ANDY SYMONS on BBC 1 Spotlight 6.30pm

I didn't see quite the uproar with the Herald with its extremely pro Brent articles in support of HHP. Brent's monkey did have a regular weekly column (does he still do it?) and in one praised HHP and slagged off British Land/ PCC; Sparks/ Robinson and possibly others had interviews published in support of HHP also. There was no interview with anyone pro-British Land at any point.

Unlike Webb, I'm a Plymouth Council Tax payer and you have one scheme where the proposer wants millions from the council to complete it (after already receiving money for a possible ice rink, favourable rate payments etc), against the other who will fund the project themselves and support other projects in the city.

The BBC report gave facts- the facts are Brent/ Akkeron could not sell their sack of shit development to enough investors/ retailers (even a majority of Argyle fans weren't happy with it, some even said they supported it because it was 'better than nothing'), Brent/ Akkeron have failed to deliver on every property development project they've been granted planning permission on, British Land have a clear record of development, Argyle fans are frustrated with the non-action.

Who else are non residents of this fair City who sits on the number 1 table?  Brent, Web Nikk any more?

Phew, just glad that nobody has ever said that if you don't live in Plymouth you should have no say in anything Argyle, I mean no one would ever say that, would they.........

My main problem with Nikk and the top table at Argyle is that in my opinion they are more supportive of the owner of Argyle than they are of the club itself, chairman come and go the club should be the constant in this, I can't remember a single fan being branded anti argyle for criicising back in the day?

So after a couple of hours of top Superfannery from jb's mate Nikkkk, we learnt what exactly? Brent loves Argyle, The BBC Hate Argyle, the HHP fiasco was not Brents fault he was just unlucky!!!!  In Jim we Trust.

It is the top table that Want's to spend my Council Tax money and another 200,000 Plymouth residents who do not support Argyle. It want be the  Cornish or Devon Council Tax payer's left with the bill.

Tgwu wrote:

It is the top table that Want's to spend my Council Tax money and another 200,000 who do not support Argyle.

If i was a plymouth council tax payer i would not give Brent a penny more of the taxpayers money! Why should the taxpayer keep throwing money at a private business? if Brent handed the ownership of the club to the AFT, then i would support taxpayers money being spent on a "community club".

zyph wrote:

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.

On the buses?

Les Miserable wrote:

zyph wrote:

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.

On the buses?

"I'll have you Butlerrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!"

'negative' i tend to find is another word for 'true'.

the report was 'negative' ? the report was TRUE !

Will Andy surface onto any of Argyle fans forum's again or just stay on his twitter page?

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

It is the top table that Want's to spend my Council Tax money and another 200,000 who do not support Argyle.

If i was a plymouth council tax payer i would not give Brent a penny more of the taxpayers money! Why should the taxpayer keep throwing money at a private business? if Brent handed the ownership of the club to the AFT, then i would support taxpayers money being spent on a "community club".

So would I and I assume that PCC would find it much easier to help the club in such circumstances. Putting Brent aside for a moment, I think the council is fully justified in helping out as and where it can beacuse it has a dual responsibility to do so: 1) as landlord of a tenant and 2) as a promoter of all things Plymothian.

Looking at the first in more detail quickly reveals the paradox here: why should PCC spend money on a ground to enhance the value of an asset that will benefit a private individual when that individual can't/won't spend any money himself. Just imagine that PCC spent £10m on a new grandstand and Brent then found the money to buy the freehold of the land at 12 x rent (I'm sure he'd be able to find the money to this! - another paradox) at substantially less than £10m... From Brent's perspective it's the best outcome possible with spreadsheet asset/liability implications that would probably ensure that the only way the beaming smile on his face could ever be removed would be by surgery. In such circumstances I can imagine widespread outrage amongst local council tax payers.

So who should pay for it? Brent alone? No. It isn't actually his asset to enhance; he only rents it; you wouldn't pay for a conservatory extension to a rented flat, would you? No. It's not just a flat, though, is it? It is a business too and it is business that can't really move to anywhere else. Building the new stand adds value to the council's asset and to the tenant's business.

