The Richard Burton V Richard Blight grudge match showdown originally posted in the wrong forum by spolly

I thought Greenjock was back when I saw the length of a post, when having a quick scan through this thread. Such a shame it wasn't!

I'd just like to pick this bit out of Xy's post.

Quote :

To me people thought "oh we're out of administration now, here we go, blank canvass, no debts, big fish-small pool, it'll be a doddle". Is that really the owners fault those expectations are so unrealistic?, he's done nothing to instigate that.

Many may have thought like that about exiting administration. Ask yourself why that might be.

I have to admit that I was thinking along those lines to start with. Gradually it began to dawn on me that it was not the case. Eventually I concluded that the club was still carrying significant debts forward. Very worrying and entirely justifiable so why not be honest, open and transparent about it? After all these weren't Brent's fault.

But no. The club chose to bury its head in the sand and say nothing. And then Brent started to add to the debt. Even more worrying.

We are now nearly 2 years away from having to settle that admin debt. What is the plan for doing so? Is there one? It doesn't look like it to me.

What then?

And this bit.

Quote :

We must always hold everyone at the club to account. As I say i've been disappointed in some of the things that've happened, it's been far from perfect, but i'm not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Until such time as it's cancelled, and presently it's happening, we'll get a completed ground. It's not going to be the greatest ground but it's better than no ground and better than a sufficient horseshoe and a crumbling anachronism of a main stand.

If the only justification for Brent's myopic vision for the club's grandstand is that it is "better than what is currently there" then he's pissing £10m away for no good reason whatsoever and even on those terms it only succeeds because what is there already is so bad and not because what will replace it is any good.

"Better than what's currently there"! Is that really true to start with? Is a strangled and inadequate stadium better than a stadium with unlimited, albeit unrealised, potential for expansion? I don't think so.

Not that it matters because Brent has no cash, no signed contracts, no committed clients and damaged lines of credit (very serious when you only ever spend other people's money) and the likelihood that HHP's botched and half-arsed stitch-up will ever go ahead is increasingly low with every passing day.

Are we better off now than we would have been with Ridsdale and Heaney? We'll never know but I suspect that Ridsdale would have had to feck up real bad not to have at least matched what Brent has achieved, which isn't actually that much beyond going slightly better than the 2 worst league finishes in the club's history, and all Heaney wanted to do was build a hotel and cinema in the park. So not much difference there either.

Exactly Frank.
Those comments show just how Xisle has been helping the official Pasoti 3 line whip nicely since admin, and shows him to be yet another Brent apologist.
It is quite clear that Brent went out of his way not to let fans know just how much debt to the former owners he had agreed to being laid around the club's neck. And yet Xisle sees no fault in this at all, despite all the protestations of openness. Unbelievable.
Some people just don't want to see. This isn't "hounding", it's talking about the financial mess the club is in despite all the fine talk.

GreenSam wrote:

As much as I disagree with many (if not most) of X Isle's views on Argyle, I have no doubt that all of them come from his genuine heartfelt opinions and not one of them is political or to curry any kind of favour. He's stubborn, he's forthright and sometimes his opinions have me banging my head against a wall and I'm sure mine do the same to him but one thing I am certain on is that he means what he says and says what he means. He also always argues it fantastically. For those reasons, I'm delighted to see more of him on both ATD and Pasoti. He's someone that thinks independently and puts that across as well as anyone on the two sites. It's good to have variety imo.

He's a gobshite whose more interested in being 'someone' in the Argyle internet world than Argyle itself. As gob said he can say what he likes on here but he can expect to called out on it especially as he's backed the wrong horse again

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I'd just like to pick this bit out of Xy's post.

Quote :

To me people thought "oh we're out of administration now, here we go, blank canvass, no debts, big fish-small pool, it'll be a doddle". Is that really the owners fault those expectations are so unrealistic?, he's done nothing to instigate that.

Many may have thought like that about exiting administration. Ask yourself why that might be.

I have to admit that I was thinking along those lines to start with. Gradually it began to dawn on me that it was not the case. Eventually I concluded that the club was still carrying significant debts forward. Very worrying and entirely justifiable so why not be honest, open and transparent about it? After all these weren't Brent's fault.

But no. The club chose to bury its head in the sand and say nothing. And then Brent started to add to the debt. Even more worrying.

We are now nearly 2 years away from having to settle that admin debt. What is the plan for doing so? Is there one? It doesn't look like it to me.

What then?

And this bit.

