ANDY SYMONS on BBC 1 Spotlight 6.30pm

nikkk wrote:

Angry wrote:

nikkk wrote:

Rickler wrote:

nikkk wrote:

Sam, I think you must agree that there was at least an agenda  or more kindly a direction in the report...   

You keep plugging this notion, yet so far have refused to say what it is and why?

Mate it's of course only my opinion, but for me when you do watch the report it's pretty clear that the BBC had set it's stall out to be anti JB and the progression of the HHP scheme. What do you think ? Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the plans ....

    dont make me laugh!! Spotlight couldn't have been more pro brent for years if they took up a modship on pasoti and slagged this place off left right and centre.

James has been on Spotlight many times in the past to promote his clusterfuck and over things, webb has been on there many times to talk bollocks as usual and your mate ian has been too for that matter.
So please dont try to paint bbc as being anti brent and argyle because they have finally done a fair and balanced report on Brent's failure to deliver on yet another project he gained planning permission for because they didnt ask your mates to lie and say the fans are happy.

Were spotlight lying when they said they asked Brent to comment on their report so he could have he right to reply? Hardly the actions of a anti JB corporation.

Fans want the best for the club not indivduals.

"Fans want the best for the club not indivduals."   And I don't know anyone associated with the club that want's anything different mate !!

Cracking use of an apostrophe. Hic

Hitch wrote:

nikkk wrote:

Angry wrote:

nikkk wrote:

Rickler wrote:

nikkk wrote:

Sam, I think you must agree that there was at least an agenda  or more kindly a direction in the report...   

You keep plugging this notion, yet so far have refused to say what it is and why?

Mate it's of course only my opinion, but for me when you do watch the report it's pretty clear that the BBC had set it's stall out to be anti JB and the progression of the HHP scheme. What do you think ? Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the plans ....

    dont make me laugh!! Spotlight couldn't have been more pro brent for years if they took up a modship on pasoti and slagged this place off left right and centre.

James has been on Spotlight many times in the past to promote his clusterfuck and over things, webb has been on there many times to talk bollocks as usual and your mate ian has been too for that matter.
So please dont try to paint bbc as being anti brent and argyle because they have finally done a fair and balanced report on Brent's failure to deliver on yet another project he gained planning permission for because they didnt ask your mates to lie and say the fans are happy.

Were spotlight lying when they said they asked Brent to comment on their report so he could have he right to reply? Hardly the actions of a anti JB corporation.

Fans want the best for the club not indivduals.

"Fans want the best for the club not indivduals."   And I don't know anyone associated with the club that want's anything different mate !!

Cracking use of an apostrophe. Hic

Brilliant...

Do you ever read back the complete nonsense you post in the morning after the night before?

You are GreenArmy1984's dad and I claim my £5.

Hitch wrote:

Do you ever read back the complete nonsense you post in the morning after the night before?  

You are GreenArmy1984's dad and I claim my £5.

Dear oh dear ..... anyway a pleasure to meet you ....

@nikkk - You still haven't addressed the question, that several people have put to you politely. That is how does the BBC have an agenda? Who is the alleged agenda against, the club as a whole or just Brent? What interest does the BBC have in running such an agenda?

Also doesn't Brent's record so far of empty promises mean that one can only reach a negative conclusion when putting together a report on development of Argyle's ground?

Finally, nikkk, are you really here for discussion or just to defend the current regime in charge of the club?

nikkk wrote:

lawnmowerman wrote:

I`m sorry nikkk the bbc report is anti brent because of the evidence before them.  The civic centre, HHP, pavilions oh and don`t forget oldway mansion.

Hold on ... The BBC have no real idea how the Pavilions is getting on ( and I apologise if I am braking a confidence but I believe it is a huge turnaround)... the civic centre we simply don't know,but I guess was an option not taken up because it wasn't viable and Oldway we don't know the backround do we , so ridiculous to comment.  I'm really not blindly supporting JB for the sake of it , but be fair and consider the whole picture...

I`m sorry nikk the bbc have many fingers in many pies and only comment/go public when they have a balanced story to publish. You only have to look at delivered projects from brent as evidence to see many many fans/local tax payers have concerns. like i said earlier the bbc must provide a balanced story when it comes to news. Until I see a development sign/fence being put up announcing this the new site for XXX then i will reconsider my view point

charleymouse wrote:

@nikkk - You still haven't addressed the question, that several people have put to you politely. That is how does the BBC have an agenda? Who is the alleged agenda against, the club as a whole or just Brent? What interest does the BBC have in running such an agenda?

Also doesn't Brent's record so far of empty promises mean that one can only reach a negative conclusion when putting together a report on development of Argyle's ground?

Finally, nikkk, are you really here for discussion or just to defend the current regime in charge of the club?

Absolutely here for discussion, of course, but I do support JB.