The question now is how much of that £10m should either tenant or landlord pay? The negotiation position of each appears to be "zilch" and everybody is playing hardball. I believe you cannot expect any compromise from PCC so close to the election so we're stuck at stalemate but if I was called in to mediate (as if!) I would be recommending that each party paid 50% of the cost involved.

Which brings us to #2 from previously. It is obviously politically sensitive at any time for a council to spend millions of pounds of council tax payers' money but the way to sell it is by shouting the merits of it long and hard and being proud of the deal (as opposed to being ashamed of it): point out the boost that a successful Argyle provides to the local economy; milk the good publicity for the city as much as possible; latch on to a successful club and slipstream in as much of of the rest of the local economy as possible; point out that the money isn't being spent but invested and invested in a key local industry that employs local workers and sub-contracts all sorts of other work locally (we do, I hope!); point out that councils always invest money but that the benefit of that investment is often seen in distant bank accounts and this time it won't...

Nothing, absolutely nothing, promotes a city as much as its football club does and that is why PCC should support it with council tax payers' money - but Brent has to play ball too.

help out not bail out

SFD

Quote

Nothing, absolutely nothing, promotes a city as much as its football club does and that is why PCC should support it with council tax payers'

Not in Exeter,

That's a good point but if ECFC was ever to get into the PL (you boy! stop sniggering at the back!) the impact would dwarf that of their rugby team currently.

How many people watch MotD compared to the rugby equivalent? (Is there one? What channel is it on? What is it called?)

Besides rugby only reaches out to a handful of other nations; football's reach is truly global.

The two just don't compare (that said the council should support Albion too - you can never have too many positive irons in the fire).

as long as the council don't blame the government for any cuts that they have to make then I think they should spunk 5 mill on a half share of a grandstand.....

Does that mean that you think that the council should have no investments at all?

If so then fine but I don't think you have thought this through. If any council money invested anywhere is acceptable then why not invest in a grandstand? Why not invest in a project that can be shaped by the council from the outset in order to protect that long term investment in a way that it never could in, say, an Icelandic bank? If that £5m resulted in a return of £10m then the cuts imposed from central government in the longer term would be offset a little. Wouldn't they actually be negligent not to invest their money? What difference does it make what the actual target for the investment is so long as it is vaguely ethical? Isn't the fact that it is a local venture actually a very big plus here?

The reasons you give not to do this are the very same as the reasons as to why it should be done!

Sorry for all the rhetorical questions - it just seems to be the simplest way to make the point.

The only thing up for negotiation is the size, cost, associated infra-structure and 50/50 split so far as I can see because if that isn't the case then either one or both of landlord and tenant is lying about actually wanting a new grandstand built in the first place.

The council would be mad to spunk more money on HP while the reluctant one stands to gain from it. A Trust run club, with a share issue to make up some of the cost, might have a different appeal.

Meanwhile, the Liberty Stadium could be sold because the council needs money..................but at least SCC gave its football and rugby teams the boost they needed by providing it in the first place.

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

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

That's a good point but if ECFC was ever to get into the PL (you boy! stop sniggering at the back!) the impact would dwarf that of their rugby team currently.

How many people watch MotD compared to the rugby equivalent? (Is there one? What channel is it on? What is it called?)

Besides rugby only reaches out to a handful of other nations; football's reach is truly global.

The two just don't compare (that said the council should support Albion too - you can never have too many positive irons in the fire).

BT

BT Sport is the home of the Aviva Premiership for four years from the start of the 2013/14 season. BT Sport will show exclusively live coverage of up to 69 matches a season, so all the live matches from the competition will be available from one broadcaster.

Coverage will be presented by Craig Doyle. Former England captain Lawrence Dallaglio will be BT Sport's lead rugby expert, featuring as a co-commentator and studio analyst. Former England internationals Matt Dawson, Ben Kay, Austin Healey and Martin Bayfield will offer expert analysis. Nick Mullins and Alastair Ekyn will commentate across BT Sport's rugby coverage and Sarra Elgan has joined as a reporter and presenter.

