Just how wrong can you be?

GreenSam wrote:

It seems like I've got this one mistaken. Thanks for the heads up.

Where exactly did all this talk come from of Argyle selling off the ground floor retail units to companies who would use them in order to fund a larger stand actually come from then? Because it was very definitely mooted as a 'thing' and has been all throughout the debate.

My understanding was always that Argyle would sell off these retail units and the money we got from that would mean we had a 17,700 stand instead of the (minimum allowed) 16,300 stand. That could (loosely perhaps) be interpreted as the development funder getting the rent from the units- as the funders are funding a more impressive (ha ha) standard of development by funding the stand.

If that's complete rollocks as I now begin to think it may well be, then what is the actual truth of the matter and how on earth did such a miscomprehension be so widely believed and taken to be true?

My understanding Sam was that the club would be allowed one of the 6 units in the retail village. This presumably will be the new club shop.

The developer will retain rights to the other 5 retail units, despite being in the football club's footprint, and in the Mayflower Grandstand structure.

That was my last understanding of the issue.

Therefore any rents for the next 125 years will be owed to the developer (Akkeron), or as is increasingly being suspected, a James Brent led hedge fund, and not Plymouth Argyle Football Club, despite the units being developed in the Mayflower Grandstand building, developed as a £10m gift for Plymouth Argyle Football Club.

Anyone feel free to correct me on this, particularly Graham Clark, if you can.

Though Martyn Starnes said at the AFT meeting that they were investigating placing the fans bar in the grandsatnd with the comment that was basically 'watch this space'.

We've seen plenty of mission creep along the way. The first reference to the retail units that I recall was made at the Brent/PASTA do in January 2013.

Tony Hooper wrote:

Grandstand would be announced early 2013 and fans will be consulted. Questioned, he said he hoped the model of the stand and the developments in the car park would be available to view in 3 months time. It appears that temporary seating would be provided on the Mayflower terrace whilst some of the work was under going so that fans in other parts of the ground (Lyndhurst in particular) would not be inconvenienced. The income derived from this particular development, although not the "car park" would directly go to Argyle.

From the same night.

ChepstowGreen wrote:

- he said there would be a couple of outlets within the new grandstand which wouldn't provide income for the club, but conferencing facilities etc would do
- he couldn't say he was certain that the whole redevelopment would definitely be built, but it was a million miles closer than any previous plan. He said there were certain obstacles in the way including funding, local objections, planning granted etc but insisted he was very confident all will be overcome and it would progress

Mark Colling wrote:

In the interests if complete openness, my understanding is that there are 2 retail outlets physically within the new stand that do form part of the external development rather than club income.

Inevitably, some will decide this is unacceptable. Again, I can live with it and, besides, the plans aren't final yet any way.

By the time the June Q&A happened.

James Brent wrote:

Q14. It has been said that the revenue from only one, possibly two, of the outward facing units would not go to the club. Is this still the case? Where will the revenue go?

It has always been the case that Argyle will receive the income from conferencing, banqueting and hospitality (and clearly the club shop). It has never been the case that the club will receive the income from 3rd party retail. The income from the shops will be effectively sold off as a contribution towards the c.£10m development costs of the new stadium.

Mind you we were also told this at one stage.

Chris Webb wrote:

This stand is part of a wider development and will be funded by the those other projects with no spare money.

So the money made from the other project stretches to 7,000 seater stand.

How many seats will it have again?

And they wonder why we don't trust them!

knecht wrote:

Though Martyn Starnes said at the AFT meeting that they were investigating placing the fans bar in the grandsatnd with the comment that was basically 'watch this space'.

He did. He was very cagey about it though.

If a supporters' bar is included and it is not in the retail units then it will encroach into the 600 cover hospitality area. I can't see that happening. I think a marquee on Cottage Field is far more likely.

The Brent Tent.

Does brent do it for your tent pole azzer ?

Is the 300k pa rental from the retail units achievable? How would 50k a year per unit compare to other commercial rents in Plymouth?

I think its all pie in the sky

What credible business is going to want to based in central park?

To put it in context.

This was Oxfam fairly recently
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-for-sale/property-26856696.html
£25k per annum rent, £13.5k rent - that's less than £50k combined.

It's in the City Centre.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-to-let/find.html?locationIdentifier=REGION%5E1073&displayPropertyType=retail&oldDisplayPropertyType=leisure_hospitality&areaSizeUnit=sqft&googleAnalyticsChannel=commercialrenting
Royal Parade as a few for the £50k region

Newell and Hooper owned and a nice left jab deservingly aimed at B.

