Plymouth city council live webcast

Fixed that photo:

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

Nice one Hans, had to double take that. Lol.

Iggy wrote:

Imagine if the superfans had stayed on side with JB but had campaigned for a decent stand? They say they all want it, why didn't they ask for it? Selloutswontbeforgottenever.
That is funny, I only typed sellouts my iPad filled in the gaps.

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



Remember the traitors, they will pay for their crimes.

punchdrunk wrote:

IsThatHHP? wrote:

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

That photo says everthing about our fanbase.................dying.

Without trying to sound "ageist"  , that basically constitutes a large percentage of the matchday fan-base these days.......that and the under 18,s.
 There seems to be an entire generation missing ie the 20-45 age-group or in other words the adult paying customer that pays the full whack and provides serious wedge income on matchdays.
Its not just recently either, it has been like that for the last 5 years.

True. That generation are indeed noticeable by their absence. I'm in the upper echelons of that missing age range and have no plans to go back, especially after yesterday and certainly not while brent is here. Problem is the longer Argyle fester in the lower reaches of the basement, even the kids will turn their backs on the club and will think of Argyle as something only grandad goes to. Clubs further up the leagues don't suffer from this missing generation problem, in fact I wnt to Spurs a couple of seasons ago and fans in their 20s, 30s and 40s were the majority from what I saw.

IsThatHHP? wrote:

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

That photo says everthing about our fanbase.................dying.

That picture sums up the situation perfectly - it was like taking sweets from a baby, or should I say the grandparents by Brent!! so sad!!

Iggy wrote:

Imagine if the superfans had stayed on side with JB but had campaigned for a decent stand? They say they all want it, why didn't they ask for it?

This is it for me. I've been amazed at how easily Brent has been able to dismiss any other options and the herd has bought the line that there is no alternative. There are always options - particularly when so much profit and other developments are involved. Even the Trust alternative was silenced without any real attempts to press Brent. This could always have been a better development if those with influence led the debate rather than acting as its mouthpiece.

A sad day.

I've noticed that IJN has mentioned a couple of times that Brent won't be round forever- I would imagine Brent has already told him that he'll be off as soon as the Brentral Park development is complete- he'll still be a fan though  . I don't think its no co-incidence that Nikkkk is a lot more public these days either.

Herald Online wrote:

As part of his proposal, Mr Brent will spend £1.1million on park improvements. Councillors agreed that these should be delivered in consultation with the forum.

Just think what that £1.1million would do for the team right now instead of being chucked away on the park.

Exactly YM. It really won't take an awful lot of spending to sort the team on the pitch out

While busily working last night I managed to keep the odd eye on yesterdays predicted events. The councillors with objections were bound to vote for it as they would have been voting on the whole package and not just certain aspects that they didn't like.

I spotted a comment from Posty on " the other side" which had me absolutely steaming with rage and it was just as well I wasn't near a computer. This has been the most divisive subject among Argyle fans that I have ever known. To say certain people and their boys took one hell of a beating was to put it bluntly childish and made him look a prize prick of the highest order.

The PCC meeting didn't discuss the capacity issue and whether it would restrict Argyle in the future. It's not a planning issue. They did not discuss whether the horseshoe would be extended in the future or indeed whether it is at all economically feasible. It's not a planning issue! They didn't discuss whether Brent's horseshoe expansion would comply with "The Green Guide" that was used to dismiss the Working Group's proposals. It's not a planning issue ( yet)! They didn't discuss whether the amount of revenue Argyle can expect from the Grandstand footprint is much less than Argyle fans were first told. No we are not all deaf or stupid, we were told all revenue would come to the club. Again not a planning issue! They did not discuss whether the road around the Lyndhurst would restrict / make impossible future expansion of those stands. Not a planning issue! AND they certainly didn't discuss Chris Webb's claim that " the road could easily be moved / rebuilt elsewhere in the future", because again it wasn't on this planning application and would certainly have concentrated the minds of councillors and protestors alike. That was just a crumb thrown to shut some fans up. Notice that statement didn't come from any official sources from within Akkeron but was enough for me to read yesterday that Webb and Brent say it's possible, so it must be.