Quote :

We must always hold everyone at the club to account. As I say i've been disappointed in some of the things that've happened, it's been far from perfect, but i'm not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Until such time as it's cancelled, and presently it's happening, we'll get a completed ground. It's not going to be the greatest ground but it's better than no ground and better than a sufficient horseshoe and a crumbling anachronism of a main stand.

If the only justification for Brent's myopic vision for the club's grandstand is that it is "better than what is currently there" then he's pissing £10m away for no good reason whatsoever and even on those terms it only succeeds because what is there already is so bad and not because what will replace it is any good.

"Better than what's currently there"! Is that really true to start with? Is a strangled and inadequate stadium better than a stadium with unlimited, albeit unrealised, potential for expansion? I don't think so.

Not that it matters because Brent has no cash, no signed contracts, no committed clients and damaged lines of credit (very serious when you only ever spend other people's money) and the likelihood that HHP's botched and half-arsed stitch-up will ever go ahead is increasingly low with every passing day.

Are we better off now than we would have been with Ridsdale and Heaney? We'll never know but I suspect that Ridsdale would have had to feck up real bad not to have at least matched what Brent has achieved, which isn't actually that much beyond going slightly better than the 2 worst league finishes in the club's history, and all Heaney wanted to do was build a hotel and cinema in the park. So not much difference there either.

I got a paragraph into it, realised it was going to be bollocks and then when' scrolling through the rest wondered how much more there was going to be? Remember him preaching honesty openers ness and transparency then going to watch Steve Evans Crawley FFS. What a clown.

Czarcasm wrote:

knecht wrote:

Winter Green wrote:

knecht wrote:

The experience & the cynicism of age V the naivete & fresh view of youth. It's a close thing. Both bring something to the table.

That's only true if the old goon/crone or young buck/doe actually have something of value to bring to the table. Who can ever forget Dane and Jethro in the Bible ?
This is a football fan forum  discussing the footy, and it's local politics, hardly the juxtaposition of Narcissus and Goldmund.

You know, up until your post, I had always called him 'Narziss'!! I've just googled it ...... I must have read the half-translated version all those years ago.  I still have it on my bookshelves for nostalgic reasons.

PS I think lots of this discussion has next to nothing to do with football and tons to do with personality & politics. I repeat my point that was in response to a suggestion that Master Powell should read his history .... "The experience & the cynicism of age V the naivete & fresh view of youth. It's a close thing. Both bring something to the table".

I didn't really suggest Spowelly should read his history, knecht. Indeed, it would be virtually impossible for him to access the years of Forum debate, discussion and arguments that have shaped the way peoples entrenched opinions have come to be formed!

Which is exactly the point I was trying to make, and it's pretty straight forward - when you're not aware of what's happened in the past, don't go shouting the odds.

Isn't that a rather elitist approach where newcomers aren't a welcome/respected contribution to the forum? Hell Czar, you only joined 2 1/2 years ago, u friken n00b   

Hugh Watt wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

As much as I disagree with many (if not most) of X Isle's views on Argyle, I have no doubt that all of them come from his genuine heartfelt opinions and not one of them is political or to curry any kind of favour. He's stubborn, he's forthright and sometimes his opinions have me banging my head against a wall and I'm sure mine do the same to him but one thing I am certain on is that he means what he says and says what he means. He also always argues it fantastically. For those reasons, I'm delighted to see more of him on both ATD and Pasoti. He's someone that thinks independently and puts that across as well as anyone on the two sites. It's good to have variety imo.

He's a gobshite whose more interested in being 'someone' in the Argyle internet world than Argyle itself. As gob said he can say what he likes on here but he can expect to called out on it especially as he's backed the wrong horse again

I disagree with him on most things Argyle wise and I too think he might just be planning a subtle backtrack on his initial uber-positive views on the new regime (evidence of it in this thread where he made an analogy about the 'least bad' still being good) but I have no doubt he absolutely believed it when he said it whatsoever.

I think I'd probably get on with him if we ever met despite having a few spats on pasoti. I don't think he's the type of person to back the establishment whatever. I think he's a (in my view misguided) Brentophile rather than a Brent apologist. The latter implies he's anything less than sincere in his belief which I don't think for a second in the case. I think he's looked at the evidence and come to what I think is the wrong conclusion (and he thinks vice versa) but what he's absolutely not is anything less than a firmly independant thinker who comes to his own viewpoints and isn't influenced.

(Sorry X for talking about you as if you're not here, that's just the nature of forums.)

spowell92 wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

knecht wrote:

Winter Green wrote:

knecht wrote:

The experience & the cynicism of age V the naivete & fresh view of youth. It's a close thing. Both bring something to the table.