It seems to me that the only ones left to convince can't be convinced, a huge majority now have Brent's bum boys sussed.

There should be no need for a tent. A tent has been used for years because there wasn't the facility in the old grandstand, pending a new stand. It would be quite extraordinary if a redevelopment of £50m still rendered the need for a tent. Quite extraordinary in fact. And tell me how long the existing tent has been erected. Any erected tent would be permanent. I remember there being some discussion about a "tent" being erected on the park's temporary site for the circus/funfair etc, while building progressed, but that was all. As that discussion was hypothetical and included the Pasoti head goons I tended to dismiss it as bull

Mission creep sums it up well, and there has been a lot of what I consider deliberate obfuscation. Far too much desire on behalf of various people including Akkeron to direct fans away from unpopular details. That none of us still know diddly about what units will provide REGUAR income for the club ( not CAPITAL income appropriated against the cost of the build bull) is quite astonishing. Insulting.

Apart from being ear-marked for the GT marquee what other reason is there for Brent being so completely reluctant to even consider using the development potential already granted under the Central Park Action Plan?

After all there were no qualms about hitting Central Park elsewhere so don't go parroting any "respects the park" or "strong environmental concerns" or "politically impossible" or "afraid of the local outcry" because he hasn't shown much regard for any of them when extorting the 1.22 acres he needed.

Something will end up on Cottage Field.

If you want to believe that some bunch of fans will be allowed to put up a permanent tent in the middle of Central Park, and start boozing and guffawing right in front of the Life Centre and skating rink, you carry on Frank, don't let me stop you.  
Of course Brent's no conservationist, and no, I don't believe anyone is afraid of a public outcry. More to the point, there would be no money in it for the council.
I just happen to believe the next target in the park is the cricket club/council depot etc. It's always been in the sights and must have been included in the administration discussions.

Dougie wrote:

Is the 300k pa rental from the retail units achievable?  How would 50k a year per unit compare to other commercial rents in Plymouth?

The £300K figure was for the FOUR units on ground floor, so roughly £75K each given slightly differing sizes.
Can't see how a bar would be able to afford that kind of rent.

A cynic would suggest that there being four units left to rent out of the 13 is why PAFC are now being offered chance to rent a unit.

The last talk of GT tent was for it to be on Goals car park during development.

Dane. wrote:

I think its all pie in the sky

What credible business is going to want to based in central park?

the whole clusterfuck could make Brent richer if he built it in an area where its profitable ie in town. Building it in the middle of no where isnt going to make as much for any buisness. I dont see people going out of their way to eat at nandos and catch a film when there is the barbican.

Angry wrote:

Dane. wrote:

I think its all pie in the sky

What credible business is going to want to based in central park?

the whole clusterfuck could make Brent richer if he built it in an area where its profitable ie in town. Building it in the middle of no where isnt going to make as much for any buisness. I dont see people going out of their way to eat at nandos and catch a film when there is the barbican.

Who ever dreamt up this ridiculous plan needs their head checking - it's a great place for sporting venues but the rest of it is just plain stupid, white elephant!!

Jack Sheppard wrote:

He's losing control of his own forum, the natives are restless.

Its about to Fall without question. Have emailed Brent and despite knowing its been opened, he hasn't replied. Newell is finished.   

Bandwagon wrote:

Angry wrote:

Dane. wrote:

I think its all pie in the sky

What credible business is going to want to based in central park?

the whole clusterfuck could make Brent richer if he built it in an area where its profitable ie in town. Building it in the middle of no where isnt going to make as much for any buisness. I dont see people going out of their way to eat at nandos and catch a film when there is the barbican.

Who ever dreamt up this ridiculous plan needs their head checking - it's a great place for sporting venues but the rest of it is just plain stupid, white elephant!!

The vast majority of fans on Pasoti and on ATD can now see, and realise this, Bandy. There are very few fans who have looked into Mr Brent's eyes and stargazingly fell in love with him who still believe this whole debacle is still the best thing since sliced elephant cheese.

The coffee has been well and truly smelt.  

Beast_Guy wrote:

Jack Sheppard wrote:

He's losing control of his own forum, the natives are restless.

Its about to Fall without question. Have emailed Brent and despite knowing its been opened, he hasn't replied. Newell is finished.   

