Andy tells it how it is

Nothing in the article that hasn't been in print somewhere previously

greensleeves wrote:

Guys... if you guys care to read other peoples posts as well as mine you would see that a great many posters were also not sure if this was Andy Symons or a Trust viewpoint.Greenskin ....I think I must move in different circles to you as everyone I talk to in the business lounge are more than happy with the grandstand arrangements...GOB...,farm managers all out today I'm afraid and TCM's busy trimming hedges....

The bit I quoted in bold speaks volumes!

  

greensleeves wrote:

Guys... if you guys care to read other peoples posts as well as mine you would see that a great many posters were also not sure if this was Andy Symons or a Trust viewpoint.Greenskin ....I think I must move in different circles to you as everyone I talk to in the business lounge are more than happy with the grandstand arrangements...GOB...,farm managers all out today I'm afraid and TCM's busy trimming hedges....

Greensleeves,

one of the main problems perceived by many Argyle fans who DON'T mingle in the business lounge, is a very small minority of people are more concerned about the very small minority of people who frequent the business lounge. The vast majority of fans who don't go anywhere near the business lounge and have no particular wish to, are much more concerned about the general facilities for the ordinary, average fan and to put it bluntly couldn't give a flying feck about the corporate facilities.

Without the ordinary, average fan this club is dead and it's time the people in charge recognised that. As witnessed at Wembley Stadium and corporate areas in other stadiums, the people who frequent these areas are usually more interested in the prawn sandwiches, hence the embarrassingly empty areas in full view of the cameras 15 minutes after play has started. Real fans make sure they are there for kick off!

You obviously don't talk to everyone in Argyle's business lounge because one or two who frequent this forum certainly aren't happy with the new stand or the various odds and sods that are going to box it in.

I was talking about the HHP development with a non-football/ergo non-Argyle fan today and he was under the impression they're building a shopping mall next to the Life Centre - that for me, sums it up. Other than a relatively small cluster of Argyle fans, most people (including a large cluster of Argyle fans) are oblivious to the entire project. I know that's anecdotal and my own take but local people won't read much beyond a headline.

Greensleeves has to support this or he won't get his FES (Free Every Season) Ticket.

greensleeves wrote:

Argyle Fans' Trust wrote:

Greensleeves seems to be working under the assumption that Andy wrote the article.

He didn't.

The delays to the HHP build were announced, and Chris Errington contacted Andy for his thoughts. Not because Andy sits in Block 7, but because Andy is Chair of the AFT. The Article's headline refers to the Chairman of the AFT. The article refers to Andy as Chair of the AFT. It was in that capacity that Andy responded to Chris's request for a few thoughts which form the basis of the article.

The consensus so far amongst those Board members who've read the piece is that it's fair comment. As usual, some AFT members will disagree, some will agree but what Andy has always attempted to do is put across what he and the Board believe to be the majority view of AFT members.

...I didn't assume that Andy wrote the article at all

Just to clarify though...

Who authored the AFT post?

Is it Andy Symons (weirdly) referring to himself in the third person again?

Rickler wrote:

greensleeves wrote:

Argyle Fans' Trust wrote:

Greensleeves seems to be working under the assumption that Andy wrote the article.

He didn't.

The delays to the HHP build were announced, and Chris Errington contacted Andy for his thoughts. Not because Andy sits in Block 7, but because Andy is Chair of the AFT. The Article's headline refers to the Chairman of the AFT. The article refers to Andy as Chair of the AFT. It was in that capacity that Andy responded to Chris's request for a few thoughts which form the basis of the article.

The consensus so far amongst those Board members who've read the piece is that it's fair comment. As usual, some AFT members will disagree, some will agree but what Andy has always attempted to do is put across what he and the Board believe to be the majority view of AFT members.

...I didn't assume that Andy wrote the article at all

Just to clarify though...

Who authored the AFT post?

Is it Andy Symons (weirdly) referring to himself in the third person again?

I think its pretty obvious that its Andy talking to himself.The article is pretty poorly written as it jumps from Andy's comments to Trust comments back to Martyn Starnes back to the Trust and finally Andy.You only have to read other's comments to see that.

Best complain to the Herald then. I think they have a website where you can leave comments. Or perhaps you could arrange another Q and A with Chris Errington.  

Just so there is no confusion..

I am talking about the AFT post made on this thread.

Did Andy author it and refer to himself in the third person again. If so, why?

I'm thinking there should be a 'Spot the personal vendetta' thread   

Right on cue, eh Gob?   Sensy would be proud.

The word "hate" will be up next...  Which for someone who is always preaching tolerance is a word you do like to throw around a lot.

But playing the ball...

So you don't think that its weird for the Chairman of the AFT to hide behind a generic user name where he bigs himself up and issues statements where he refers to himself in the third person?

greensleeves wrote:

"I hope I'm proved wrong but I'm sceptical" would suggest that these are Andy's personal views rather than those of the Trust. I would be interested to hear what other board members have to say.

I see Green Sam is logged on. I understand you are on the board of the AFT.So I wonder what your views are on this article,and with the development in general.

greensleeves wrote:

greensleeves wrote:

"I hope I'm proved wrong but I'm sceptical" would suggest that these are Andy's personal views rather than those of the Trust. I would be interested to hear what other board members have to say.

I see Green Sam is logged on. I understand you are on the board of the AFT.So  I wonder what your views are on this article,and with the development in general.

He's explained his views on numerous occasions, most recently on the Pasoti thread, why not pop on over and read it oddball.

Jack Sheppard wrote:

greensleeves wrote:

greensleeves wrote:

"I hope I'm proved wrong but I'm sceptical" would suggest that these are Andy's personal views rather than those of the Trust. I would be interested to hear what other board members have to say.