That's only true if the old goon/crone or young buck/doe actually have something of value to bring to the table. Who can ever forget Dane and Jethro in the Bible ?
This is a football fan forum  discussing the footy, and it's local politics, hardly the juxtaposition of Narcissus and Goldmund.

You know, up until your post, I had always called him 'Narziss'!! I've just googled it ...... I must have read the half-translated version all those years ago.  I still have it on my bookshelves for nostalgic reasons.

PS I think lots of this discussion has next to nothing to do with football and tons to do with personality & politics. I repeat my point that was in response to a suggestion that Master Powell should read his history .... "The experience & the cynicism of age V the naivete & fresh view of youth. It's a close thing. Both bring something to the table".

I didn't really suggest Spowelly should read his history, knecht. Indeed, it would be virtually impossible for him to access the years of Forum debate, discussion and arguments that have shaped the way peoples entrenched opinions have come to be formed!

Which is exactly the point I was trying to make, and it's pretty straight forward - when you're not aware of what's happened in the past, don't go shouting the odds.

Isn't that a rather elitist approach where newcomers aren't a welcome/respected contribution to the forum? Hell Czar, you only joined 2 1/2 years ago, u friken n00b   

Apart from the "hello Paul" reaction some 'new' posters get, most new posters seem to blend quite nicely, especially if they aren't on a mission to supposedly re-educate the misguided fools of ATD.

As for you kiddo, your inability to grasp basics was beautifully demonstrated when one of Mocks fine efforts went straight over your head and you asked how to put people on 'Ignore'.   

Do us a favour and add me, yeah?

You backed the wrong horse Smiffy. You didn't read the form, you didn't speak to any other punters other than Newell, (and De Liar once he had done the biggest u turn in history by being team Buttivant then following Brent up the steps to the boardroom as soon as he was past the post.   you didn't go to the paddock before the race. On day one that Brent rocked up you firmly stuck your tongue up His arse and declared your undying love for the Open one.
I remember asking you at the time how we were going to operate as a club and field a decent team whilst still paying off the staff debt? Your answer was to trust in the Moralistic one. I remember asking you at the time about how you knew that Brent was the right one for the club. Didn't really get an answer to that one, I guessed reading between the lines that you trusted the account of Newell about how Open His eyes were. I also remember sharing my concerns about an underfunded owner putting the club in risk of another administration period, by this time your support the The Reluctant One was attaining Biblical proportions aided and abetted by the farm owner and manager. We were also led to believe that Brent was going to build us a Magnificent Two Tiered Grandstand, I remember telling you that He hadnt built anything ever and asked what made you think that He was going to start here? Apparently other people had looked into His eyes and made you believe. We were told that under Brent we were going to enter a golden age for Argyle, we were going to be Open as a can of worms, as Transparent as a piece of fine crystal and as Honest as the day that HE was born. From this day forward to be known as The Three Commandments.
You were the most vocal, the most jingoistic, the most ill informed backer of wrong horse in all horsedom, what's more its taken a couple of years to claw up the league table again before you dare show your crowing avatar again, where did it all go wrong.
Ps. This is reply to your parts of your post that I only sped read, please don't feel the need to answer.   

Who was the right horse?

I don't know Mr. Powell we weren't given any options once the Chosen one had looked into his eyes. Vile hate campaigns were directed towards the administrators, board rooms were stormed and anybody else who appeared on the horizon was sent packing becos we wos at WAR!
What's more if we had been allowed to question the Open One at the start it would soon have become apparent that he was going to asset strip the valuable parts from the club and look after his own interests first and foremost. Being that Brent has now appeared to be less than open, less than capable of becoming a property developer (thank God for rich Tory boy ineptitude) we only find ourselves stripped of the corners of the ground, the freehold underneath the Grandstand and a board that hates the fans.
If you look back at when The Chosen One first appeared myself along with several other posters from here were asking the questions, they were all disappeared so that Pasoti could become the Chosen Forum for The Chosen One.

spowell92 wrote:

Who was the right horse?

James Brent is doing a blinding impersonation of Devon Loch, that's for sure.

The balloon payment shouldn't be a problem

Quote :

The final or balloon payment is a concern but it's quite possible that a payment or grant is triggered by one or more of the projects in the HHP development being completed and this money used to cover the balloon payment.

Now the above statement might be pure supposition and have no basis in fact but can you imagine public money being used to fund a private debt. Any socialist worth he salt would be protesting at the doors of the company involved should it happen.

