The brent appreciation society meeting!

Ask what you like, but watch yourself outside in case there is some real face to face action.

seadog wrote:

Ask what you like, but watch yourself outside in case there is some real face to face action.

Tbf, that'd be the only thing that'd make the whole charade worthwhile.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Every question will eventually prompt an answer along the lines of "we'd like to but the budget doesn't support it".

Our problem is that there isn't anything published that shows what the budgets might be, what income is, any sort of breakdown as to how the budgets are spent or pretty much anything at all in a financial sense.

With regards to the ground we don't know how much the stand will cost to build, what the predicted income streams are, what the profit margins on all of that are just as we don't know how the whole HHP project is funded or how our bit is funded or what the breakdown of any of that is. All we have to go on is trust that the "figures don't add up" or "a bigger stand is unaffordable" or "the retail units all have to be leased out" or "there has to be a school" or there "has to be a dentist" and our recent history tells us, if it tells us anything at all, to question everything, accept nothing, check the figures and get everything in writing. In fact it compels us to demand the openness and transparency that was once so close to Brent's heart.

And all of that applies to the team too. What is the club's turnover, how much of the 55% of that goes to Sheridan, how much of that is swallowed up by historic debt and just how competitive is our competitive budget?

And all of that applies to the future too. Exactly how will the new stand benefit the club in terms of money it has to spend on players? Exactly how are we going to meet our requirements regarding the balloon payment at the end of the 5 years because right now it looks like we have no chance of doing it without absolutely destroying the playing budget.

And all of that means that the club publishes some real, accurate, verified and verifiable accounts and income/cost projections. It could be called something like a "business plan" which I believe are all the rage in some quarters.

And so far the club has shown absolutely no inclination at all to do so.

So "go along and ask what you like" is all well and good but we don't have even a tiny portion of the information we might need access to on which to base some sensible questions about the stuff that really, really matters.

SFD.. a lot of the questions that you want answering are commercially sensitive though. I doubt if there is a football club in the country that would give you the information that you are looking for.Argyle are no different than anyone else in that respect.

greensleeves wrote:

.........
SFD.. a lot of the questions that you want answering are commercially sensitive though. I doubt if there is a football club in the country that would give you the information that you are looking for.Argyle are no different than anyone else in that respect.

I can't see many of those questions being 'commercially sensitive'. My expertise in such matters is virtually nil. I assume you are an expert? I can see a reason not to publicise our player budget but I can see no reason to hide information on the rest.

When were the last set of accounts published? Can't remember seeing any for ages.

Richard Blight wrote:

Dingle wrote:

As the meeting is being organised by PAFC surely they should be setting out the procedures for asking questions.

I wonder who will be chairing the question session / picking out the questioners?

Brian Rix would be an appropriate choice.

Richard Blight wrote:

Dingle wrote:

As the meeting is being organised by PAFC surely they should be setting out the procedures for asking questions.

I wonder who will be chairing the question session / picking out the questioners?

According to Tony Cholwell on the farm it will be...  Surprise, surprise...

Chris Webb.

Rickler wrote:

Richard Blight wrote:

Dingle wrote:

As the meeting is being organised by PAFC surely they should be setting out the procedures for asking questions.

I wonder who will be chairing the question session / picking out the questioners?

According to Tony Cholwell on the farm it will be...  Surprise, surprise...

Chris Webb.

I fink James is a fine gentleman. The green army are the finest fans in the world............ blah blah blah............

Rickler wrote:

Tony Cholwell on the Pasoti thread p13 wrote:

The PASB are allowed 5 questions at each joint meeting, this meeting will have no such arbitrary limit and so be it a fans bar, transparency, state of pasties or the wrong colour green, go along and have your say.

The PASB, including many Trust Board members have a long standing meeting arranged for 11am that day bit will be in attendance at the beginning, although not everyone has confirmed their intentions. I am sure any one wishing their question to be asked will be helped. The PASB can be contacted either via me here or [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] We will arrange for the notification of the meeting to be on our website and invite questions.

Some nice little nuggets there.

The PASB are only allowed five questions at each joint meeting?  It is quite frankly pathetic, that the PASB agreed to that in their beloved TOR.

What else is in this TOR?

And yes...  The PAFC Board did schedule the 'meet the fan fest' the same day that fans reps would be meeting.  Unbelievable.

