spowell 92

seadog wrote:

The Goat has spake.

Spake? Spake? FFS.   

Chemical Ali wrote:

zyph wrote:

Chemical Ali wrote:

I'm sure Zyth's ATD identity had already been linked to his pasoti name on pasoti (no prizes for guessing by who) in a spat some time ago. I had been aware of who Zyph was for quite a time before Tring mentioned it, because I'd seen it on pasoti.

Please tell me when CA....I cannot remember it before Tring...I would appreciate it.

I can't remember exactly when but I remember you and the pasoti owner having a spat and he referred to you as Zyth. I didn't know who you were (on pasoti) until then. It was during your anti-pasoti stage (on pasoti). If I was registered on there I would find the thread, but sadly I'm not (I think it was a couple of years ago), unless the thread has been removed/ sanitised.

I think what your referring to was that he called me by my christian name CA......He does like to do that I've noticed (I know who you are, nod nod wink wink upmanship)....the problem was he got my name wrong and I wouldn't tell him.

From the farm:  
GreenThing wrote:
gaspargomez wrote:
In light of which has been said on this thread, it still seems to me that the grandstand is pretty much the minimum that Brent could get away with, instead of the best that the club could have achieved from the land deal.


That might be the case, or it might be that the planned grandstand covers our needs for the foreseeable future and comes within our budget.

spowell.........
Covers our needs for now, but limits our ability to expand in the future. Although you stating that it fulfils our needs for the foreseeable future highlights a true lack of ambition.

........................................

Indeed it does mr powell. Not only that, it fails to inspire the missing ten thousand from a few short years ago, let alone send out a message to the region that the club means business. I realise that most of these clubs enjoyed outside investment but in recent years Reading, Cardiff, Hull, Brighton, Swansea etc , all clubs with similar historical support bases to Argyle, achieved lift off attendance wise through ambitious stadia. PCC could and should have demanded better.Swansea's council acted when its club was where we are now. The AFT WG plans would not only have provided the new stadia wow factor but the rest of the development would not be the dingy, second rate clusterfuck, which now seems is inevitable.

Agree with the above, and particularly spowell92's succinct comment on pasoti.

I bet some of them over there are delighted the railway line is closed, keep out those not from Plymouth and their funny ideas

To be honest the build is the right size for us for now, and probably for the next few seasons. The horseshoe expansion is a decent option too for a later date (and I know there's questions other the possibility of that, but I'll trust Brent on that one), but to not properly look beyond that is wrong in my opinion. Say we get to the point where demand justifies expansion beyond 20k, and it turns out that there are no possibilities available to accommodate for the fan growth. However improbable it may be that the city of Plymouth actually supports their football team, I think the club should keep their options open to be able to fit them in if the unlikely did happen. Completely closing off those options shows a lack of ambition to properly promote this club.

If JB came out and said look beyond the horseshoe expansion these plans are viable and we can do this, this and/or this. Or if the club said they're going to fight for the reintroduction of standing by supporting the safe standing campaign and they drew up viable plans on how to increase the capacity with a decent standing section in the Devonport end perhaps, then I'd be more accepting of the development. I feel it's the right sized build for us now, I understand the logic behind it, though personally I'd have rather seen it be a bit larger, but I don't agree with how restrictive it is for the future.

So you're choosing to ignore the obvious statement that a properly finished ground, with real room for expansion sends out to the potential fanbase ?

Yes. I don't buy the argument that if we build a 20k seater stadium that the city'll flock to it on a regular basis. I'd imagine it'd being a one off novelty for many that perhaps could spare a Saturday to attend as their beloved United aren't on the tele till the MNF.

spowell92 wrote:

To be honest the build is the right size for us for now, and probably for the next few seasons. The horseshoe expansion is a decent option too for a later date (and I know there's questions other the possibility of that, but I'll trust Brent on that one), but to not properly look beyond that is wrong in my opinion. Say we get to the point where demand justifies expansion beyond 20k, and it turns out that there are no possibilities available to accommodate for the fan growth. However improbable it may be that the city of Plymouth actually supports their football team, I think the club should keep their options open to be able to fit them in if the unlikely did happen. Completely closing off those options shows a lack of ambition to properly promote this club.

