for stepping in and "saving" the club while pleading with him to make the necessary changes to help us avoid what looked more and more like certain relegation. Thankfully that happened after the Rovers game, JS was brought in and managed to keep us up although not without some frenzied nailbiting and blood pressure levels higher than attendances at Exeter shitty !! When the plans for the ministand were unveiled several months ago i was extremely disappointed at the capacity of 17,700 and the overall lack of ambition being shown. When you consider the size of Plymouth and everything to the West (Cornwall) and the potential size of Argyle i think 20,000 with the ability to increase to 25,000 makes sense, if you build big and the team do well which i believe is possible with JS if given a reasonable budget the fans will come, look at Brighton getting crowds of 25,000 plus. After expressing my concerns not just at the capacity issues but also at many other aspects of the development including the strangulation of the stadium by the access road and the cramming in of so much behind the ministand to the 'erald i started to notice what i thought were sinister goings on at our local rag. There seemed to be a flurry of pro Brent/Akkeron stories being printed on an almost daily basis and anybody who had the slightest beef with the plans was being given no right of reply. Dissenting comments were sometimes doctored or even removed totally. I know others have also noticed this worrying trend, my question is this "How Much Does It Cost To "Buy" The 'erald ? More than a decent GRANDstand ?

Welcome.

Thanks for starting the thread. The title fits brilliantly to highlight the latest piece of Akkeron propoganda in the Herald Tabloid

Quote :

"The proposed development does not contravene any of Central Park's covenants – because it is not in Central Park."

YEAH RIGHT!!!!

Interesting that they talk about legal boundary rather than the area covered by the AAP or Tudor's Central Park Masterplan which shows green land up to concourse and edge of car park including the slag heap area to east of tents that Akkeron are claiming is brownfield as it was neglected to be reinstated by "run by fans" board.

Welcome to ATD.

If Brent and his jamboys get away with this, the club will be perpetual minnows and the small minded locals will get the club they deserve.

Anyone with pride and vision will walk sadly away.

Quote :

"The Argyle Fans Trust have also confirmed that they are not opposed to the development. Andy Symons, chair of the trust, has confirmed that: 'I don't know of any Argyle fan who doesn't want to see the grandstand replaced – it's served its purpose but is now well past its sell-by date'."

Will be interested to hear from AFT if this is accurate report?

green_genie wrote:

Quote :

"The Argyle Fans Trust have also confirmed that they are not opposed to the development. Andy Symons, chair of the trust, has confirmed that: 'I don't know of any Argyle fan who doesn't want to see the grandstand replaced – it's served its purpose but is now well past its sell-by date'."

Will be interested to hear from AFT if this is accurate report?

Of course it's not. It's just selective editing and further proof that the 'erald has been 'bought'.

All decent Argyle fans must join with other groups and fight against this development on every front.

Looks to me like the deepthroating windsor boys have a lot in common with the 'butter wouldn't melt' banker.

The reluctant bidder, my arse !

green_genie wrote:

Quote :

"The Argyle Fans Trust have also confirmed that they are not opposed to the development. Andy Symons, chair of the trust, has confirmed that: 'I don't know of any Argyle fan who doesn't want to see the grandstand replaced – it's served its purpose but is now well past its sell-by date'."

Will be interested to hear from AFT if this is accurate report?

I think it's fair to say that it isn't.

The AFT are not opposed to development, however.. I think they are opposed to the development currently proposed by Brent.

PS. Green Genie... Where is that quote from?

Rickler. Link was in my first post

Herald Tabloid

Thanks for the welcome boys/girls.

I feel anybody who has the audacity to question or disagree with anything that Brent/Akkeron say or propose to do wether it's the increasingly ridiculous devopment behind the ministand (apparently the plans have just been altered so a tanning studio cum massage parlour can be squeezed in !! calm down chaps i'm only joking, although nothing would surprise at this stage) or the seeming lack of activity on the transfer market (although it's still early days i'm starting to get a bit concerned about that side of things, With all the shite we are having to put up with at the moment i think another relegation battle would just about send many of us over the edge) are having great difficulty in getting their objections fairly heard apart from here on the truly independent ATD. I believe anyone with decent knowledge of planning consent and health and safety regulation can find enough holes in this shambles to stop or at least slow down it's progress and thus hopefully reach a compromise that puts the football club first and not Brent's empire. I estimate from people that i speak to that 80-90% of true Argyle fans are not happy with the current proposals although sadly i think only 5-10% are prepared to put up any kind of resistance. That being said the fight is far from over, it's better to try and fail than not to try at all, keep the faith.

IsThatHHP,

Have you seen the pinned thread above? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The legitimate causes for challenge to the plans and the directions to send them are are being collated there.

The fight has only just begun.

Thanks green_genie, looks interesting.

Seems to me the Brent/Akkeron plans have been cobbled together in a very amateurish fashion. The more highly educated people who know their onions when it comes to such matters we can get to study said plans, the better chance we have of stymieing them.