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

I might have got this wrong, but I understood that the PASB meeting consists of the fans' side and people from the club board. This meeting, half an hour before the PASB meeting, involves people from the club board. So either the meeting's only going to last half an hour or somebody's forgotten to put the PASB meeting into some diaries. Or decided to ignore it - as per.

Rickler wrote:

Richard Blight wrote:

Dingle wrote:

As the meeting is being organised by PAFC surely they should be setting out the procedures for asking questions.

I wonder who will be chairing the question session / picking out the questioners?

According to Tony Cholwell on the farm it will be...  Surprise, surprise...

Chris Webb.

And with all the photographic and other evidence collected over the years by  I'd lay odds that any freak or weirdo who tries to ask a question will be spotted and filtered out.

If it wasn't all so tragic - I for one still feel that something that mattered a lot to me for 35 odd years has been taken away from me by a bunch of ignorant bastards - it'd make a cracking comedy-drama.

Rickler wrote:

Richard Blight wrote:

Dingle wrote:

As the meeting is being organised by PAFC surely they should be setting out the procedures for asking questions.

I wonder who will be chairing the question session / picking out the questioners?

According to Tony Cholwell on the farm it will be...  Surprise, surprise...

Chris Webb.

Windsor webb, a brent yes man, picking out gratefuls to ask tame questions:sleep: : When are you selling up brent, is the only question.

I thought I'd look to see if the Higher Home Park website contained any questions and answers [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] to no avail. Did anyone submit any questions or comments via that site? Get any answers?

Of course I realise that the meeting isn't just about the grandstand but you would think that it would be a good place for James Brent/Akerron to have published facts about the development including points raised by the Trust, the PASB, REAL superfans and Joe Soap ordinary fans.

I take it that due to the lack of PM's offering to ask questions for me, nobody else is going either?

The pig is loving that thread. Keeps on with the whole 'got to man up face to face' horseshit. He wants to eyeball dissenters with his chav and shaven ape hangers on. That's what he's all about. Him and 2 faced will then reply to ANY future criticism on PASOTI with a gloating, where were you at the 'fans' meeting, too shy were you? keyboard warrior! It is all so predictable and childish, those cnuts have never left the schoolyard. The meeting itself, given that HHP planning permission is granted, and JB's refusal to allow financial scrutiny of budgets etc, is largely irrelevant, save for the cock sucking.

A few years ago a lot of users on that thread would have been banned by now for chucking his "you're not a proper fan because....." smear attempt back in his face. He's getting a kicking on his own forum and he deserves it.

knecht wrote:

greensleeves wrote:

.........
SFD.. a lot of the questions that you want answering are commercially sensitive though. I doubt if there is a football club in the country that would give you the information that you are looking for.Argyle are no different than anyone else in that respect.

I can't see many of those questions being 'commercially sensitive'. My expertise in such matters is virtually nil. I assume you are an expert? I can see a reason not to publicise our player budget but I can see no reason to hide information on the rest.

What does it matter if we publicise our playing budget? Funds are so tight in league two that it matters not a jot as cash transfers are rarely made these days. In order to know how much is disposable (which I guess would be most people's concerns) then you would need to know how much is already committed via players salaries, an impossible task without full release of contracts.

nzgreen wrote:

The pig is loving that thread. Keeps on with the whole 'got to man up face to face' horseshit. He wants to eyeball dissenters with his chav and shaven ape hangers on. That's what he's all about. Him and 2 faced will then reply to ANY future criticism on PASOTI with a gloating, where were you at the 'fans' meeting, too shy were you? keyboard warrior! It is all so predictable and childish, those cnuts have never left the schoolyard. The meeting itself, given that HHP planning permission is granted, and JB's refusal to allow financial scrutiny of budgets etc, is largely irrelevant, save for the cock sucking.

That's about the size of it.........except for the cock sucking, which will be huge ! 

Tringreen wrote:

nzgreen wrote:

The pig is loving that thread. Keeps on with the whole 'got to man up face to face' horseshit. He wants to eyeball dissenters with his chav and shaven ape hangers on. That's what he's all about. Him and 2 faced will then reply to ANY future criticism on PASOTI with a gloating, where were you at the 'fans' meeting, too shy were you? keyboard warrior! It is all so predictable and childish, those cnuts have never left the schoolyard. The meeting itself, given that HHP planning permission is granted, and JB's refusal to allow financial scrutiny of budgets etc, is largely irrelevant, save for the cock sucking.