That doesn't answer anything, as you know. If you're here to discuss, then that involves being prepared to criticise Brent if necessary.

So would you mind answering the questions I and others have asked you, please? Otherwise it will look like a bit of a waste of time engaging with you.

charleymouse wrote:

@nikkk - You still haven't addressed the question, that several people have put to you politely. That is how does the BBC have an agenda? Who is the alleged agenda against, the club as a whole or just Brent? What interest does the BBC have in running such an agenda?

Also doesn't Brent's record so far of empty promises mean that one can only reach a negative conclusion when putting together a report on development of Argyle's ground?

Finally, nikkk, are you really here for discussion or just to defend the current regime in charge of the club?

Charley.. I can only offer my opinion... but as I see it JB put together a proposal that had it come to fruition would have been of huge benefit to the club, and funded a stand and associated benefits through the development. Clearly that is not going to happen now, and we hope that an alternative scheme may come together with PCC, but to charge JB with empty promises , rather than recognising the other business challenges is unfair....

nikkk wrote:

charleymouse wrote:

@nikkk - You still haven't addressed the question, that several people have put to you politely. That is how does the BBC have an agenda? Who is the alleged agenda against, the club as a whole or just Brent? What interest does the BBC have in running such an agenda?

Also doesn't Brent's record so far of empty promises mean that one can only reach a negative conclusion when putting together a report on development of Argyle's ground?

Finally, nikkk, are you really here for discussion or just to defend the current regime in charge of the club?

Charley..  I can only offer my opinion... but as I see it JB put together a proposal that had it come to fruition would have been of huge benefit to the club, and funded a stand and associated benefits through the development. Clearly that is not going to happen now, and we hope that an alternative scheme may come together with PCC, but to charge JB with empty promises , rather than recognising the other business challenges is unfair....

name ONE property development scheme brent has gained planning app for that he has had built since taking over uk wide.

Angry ( Obviously I don't know your real name ) If you think about it ...Come on .. how is that really relevant to Argyle ?

nikkk wrote:

Angry ( Obviously I don't know your real name )  If you think about it ...Come on .. how is that really relevant to Argyle ?

either your pissed or your fishing for bites with that reply,

Right, I'll be honest, nikkk. You say you're here for discussion, yet you have barely deigned to answer a single one of the points that has been raised to you. When people have engaged with you, you have frankly offered a mixture of flannel and non sequiturs. You lamented the fact that your appearance on this thread met with abusive comments, yet you have made a very serious allegation about BBC bias that you have failed to back up. Just because its open season on the BBC, that doesn't mean that you can dump anything on it whenever you please.

Re your answer above (because I actually respond to the points people raise...); a bit like Mr Gradgrind, what I'm interested in is facts. Brent has promised much and has been gifted plenty of goodwill. And what has the city or PAFC got to show for it? Precious little. I call those empty promises. And was it stated when the original plans came out that Brent and PAFC would take their ball and go home if another scheme on a completely different site was suggested? I don't think it was.

I think that you have joined this thread to defend Brent at all costs. I think that if this defence of him is sincere and not just to keep in with certain people, then you are quite naive. I also think that it has been a waste of my time actually bothering to engage with you, so this is the end of any interaction between us on this thread.

Angry wrote:

nikkk wrote:

Angry ( Obviously I don't know your real name )  If you think about it ...Come on .. how is that really relevant to Argyle ?

either your pissed or your fishing for bites with that reply,

No the point is that they are all entirely different business propositions.. and Argyle is absolutely unique, and I am quite sure that JB treats it as such..

Different business propositions they may be, but the result is the same. Nada.

charleymouse wrote:

Right, I'll be honest, nikkk. You say you're here for discussion, yet you have barely deigned to answer a single one of the points that has been raised to you. When people have engaged with you, you have frankly offered a mixture of flannel and non sequiturs. You lamented the fact that your appearance on this thread met with abusive comments, yet you have made a very serious allegation about BBC bias that you have failed to back up. Just because its open season on the BBC, that doesn't mean that you can dump anything on it whenever you please.

Re your answer above (because I actually respond to the points people raise...); a bit like Mr Gradgrind, what I'm interested in is facts. Brent has promised much and has been gifted plenty of goodwill. And what has the city or PAFC got to show for it? Precious little. I call those empty promises. And was it stated when the original plans came out that Brent and PAFC would take their ball and go home if another scheme on a completely different site was suggested? I don't think it was.

I think that you have joined this thread to defend Brent at all costs. I think that if this defence of him is sincere and not just to keep in with certain people, then you are quite naive. I also think that it has been a waste of my time actually bothering to engage with you, so this is the end of any interaction between us on this thread.

