clusterfuck is back on ;)

Why go back to visit cottage field when there is no hotel, school or cinema that will be built now. Leave the green space alone.

Even building small initially, with a pipe dream of extending at some future point, would be an error. The horseshoe was completed in 2002. Since then we've enjoyed some comparatively fruitful years and yet even when those times were good we couldn't get round to completing the stadium. Even for the horseshoe to finally be completed it needed benevolence from a true hardcore Argyle fan, Nic Warren, to get over the line.

Any half-arsed 3-5k fourth division stand that gets built will be here forever. Surely recent history rings those alarm bells clearly enough?

If Brents legacy is going to be delivering a slightly bigger version of Bristows Bench, then he really must go, NOW, before the damage is done.

The Herald website is awful. It's so cluttered with adverts it's almost unreadable now.

Tgwu wrote:

Why go back to visit cottage field when there is no hotel, school or cinema that will be built now. Leave the green space alone.

I understand that viewpoint and have sympathy with it. I was merely suggesting that with the life centre and Argyle already there, it wouldn't take too much of the green space to make Central Park , Plymouth's sporting hub. No hotels, cinemas, retail outlets for profit to JB. Just a green space with sport as an attraction.

It's the kind of imaginative forward thinking that Plymouth has always lacked. PCC supported, I'm sure it could happen and sponsors/share owners attracted.

Cornish Chris wrote:

The Herald website is awful. It's so cluttered with adverts it's almost unreadable now.

A Godsend, for us unfortunates with adblock plus it's still readable I'm afraid!

Tringreen wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Why go back to visit cottage field when there is no hotel, school or cinema that will be built now. Leave the green space alone.

I understand that viewpoint and have sympathy with it. I was merely suggesting that with the life centre and Argyle already there, it wouldn't take too much of the green space to make Central Park , Plymouth's sporting hub. No hotels, cinemas, retail outlets for profit to JB. Just a green space with sport as an attraction.

It's the kind of imaginative forward thinking that Plymouth has always lacked. PCC supported, I'm sure it could happen and sponsors/share owners attracted.

A new entrance arch is to be built across the entrance by cottage field.

Cornish Chris wrote:

The Herald website is awful. It's so cluttered with adverts it's almost unreadable now.

Full of utter bollox articles in terms of articles and features too. Its a joke of a paper.

Czarcasm wrote:

Even building small initially, with a pipe dream of extending at some future point, would be an error. The horseshoe was completed in 2002. Since then we've enjoyed some comparatively fruitful years and yet even when those times were good we couldn't get round to completing the stadium. Even for the horseshoe to finally be completed it needed benevolence from a true hardcore Argyle fan, Nic Warren, to get over the line.

Any half-arsed 3-5k fourth division stand that gets built will be here forever. Surely recent history rings those alarm bells clearly enough?

If Brents legacy is going to be delivering a slightly bigger version of Bristows Bench, then he really must go, NOW, before the damage is done.

I understand where you're coming from Czar, but at the end of the day the finances clearly aren't there to shit out anything larger. The horseshoe wasn't built with anything in mind other than getting it done, its a very standard no thrills concourse with average seating. It wasn't built with any expansion opportunities in mind, hence why most have rightly dismissed the notion of horseshoe expansion/devonport end demolition and rebuild as a viable expansion opportunity. We do potentially have the opportunity here however to kit the stadium out with sufficient non-matchday facilities while upgrading on the current matchday spectator experience quality with improved concourse, seating, view. And if we can achieve this without hemming the stand in to limit expansion opportunities and build with expansion in mind in order to keep costs down (a multi-phase building project) then we could find a happy compromise between all camps. Of course I would rather a whopping stand of the AFT WG mould straight of the bat, but it ain't gonna happen. It's completely unlikely that mini-stand will happen. But I'm suggesting a hypothetical to try and appease all.

Why should PCC spend council taxpayers money on a stand?

spowell92 wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

Even building small initially, with a pipe dream of extending at some future point, would be an error. The horseshoe was completed in 2002. Since then we've enjoyed some comparatively fruitful years and yet even when those times were good we couldn't get round to completing the stadium. Even for the horseshoe to finally be completed it needed benevolence from a true hardcore Argyle fan, Nic Warren, to get over the line.

Any half-arsed 3-5k fourth division stand that gets built will be here forever. Surely recent history rings those alarm bells clearly enough?

If Brents legacy is going to be delivering a slightly bigger version of Bristows Bench, then he really must go, NOW, before the damage is done.