Would you care to share the gist of your email to Mr Brent? Either on here for all of us to see or via PM if you prefer.

All kudos to Graham Clark for pretty much single handedly fighting the good fight. Seems he's more active and coherent in raising the important questions than both the PASB, no surprise there, and the, sorry Andy, AFT.

I'm in the fortunate position of not giving a flying feck anymore...along with several thousand others, I suspect

Charlie Wood wrote:

All kudos to Graham Clark for pretty much single handedly fighting the good fight. Seems he's more active and coherent in raising the important questions than both the PASB, no surprise there, and the, sorry Andy, AFT.

I'm in the fortunate position of not giving a flying feck anymore...along with several thousand others, I suspect

But you do care Charlie. So do I.

As articulate and methodical as GC clearly is, he is more than likely going to be ignored. The farm controllers are clearly shit scared of upsetting him though and if he were to join with the Trust and together , 'demand' answers, the battle lines would be well and truly set. The wider fanbase could then be made aware, using all media and leaflet drops at matches, of what is at stake.

This is what needs to happen, or the clusterfuck will limp on and become a shambolic reality.

ps spowell & zyph [Princerock]    grensleeves [oddball]   

http://www.pasoti.co.uk/talk/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=82035&start=105

Person Of Interest wrote:

Beast_Guy wrote:

Jack Sheppard wrote:

He's losing control of his own forum, the natives are restless.

Its about to Fall without question. Have emailed Brent and despite knowing its been opened, he hasn't replied. Newell is finished.   

Would you care to share the gist of your email to Mr Brent? Either on here for all of us to see or via PM if you prefer.

The Gist was simply to indicate to Mr Brent that there were a devious set of Supporters masequerading as his "friend" (Brents) whose true hidden agenda was to ingratiate themselves into the hierachy at Home Park, having at the same time contempt for the masses on the Terraces.
I proceeded to name 7, four of which are repeated here and Pasoti frequently Ian Newell, Hooper, Chris Webb and Lee Jameson who quite frankly in my opinion, is the worst of the lot. Three faced doesn't come close Jameson.
The other three I haven't seen mentioned here but I suspect they know who they are. For now they shall remain unnamed.
The Email was read as have a programme on the Laptop which tells me they have from my particular Email provider

FYI Newell if your cohorts at Pasoti hadn't banned me for absolutely no reason other than being a member here, then quite simply I wouldn't have emailed Brent.
The above content is sanitised

The real content was polite courteous but absolutely savage towards your Ambitions.

You are finished Newell. It was a Done Deal   

Beast_Guy wrote:

Person Of Interest wrote:

Beast_Guy wrote:

Jack Sheppard wrote:

He's losing control of his own forum, the natives are restless.

Its about to Fall without question. Have emailed Brent and despite knowing its been opened, he hasn't replied. Newell is finished.   

Would you care to share the gist of your email to Mr Brent? Either on here for all of us to see or via PM if you prefer.

The Gist was simply to indicate to Mr Brent that there were a devious set of Supporters masequerading as his "friend" (Brents) whose true hidden agenda was to ingratiate themselves into the hierachy at Home Park, having at the same time contempt for the masses on the Terraces.
I proceeded to name 7, four of which are repeated here and Pasoti frequently Ian Newell, Hooper, Chris Webb and Lee Jameson who quite frankly in my opinion, is the worst of the lot. Three faced doesn't come close Jameson.
The other three I haven't seen mentioned here but I suspect they know who they are. For now they shall remain unnamed.
The Email was read as have a programme on the Laptop which tells me they have from my particular Email provider

FYI Newell if your cohorts at Pasoti hadn't banned me for absolutely no reason other than being a member here, then quite simply I wouldn't have emailed Brent.
The above content is sanitised

The real content was polite courteous but absolutely savage towards your Ambitions.

You are finished Newell. It was a Done Deal   

Paul Thomas seems to have a bitter dislike to Lee Jameson too.....

Tringreen.....You must be a pasoti spy outing ATDer's.....at least have the courtesy of getting my name right next time.

zyph wrote:

Tringreen.....You must be a pasoti spy outing ATDer's.....at least have the courtesy of getting my name right next time.

I'll quote you zyph so Tring gets to see it, i'm pretty sure you're on his ignore list.

Did you return to ATD just to start bitchin' again ?

Ffs let it go, it's bad for your health.......................and tedious to read.