Czarcasm wrote:

spowell92 wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

knecht wrote:

Winter Green wrote:

knecht wrote:

The experience & the cynicism of age V the naivete & fresh view of youth. It's a close thing. Both bring something to the table.

That's only true if the old goon/crone or young buck/doe actually have something of value to bring to the table. Who can ever forget Dane and Jethro in the Bible ?
This is a football fan forum  discussing the footy, and it's local politics, hardly the juxtaposition of Narcissus and Goldmund.

You know, up until your post, I had always called him 'Narziss'!! I've just googled it ...... I must have read the half-translated version all those years ago.  I still have it on my bookshelves for nostalgic reasons.

PS I think lots of this discussion has next to nothing to do with football and tons to do with personality & politics. I repeat my point that was in response to a suggestion that Master Powell should read his history .... "The experience & the cynicism of age V the naivete & fresh view of youth. It's a close thing. Both bring something to the table".

I didn't really suggest Spowelly should read his history, knecht. Indeed, it would be virtually impossible for him to access the years of Forum debate, discussion and arguments that have shaped the way peoples entrenched opinions have come to be formed!

Which is exactly the point I was trying to make, and it's pretty straight forward - when you're not aware of what's happened in the past, don't go shouting the odds.

Isn't that a rather elitist approach where newcomers aren't a welcome/respected contribution to the forum? Hell Czar, you only joined 2 1/2 years ago, u friken n00b   

Apart from the "hello Paul" reaction some 'new' posters get, most new posters seem to blend quite nicely, especially if they aren't on a mission to supposedly re-educate the misguided fools of ATD.

As for you kiddo, your inability to grasp basics was beautifully demonstrated when one of Mocks fine efforts went straight over your head and you asked how to put people on 'Ignore'.   

Do us a favour and add me, yeah?

I think you've misunderstood me, but I'm not going to put up an X'y rant explaining myself.

Iggy wrote:

......
What's more if we had been allowed to question the Open One at the start it would soon have become apparent that he was going to asset strip the valuable parts from the club and look after his own interests first and foremost. .......
If you look back at when The Chosen One first appeared myself along with several other posters from here were asking the questions, they were all disappeared so that Pasoti could become the Chosen Forum for The Chosen One.

But we were. On two occasions I asked him directly if he expected to make more money out of the club than he put in (once on a pasoti Q&A & once in the Cherry Tree Super Cabal). And twice he didn't answer the question.

As for the Disappeared from pasoti ....... I am far from an abusive poster but maybe asking difficult questions was too much.

To be fair to Smiffy, he hasn't been given anything for his support of Brent, he isn't even worth a freebie in the directors box which I think is appalling, he's worth at least that.

Too many tarts on here, this isn't the stonemasons! This isn't Nazi germany! This isn't the empire of the axis of evil (aka. IJN, PL2 and Daz).

let Smiffy run around and be an aggressively opinionated twat (like me), that's what I say!  

"Aggressively opinionated twat AND PROUD   

What use would I have for a seat in the directors box Gob?, I support Crawley and never come to Argyle games innit  

knecht wrote:

PPPS in response to Smiffy, I can understand why you did it but I've never really understood why people feel the need to respond to personal attacks - & at such length - it's hardly real life is it?

Fair point. And on the last bit, absolutely, it's just old men in assorted shades of misery talking football and politics. Same as has been going on in working men's clubs and pubs since 1886. I'm not precious over it, it's only fair however to point out to people the futility of the exercise, they might want to consider doing something more productive with their time.

As for the length of it there were a lot of things to cover (other's raised 'em not I), it was a spare post night shift recovery afternoon so I had nothing much better to do. Also when have you ever known me to use 140 characters when 14,000 will do? Today it's pissing it down on a rest day and i've done my chores, so again I have the time to ramble on........

Franny Drake - couldn't cut everyone's posts on here and yours was more structured and to the point. On the first part about the continuing debt servicing issues I broadly agree with your observation and share those concerns. I'd like to know a helluva lot more about just how we're going to pay that off. It concerns me.

I'm guessing here but I kinda understand why every club keeps it's relative financial health to itself. On the one had if you say 'everything is rosy and we're in surplus', suppliers won't remain competitive, other clubs will charge more for players and players will demand more in wages. On the other hand, admit you're up sh*t creek and suppliers, creditors and banks might start tightening up their 'hoops' making operation and trading difficult, players might not come. In Argyle's case given a recent administration, that supply/player cut off would likely be quicker and more drastic.  