So the particular subjects that large numbers of Argyle fans either dislike or have concerns about were not discussed and most of them probably never will be; because things like the expansion of the horseshoe will never happen. Brent knows it and so should his disciples.

So it will be quite some time before the concerns of these Argyle fans is proved to be right or wrong. It's not much point in telling people in 10 years time " we told you the horseshoe will never be extended" but I can't find an engineer / builder anywhere that thinks it will be. Believe me I do know some!

Why the idiot keeps having a poke at the AFT is beyond me as well. All they did was stay neutral as it was obvious that Argyle fans were split and try through the Working Group to find a better solution for Plymouth Argyle and it's fans because this solution is not the best the club or it's fans.

Brent simply does not care what happens to Argyle/the stadium once he's made his fortune and moved on. The new owner/chairman will come in to be told the stadium cannot be extended for reasons x,y an z and the silly hat brigade will finally stop singing and bleating about whaddaguy JB is.

We all know our club will be dead then and it will be far too late to do anything about it

Richard Blight wrote:

While busily working last night I managed to keep the odd eye on yesterdays predicted events. The councillors with objections were bound to vote for it as they would have been voting on the whole package and not just certain aspects that they didn't like.

I spotted a comment from Posty on " the other side" which had me absolutely steaming with rage and it was just as well I wasn't near a computer. This has been the most divisive subject among Argyle fans that I have ever known. To say certain people and their boys took one hell of a beating was to put it bluntly childish and made him look a prize prick of the highest order.

The PCC meeting didn't discuss the capacity issue and whether it would restrict Argyle in the future. It's not a planning issue. They did not discuss whether the horseshoe would be extended in the future or indeed whether it is at all economically feasible. It's not a planning issue! They didn't discuss whether Brent's horseshoe expansion would comply with "The Green Guide" that was used to dismiss the Working Group's proposals. It's not a planning issue ( yet)! They didn't discuss whether the amount of revenue Argyle can expect from the Grandstand footprint is much less than Argyle fans were first told. No we are not all deaf or stupid, we were told all revenue would come to the club. Again not a planning issue! They did not discuss whether the road around the Lyndhurst would restrict / make impossible future expansion of those stands. Not a planning issue! AND they certainly didn't discuss Chris Webb's claim that " the road could easily be moved / rebuilt elsewhere in the future", because again it wasn't on this planning application and would certainly have concentrated the minds of councillors and protestors alike. That was just a crumb thrown to shut some fans up. Notice that statement didn't come from any official sources from within Akkeron but was enough for me to read yesterday that Webb and Brent say it's possible, so it must be.

So the particular subjects that large numbers of Argyle fans either dislike or have concerns about were not discussed and most of them probably never will be; because things like the expansion of the horseshoe will never happen. Brent knows it and so should his disciples.

So it will be quite some time before the concerns of these Argyle fans is proved to be right or wrong. It's not much point in telling people in 10 years time " we told you the horseshoe will never be extended" but I can't find an engineer / builder anywhere that thinks it will be. Believe me I do know some!

Why the idiot keeps having a poke at the AFT is beyond me as well. All they did was stay neutral as it was obvious that Argyle fans were split and try through the Working Group to find a better solution for Plymouth Argyle and it's fans because this solution is not the best the club or it's fans.

Richard, i believe the reason certain people keep having a poke at the AFT is because they are perceived as being weak and ineffective. Personally i think they should have been a lot more vocal regarding the HHP proposals but maybe they just wanted to keep all their members happy by sitting on the fence, sadly that doesn't get you anywhere.

I believe that an apology was given for his comment.

As for the AFT. It is a member driven organisation and as such needs to try to do what it's members want. This is awkward when the membership is split down the middle and don't know what to believe. There has been so much information, much of it wrong or misinterpreted. I think the AFT got it about right considering IMO they were deliberately sidelined by the club to shut them up. There are certain things they could have shouted louder about.