That's about the size of it.........except for the cock sucking, which will be huge ! 

Yes. Was going to prefix that statement with 'metaphorically speaking'. Then thought nah, stuff it.
   

Peggy wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Richard Blight wrote:

Dingle wrote:

As the meeting is being organised by PAFC surely they should be setting out the procedures for asking questions.

I wonder who will be chairing the question session / picking out the questioners?

According to Tony Cholwell on the farm it will be...  Surprise, surprise...

Chris Webb.

And with all the photographic and other evidence collected over the years by  I'd lay odds that any freak or weirdo who tries to ask a question will be spotted and filtered out.

If it wasn't all so tragic - I for one still feel that something that mattered a lot to me for 35 odd years has been taken away from me by a bunch of ignorant bastards - it'd make a cracking comedy-drama.

The early signs of control freakery and abuse of position , were there for all to see Peggy. Way back when the emerging  supposedly was domocratically elected in Pasoti's only ever election, the intolerence and thought control had begun.You were around then. A Pasoti mod. You must remember it ?
'Trust in Stapes' he commanded. 'I'll never hear a bad word against that man and his lovely family'. 'Enjoy the ride!'
Anyone who continued to urge caution, to suggest other probable futures , was told they were too much work for the mods and so many complaints have been received, or spurious charges were levelled against them, such as being 'racist' or 'hackers'.
Very few could see how this was developing and the bannings of the likes of Tringy,GOB and Rickler on totally spurious charges, were smilingly accepted by many articulate and now highly critical of   and his partners in crime.

He seems very concerned that the AFT will be in attendance and has done everything he can to disrupt the AFT from asking questions. I wonder what he is afraid of!

Richard Blight wrote:

I take it that due to the lack of PM's offering to ask questions for me, nobody else is going either?

I woke up this morning from a dream where I was asking questions and making a speech that in one version stilled the room in speechless awe and in another version brought people to their feet in applause. It was a dream, of course.

To get there I'd have to get up probably before 8:00  (that's early for me) & drive a 40 mile round trip. I wouldn't go to the match as I can't afford it (the drive itself would cost a tenner just in petrol). I'd have to sit in a half empty tent for a couple of hours. I'd turn around and go home straight afterwards - just to attend a PR stunt. If there are questions to be answered, the important ones can't be significantly different to the ones that have already been asked by the Gasboard &/or the Fans Trust. I've said elsewhere that the setting of a public Q&A doesn't lend itself to a proper discussion about the important issues - it would only enable sound-bites or rabbit-out-of-the-bag public announcements. The club and those so inclined will claim that it has been open and engaged with the fans. There appears to have been no genuine engagement with either the AFT or the GASB.

It may certainly be true that there have been more public meetings with fans groups than previous owners but I can see nowhere that it has modified anything that has been done. Indeed, if you remember, at the PASTA meeting one of the directors (I think it was Richard Holliday - apologies if it was another) stated that the income from the commercial units would go to the club save for one or perhaps two of them. Those of us who attended the earlier Cherry Tree cabal with Mr Brent will remember his pledging the existing footprint of the stand would be for the commercial benefit of Argyle - of course his actual words may have been carefully selected to allow escape clauses but the implication was clear. If the club can step back from that commitment what is the point of such meetings? If I thought that my attendance would contribute to any changes in the board's decision-making I might still go. It won't. The major decisions have all been made.

I have no criticism whatsoever of those fans who choose to attend whether they be critical or supportive of the current owners. Those are making an effort.

The best option might be if Gasboard or Trust representatives, fully briefed with what information is available, get up and ask significant questions and refuse to accept waffled replies. Ideally the local press would be on hand and report this challenge. I won't hold my breath on the latter. I suggest for those of us who are unable or unwilling to attend we send questions to our representatives on both bodies. At least in that way we are attempting to make some positive contribution and in that way more real fans would have their voice heard.

Or, to put it another way, Richard, I'm sorry I can't ask your questions.

greensleeves wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Every question will eventually prompt an answer along the lines of "we'd like to but the budget doesn't support it".

Our problem is that there isn't anything published that shows what the budgets might be, what income is, any sort of breakdown as to how the budgets are spent or pretty much anything at all in a financial sense.