If JB came out and said look beyond the horseshoe expansion these plans are viable and we can do this, this and/or this. Or if the club said they're going to fight for the reintroduction of standing by supporting the safe standing campaign and they drew up viable plans on how to increase the capacity with a decent standing section in the Devonport end perhaps, then I'd be more accepting of the development. I feel it's the right sized build for us now, I understand the logic behind it, though personally I'd have rather seen it be a bit larger, but I don't agree with how restrictive it is for the future.

I would honestly approach the issue as if the horseshoe expansion option as if it didn't exist.

As I will stake my minor internet presence on the line and say that those plans will never see the light of day.

I have done the minor calculations involved, and it works out that Argyle would have to have continuous sellout crowds for ten years to pay off the investment in the horseshoe expansion.

No sane business owner would agree to that, because it ain't gonna happen. Not unless Argyle win promotion to the Premier League, by which the business model to 'simply and easily pop a shelf on the horseshoe' becomes intertwined with the longstanding ambition of the club to play in the top division - something we have somehow avoiding doing for 128 years. Yet the horseshoe is an easy expansion option? Nonsense.

This is why I don't really trust Brent deep down. The horseshoe is not a quick and simple project, yet he is portraying it as exactly that, and so many fans readily accept it. There is a road being built behind the main Lyndhurst stand that will be somewhat inconvenienced by the restructuring of major steelworks, that is obstacle number 1. Obstacle number 2 is the sheer cost of it - £2.5m - who is going to commit to footing that? (not much less than the cost to the football club of the entire horseshoe). Obstacle number 3 is the limited profitability of the tier - not a lot of seats, for a heck of a lot of expensive work. That is where the decade of sellouts figure comes from, something that won't happen without Premier League football.

We have had promises of this kind of expansion for decades. Stapleton never added a tier, and his board couldn't even get Phase II underway. If having a playoff chasing team, or average crowds of 16,500 (different seasons though) doesn't inspire confidence to commit, nothing will - short of Premier League football - the £80m jackpot, the continuous crowd surge. Of course it is easy to invest £2.5m then - but christ we are 10th in Division 4 in the here and now.

And so this is where I go back to being depressed, stuck in the basement league, stuck with a shoebox of a Mayflower design on the table, while the majority of the club's tenancy land gets taken for nothing by James Brent to built his private developments, while the club gets left with a lower league hemmed in 'Grandstand' for the ensuing decades. And crazily, so many legions of the supporters treat Brent like he is jesus for doing it, no doubt aided by his PR team called the Pasoti owners/moderators who edit, remove and ban and repeated criticism of their master.

It is all such a sad state of affairs now, I honestly try not to think about it anymore. Probably the first time I have posted about the scandalous Home Park landgrab for several months.

Agree, is it not also true that the foundations and steelwork from phase one are unsuitable for a second tier without major and costly reconstruction.

spowell92 wrote:

To be honest the build is the right size for us for now, and probably for the next few seasons. The horseshoe expansion is a decent option too for a later date (and I know there's questions other the possibility of that, but I'll trust Brent on that one), ...........
....... I feel it's the right sized build for us now, I understand the logic behind it, though personally I'd have rather seen it be a bit larger, but I don't agree with how restrictive it is for the future.

Sorry to take just a small bit of what you said but - the possibility for expansion into the horseshoe will provide something like between 2,000 & 2,500 seats (I think - I can't be bothered to go & look up the precise numbers). Those seats will have reduced views of the pitch. The building of them will involve closing the access road for the new development. That would likely involve either compensation for the businesses involved in addition to the building costs. If you add the segregation area needed for away fans we would still have a small ground with no ability to meaningfully increase the capacity.

