spowell 92

Where are PCC going to find the £60m+ that the Government are taking off them Angry without doing things like selling off some land? It's not greed at all.
Half the PCC budget goes on social care - if they can't make that shortfall up, vulnerable people will suffer. Where are they going to magic up £20m a year over the next 3 years?

There's worse options than the HHP development. It's probably not the utopia PCC want but we live in reality.

It wouldnt be so bad if they were really selling it off but they aren't they giving land away!

hairy j wrote:

Where are PCC going to find the £60m+ that the Government are taking off them Angry without doing things like selling off some land? It's not greed at all.
Half the PCC budget goes on social care - if they can't make that shortfall up, vulnerable people will suffer. Where are they going to magic up £20m a year over the next 3 years?

There's worse options than the HHP development. It's probably not the utopia PCC want but we live in reality.

fishing again on behalf of your employer

there is no end to your hypocrisy

No I'm not. I asked a completely valid question. You haven't answered it, a bit like the previous question you avoided. That £60m cut is real.

Winter Green wrote:

lawnmowerman wrote:

People always play the loss of green space card when talking about central park, but if the council removed the spoil heaps left over from the building of the life center and returned them to useable parkland that would then free up cottage field.

Hang on. Both should be returned to green space. If that sort of logic were used, what would be the point of any planning policy at all.
But then that would mean private contractors actually sticking to the contracts they signed.

I suspect the "resurfacing" of Cottage Field that has been quoted may well signal some future training move from Harpers Park to Cottage Field, hence opening up certain opportunities there regarding University activities that was muted years ago before the big swindle and education budgets were slashed. That cricket club/ council depot land etc is still the land profiteers have their eyes on to develop further, not Cottage Field.
But hey, it's only a park, whadda I care ?

Plymouth does not have a planning policy when it comes jb he seems to be allowed to do what he likes.

lawnmowerman wrote:

Winter Green wrote:

lawnmowerman wrote:

People always play the loss of green space card when talking about central park, but if the council removed the spoil heaps left over from the building of the life center and returned them to useable parkland that would then free up cottage field.

Hang on. Both should be returned to green space. If that sort of logic were used, what would be the point of any planning policy at all.
But then that would mean private contractors actually sticking to the contracts they signed.

I suspect the "resurfacing" of Cottage Field that has been quoted may well signal some future training move from Harpers Park to Cottage Field, hence opening up certain opportunities there regarding University activities that was muted years ago before the big swindle and education budgets were slashed. That cricket club/ council depot land etc is still the land profiteers have their eyes on to develop further, not Cottage Field.
But hey, it's only a park, whadda I care ?

Plymouth does not have a planning policy when it comes jb he seems to be allowed to do what he likes.

for a fee dont forget how quickly they folded on their concerns when Brent offered to pay a bit extra  

Mr. Powell,

with reference to the plans for the expansion of the horseshoe. This has been the subject of much debate on both websites. The most interesting facts have come from structural engineers and other building professionals who have looked at the plans and pointed out several deficiencies. None of them have considered the plans to be economically viable. The cost per seat is too high for the amount of seats gained. The seats will also have restricted views because they will be built behind the existing steel supports.

The "green guide" for football stadia which Akkeron used to reject the Trust's plans also states that seats should not have restricted views and from memory Akkeron's plans would not meet a couple of other criteria either. So Akkeron's plans would also fail the "green guide"!

Alternative methods of building extensions to the horseshoe would again be more expensive and more importantly the new supports would come down right where the road around the Lyndhurst is going. So what would happen to the new road? Because of the amount of debate about this subject Chris Webb apparently asked JB about the road and he said it wouldn't be a problem, they would just move the road!!!!!!!!????????????????? Move it where exactly? Coronation Avenue, the avenue of trees at the back of the Lyndhurst is protected. From memory they were planted to celebrate the coronation of the Queen. Tunnelling the road as suggested by engineers was rejected as too expensive. So have a good look at a map or picture of Central Park and see if you can find a route that wouldn't result in the destruction of trees and large amounts of parkland. This would cause a shyte storm politically after both JB and Tudor Evans have said they didn't want another blade of Central Park damaged. There were allsorts of other engineering and logistical reasons why the horseshoe expansion was thought to be a non starter.

Don't get me wrong, if Argyle chucked enough money at it ( as one director said) they could build whatever they wanted. Only two problems with that. One the stadium will be boxed in on three sides. This leaves only the Devonport End that could possibly be redeveloped. That was the view of Akkeron's own staff when quizzed about the plans at the Theatre Royal. Second problem? Argyle haven't got any money and aren't likely to have in the foreseeable future.

Edited to add.

The Trust's construction professionals did propose an alternative road into the HHP complex that would have been much shorter and wouldn't have boxed in the Lyndhurst but this was also rejected because it involved a cutting outside the Life Centre and short tunnel into the car park. This would have encroached on to a small section of Cottage Field.

I'm staggered that there's still somebody out there that genuinely thinks the horseshoe will ever be added to in the future. Absolutely staggered.

hairy j wrote:

No I'm not. I asked a completely valid question. You haven't answered it, a bit like the previous question you avoided.  That £60m cut is real.

they could start by trying to get value for money out of the pavilions. Or they could Charge for park and ride car parks, or they could increase council tax.

In fact they are going to, how much did they get for the pavilions btw?