With regards to the ground we don't know how much the stand will cost to build, what the predicted income streams are, what the profit margins on all of that are just as we don't know how the whole HHP project is funded or how our bit is funded or what the breakdown of any of that is. All we have to go on is trust that the "figures don't add up" or "a bigger stand is unaffordable" or "the retail units all have to be leased out" or "there has to be a school" or there "has to be a dentist" and our recent history tells us, if it tells us anything at all, to question everything, accept nothing, check the figures and get everything in writing. In fact it compels us to demand the openness and transparency that was once so close to Brent's heart.

And all of that applies to the team too. What is the club's turnover, how much of the 55% of that goes to Sheridan, how much of that is swallowed up by historic debt and just how competitive is our competitive budget?

And all of that applies to the future too. Exactly how will the new stand benefit the club in terms of money it has to spend on players? Exactly how are we going to meet our requirements regarding the balloon payment at the end of the 5 years because right now it looks like we have no chance of doing it without absolutely destroying the playing budget.

And all of that means that the club publishes some real, accurate, verified and verifiable accounts and income/cost projections. It could be called something like a "business plan" which I believe are all the rage in some quarters.

And so far the club has shown absolutely no inclination at all to do so.

So "go along and ask what you like" is all well and good but we don't have even a tiny portion of the information we might need access to on which to base some sensible questions about the stuff that really, really matters.

SFD.. a lot of the questions that you want answering are commercially sensitive though. I doubt if there is a football club in the country that would give you the information that you are looking for.Argyle are no different than anyone else in that respect.

If other club's don't already know our budget, and we do not already know theirs, how could we ever have claimed that our playing budget was "competitive"? This information is supplied to the FL by each club and then the FL send it out to all the clubs when collated. So much of that information, being out there already, has no commercial sensitivity whatsoever. But we shouldn't ask about this because it might be deemed "commercially sensitive"?

But it wasn't me who promised openness and transparency, was it? But it was promised, wasn't it? And given what had happened before quite rightly so. It was one of the key points that lent valuable credibility to Brent's brand. Credibility which has since been utterly and wilfully squandered. But we shouldn't ask about this because it might be deemed "commercially sensitive"?

It is essential that these questions are asked because the club's, and hence Akkeron/Brent's, financial planning underpins absolutely everything but it is even more important that they are answered but they shouldn't be because it might be deemed "commercially sensitive"?

What scares me the most is that we appear to be blundering blindly towards the end of the 5 year admin debt repayment schedule, which looms ever closer with every passing day, and we are not, despite attracting some of the best attendances in the division for the last 2 years, making any progress at all with regards to paying our debts down. Why not? The money isn't being splurged on players, is it? Or maybe it is. If that is so then how are we meeting the 55% salary cap? It certainly isn't being spent, and quite rightly too, on transfer fees. But we shouldn't ask because it might be "commercially sensitive"?

Brent says it is essential that we are self-sufficient. I agree. But we aren't, are we? We are still losing money. Why? Those expensive historical contracts have all ended and ended a long time ago. So what is the excuse? Is Argyle paying towards the HHP development? But we shouldn't ask the question because it might be "commercially sensitive"?

Brent is effecting a mini-Glazer styled Man Utd takeover by "buying" Argyle with money he has leveraged against the club. In no meaningful sense has he "bought" anything with his own hard cash so far as I can see. The takeover and exit from admin was financed by £1.6m from the council and since then it has all been the "shareholders are lending the club money" which potentially puts us ever further back in the mire. Even the HHP development appears to be financed by deals with a car park company, fast food "restaurants", a hotel company, a dentist, a school etc. But we shouldn't ask about this because it might be deemed "commercially sensitive"?

We can't touch, so we are told, a single blade of grass on Cottage Field, despite it being specifically earmarked for such purpose in the Central Park Action Plan, but we can demand, and be given, 1.22 acres of Central Park somewhere else. Add to that the £1.6m for selling (some of) the land to the council. Add to that a "rent holiday" negotiated with the council. Is there anything else Brent's been given by the council on my behalf that I don't know about? That's a lot of land and money given to Brent by the council. Land which as a city resident and council tax payer is, sorry was, partly "mine". Money which is either added to my council tax bill or paid for by providing me with either fewer services or the same services as at a lower standard. But we shouldn't ask about this because it might be deemed "commercially sensitive"?

