pcc hands over land to brent

Just seen this over on the Herald site brent/akkeron is to be givern the freehold to land that is currently leasehold but pafc must pay a extra £30,000 in rent per year. Councillor Dr Mahoney views it as a sleight of hand.

As we have all said before so much info about this development is being withheld and we are being drip fed bad news bit by bit this has to stop.

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

lawnmowerman wrote:

Just seen this over on the Herald site brent/akkeron is to be givern the freehold to land that is currently leasehold but pafc must pay a extra £30,000 in rent per year. Councillor Dr Mahoney views it as a sleight of hand.

As we have all said before so much info about this development is being withheld and we are being drip fed bad news bit by bit this has to stop.

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

I can't do highlights, but the bit about drip feeding needs to be. (or I agree)

So basically the land goes to Akkeron but the cost goes to PAFC as increased rent.

Also...

Peverell councillor Dr John Mahony criticised the move, saying many people did not realise that the land was owned by Argyle because it had never been fenced off.
"It doesn't quite amount to selling off the park because Argyle already owns the lease. But I view it as a sleight of hand. I think the building is just too big and that is why it has overspilled the freehold. This is slightly less than transparent in that it is being done after planning permission was granted."

So PAFC get a "free" redeveloped main stand, but the rent goes up by £30k?

That's certainly a new definition of the word "free"


What next,

"free match day buses-tickets £5.00"

"Free parking-£2.50 an hour"

hardly a suprise is it ? !!!!!!

Flat_Track_Bully wrote:

So basically the land goes to Akkeron but the cost goes to PAFC as increased rent.

Also...

Peverell councillor Dr John Mahony criticised the move, saying many people did not realise that the land was owned by Argyle because it had never been fenced off.
"It doesn't quite amount to selling off the park because Argyle already owns the lease. But I view it as a sleight of hand. I think the building is just too big and that is why it has overspilled the freehold. This is slightly less than transparent in that it is being done after planning permission was granted."

devious isnt a strong enough word. i said it from the off that Brent would ask for more and more of the central park for his money making ways, Dont think for one minute that cottage field wont be built on at some point within 5 years.

Tudor Evans in The Herald today.

"Now it seems that the Herald allows anyone to make completely inaccurate claims on its letter pages and hide behind anonymity. Not much different from the cowardly internet trolls that snipe anonymously from their bedrooms.

The Herald asks its correspondents to state why they wish to remain anonymous."


Fill your boots!

I've commented and do not wish to remain anonymous. I've used my real name.

There are a few excellent comments in the Herald. I think My Evans is panicking a little and if he isn't, then he should be.

This is worthy of its own thread.

He's feeling the heat and quite rightly so. Nobody's even commented on the civic centre bullshit and how Akkeron were advertising themselves as the preferred bidder months before it was announced.

I think that the guy has got a nerve complaining, cant stand the heat Tudor, do one for all our sakes.

GOB wrote:

There are a few excellent comments in the Herald. I think My Evans is panicking a little and if he isn't, then he should be.

This is worthy of its own thread.

Agree. This is a very interesting stance for this sell out of a man to take. Maybe he does have something to hide.....

Taxi for Tudor !

He doth protest too much

He doth indeed and judging by the comments on there he may have shot himself in the foot - though that's only a handful, I suppose. I wonder how may people read the on-line Herald.

I know some people don't like the word, but we on ATD have developed a good sense of when someone is actually a Cnut.

I think I can say with some confidence, Tudor Evans = Cnut.

Czarcasm wrote:

I know some people don't like the word, but we on ATD have developed a good sense of when someone is actually a Cnut.

I think I can say with some confidence, Tudor Evans = Cnut.

This

Biggest example of one that I've ever seen. If he has done something dodgy he will be found out - perhaps he's a bit of a thick tw@t too...... he's certainly made himself look guilty of something with that Herald piece

Close to the end of his rant this statement is what makes my blood boil 'The development at Home Park is good for Plymouth' - fcuking arrogance, total sellout taff!!

Very, very interesting comments been posted by Peter G Brooksbank!

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

I think that this was the guy that was at the second FoCP meeting I attended - (having been insufficiently intimidated to attend a further one after the Cherrytree-gate) - he is a prospective candidate for UKIP and had plenty to say about the dodgy practices deployed by PCC in all areas of its business.

Certainly interesting and certainly shows that the opposition to the HHP plans isn't solely based on the "I want a bigger stand" or the tree-hugger campaigners. I'd be more interested if it wasn't clearly an election campaign letter.

It seems Tudor has shot himself in the foot big time over this, as others have said, the perception he is giving out is one ridden with panic and guilt.

I would panic if I were him. What a bloody gift to a prospective candidate of the opposition standing in the Milehouse and Peverell wards especially and not to underestimate the effect upon the wider geographical area