The obvious one being the horseshoe expansion. IMO they could have demanded ( or asked very nicely) for Brent to prove his horseshoe plans are indeed economical and feasible. They could have asked for the expansion plans to be included in the current application. They could have been scrutinised properly by the planners and engineers. We could have seen whether his plans would have met the criteria set down in the "Green Guide" because the very strong suspicion ( or certainty in some minds) is the plans wouldn't have. I also suspect that one of the reasons the plans were not included is because they won't happen. Brent should have been properly put well and truly on the spot on this subject.

I accept that things have been difficult for the Trust on this subject. This brings me on to what in hells name did the PASB do? They should also have been asking these questions very loudly and making sure that we the fans knew exactly what was being asked. As far as I can see, all they tried to do was rubber stamp everything Brent said and did. If they did ask more, they need to do some more communicating with the fanbase, something they are particularly bad at.

" I spoke to a few of my mates at a friendly" is nowhere near good enough. Admittedly the PASB has had trouble with the club as well because the club appears to want to have a say in who exactly is on the PASB and who isn't. " We're not talking to you, because we don't like him" is also not good enough.

Releasing statements claiming to speak for the fanbase they have not spoken to, especially when they are split down the middle themselves is a disgrace and should never happen again! One or two of the people on that board have gone down a long way in my estimation.

Yesterday I thought I was going to be quite calm about this - after all, we knew it was going to go through on the nod. Today, though, I'm angrier than I thought.

Wealthy ex-public schoolboys who have NO IDEA what it's like to bring kids up in a home with no garden and NO IDEA of the value of public parks. Ignorant morons who take pride in being thick and tug their forelocks before said wealthy ex-public schoolboys, saying whatever they're told to say without question. The selling of a project which will make a fortune for two people on the basis of 400 (yeah, right) crappy, insecure, minimum wage jobs for the great unwashed (oh but we must be grateful, eh?). The leader of a so-called Labour council calling somebody a 'chimp' because he dared to disagree with him - and indeed so-called Labour councillors (with one notable exception, Mark Coker) who can't even be bothered to acknowledge the views of their constituents (elections next year - you won't be getting anything from me, Bill). Non-existent debates in which anybody who ventures a slightly different opinion is called names, lied about and generally presented as being the Antichrist (and naturally, if that person happens to be female, criticised for not, according to said ignorant morons who are of course God's gift to all women, being shaggable). Ignorant morons disrupting a peaceful meeting - and then criticising somebody for daring to speak out of turn at another. People feeling too threatened to give their address when commenting on the plans - and probably more people feeling too threatened to even comment. Bullying, threats and slurs to ensure support for something that had already been stitched up anyway.

See? It's all so shit I've probably written the most incoherent post ever to appear on this forum.

So "conditional approval" it is. What are the conditions?

*applauds*

Richard Blight wrote:

I believe that an apology was given for his comment.

As for the AFT. It is a member driven organisation and as such needs to try to do what it's members want. This is awkward when the membership is split down the middle and don't know what to believe. There has been so much information, much of it wrong or misinterpreted. I think the AFT got it about right considering IMO they were deliberately sidelined by the club to shut them up. There are certain things they could have shouted louder about.

The obvious one being the horseshoe expansion. IMO they could have demanded ( or asked very nicely) for Brent to prove his horseshoe plans are indeed economical and feasible. They could have asked for the expansion plans to be included in the current application. They could have been scrutinised properly by the planners and engineers. We could have seen whether his plans would have met the criteria set down in the "Green Guide" because the very strong suspicion ( or certainty in some minds) is the plans wouldn't have. I also suspect that one of the reasons the plans were not included is because they won't happen. Brent should have been properly put well and truly on the spot on this subject.

I accept that things have been difficult for the Trust on this subject. This brings me on to what in hells name did the PASB do? They should also have been asking these questions very loudly and making sure that we the fans knew exactly what was being asked. As far as I can see, all they tried to do was rubber stamp everything Brent said and did. If they did ask more, they need to do some more communicating with the fanbase, something they are particularly bad at.

" I spoke to a few of my mates at a friendly" is nowhere near good enough. Admittedly the PASB has had trouble with the club as well because the club appears to want to have a say in who exactly is on the PASB and who isn't. " We're not talking to you, because we don't like him" is also not good enough.