I have heard conflicting reports of James Brent - some say he has Argyle's development in mind - some say he has his pension fund in mind. My own contact with him has been equally conflicted. He may, in the history of the club turn out to be one of the good guys. But perception is all and, outside the plaudits delivered by some fans the perception is increasingly that he is a hard-nosed businessman who is simply out for what he is allowed to get away with; to quote gaspargomez from pasoti, "it still seems to me that the grandstand is pretty much the minimum that Brent could get away with, instead of the best that the club could have achieved from the land deal". I started out impressed with him (his commitments to integrity, financial stability & honesty as well as his promise to engage with the fans were especially attractive) and and then was willing to wait and see what his legacy would be. I am now in the position where my default mode is distrust.

knecht wrote:

spowell92 wrote:

To be honest the build is the right size for us for now, and probably for the next few seasons. The horseshoe expansion is a decent option too for a later date (and I know there's questions other the possibility of that, but I'll trust Brent on that one), ...........
....... I feel it's the right sized build for us now, I understand the logic behind it, though personally I'd have rather seen it be a bit larger, but I don't agree with how restrictive it is for the future.

Sorry to take just a small bit of what you said but - the possibility for expansion into the horseshoe will provide something like between 2,000 & 2,500 seats (I think - I can't be bothered to go & look up the precise numbers). Those seats will have reduced views of the pitch. The building of them will involve closing the access road for the new development. That would likely involve either compensation for the businesses involved in addition to the building costs. If you add the segregation area needed for away fans we would still have a small ground with no ability to meaningfully increase the capacity.

I have heard conflicting reports of James Brent - some say he has Argyle's development in mind - some say he has his pension fund in mind. My own contact with him has been equally conflicted. He may, in the history of the club turn out to be one of the good guys. But perception is all and, outside the plaudits delivered by some fans the perception is increasingly that he is a hard-nosed businessman who is simply out for what he is allowed to get away with; to quote gaspargomez from pasoti, "it still seems to me that the grandstand is pretty much the minimum that Brent could get away with, instead of the best that the club could have achieved from the land deal". I started out impressed with him (his commitments to integrity, financial stability & honesty as well as his promise to engage with the fans were especially attractive) and and then was willing to wait and see what his legacy would be. I am now in the position where my default mode is distrust.

Couldn't agree with you and gasparagomez any more.

As for the smallest and cheapest design he could have gotten away with, remember Brent tried to foist an even shitter Grandstand design on us as well? Argyle supporters were instantly and vehemently underwhelmed.

It is at that stage we had the nauseous Saint James PR campaign, whereby he 'listened to the fans' and 'did all he could' to add a handful of extra seats.

But what he didn't do was A) Seriously explore the Cottage Field possibility B) Seriously consider the proposals of the Working Group C) Answer the questions on Pasoti that fans were desperate to understand, for a good 3 - 4 months.

What he did do was A) Calm fans with a load of drivel about the easy tier expansion option B) Talk about the local Labour manifesto as if it was a constitutionally enshrined document meaning that Cottage Field was beyond consideration (a document of no importance to planners) C) Leave Argyle fans thinking this was the best possible terms, and every single damaging aspect to the club's future was non-negotiable, and the whole project was take it or leave it.

We had a number of options coming out of administration with plenty of dubious capitalists floating about. We just ended up with the capitalist with the smoothest facade, with fantastic important connections within the City of Plymouth and within the football club, that has allowed him to walk into the club and access the freehold on a considerable chunk of Central Park in return for a football stand that is League Two at best.

In 20 years time when Brent is gone and we have no options to expand, hopefully we can all have a laugh about what mugs we were taken for. And in 20 years time, the companies based on HHP will all be paying rent to Brent, all kicking profits up, and he will be rolling into a new town full of promises.

And don't forget that when the whole Grandstand/HHP development plans were first released there was no mention of the capacity of the stand. I found that odd because that is normally the first thing that the fans of any club want to know.

