Do not forget

Iggy wrote:

green_genie wrote:

On a more serious note ther are plenty of "it's awsum inniti" posts going on there.

PCC Planning email 12_06

Last two pages cover FoCP letter and reply from Cllr Sam Davey. Whilst disappointing that it is rather emotive and doesn't use enough FACTS there are a couple of good points. First one being about noise and light pollution from the hotel and access road. Second one is really interesting

" Restrictive covenants on the Home Park football stadium leasehold land will require amendment if the 
Higher Home Park development is to go ahead.  The development extends beyond the Higher Home Park 
land for which the council has already agreed amendments to the covenants on 18th October 2011.  
 
The planned hotel stretches to the edge of the 'red line' boundary of the leasehold land.  This land has 
covenants on it restricting development to uses that are integral to the football club.  This leasehold land 
covers the whole of the football stadium.  If the covenants were to be amended to allow the hotel to be built, 
it could put the future of the football stadium at risk if Plymouth Argyle were to run into financial difficulties again.  Furthermore, the hotel could, under new planning laws, be easily converted to living accommodation, setting a precedent that could see the whole of that leasehold land (and possibly the training pitches as well) developed for housing. "
 
Somebody asked back along (here or on dark side) why you would build a hotel without a restaurant for breakfast at least, and it was implied that guests would be forced to use ministand facilities or the (not fast) food outlets in the mall.

120 rooms next to a Studio School. Could we possibly be looking at beer cans stacked in the windows overlooking the park?

This makes more sense to me than building a hotel there. Rather worrying but is the fact that Argyle getting into financial trouble in the future a serious planning objection?

and probably the reason that there is no restaurant in the 'hotel', i think we have hit on the REAL reason for jb wanting this built behind the stand.

Mapperley, darling wrote:

whilst argyle relocate, of course!

that is going to happen oneday. Would be a shame but if it meant the ambition and potential of the club could be reached at a new stadium within the city limits then so be it we dont have to stay at home park in a boxed in stadium that can never be improved on bar a few extra seats.

The furthest Argyle are likely to relocate is Brickfields and I wouldn't be surprised to see Albion going the opposite direction.

I like the idea of Brickfields once Speccy McSpeculator has finished buggering up the park and lost interest in Arguggle or whoever they are that he has to wear that awful, ghastly green and white scarf in aid of. 
Plenty of room there should Albion relocate or probably even fit a decent sized ground (that means 20,000+) AND the Egg Chasing arena - now THAT'S a 'sports hub'

Newell denies everything. It was all lies:

Greenman/DeepThroat/DeadlyLampshade/StingCurtain wrote:

I feel I can't comment X'y, because I'll be accused of attempting to change people's opinions if I do. That's not a snidey remark, that actually is what happens.

However, let me attempt to explain what I feel.

This site is made up of a myriad of opinions, and it cannot possibly sway what people think or what to say. There's a few that have been told off for the manner in which they post, and that includes me by the way, as I was warned for being 'confrontational', which I undoubtedly am.

We are 100% independent of Argyle, we would not take any 'telling' from the club, they have nothing to do with us, nor ever will have. I cringe at the thought. However, what we wouldn't want is to run this site in the manner of others, who, it seems actively disagree with almost everything Argyle do. That isn't the style of this site, it's not snarly, it's not that aggressive and it certainly isn't libellous on any level.

If JB or anyone else told me how to run this site, the discussion would be very short, and that would be in my style, not a series of committees, sub meetings etc, it would be eye to eye and very clearly said.

Chris in his resignation speech spelled out clearly why he was stepping down, and although not verbatim, he did say he did not feel that he could be a critical friend of JB, just a friend, and that's the way it is.

With regard to the Tweets etc, Chris is an officer of PAFC, he is within the club, and he like others, do their thing on Twitter in an effort to increase awareness and excitement of PAFC. 

With regard to the 'jealously' comment, I'm glad to hear you're not, you sound like I would be, but by God, it is there, it's tangible and I can almost feel the eyes boring into me when I sit with Nik in the Directors Box. I have never felt anything like it, it's a terrible trait, and a few of the perpetrators are in complete denial, but there you go and there's nothing to be done. They don't speak to me now, and I am very happy to reciprocate, and I will do that until I leave this mortal coil.

I read Paul Roberts' post above, I 100% disagree on almost every point, but again, Paul has his opinion and I have mine. Although saying that, it is my opinion that certain people fancied the AFT for their own purposes after Webby left, Wozzer was ganged up on, and the rest is history. 