Releasing statements claiming to speak for the fanbase they have not spoken to, especially when they are split down the middle themselves is a disgrace and should never happen again! One or two of the people on that board have gone down a long way in my estimation.

Agree, while the AFT is not perfect i do support it and believe it could be a force for the good, the PASB on the other hand is a joke and is not even worth talking about.

From Posty on there:

Postcode wrote:

I think that a lot of people are confused about the spending power in League Two. All clubs in our league have to abide by the Salary Cost Management Protocol which limits clubs to spending 55% of their turnover on player wages.

Fans get confused that because we have a rich owner or now have a cinema or hotel near Home Park we can then go out and buy players for big transfers. These players would command big wages and push us over the 55% threshold with ease.
The penalties for this are transfer embargo's and loss of points.

Clubs have to regularly send their budget and spending costs to the Football League at set periods throughout a season, the FL are also watching us very closely following our spell in admin.

The answer is to generate our own funds from facilities associated within the new grandstand and to increase attendances at Home Park. These factors will give us more turnover and more bang for our buck within the 55% cap.

He doesn't get it does he?

Han Solos Other Ship wrote:

From Posty on there:

Postcode wrote:

I think that a lot of people are confused about the spending power in League Two. All clubs in our league have to abide by the Salary Cost Management Protocol which limits clubs to spending 55% of their turnover on player wages.

Fans get confused that because we have a rich owner or now have a cinema or hotel near Home Park we can then go out and buy players for big transfers. These players would command big wages and push us over the 55% threshold with ease.
The penalties for this are transfer embargo's and loss of points.

Clubs have to regularly send their budget and spending costs to the Football League at set periods throughout a season, the FL are also watching us very closely following our spell in admin.

The answer is to generate our own funds from facilities associated within the new grandstand and to increase attendances at Home Park. These factors will give us more turnover and more bang for our buck within the 55% cap.

He doesn't get it does he?

There is much in what Posty says but what is there to stop Brent paying off the admin debts in full thereby releasing the money that currently pays the historic debt, and which could be used for squad strengthening, meaning that all of the 55% goes where it really should?

"Why the idiot keeps having a poke at the AFT is beyond me"

One trick pony.

Han Solos Other Ship wrote:

Fixed that photo:

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

how uncomfortable does bent look? the guy on the end is giving a wanker salute and the lady in the middle is giving the bird

Mapperley, darling wrote:

Han Solos Other Ship wrote:

Fixed that photo:

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

how uncomfortable does bent look? the guy on the end is giving a wanker salute and the lady in the middle is giving the bird

Looking at the fans in the photo, not the cheerleaders who are basically club employees, you can see the reason why so many Pasoti posters are celebrating, because they won't be around in ten or twenty years time to see the real result of yesterdays decision and how it will hamper us in future. I don't know any of the people in the photo other than that Su who would drink Nooligans piss if he asked her to and she's no spring chicken!

Why the feck should Nooligan give a toss about people not being able to get a ticket in twenty years? Won't affect him even if he is still alive.

That seems to be the overall issue here, selfish cnuts who don't care what happens in years to come. I doubt if any of them recycle and quite happily leave lights on and all the electrical appliances are switched on 24/7 whether they're in use or not.

The chap directly behind Sue is Jon B, in case anyone wants to know what the Vice Chair of that organisation who speak for themselves and absent ATD member looks like.

I thought he was better than allowing himself to be warned off ATD but there you go.

Don't know why that young lad on the end is celebrating, he's got to live with the consequences of all this. Unlike those all those f***ing baby boom generation around him! They'll all piss off on a saga cruise to celebrate getting their ministand and f***ing eveything up for his generation and the one after that....and the one after that.....and the one after etc etc

Richard Blight wrote:

The chap directly behind Sue is Jon B, in case anyone wants to know what the Vice Chair of that organisation who speak for themselves and absent ATD member looks like.

I thought he was better than allowing himself to be warned off ATD but there you go.

Mr corporate governance couldn't hack it on here. We have a proud history of seeing through those whose intentions are based largely on self promotion.