I see Green Sam is logged on. I understand you are on the board of the AFT.So  I wonder what your views are on this article,and with the development in general.

He's explained his views on numerous occasions, most recently on the Pasoti thread, why not pop on over and read it oddball.

Funny, I was just thinking that Sam is at times one of the most prolific posters on either forum and has made his views as plain as day. I don't understand how you could have missed his posts, Greensleeves.

Jack this seems an appropriate thread to get his viewpoint.Does he agree with his chairman's thoughts or does he not.The guy's on the AFT board.

greensleeves wrote:

Jack  this seems an appropriate thread to get his viewpoint.Does he agree with his chairman's thoughts or does he not.The guy's on the AFT board.

Or are you just   

Richard Blight wrote:

Jack Sheppard wrote:

greensleeves wrote:

greensleeves wrote:

"I hope I'm proved wrong but I'm sceptical" would suggest that these are Andy's personal views rather than those of the Trust. I would be interested to hear what other board members have to say.

I see Green Sam is logged on. I understand you are on the board of the AFT.So  I wonder what your views are on this article,and with the development in general.

He's explained his views on numerous occasions, most recently on the Pasoti thread, why not pop on over and read it oddball.

Funny, I was just thinking that Sam is at times one of the most prolific posters on either forum and has made his views as plain as day. I don't understand how you could have missed his posts, Greensleeves.

Greensleeves seems to struggle with such things.

Jack Sheppard wrote:

greensleeves wrote:

Jack  this seems an appropriate thread to get his viewpoint.Does he agree with his chairman's thoughts or does he not.The guy's on the AFT board.

Or are you just     

Nope...just wanted to know what other AFT board members thought of this statement from their chairman.
Andy says "he's not surprised by the delays"..."he thought the whole project had been plagued at the onset and found it disappointing"
"the initial designs were unpopular and poorly presented"..."the much promised openess and transparency didn't materialise"..." the only consultation  was through a handpicked handful of fans"..." do they have the knowledge,experience and personnel to see this through"
pretty critical is Andy in that article.As I say just wanted to know if this was a general feeling amongst the AFT board members.

I agree with every single one of those statements, and I'm not even an AFT member.
At a guess I would imagine only one board member would disagree with one or two of those statements.

Remind me again Mr Sleeves how many of the PASBoard voted against their controversial development support statement ? Didn't notice you making a fuss about that one. I wonder why not.

greensleeves wrote:

Jack Sheppard wrote:

greensleeves wrote:

Jack  this seems an appropriate thread to get his viewpoint.Does he agree with his chairman's thoughts or does he not.The guy's on the AFT board.

Or are you just     

Nope...just wanted to know what other AFT board members thought of this statement from their chairman.
Andy says "he's not surprised by the delays"..."he thought the whole project had been plagued at the onset and found it disappointing"
"the initial designs were unpopular and poorly presented"..."the much promised openess and transparency didn't materialise"..." the only consultation  was through a handpicked handful of fans"..." do they have the knowledge,experience and personnel to see this through"
pretty critical is Andy in that article.As I say just wanted to know if this was a general feeling amongst the AFT board members.

I'm sure Sam will respond to your points when he's got time Ian greensleeves.

greensleeves wrote:

Jack Sheppard wrote:

greensleeves wrote:

Jack  this seems an appropriate thread to get his viewpoint.Does he agree with his chairman's thoughts or does he not.The guy's on the AFT board.

Or are you just     

Nope...just wanted to know what other AFT board members thought of this statement from their chairman.
Andy says "he's not surprised by the delays"..."he thought the whole project had been plagued at the onset and found it disappointing"
"the initial designs were unpopular and poorly presented"..."the much promised openess and transparency didn't materialise"..." the only consultation  was through a handpicked handful of fans"..." do they have the knowledge,experience and personnel to see this through"
pretty critical is Andy in that article.As I say just wanted to know if this was a general feeling amongst the AFT board members.

Andy is not being critical just pointing out the obvious.Has brent actually completed any developments. For example look at oldway mansion that has dragged on for more than two years without any sign of it starting. From what I have been told there is no chance of it starting any time soon. If brent takes any longer to start this project then more damage will be done by the weather to this historic building witch will end up costing him more money to put right.

hairy j wrote:

....... Other than a relatively small cluster of Argyle fans, most people (including a large cluster of Argyle fans) are oblivious to the entire project. I know that's anecdotal and my own take but local people won't read much beyond a headline.

I think you're right. I've done the odd straw-poll amongst Argyle supporters who frequent neither site & who probably don't read the Erald either. The common response has been that they don't know any of the controversy but would like a new stand and a successful team

That's a bit like most voters in elections. That shouldn't stop those who wish to protect the club from trying to get the message across. I see the Erald article as being one step in that direction. Nothing really controversial, nothing that hasn't been seen on here or on pasoti but useful in disseminating that information to a few more people.

(As for Greensleeves .....    Your intention to be contrary is bettered only by Tis and (excuse me hairy) by the much missed sensible.)

I have no time at all for the oxygen thief that is andy symmons

With regards to Knecht, agreed..... people need to be educated about the Tapeworm, his hangers on, and their despicable plans.
My opinion is that the longer the amount of time that passes with no development, then the more folk will turn against Brent, so overall the delay is a win win.
The development can still be halted and Brent can still be sent packing.

A delay rather than a critique of the plans will be far more damning in the eyes of the silent majority.

So, why doesn't Dane like this 'Andy' and why does Rickler dislike 'Andy' and why does greensleeves want to twist a fairly conservative article statement into a huge rift in the AFT?