I stress however a) that's a guess and b) I don't like it any more than you. I'd rather know the full horror or otherwise (there may indeed be a plan) so we all know where we stand...... if for no other reason than a knowledge vacuum creates a fertile breeding ground for conspiracies and doom mongering, and there's already far too much of that!

In agreeing with your broad observation and sharing your concerns, we differ in conclusion. There are concerning gaps in the transparency and openness, firstly there could be operational reasons for many of them, secondly even if there aren't until such time as something ACTUALLY goes bent I won't just grab my pitchfork on the say so of outside observers and 'commentators'. As well as 'over expectation' being a running bugbear of mine, so too is 'knee-jerking'. That applies in the boardroom just as it does on the pitch, I won't throw babies out with the bath water. So, yes, i'm concerned about the selective/non communication from the board but i'm not calling it as 'broken' until I see evidence of breakage, it may not actually be broken.            
   
On the second part of your post, the grandstand, I straight disagree. If it happens (again we're told constantly it's in doubt by 'commentators', but I react to news if/when I hear news, I don't react to gossip and speculation, especially when it comes from those who are hardly 'negative agenda free') it'll be an improvement, it'll be £10m well spent IMHO.

People seem fixated on capacity but facilities are where the big leap will occur. Having taken in some games in the grandstand and actually looked at how poor the facilities are for us, it's no grand assumption to conclude the same must be true for the staff and players given how little space they've got under there. How much corporate share we get?, how many units we get?, it'll be more than we generate from that grand but shabby old lady presently. Facilities and revenue will be better, capacity will not. Like I say that's a bit of a 'penis envy' complex for some but for me, as much as more capacity for Home Park would be nice we simply cannot justify it. We're not as big as we think we are and in business terms figures count and pipe dreams don't.

Now to the man who claims to remember everything I have ever said, ATD's very own Rain man.............

Iggy wrote:

You backed the wrong horse Smiffy. You didn't read the form, you didn't speak to any other punters other than Newell, (and De Liar once he had done the biggest u turn in history by being team Buttivant then following Brent up the steps to the boardroom as soon as he was past the post.   you didn't go to the paddock before the race. On day one that Brent rocked up you firmly stuck your tongue up His arse and declared your undying love for the Open one.
I remember asking you at the time how we were going to operate as a club and field a decent team whilst still paying off the staff debt? Your answer was to trust in the Moralistic one. I remember asking you at the time about how you knew that Brent was the right one for the club. Didn't really get an answer to that one, I guessed reading between the lines that you trusted the account of Newell about how Open His eyes were. I also remember sharing my concerns about an underfunded owner putting the club in risk of another administration period, by this time your support the The Reluctant One was attaining Biblical proportions aided and abetted by the farm owner and manager. We were also led to believe that Brent was going to build us a Magnificent Two Tiered Grandstand, I remember telling you that He hadnt built anything ever and asked what made you think that He was going to start here? Apparently other people had looked into His eyes and made you believe. We were told that under Brent we were going to enter a golden age for Argyle, we were going to be Open as a can of worms, as Transparent as a piece of fine crystal and as Honest as the day that HE was born. From this day forward to be known as The Three Commandments.
You were the most vocal, the most jingoistic, the most ill informed backer of wrong horse in all horsedom, what's more its taken a couple of years to claw up the league table again before you dare show your crowing avatar again, where did it all go wrong.
Ps. This is reply to your parts of your post that I only sped read, please don't feel the need to answer.   

The urge overwhelmed me Iggle Piggle, sorry  

No, I didn't back the wrong horse IMHO, I backed the best horse, which, by default, is always the right horse. I don't think anyone else wants me to go through why again so it's on the last page for historical record.

I have never spoken to Messers Newell or De Lar, nor anyone else for that matter. I form my own opinions based on what I read in the media and read on PASOTI **AND** ATD. Few take the time to gather a diverse spread of opinion, I do. What I don't do is follow a crowd, i'll make my own mind up. My supposed 'evangelical' preachings were my own work and were motivated by the alternative as much, if not more so, as the product itself. The alternative would've been an unmitigated disaster, we are not at the time of writing even a minor disaster IMHO. But i'll always keep watch and react to any negative events *IF* they happen.

I have never stuck my tongue up anyone's arse. I tongued my share of fugly's back in the day who had faces like a cow's backside, but I don't think that counts.