I understand where you're coming from Czar, but at the end of the day the finances clearly aren't there to shit out anything larger. The horseshoe wasn't built with anything in mind other than getting it done, its a very standard no thrills concourse with average seating. It wasn't built with any expansion opportunities in mind, hence why most have rightly dismissed the notion of horseshoe expansion/devonport end demolition and rebuild as a viable expansion opportunity. We do potentially have the opportunity here however to kit the stadium out with sufficient non-matchday facilities while upgrading on the current matchday spectator experience quality with improved concourse, seating, view. And if we can achieve this without hemming the stand in to limit expansion opportunities and build with expansion in mind in order to keep costs down (a multi-phase building project) then we could find a happy compromise between all camps. Of course I would rather a whopping stand of the AFT WG mould straight of the bat, but it ain't gonna happen. It's completely unlikely that mini-stand will happen. But I'm suggesting a hypothetical to try and appease all.

With JB and a ministand, he wants most of the space for his own gain. Wycombe have a bigger grandstand with conferencing/function rooms but they are always broke. There has to be a shared vision, a wow factor , belief in the club/owners and success on the pitch for the potential fanbase to buy in.
The 'match day experience' is only for the terminally addicted, until the aforementioned are in place............ and they'll come whatever the facilities.

Let's get serious here. We've been talking about replacing the grandstand for, what?, 20 years now and we're no nearer to seeing it get built. Why not?

It's simple enough when it comes down to it: nobody wants to pay for it. And this is in spite of the oft made assertion, repeated by pretty much every significant figure attached to the club during that time, that an update is essential for the future well-being of the club. By that logic not building it is an abdication of their responsibility and put more starkly piss poor business planning.

The failure to replace the grandstand is a glaring indication of the failure of successive boards to show due regard to their duty as custodians of the club and is a betrayal of generations of Argyle fans yet to come.

As with so many things if the desire was truly there to do it then a way would be found and it would be done - or at least be planned to be done.

If I just guess some figures to work with here you'll soon get the idea. If the current grandstand has 10 years left in it and it would cost £10m then without recourse to controversial building plans or the creation of expensive long-term debt then the club has 10 years to raise the money it needs to simply pay for building the replacement itself.

PAFC should commit to ring-fencing, say, 10% of all income and save it in a trust fund, or some such similar wheeze - I am no expert. At current rates that'd put aside £400k per year and in 10 years we would have £4m. Still not enough, granted, but a prolonged series of fund-raisers could also contribute and as turnover grows then so would the absolute value of the 10%. As we go along we could even invest the saved money so that interest works for us.

OK the flaw is that in 10 years we will still fall short but leadership genuinely planning for the future could have instigated this scheme or one like it 20 years ago - and it might even be possible that the council could offer matched funding to our notional £4m or somebody could offer some sort of mortgage loan to cover the shortfall.

It could be done, should have been done long ago and would have been done by now if we had had owners genuinely, altruistically or philanthopically committed to the longer term prospects of the club.

In stead of that we have what we have and what we have always had.

Wycombe's grandstand is the roughly the same size as Brent's mini-stand. I'm unsure on Wycombe's finances but is it true to say that they're always broke? Certainly they've taken a hit after losing London Wasps as tenants.

On top of non-matchday facilities, matchday corporate hospitality is also extremely important and as a 4th tier side Wycombe aren't that attractive for potential customers - same goes for us. The higher the division you're in, the greater the demand - naturally. Worcester Warriors for example were extremely busy and earned a small fortune from corporate hospitality last season in the first division, this season however take-up has twindled following their relegation. They are necessary facilities required, Argyle's current facilities are substandard and largely they only attract the "terminally addicted". If back in League One or the Championship, local business might consider taking out season tickets for the facilities to use to entertain clients with. The tribute lounge and Grandstand would probably have many snub noses at taking up such a package however. Its all potentially vital revenue that we're currently failing to tap in to.

Argyle are broke, Wycombe are broke, Wycombe have a new stand Argyle doesn't.

I don't remember who made this argument but a while back Home Park's future limited capacity was portrayed as a Good Thing because limited supply and increased demand would justify higher pricing equating to more income at no extra cost!

Why wouldn't the same apply to the corporate facilities we currently enjoy? Hike the pricing up, serve some posher grub and keep the plebs out while you do so. It's all win! win! win! isn't it?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Let's get serious here. We've been talking about replacing the grandstand for, what?, 20 years now and we're no nearer to seeing it get built. Why not?

It's simple enough when it comes down to it: nobody wants to pay for it. And this is in spite of the oft made assertion, repeated by pretty much every significant figure attached to the club during that time, that an update is essential for the future well-being of the club. By that logic not building it is an abdication of their responsibility and put more starkly piss poor business planning.

The failure to replace the grandstand is a glaring indication of the failure of successive boards to show due regard to their duty as custodians of the club and is a betrayal of generations of Argyle fans yet to come.

As with so many things if the desire was truly there to do it then a way would be found and it would be done - or at least be planned to be done.