Very interestingly I have been e-mailing the Herald to ask for my details as to why my account has been disabled therefore not allowing me to make any comments on their stories.

I've also asked why some people with a certain point of view over the HHP plans are having their comments removed or edited, and why Andy Symons has been misquoted to make it look as though the AFT is against the whole development and in league with the FOCP to get the plans stopped. It all seems to mirror a point of view shared by our friends over on Pasoti who want to stifle and ban any dissenters.

They gave me a standard response saying that they had received a complaint about a post of mine which broke their rules, so I asked how it broke the rules as they were taking one persons word against mine, which is a dangerous precedent to set. If anyone can complain about a comment and get the commenter banned without any evidence then that will result in nobody being left to make any comments.

The weird thing is they have asked for all the details about some of the commets I made, namely about having a private investigator hired to snoop on me and that Ian De Lar and friends were behind the Greenman account which made threats against me.

What I have done is repeatedly asked them if they have asked the person making the complaints for the same level of detail when assessing whether to ban me or not, and I have pointed out their bias in the reporting of the HHP plans several times, and have said that if they do not provide me with a satisfactory answer about my banning that I will be contacting somebody higher within their newspaper and higher again if they cannot give me the answers I have asked for.

The tone of the e-mails I have received, from an unnamed member of the This Is team, make it obvious that they are biased towards Brents plans and I would even suggest that my e-mails are being passed to someone else, given the fact that they are asking for incredible details about the comments I have made, including names and specifics about the peopleI have referred to.

Other people have made comments recently saying that their accounts have been disabled, comments been edited etc so if anyone has details about these can they please pass them on to me, by PM is necessary.

Somebody from a small group of usual suspects has an influence at The Herald, I have no doubt about that, and is possibly friendly with someone who is able to delete or edit comments and ban accounts. What I am aiming to do is to find out which member of the This Is team is making these decisions and then pin down their relationship with somebody blatantly pro-Brent and his plans.

I really need specifics if possible, dates when comments were made and then removed, any e-mails you received about your account or comments, and anything you have which proves Ian De Lar was Greenman, don't worry Postey I already have your admission saved so no point in deleting old threads or posts now plus anything to do with the hiring of the private investigator, and I have plenty about that already in e-mails from a porcine forum owner who didn't mind dropping Hooper in the shit over it.

If a few dickheads think they can control the local press then it's going to be squeaky bum time for anyone they are using on The Herald to enforce their views on the public.

Like I said I only really want specifics and not hearsay please. I'm going to do it right and if it costs some dickhead his or her job then it's tough shit and they should've thought about that before jumping into bed with the usual suspects.

would it be the webmaster that has control over posted comments?

I don't know but they're asking for an awful lot of details about all of this.

I can not post specific times and dates because i have posted so many messages on there against Brent and HHP it is hard to remember.
Suffice to say every single one of my comments was deleted and my account suspended on each occasion without any reason.
It is pretty easy to re-register with the Herald simply by creating a brand new e-mail account (the shitey free ones) re-registering and creating a different username,The corrupt thicko whoever he is seemingly does not check IP addresses... Bobs your Uncle and your back in....until your banned again of course.
The Evening Herald is as Bent as a nine Bob note, and ive known this for a couple of years now.
The Corrupt Bastards need outing...good luck Jock!

Yeah I know that. I have a Pasoti account even though I'm banned 

It's a matter of principle though. If somebody at The Herald is following instructions of one the gang then they can feck right off. 

I can imagine Chris Webb persuading someone it's in the newspapers best interests to not allow certain posts or people to have their say. I believe he called it "suggesting" they are removed in Peggy's case.

on a positive spin, sounds like they are interested in the story.  prob not though, as brent has them in his pocket

Jock, unless you've got hard evidence or witness statements, you're up shit-creek without a toilet roll.

Why would any paper allow accusations that might lead to potential action against them if it may be mere mischief-making? Time to give up or pursue it with what evidence you - or anyone else - has.

We may not like their editorial stance but that's the press. I'll avoid the Sun & stick to the Guardian.

My thoughts are that somebody who has access to delete posts is pally with Webb, Newell or Postey. To keep asking me for proof of what I have posted is very strange. It seems like they know the people named in my comments because how else would they be able to determine whether I am telling the truth or not?

If it's Hooper objecting to me mentioning the fact he spied on me on Lee Jameson's instructions then how does he prove it wasn't him?

A local newspaper with a bias is extremely dangerous, and I now have plenty of evidence that anything posted in the Heralds comments that isn't 100% behind Brent or the HHP plans is likely to be deleted or edited. That can't be right and I'll keep digging to find out why they have taken this stance.

I might get bullshitted but I'll keep bugging them until they give answers that make sense.

I just avoid all papers as they are just a propoganda machine for the government
Also I would imagine that a company of that size would log all comments for legal reasons, deleting them from the web page doesn't mean that they are wiped completely