I have never used the words "Trust in Brent". Why?, because "Trust in Stapes" didn't work out so well for those who used that, I therefore consciously avoided it. 'Let's see how it pans out but, i've got faith' doth not "Trust in Brent" make. I had faith in James Brent, I had faith in our now club president. I still have faith in Chris, I retain a degree of faith in James Brent. The former has remained constant, the latter's stock has tailed off but it's still in the red for me.

No-one ever said we were headed for a 'golden age' under James Brent, least of all me. It was always going to be tough, it'll be tough for years to come. I had my eyes open to the realities of the situation, I still do. Until such time as the share is paid off the sword of Damacles hangs above us. He was honest and transparent about the situation, more honest and transparent than Stapes turned out to be, more so than the NWO and infinitely more so than the 'carve-up triplets'. I'd like him to be more open and honest now, see my response to Franny.

'Dare show my avatar again'? I've been an ATD member for nearly three years now and have posted occasionally throughout. But if you'd wanted to find me in that time you'd only have needed to PM me. As for 'where did it all go wrong', I don't believe it has. I have concerns but general direction is sufficient for me to feel we, as a club, are progressing. But then i'm not burdened by unrealistic expectations or jerky knees and put pragmatism and realism before pipe dreams. I suspect that's why I can see potential green shoots while all around me see a field full of manure.      

Now, time for tea.

Fair one X'y, but I don't understand how reducing the ability to realise Home Park's potential through the HHP development is in any way pragmatic?

Using your horse analogy. Mr Brent's HHP development and stand is the best horse in the running, its the only horse in the running. But, unlike when the club was in desperate need for a new owner, this is not the Grand National. It's a toffs' sports day. Just because we can (questionable) build this development, doesn't mean we should. Until we're in a position to build something more inclined to have Argyle's best interests in mind then I don't believe any development is entirely necessary. Except perhaps refilling those ghastly concrete slabs, but then that's still not essential.

ejh wrote:

Too many tarts on here, this isn't the stonemasons! This isn't Nazi germany! This isn't the empire of the axis of evil (aka. IJN, PL2 and Daz).

let Smiffy run around and be an aggressively opinionated twat (like me), that's what I say!  

I like aggressive opinionated twats.  

spowell92 wrote:

Fair one X'y, but I don't understand how reducing the ability to realise Home Park's potential through the HHP development is in any way pragmatic?

Using your horse analogy. Mr Brent's HHP development and stand is the best horse in the running, its the only horse in the running. But, unlike when the club was in desperate need for a new owner, this is not the Grand National. It's a toffs' sports day. Just because we can (questionable) build this development, doesn't mean we should. Until we're in a position to build something more inclined to have Argyle's best interests in mind then I don't believe any development is entirely necessary. Except perhaps refilling those ghastly concrete slabs, but then that's still not essential.

All depends if you genuinely believe ARGYLE has potential really.

I believed that once, the gates off the back of the greatest period of sustained upward momentum in our 128 year history demonstrated we don't have nearly the amount of potential I thought we did. Any pragmatist would tell you the same. 19-20K will be sufficient for Argyle's fickle league 2-championship fanbase.

Should the highly unlikely happen and we hit the premiership the unthinkable will follow sure as night follows day, we'd move to a new stadium, one we'd own ourselves. Enough clubs have left their spiritual homes now and got over it. We just need the justification, which we don't have right now, and won't, possibly for decades.

X Isle wrote:

......
I believed that once, the gates off the back of the greatest period of sustained upward momentum in our 128 year history demonstrated we don't have nearly the amount of potential I thought we did. Any pragmatist would tell you the same. 19-20K will be sufficient for Argyle's fickle league 2-championship fanbase.

Should the highly unlikely happen and we hit the premiership the unthinkable will follow sure as night follows day, we'd move to a new stadium, one we'd own ourselves. Enough clubs have left their spiritual homes now and got over it. We just need the justification, which we don't have right now, and won't, possibly for decades.

Even if that's right, it's a pity that the proposals will limit us to maybe 17,500 or less.

Sadly, I agree with your last para. Though, to link back to the ongoing issue, we maybe wouldn't have to move if the current proposals were designed for adequate expansion in mind.

If we got in quickly, there's a gert big empty field out at Derriford that could do the job. It would be easier for me to get to as well.

Has anybody ever seen Tis and Smiffy in the same room?   

Leave it you slaaaaaaaaag!

Why do new posters have to be welcomed with grace and courtesy? Is this a hotel? That's to Spowell. I've barely read the verbose blatherings of X-Isle as they bore me rigid - it's cool though, he's erm, welcome here.