The PASB has been completely undermined by the action of those same people, they have manipulated the position whereby people can justifiably ask for the disbanding of the PASB, it is a mess, but the mess has been created on purpose, by those on the AFT that want no others involved.

I now hear that a certain leader (or is it ex leader) of the AFT has been guilty of saying some pretty damming remarks about both Tony C and JonB on another website using a pseudonym, comments like 'I needed to have a shower after shaking hands' etc etc. Is that any different to Deep Throat then? I can't see it, but there you go.

Add that to what I heard the Chairwoman say at the FoCP meeting the other night and I certainly will be against the AFT and their leadership, but again, that is my opinion, I am allowed it, but how can not fight that corner? I had several allegations about me taking a mob up there (lies) we came to disrupt (lies), I disrupted it (lies), we were asked to leave by the Landlord (lies) etc etc. If I don't defend my position I 'must be guilty' as I didn't defend it, if I do defend my position "I'm attempting to bend minds' - how can I win?

A few have said, I should stay off here, why, is that fair then?

The same few have said that I shouldn't comment, why, is that fair then?

JJ, I think it was, PM'd me many moons ago and said 'that stuff on ATD must be true' when I asked why, his answer was 'You would sue otherwise' - and it goes on and on and on.

You can hint all you want that this site isn't independent, but it is, it's 100% free of any outside involvement, the difference with this site is, everyone can have their say, and whilst it's said that people get hounded, I would say that it's a 50/50 thing. On the other site, a person stands up for what they believe?? My God, now that IS hounding.

People come and go on Pasoti, that's always been the case, people flounce, I've done it myself, but this constant 'we can't write what we want' sh*te really is laughable. It's laughable because people have been writing that for 15 years and they are still writing it, so how does that work then?

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

Napoleon announced from his farm : People come and go on Pasoti, that's always been the case, people flounce, I've done it myself, but this constant 'we can't write what we want' sh*te really is laughable. It's laughable because people have been writing that for 15 years and they are still writing it, so how does that work then?

Really ????  The bloke is in complete denial.

So he secretly records the meeting.  For his Flickr account?  All of it?  Or just the bits were other people cause 'aggro'? Would make interesting listening.  Of course that's what I would do if I was just shuffling along to a public meeting to sit, listen and learn.

The man has disgraced himself more times than I care to remember!

So if he recorded the meeting then I am sure he can post the recordings online. That should clear everything up.

When you buy a website it gives you the chance to "clean threads", move hi jacks, create hi jacks to move, delete comments that put you in a bad light and change your own posts to make them look better, we have all seen it done before, plus banning people for arguing, the man is a liar and not fit for purpose, he should be no where near the Internet or the club, Brent does himself a huge dis service by association.

The only point with which I am in agreement with Mr Newell is that both sites have their levels of "hounding" of people who go against the prevailing party line.

Yet again, re the FoCP meeting at the Cherry Tree, the behaviour of Mr Newell and the pro-campaigners on the adjoining table meant that the meeting could not proceed. (And for the record, I have not said nor would say that the disruption was planned. I have no idea.) They were very clearly asked to leave. They refused. That is hooligan behaviour. Consequently the landlord was fetched. I have no idea what the landlord said to them - I wasn't close enough. For all I know he might have quietly said, "These twats want get on with their stupid farce of a meeting, god knows what for. How about going and I'll buy you a pint each?" But it took the landlord arriving before they acceded to the very reasonably put request by the meeting organisers. Newell is being economical with the truth.

In addition, I now see that Chris Webb is claimed to be "an officer of the club". Is this a clear statement that he is acting on behalf of the club rather than acting as a figurehead or, even more, a fans' representative?

Quote :

When you buy a website it gives you the chance to "clean threads", move hi jacks, create hi jacks to move, delete comments that put you in a bad light and change your own posts to make them look better, we have all seen it done before, plus banning people for arguing, the man is a liar and not fit for purpose, he should be no where near the Internet or the club, Brent does himself a huge dis service by association.

Ah but remember he isn't there as Brent's guest he is there as a guest of the one of the clubs major sponsors.  Not sure when this changed though but it's part of his de rigeur arguement at the momnet about being in Brents pocket.

knecht wrote:

The only point with which I am in agreement with Mr Newell is that both sites have their levels of "hounding" of people who go against the prevailing party line.

Yet again, re the FoCP meeting at the Cherry Tree, the behaviour of Mr Newell and the pro-campaigners on the adjoining table meant that the meeting could not proceed. (And for the record, I have not said nor would say that the disruption was planned. I have no idea.) They were very clearly asked to leave. They refused. That is hooligan behaviour. Consequently the landlord was fetched. I have no idea what the landlord said to them - I wasn't close enough. For all I know he might have quietly said, "These twats want get on with their stupid farce of a meeting, god knows what for. How about going and I'll buy you a pint each?" But it took the landlord arriving before they acceded to the very reasonably put request by the meeting organisers. Newell is being economical with the truth.