If I just guess some figures to work with here you'll soon get the idea. If the current grandstand has 10 years left in it and it would cost £10m then without recourse to controversial building plans or the creation of expensive long-term debt then the club has 10 years to raise the money it needs to simply pay for building the replacement itself.

PAFC should commit to ring-fencing, say, 10% of all income and save it in a trust fund, or some such similar wheeze - I am no expert. At current rates that'd put aside £400k per year and in 10 years we would have £4m. Still not enough, granted, but a prolonged series of fund-raisers could also contribute and as turnover grows then so would the absolute value of the 10%. As we go along we could even invest the saved money so that interest works for us.

OK the flaw is that in 10 years we will still fall short but leadership genuinely planning for the future could have instigated this scheme or one like it 20 years ago - and it might even be possible that the council could offer matched funding to our notional £4m or somebody could offer some sort of mortgage loan to cover the shortfall.

It could be done, should have been done long ago and would have been done by now if we had had owners genuinely, altruistically or philanthopically committed to the longer term prospects of the club.

In stead of that we have what we have and what we have always had.

I've never been able to get my head around why a business with a turnover of several million pounds a year can't fund this? Brent is clearly unable to do this with his growing lack of credibility amoung PCC and the wider business community so obviously it's time for him to step aside. The trust fund model is no different than my eldest boy presently saving for the deposit on his first house but then what do we know about business?

IF the council won't/can't pay for it, if our owner can't/won't pay for it, if commerical partnerships can't/won't pay for it what other alternative is there, if we genuinely need it - and I suspect that we do - other than to save up for it ourselves?

Just think had we started such a plan when Tudor made his balcony promise we'd be just about there by now.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

IF the council won't/can't pay for it, if our owner can't/won't pay for it, if commerical partnerships can't/won't pay for it what other alternative is there, if we genuinely need it - and I suspect that we do - other than to save up for it ourselves?

Just think had we started such a plan when Tudor made his balcony promise we'd be just about there by now.

Nahhh...........the last lot would have 'borrowed' it.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I don't remember who made this argument but a while back Home Park's future limited capacity was portrayed as a Good Thing because limited supply and increased demand would justify higher pricing equating to more income at no extra cost!

Why wouldn't the same apply to the corporate facilities we currently enjoy? Hike the pricing up, serve some posher grub and keep the plebs out while you do so. It's all win! win! win! isn't it?

New facilities will be required for the long term gains of the club. You'd be an idiot to ignore the corporate hospitality and non-matchday conferencing market in any development plans.

spowell92 wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I don't remember who made this argument but a while back Home Park's future limited capacity was portrayed as a Good Thing because limited supply and increased demand would justify higher pricing equating to more income at no extra cost!

Why wouldn't the same apply to the corporate facilities we currently enjoy? Hike the pricing up, serve some posher grub and keep the plebs out while you do so. It's all win! win! win! isn't it?

New facilities will be required for the long term gains of the club. You'd be an idiot to ignore the corporate hospitality and non-matchday conferencing market in any development plans.

I'm not ignoring it; those development plans as yet don't exist to be ignored.

I'm simply using the logic that justifies an inadequate grandstand to justify inadequate corporate facilities.

And it isn't  my logic either - I've borrowed it.

To be honest I don't think it is logic at all I'm taking somebody else's idea and running with it to show how ludicrous it was to start with. Or at least that is what I was trying to do.

Tringreen wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

IF the council won't/can't pay for it, if our owner can't/won't pay for it, if commerical partnerships can't/won't pay for it what other alternative is there, if we genuinely need it - and I suspect that we do - other than to save up for it ourselves?

Just think had we started such a plan when Tudor made his balcony promise we'd be just about there by now.

Nahhh...........the last lot would have 'borrowed' it.

That, of course, is the problem and why I said it had to be ringfenced in a trust or some such similar vehicle where it could only be used for one explicitly defined purpose.

spowell92 wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I don't remember who made this argument but a while back Home Park's future limited capacity was portrayed as a Good Thing because limited supply and increased demand would justify higher pricing equating to more income at no extra cost!

Why wouldn't the same apply to the corporate facilities we currently enjoy? Hike the pricing up, serve some posher grub and keep the plebs out while you do so. It's all win! win! win! isn't it?

New facilities will be required for the long term gains of the club. You'd be an idiot to ignore the corporate hospitality and non-matchday conferencing market in any development plans.

Depends whether you have the club's future at heart or your own pension pot.

If, as we are being told, the grandstand development with the revenue streams from conference and hospitality facilities is needed to make us competitive in the championship, I would have thought it would have been a better idea to build this before the horseshoe.

Much of the old "horseshoe" was condemned, or about to be condemned, and needed to be replaced.

Anyway we are where we are and that ship has long since sailed.

Welcome Deek! Nice avatar, looks familiar

Clutching at straws here..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]