So what do we gain from all of this? Well we still have a club, that's true. We'd still have a club anyway even if Brent had never darkened our horizon. Probably not currently a league club but a club of sorts nonetheless. We'll, maybe (we'll see), get a new grandstand that is too small, does not include a supporters' bar, has no space for a Fans' Fest, is riddled with retail outlets that do not benefit (and in some instances actually compete with!) the club on matchdays surrounded by development that makes future ground expansion impossible and never again will we see even as few as 17000 people in the ground. It's a plan that carves our future assured mediocrity irreducibly into stone. That might seem feckin wonderful to some but it seems to be a complete feckin catastrophe to me. But we shouldn't ask about this because it might be deemed "commercially sensitive"?

Currently we have 19 points from 16 games (which knocks spots off the last 2 (6?) seasons but we are still only 86th best, or 6th worst, league team in the country. We need some indication that this is not going to continue, if it is then what is the point of any of it?, and what is being done to rectify it but that can only include us signing players, improving a scouting network, bettering the training regime and facilities and we won't be able to ask about any of them because they are either "footballing matters down to Sheridan" (who won't be there) or reliant on long-term investment, which in turn is reliant on a business plan which in turn we can't ask about because it might be deemed "commercially sensitive".

So "turn up and ask your question". "Question" note. How can all of that be addressed in one question or given in one answer. It can't and a bunch of randomly selected questions won't do it either. The way forward is not an open session such as the one proposed. The way forward is for our local media to be holding Brent and his plans to account with prolonged scrutiny so that when we are told "the numbers don't add up" to justify selling off the retail outlets and the corners of the ground and chunks of Central Park and building an inadequately small stand and so on somebody, somewhere asks "what numbers?" and then asks to be shown them and doesn't give up until they are shown them. But we shouldn't ask about any of this because it might be deemed "commercially sensitive"?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

greensleeves wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Every question will eventually prompt an answer along the lines of "we'd like to but the budget doesn't support it".

Our problem is that there isn't anything published that shows what the budgets might be, what income is, any sort of breakdown as to how the budgets are spent or pretty much anything at all in a financial sense.

With regards to the ground we don't know how much the stand will cost to build, what the predicted income streams are, what the profit margins on all of that are just as we don't know how the whole HHP project is funded or how our bit is funded or what the breakdown of any of that is. All we have to go on is trust that the "figures don't add up" or "a bigger stand is unaffordable" or "the retail units all have to be leased out" or "there has to be a school" or there "has to be a dentist" and our recent history tells us, if it tells us anything at all, to question everything, accept nothing, check the figures and get everything in writing. In fact it compels us to demand the openness and transparency that was once so close to Brent's heart.

And all of that applies to the team too. What is the club's turnover, how much of the 55% of that goes to Sheridan, how much of that is swallowed up by historic debt and just how competitive is our competitive budget?

And all of that applies to the future too. Exactly how will the new stand benefit the club in terms of money it has to spend on players? Exactly how are we going to meet our requirements regarding the balloon payment at the end of the 5 years because right now it looks like we have no chance of doing it without absolutely destroying the playing budget.

And all of that means that the club publishes some real, accurate, verified and verifiable accounts and income/cost projections. It could be called something like a "business plan" which I believe are all the rage in some quarters.

And so far the club has shown absolutely no inclination at all to do so.

So "go along and ask what you like" is all well and good but we don't have even a tiny portion of the information we might need access to on which to base some sensible questions about the stuff that really, really matters.

SFD.. a lot of the questions that you want answering are commercially sensitive though. I doubt if there is a football club in the country that would give you the information that you are looking for.Argyle are no different than anyone else in that respect.

If other club's don't already know our budget, and we do not already know theirs, how could we ever have claimed that our playing budget was "competitive"? This information is supplied to the FL by each club and then the FL send it out to all the clubs when collated. So much of that information, being out there already, has no commercial sensitivity whatsoever. But we shouldn't ask about this because it might be deemed "commercially sensitive"?

But it wasn't me who promised openness and transparency, was it? But it was promised, wasn't it? And given what had happened before quite rightly so. It was one of the key points that lent valuable credibility to Brent's brand. Credibility which has since been utterly and wilfully squandered. But we shouldn't ask about this because it might be deemed "commercially sensitive"?