My suspicion was that Brent wanted to bury the "bad" news about the capacity by getting everyone excited by his lovely 3D plans for the cinema and shops and his crayon drawing of the stand.

To be honest, whilst the AFT Working Party plans were better for the club I would not have supported them as they were undeniably worse for Central Park as a whole.

I simply do not accept that in order to get a new stand we should have a row of "high-class" restaurants (and we still don't know what that means), a dentists, a cinema & a school.

But that particular argument is effectively over. All that we are able to do is record it for history.

I too would never have supported the AFT's desire to pinch more of the city's park for a privately owned football club, just to allow some private developer the opportunity to put more of his nonsense retail plans into operation.
The biggest mistake in my mind is the stealing of the corners, and that is where much of the capacity is lost... a goodly 4 to 5,000. I believe most of Brent's plans could still have been fitted on the footprint and underneath the seating. I also think the height restriction argument is a nonsense seeing as Brent doesn't seem too bothered about a 7 storey cliff face next to the Barn Park stand dominating the park. There's no reason why the new grandstand couldn't be the same height as the existing, sloping down to a more reasonable height at the Barn Park, in the theme of many new stadia. The whole design irritates the senses, let alone shouts an ill thought out money loser for all but Brent.
It's all smoke and mirrors and more of a land grab than at first is apparent. And that's before we even get to appropriating some of the commercial units under the stand.
And what's the betting when the stadium freehold itself is purchased back, Brent just finds some way to hang onto it himself, hence becoming the landlord of the rest of the stadium. I believe he wants the whole lot.

I too was initially in favour of the JOINT PCC and Brent buy out. This forum also officially welcomed Brent. little did we know what plans he had, and how little PCC cared. And as for ice skating.........pleeeeeease ". We all know it'll end up being the new music venue Pavillions at some stage.

Of course, one thing has not been speculated about in all this. If some strange miracle happened and Argyle managed to sneak up into the Premiership, there's nothing to stop a newly enriched club buying back the school and the Dentist etc. for expansion.  Would be a nice earner for a few, and maybe the odd pension fund.

Now that Brent has managed to get the grubby hands of a developer into a corner of the Park, Central Park will be under a huge amount of pressure from developers in the future and I suspect that PCC are quietly fully aware of that and are quietly promoting it to the likes of Brent. We have a growing population requiring more space and space is one thing that Plymouth doesn't have, in order to protect Central Park we will need a very strong FoCP indeed in the future. But as we have now seen, if a developer sits on this or that committee and has friends in the local Labour Party then Central Park must be appealing.

It has to be said that if you are a fan of ambition then the future for PAFC is quite dismal now, no matter how you look at it.

Spowell is quite right, for a lowly positioned Club the Home Park stadium size is adequate. In fact I think a 10,000 capacity will be more than enough for a Club lacking in all ambition as even the most faithful find that watching Parkway climb leagues is more entertaining than watching a Club with a completely predictable season ahead.

Winter Green wrote:

I too would never have supported the AFT's desire to pinch more of the city's park for a privately owned football club, just to allow some private developer the opportunity to put more of his nonsense retail plans into operation.
The biggest mistake in my mind is the stealing of the corners, and that is where much of the capacity is lost... a goodly 4 to 5,000. I believe most of Brent's plans could still have been fitted on the footprint and underneath the seating. I also think the height restriction argument is a nonsense seeing as Brent doesn't seem too bothered about a 7 storey cliff face next to the Barn Park stand dominating the park. There's no reason why the new grandstand couldn't be the same height as the existing, sloping down to a more reasonable height at the Barn Park, in the theme of many new stadia. The whole design irritates the senses, let alone shouts an ill thought out money loser for all but Brent.
It's all smoke and mirrors and more of a land grab than at first is apparent. And that's before we even get to appropriating some of the commercial units under the stand.
And what's the betting when the stadium freehold itself is purchased back, Brent just finds some way to hang onto it himself, hence becoming the landlord of the rest of the stadium. I believe he wants the whole lot.