BT Sport will also show exclusively live coverage of the J.P. Morgan Premiership Rugby 7s Series for four years from 2013/14. The channels will also have live coverage from the French Top 14 competition.

ITV

Each week Mark Durden Smith and Daivd Flatman present comprehensive highlights and analysis from the latest round of Aviva Premiership Rugby.

Tune in on:

Sunday 20.00 on ITV4
Sunday between 23.15 and 00.30 on ITV
Monday Evening ITV4

TALK SPORT

As an official broadcaster of Aviva Premiership Rugby, talkSPORT, the world's biggest sports radio station brings live commentary and in-game updates of selected games throughout the season.

In addition, every Sunday night talkSPORT's dedicated rugby show Full Contact looks back at the weekend's matches with exclusive interviews from the biggest names in the game.

The station is an official broadcaster of the Barclays Premier League, the FA Cup, England football internationals and the Capital One Cup. talkSPORT is available on 1089/1053AM, on digital radio, on mobile and online at talkSPORT.com.

EUROPEAN RUGBY

TV giants BT and Sky close to historic deal to share  coverage of European club rugby

You kind of prove his point there TGWU. The closest it gets to a prime time TV spot on Sunday at 8 and its bumped off to ITV4. Football is a far greater supported sport than Rugby in this country, a successful Plymouth Argyle would have only positive consequences for the city as a whole. As landlords of the ground, its not unreasonable to ask questions of the PCC as to whether they should be investing (emphasis on investing) in their ground as a benefit for the city's professional football club. Many have suggest a rent increase to justify the PCC upgrading the facilities at Home Park, seems a heck of a lot better and more productive than them just loaning the club money.

SFD

Asked which channel shows Rugby Union, that is what I answered

Albion plays on an PCC own ground and the last two stands (one gone) never had a penny from the council tax payers.

There are 101 other areas that need the council's help and investments to better improve the image of plymouth and quality of life for its residents than continually giving money to argyle.

The club has had enough help fro the council its time the reluctant one actually spent his money rather than ta payers to run the club.

I think you are mixing things up here although largely I agree with about half of it.

I agree that PCC has been unbelievably generous to both Argyle and James Brent. And what PCC has had back in return is far too little. Brent has sucked in lots of, er, "help" and basically done nothing other than demand more help. No arguments here on my part.

I thought I had made this abundantly clear already but I'm not suggesting that PCC pays for all of the grandstand cost; Brent should pay his share too.

The stand needs to be replaced and both parties will benefit when it eventually happens (as one day it will) but the only way it is going to happen is for both parties to accept their responsibility and if Brent can't/won't pay his share - or even agree that he ought to - then he's bringing nothing to the table, should sell up and move on.

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 ....

And here's the problem writ large. It's not a binary thing. There's an immature strain of "green tintism" led by Newell that essentially says "if you're not cheerleading then you're the enemy". It's bollocks. But there's also an immature strain of "brown tintism" that is expert in nose-cutting and face-spiting.

For me, we nearly went to the wall because not enough questions were asked and too much faith was put in powder-puff answers. We were treated like supine idiots. I can't believe how short some people's memories are, especially given the frequency with which they trot out the "what did you do in the war" line. There isn't a line that says "Brent's the saviour/Brent's a charlatan". There's a good case to make that he has stabilised the club and has got us in a better league position than might otherwise have been the case. But there's also a good case that asks questions about his long-term intentions and whether this is for the benefit of James Brent's pension fund or PAFC. And the club's track record off the pitch on the big things is mixed to say the least.

The piece wasn't "anti". It just asked questions and raised points that some might find inconvenient. And some would argue that it's a year or so late in doing so.

The media are allowed to cover the shades of grey and the BBC's remit includes fair and balanced local journalism. That might be inconvenient for businessmen with commercial interests at stake, but given Mr Brent's role in public life in Plymouth and Devon (Uni, NHS, Plymouth city centre and Argyle) it's natural and right for those questions to be asked.

There will be some, I'm sure, who are frustrated with the Herald's lack of meaningful questions, allowing the Chief Exec and the President (remember him?) to essentially publish a regular column of unchallenged propoganda.