In addition, I now see that Chris Webb is claimed to be "an officer of the club". Is this a clear statement that he is acting on behalf of the club rather than acting as a figurehead or, even more, a fans' representative?

This really does need highlighting!

I've put it on the 16388 thread, but Newell has even got one of his undermanagers to write an email of support for the akkeron plans despite the fact that he lives in Wales and is a Cardiff fan- yet newell himself continually criticises those who comment on the development that live outside of Plymouth. You couldn't make it up

As much as it is mildly amusing to see that train-wreck of a man justify yet another one of his laughable blusterfucks, at the end of the day he is winning. I don't know if there is much chance of the proposals going ahead without some amendments at the very least but I'd imagine that they will succeed, eventually, in some guise or other that probably isn't that great for either park or club. When it does he seems certain to continue in his role at the club as our very own 'unofficial-but-official' Chuckle Brother. He'll still happily bluster around in his overstated contradictory ways, retracting then playing the victim post shambles. 

Better to ignore the fact that this bovine creature has almost branded himself as the unofficial face and word of Akkeron and instead take them on as the faceless conglomerate that they are.

Mock Cuncher wrote:

As much as it is mildly amusing to see that train-wreck of a man justify yet another one of his laughable blusterfucks, at the end of the day he is winning. I don't know if there is much chance of the proposals going ahead without some amendments at the very least but I'd imagine that they will succeed, eventually, in some guise or other that probably isn't that great for either park or club. When it does he seems certain to continue in his role at the club as our very own 'unofficial-but-official' Chuckle Brother. He'll still happily bluster around in his overstated contradictory ways, retracting then playing the victim post shambles. 

Better to ignore the fact that this bovine creature has almost branded himself as the unofficial face and word of Akkeron and instead take them on as the faceless conglomerate that they are.

That's how I see it Mock, but at the same time I am amazed at the attempts to quell an opposing opinion so much so that it's clear they are extremely concerned that James's fix will fall flat on its face. As long as Newell behaves as he is then I'm convinced that there is more than a hope of stopping this white elephant dead in it's tracks.

On the bright side, if Brent gets his jolly than there will be years of watching Newell make a tw@t of himself!

Looked for a minute there Mr Newell was going to crack - can't wait to hear this Iphone capture mind!! Like Watergate all over again!!

Ian Newell: Comedy gold since the 1960's.

It seems to be every three months that Newell writes a post like that to defend himself and his friends. Now he has to defend HIS website. Does any one have to do that unless they're up to incredibly objectional stuff on a regular basis?

Recording a meeting?! Without people's consent. Is that true? He's alleged he 'left' his iphone in there and had to go back and get it. Putting 2 and 2 together, that seems very dodgy. It isn't illegal but it's morally dodgy.

As for volumes of onjections/support. The 'this is great' letters are meaningless. They add nothing to the actual application. Objections/support must have valid reasons. The planning team involved are massively experienced people who do this all the time. An Aviva fest won't sway them. Is Bob Pilgrim from The Barbican writes in with a one line "go James Brent!" Statement, it will be meaningless. All the Twitter campaigns and gleeful support won't make a difference.

It's funny how the requests to make the development better are well articulated  and reasoned in their argument and the people in favour are all 'geddon, build it'.  It says a lot. If you have a view that this development should be better - just be an educated w*nker about it

What is worrying Newell is that he knows that there will be a rush of objections at the last minute, the facts and goalposts are moving and arriving all the time but that just makes me think that I will get an objection or two in at the end.
One of my objections will be that the consultation was a farce and information has been made deliberately hard to come by.

What Hairy says is true to an extent, I was submitting a planning application, we had no objections, we had about ten letters of support from neighbours but we still had to go to committee then have a site meeting because non of the support was relevant in planning law to the application. Objections would have been treated in the same way, they have to be relevant to planning law.

Yes, it's no good saying something like "I oppose the development because of the methods Brent has used to force it through", it has to be for logical and legitimate planning reasons. 

The small size of the grandstand will not be a consideration or legitimate reason to decline the application.

Does anything but lies come out of his mouth?
I did think after I got home from the meeting that he might have been recording when he came back for his phone. Mind you tho it was probably done after he was asked to leave by the landlord, so all of the disruption before that would not of been recorded. Plus the FOCP stated that they had talked with the AFT but were in no means working with them

Last couple of days of Xmas shopping!!