I too was initially in favour of the JOINT PCC and Brent buy out. This forum also officially welcomed Brent. little did we know what plans he had, and how little PCC cared. And as for ice skating.........pleeeeeease ". We all know it'll end up being the new music venue Pavillions at some stage.

Of course, one thing has not been speculated about in all this. If some strange miracle happened and Argyle managed to sneak up into the Premiership, there's nothing to stop a newly enriched club buying back the school and the Dentist etc. for expansion.  Would be a nice earner for a few, and maybe the odd pension fund.

Yeah but it looks distinctive, not like these concrete bowls you get  

I now will watch the odd game at Victoria Park these days if I'm not out and about on a Saturday afternoon enjoying this part of the world.
I've watched Div 4 football before, and one doesn't mind if one can identify with the club and it's endeavours. That doesn't seem to be possible any more. I actually resent some non football banker pootling along and totally changing the nature of the football club and it's direction. I would rather have supported a new entity in the park all together. The admin was not so much about saving the club, more saving a going concern that could be bled for years to pay off the gambling former owners who in effect gambled with the future gate receipts. Dead man walking. Ya di ya da

Frank Bullitt wrote:

And don't forget that when the whole Grandstand/HHP development plans were first released there was no mention of the capacity of the stand. I found that odd because that is normally the first thing that the fans of any club want to know.

My suspicion was that Brent wanted to bury the "bad" news about the capacity by getting everyone excited by his lovely 3D plans for the cinema and shops and his crayon drawing of the stand.

Just in case we forget.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Frank Bullitt wrote:

And don't forget that when the whole Grandstand/HHP development plans were first released there was no mention of the capacity of the stand. I found that odd because that is normally the first thing that the fans of any club want to know.

My suspicion was that Brent wanted to bury the "bad" news about the capacity by getting everyone excited by his lovely 3D plans for the cinema and shops and his crayon drawing of the stand.

Just in case we forget.

Magnificent!

Look how far we've come.

knecht wrote:

To be honest, whilst the AFT Working Party plans were better for the club I would not have supported them as they were undeniably worse for Central Park as a whole.

I simply do not accept that in order to get a new stand we should have a row of "high-class" restaurants (and we still don't know what that means), a dentists, a cinema & a school.

But that particular argument is effectively over. All that we are able to do is record it for history.

Well said Knecht, have you got your membership in the new FOCP? Memberships forms can be attain from the pitch and putt hut or down load from their face book page.

Dougie wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Frank Bullitt wrote:

And don't forget that when the whole Grandstand/HHP development plans were first released there was no mention of the capacity of the stand. I found that odd because that is normally the first thing that the fans of any club want to know.

My suspicion was that Brent wanted to bury the "bad" news about the capacity by getting everyone excited by his lovely 3D plans for the cinema and shops and his crayon drawing of the stand.

Just in case we forget.

Magnificent!

Its the new Plainmoor! brent the only owner who wants to make his ground smaller! HIS LIP QUIVERS HE REALLY GETS IT     

knecht wrote:

To be honest, whilst the AFT Working Party plans were better for the club I would not have supported them as they were undeniably worse for Central Park as a whole.

I simply do not accept that in order to get a new stand we should have a row of "high-class" restaurants (and we still don't know what that means), a dentists, a cinema & a school.

But that particular argument is effectively over. All that we are able to do is record it for history.

how would it have been? if it comes to building on a football pitch when there is 12 at least in the whole park or cutting down trees and building a road which will ultimately cause death and destroy the park in anycase i'd pick building on the football pitch everytime.

The park will be destroyed and ultimately it will be built on again as the council can be bought which is a shame for future generations.

Some people just don't get municipal parks.
How often do you use the park Angry ?
Is it a park you use at all ?

Winter Green wrote:

Some people just don't get municipal parks.
How often do you use the park Angry ?
Is it a park you use at all ?

And when he, or many other thousands reply never...

It opens up the suggestion they might be put to better uses?