It is essential that these questions are asked because the club's, and hence Akkeron/Brent's, financial planning underpins absolutely everything but it is even more important that they are answered but they shouldn't be because it might be deemed "commercially sensitive"?

What scares me the most is that we appear to be blundering blindly towards the end of the 5 year admin debt repayment schedule, which looms ever closer with every passing day, and we are not, despite attracting some of the best attendances in the division for the last 2 years, making any progress at all with regards to paying our debts down. Why not? The money isn't being splurged on players, is it? Or maybe it is. If that is so then how are we meeting the 55% salary cap? It certainly isn't being spent, and quite rightly too, on transfer fees. But we shouldn't ask because it might be "commercially sensitive"?

Brent says it is essential that we are self-sufficient. I agree. But we aren't, are we? We are still losing money. Why? Those expensive historical contracts have all ended and ended a long time ago. So what is the excuse? Is Argyle paying towards the HHP development? But we shouldn't ask the question because it might be "commercially sensitive"?

Brent is effecting a mini-Glazer styled Man Utd takeover by "buying" Argyle with money he has leveraged against the club. In no meaningful sense has he "bought" anything with his own hard cash so far as I can see. The takeover and exit from admin was financed by £1.6m from the council and since then it has all been the "shareholders are lending the club money" which potentially puts us ever further back in the mire. Even the HHP development appears to be financed by deals with a car park company, fast food "restaurants", a hotel company, a dentist, a school etc. But we shouldn't ask about this because it might be deemed "commercially sensitive"?

We can't touch, so we are told, a single blade of grass on Cottage Field, despite it being specifically earmarked for such purpose in the Central Park Action Plan, but we can demand, and be given, 1.22 acres of Central Park somewhere else. Add to that the £1.6m for selling (some of) the land to the council. Add to that a "rent holiday" negotiated with the council. Is there anything else Brent's been given by the council on my behalf that I don't know about? That's a lot of land and money given to Brent by the council. Land which as a city resident and council tax payer is, sorry was, partly "mine". Money which is either added to my council tax bill or paid for by providing me with either fewer services or the same services as at a lower standard. But we shouldn't ask about this because it might be deemed "commercially sensitive"?

So what do we gain from all of this? Well we still have a club, that's true. We'd still have a club anyway even if Brent had never darkened our horizon. Probably not currently a league club but a club of sorts nonetheless. We'll, maybe (we'll see), get a new grandstand that is too small, does not include a supporters' bar, has no space for a Fans' Fest, is riddled with retail outlets that do not benefit (and in some instances actually compete with!) the club on matchdays surrounded by development that makes future ground expansion impossible and never again will we see even as few as 17000 people in the ground. It's a plan that carves our future assured mediocrity irreducibly into stone. That might seem feckin wonderful to some but it seems to be a complete feckin catastrophe to me. But we shouldn't ask about this because it might be deemed "commercially sensitive"?

Currently we have 19 points from 16 games (which knocks spots off the last 2 (6?) seasons but we are still only 86th best, or 6th worst, league team in the country. We need some indication that this is not going to continue, if it is then what is the point of any of it?, and what is being done to rectify it but that can only include us signing players, improving a scouting network, bettering the training regime and facilities and we won't be able to ask about any of them because they are either "footballing matters down to Sheridan" (who won't be there) or reliant on long-term investment, which in turn is reliant on a business plan which in turn we can't ask about because it might be deemed "commercially sensitive".

So "turn up and ask your question". "Question" note. How can all of that be addressed in one question or given in one answer. It can't and a bunch of randomly selected questions won't do it either. The way forward is not an open session such as the one proposed. The way forward is for our local media to be holding Brent and his plans to account with prolonged scrutiny so that when we are told "the numbers don't add up" to justify selling off the retail outlets and the corners of the ground and chunks of Central Park and building an inadequately small stand and so on somebody, somewhere asks "what numbers?" and then asks to be shown them and doesn't give up until they are shown them. But we shouldn't ask about any of this because it might be deemed "commercially sensitive"?

Exactly. The reluctant one is a fine gentleman and is totally trusted by the owners of the supporters' largest website and seemingly the local council and press too. One can only guess as to 'why' ?

SFD - Excellent summation of our current position and problems

I will laugh my arse off if the steeple don't even get the supporters bar they are asking for. My guess is it will be like an off sales counter in the side of the Ministand and I can't wait to hear why something shit is good?