That's well out of order and grossly unfair. I get a lot of abuse on here, a lot of which is really unpleasant, but still come on. I will happily answer any questions to the best of my ability , and that frankly some times should be addressed to others, but fair enough if you want me to leave you alone I will happily do so....

nikkk wrote:

I will happily answer any questions to the best of my ability , and that frankly some times should be addressed to others, but fair enough if you want me to leave you alone I will happily do so....

So then...  For about the hundreth time in various forms...

Rickler wrote:

nikkk wrote:

Right now I believe JB and the council developing an understanding and getting a stand built is the best option for our club.

... and the BBC have formed a conspiracy or agenda about that in what way?  And why?

What agenda, and why?

Rickler wrote:

nikkk wrote:

I will happily answer any questions to the best of my ability , and that frankly some times should be addressed to others, but fair enough if you want me to leave you alone I will happily do so....

So then...  For about the hundreth time in various forms...

Rickler wrote:

nikkk wrote:

Right now I believe JB and the council developing an understanding and getting a stand built is the best option for our club.

... and the BBC have formed a conspiracy or agenda about that in what way?  And why?

What agenda, and why?

Ok I see. I am simply suggesting that the BBC in this particular piece ( and of course it's just my opinion ) focused on negatives concerning Argyle and the proposed HHP development, that have not come to fruition, without fully airing the circumstances behind it..

I see.  Thanks.

Maybe the 'agenda' is just a viewpoint they arrived at? Where is the proof of conspiracy?

Rickler wrote:

I see.  Thanks.

Maybe the 'agenda' is just a viewpoint they arrived at?  Where is the proof of conspiracy?

Cool, and I would add that if I am in a position to do anything to influence decisions now or in the future that will benefit Argyle I will do so. At the end of the day I'm only involved in this because I'm a fan !!

With all due respect, Nikkk...  Of course you are only involved because you are a fan.

However, in that regard...  Your interpretation of what will "benefit" Argyle does not fit in with the viewpoint of many on this website.  You surely must realize that some of your ideas in the past that have been implemented purely because you could literally afford to buy to have them done!  

Argyle being so desperate for money it will sell its soul.

But your biggest handicap is that you project an image with Newell of being 'blood' brothers - that's black sausage 'blood' no less - and Newell is a proven scummy, cowardly, lying bully.  The sort of guy who launches internet virus attacks on your email account behind your back - you want to see the proof?

Newell has abused many on here.  You have chosen to be friends with him.  It's pretty hard to be sympathetic.

Rickler wrote:

nikkk wrote:

Well I do think the BBC have an agenda that they are following..... as I guess is obvious..

An obvious agenda?  Enlighten me, please.

(FYI..  I am an overseas exile and therefore unable to use iplayer.  I have not seen the BBC piece.)

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

mouldyoldgoat wrote:

I see on the pasoti thread that Bob Foale says the BBC agenda was negative and will think twice about accepting another invitation for an interview.


3 questions for Bob.

Why was that report negative?

What possible reason would the BBC have an agenda?

Why would the AFT Leader think twice about giving an interview to an organisation who, by its own rules has to be seen to be fair. I would have thought the last thing the AFT Leader would want to do is rule out any sort of chance to put the AFT and its members wishes or feelings to a wider audience.

I agree with Sam P in the post above the only negative is the one created by JB and his inability to get anything done on HHP.

I wonder if Bob has had a speaking to?

Is it worth stocking up with popcorn today? There's a special offer on popcorn at Lidl (Lidl's, yes, I know, I'm poor - Cheers Cameron - you kuunt)

Might get some cheap German beer as well. This thread could be a 100 pager.

Orkwood T Watt wrote:

mouldyoldgoat wrote:

I see on the pasoti thread that Bob Foale says the BBC agenda was negative and will think twice about accepting another invitation for an interview.


3 questions for Bob.

Why was that report negative?

What possible reason would the BBC have an agenda?

Why would the AFT Leader think twice about giving an interview to an organisation who, by its own rules has to be seen to be fair. I would have thought the last thing the AFT Leader would want to do is rule out any sort of chance to put the AFT and its members wishes or feelings to a wider audience.

I agree with Sam P in the post above the only negative is the one created by JB and his inability to get anything done on HHP.

I wonder if Bob has had a speaking to?

I thought that Bob had explained his disappointment in that the BBC only used the last 20 seconds of a 10 minute interview....which does not give a complete picture of what he said.......maybe the reason for that is poor editing by BBC staff.....who had lots of topics to discuss within a limited time allowed and snipped away at many of the stories until it fitted their given time slot......not much editing required and the easy way out if you snip all the interview accept the last 20 seconds.

I remember years ago....I and a few friends had taken part in an ITV programme which took over an hour to shoot.....so we all got together to watch it when it was broadcasted.....and it was all over in 55 seconds.....we felt so cheated.....but that is how it is unfortunately...you have no control over what is shown........the editing floor is generally the winner.....more often than the broadcaster having an agenda.