Richard Blight wrote:

Mr. Powell,

with reference to the plans for the expansion of the horseshoe. This has been the subject of much debate on both websites. The most interesting facts have come from structural engineers and other building professionals who have looked at the plans and pointed out several deficiencies. None of them have considered the plans to be economically viable. The cost per seat is too high for the amount of seats gained. The seats will also have restricted views because they will be built behind the existing steel supports.

The "green guide" for football stadia which Akkeron used to reject the Trust's plans also states that seats should not have restricted views and from memory Akkeron's plans would not meet a couple of other criteria either. So Akkeron's plans would also fail the "green guide"!

Alternative methods of building extensions to the horseshoe would again be more expensive and more importantly the new supports would come down right where the road around the Lyndhurst is going. So what would happen to the new road? Because of the amount of debate about this subject Chris Webb apparently asked JB about the road and he said it wouldn't be a problem, they would just move the road!!!!!!!!????????????????? Move it where exactly? Coronation Avenue, the avenue of trees at the back of the Lyndhurst is protected. From memory they were planted to celebrate the coronation of the Queen. Tunnelling the road as suggested by engineers was rejected as too expensive. So have a good look at a map or picture of Central Park and see if you can find a route that wouldn't result in the destruction of trees and large amounts of parkland. This would cause a shyte storm politically after both JB and Tudor Evans have said they didn't want another blade of Central Park damaged. There were allsorts of other engineering and logistical reasons why the horseshoe expansion was thought to be a non starter.

Don't get me wrong, if Argyle chucked enough money at it ( as one director said) they could build whatever they wanted. Only two problems with that. One the stadium will be boxed in on three sides. This leaves only the Devonport End that could possibly be redeveloped. That was the view of Akkeron's own staff when quizzed about the plans at the Theatre Royal. Second problem? Argyle haven't got any money and aren't likely to have in the foreseeable future.

thinking about it i dont even think the devonport end can be extended. Especially if the away end is going in there once everything is done.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I'm staggered that there's still somebody out there that genuinely thinks the horseshoe will ever be added to in the future. Absolutely staggered.

If brents plan goes through, a stadium with probably less than seventeen thousand will be it forever at homepark!

Think replaced rather than amended. There is a significant pocket of land behind the Devonport End that could be extended into. The Devonport could be far bigger.

It's the only option to expand that will exist.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Think replaced rather than amended. There is a significant pocket of land behind the Devonport End that could be extended into. The Devonport could be far bigger.

It's the only option to expand that will exist.

At that point we would have a tiny Mayflower (what will the new stand be called? This could be a chance for the PASB to find its niche by organising a poll), a small away end, a small Lyndy and an enormous Devonport containing the 20,000 we would need to bring us up to capacity. I'm sure that would be a stadium that would impress the rest of the footballing world.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Think replaced rather than amended. There is a significant pocket of land behind the Devonport End that could be extended into. The Devonport could be far bigger.

It's the only option to expand that will exist.

The other point often made which I find quite comical, is when Argyle get to the promised land and all those pound notes come falling out of Sky and thousands of fans want to get in to see this amazing feat. That's when we'll knock down the Devonport End and rebuild it to fit in all these extra fans.

Does anybody know where the plans, showing the restricted views etc, for the expansion options are?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Think replaced rather than amended. There is a significant pocket of land behind the Devonport End that could be extended into. The Devonport could be far bigger.

It's the only option to expand that will exist.

I hope I'm not wrong but didn't you once post about land around Plymouth that would be big enough to build a relocated Home Park on?

There's lots of land out Ernesettle way.

Other than that it would probably mean leaving Plymouth and going to Newnham, Saltash or Ivybridge etc

All are terrible options.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Does anybody know where the plans, showing the restricted views etc, for the expansion options are?

They'll be on here somewhere. There were some very good diagrams and plans posted showing exactly what the engineering problems were. I'm sure there were photo's showing various engineering problems as well.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

There's lots of land out Ernesettle way.

Other than that it would probably mean leaving Plymouth and going to Newnham, Saltash or Ivybridge etc

All are terrible options.

Parkway used to play there once upon a time.

Meeting today

Friends of Central Park (friendsofcentralpark@gmx.com)

Just a reminder that we have the Friends of Central Park Plymouth meeting today at Goals. Tuesday 11th February 2014.

We begin by meeting in the bar area at 7pm for refreshments and begin at 7.30pm.

Items for the agenda so far are:

Welcome to any new members!!
Vital Sparks funding
Update from Tom Lowry PCC Urban designer and date for next Community Forum meeting
Building membership as we head towards the first AGM in May

If anyone has any other items, please can you email them ASAP



Thank you

Veronica

Acting Chair

ejh 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), 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.

That's how most, thinking Argyle people must feel about the situation.

What is worse. Once he has made his money, those who have kept the flies off him will probably end up running the show. Boasting about being the best club in Devon with the shiniest little stadium, is where it's at for those people. Geddon

ps A 20k Demport in the future, would make the rest of the ground look ridiculous but it would have the power when full, to suck the ball into the net ! And Peggy could get her seat back   

It won't be the best stadium in Devon. Exeter Chiefs have plans to extend their ground to 20,000.

## Horseshoe Expansion Presentation ##



The self confessed restricted views of Plan 2a.
Don't think even Akkeron will promote Plan 2b with the shelf around horseshoe and exits onto road any more.

There is no way on earth the horseshoe could be extended and if the plan is to move the away end to the Devonport once it's all complete then that's another kick in the teeth for the fans.

#PlymouthDeservesBetter