wembley tickets

Rickler wrote:

Oh great...  Operate on a 80% full basis.

Jeez...

Yes, just like yours and our electricity supply sector. It's quite common practice in regular business, if you stopped thinking about Brent's bottom line and started thinking as a fan. You profit monitors are all the same. Brent's bottom line before a decent consumer service. Profit really isn't the only criteria to control human activity. Much of society activity runs on a dollar loss. Even where you are.

What have Reading,Swansea, Hull and Brighton had in common facility wise in recent years ?

What happened to their respective fanbases as a result ?

Championship football alone, in a poxy stadium will not inspire the uncommitted to turn up.

Only the big guns coming to town in a decent stadium, has that appeal and long lasting fanbase effect.

Rickler wrote:

Oh great...  Operate on a 80% full basis.

Jeez...

and as for SFD...

Blah feckin Blah... Nobody is using averages to prove anything. I'm using highest gate figures.

Historically, facts prove -

Attendance wise.... we still don't need a 25,000 seat stadium until we are in the premiership because we never get anywhere near filling that many seats.

...and all your 'average' bullshit does nothing to disprove that fact.

But if we build a 17500 capacity stadium now it will be not fit for purpose with a decent showing in the CCC, if we get to the prem we need all money that generates for keeping a team together. It's also much more cost efficient to build for 20 odd thousand in the first place rather than build an under 20k job and pull it down and total rebuild, especially as the Ministand is built with no way of enlarging it in the future. You're starting to sound like you might be corporate and couldn't give a feck about the rest of us.

It's not what I said because that is just how arithmetic works. It's unassailable fact. There's nothing at all to argue against unless you wish to adopt a nonsensical position and then defend it like only a true feckin idiot would.

It's because it was me saying it.

Just ignore him.

Amsterdamage wrote:

You're ( Rickler ) starting to sound like you might be corporate and couldn't give a feck about the rest of us.

Where have you been Amster ? Outside of the long running Sir Frank?\rickler confrontation, Ricks' macro view has always been bottom line top down money stuff. It's what he believes in. It's a religion over there. They have their own Profit and Loss god squad. The poor lad can't imagine a different community vista.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

It's not what I said because that is just how arithmetic works. It's unassailable fact. There's nothing at all to argue against unless you wish to adopt a nonsensical position and then defend it like only a true feckin idiot would.

It's because it was me saying it.

Just ignore him.

Les Miserable wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

It's not what I said because that is just how arithmetic works. It's unassailable fact. There's nothing at all to argue against unless you wish to adopt a nonsensical position and then defend it like only a true feckin idiot would.

It's because it was me saying it.

Just ignore him.

As usual SFD... You can't even read what I wrote properly. If you had, you wouldn't be blathering on about arithmetic still. And as usual... It's just another excuse to play the "I'm being picked on" card.You blather on with your own stupid theories.. I'll keep proving how stupid they and you are.

Lord Biro wrote:

Amsterdamage wrote:

You're ( Rickler ) starting to sound like you might be corporate and couldn't give a feck about the rest of us.

Where have you been Amster ? Outside of the long running Sir Frank?\rickler confrontation, Ricks' macro view has always been bottom line top down money stuff. It's what he believes in. It's a religion over there. They have their own Profit and Loss god squad. The poor lad can't imagine a different community vista.

You really are becoming a bore Biro. A real bore. ..and by other posters recent remarks, I'm not the only one who thinks it.

Yes, I believe in Capitalism. So does most of the world. I am not the devil. It's you that's the odd one out.

Rickler wrote:

You really are becoming a bore Biro.  A real bore.  ..and by other posters recent remarks, I'm not the only one who thinks it.

Yes, I believe in Capitalism.  So does most of the world.  I am not the devil.  It's you that's the odd one out.

At last, we have an understanding that I have been too polite to express. Must be that quaint old world reserve.
Your intermittent stroking over the years has been irritating. It's what you do, it's your "in". You're still trying it with an AFT that has no intention whatsoever of playing along.
My dislike with your view on Argyle matters is nothing to do with capitalism, that's quite a specific ailment of big capital systems, and has nothing to do with everyday Plymouth matters, good profitable business, and how it fits in with the rest of the local community.
You're as bad as Jimmy, just different words aiming at a ministand with secure private sector rental income that will ultimately ruin this club's potential. All the potential goes into the personal pension. It's like a beaver building a dam. In more local history, no different than the Topsham profiteering bunch trying to steal the River Exe from the city Exeter, and hence all the human wealth the river had provided for centuries. The community fought back, bypassed the thieves, and built a canal. Up yours Jimmy and Rickler.

Ok.  Let's have examples of my "intermittent stroking"

As for the rest of it.  It's nonsense..  you and your political rubbish again that taints, every single conversation.  Not just me, but almost everybody.  You have no idea what I vote, or what I have ever voted.  You have no idea about what I think regarding Capitalism. You clearly have no idea on my thoughts on Argyle. You have no idea.  Period.

As I said, this stadium thing is not about capitalism, never has been. It's you in this thread that offered your particular wider economic preferences and used them to give negative connotation to fans wanting a half decent stadium in size.
I think you and Rollo should sail off into the sunset together with your supposed middle of the road ideals in a beautiful pea green boat.
I have spent a lot of my life playing the sport of football and following Argyle. I am quite well aware my views are not in accord with many football folk. I understand the constituency, believe me. You're part of it.
In other areas of life, politics doesn't enter the fray at all. You probably haven't noticed, but ever since the stadium was sold to private ownership, everything has imploded because of what it has attracted over the last 10 years. If that's political, then sobeit.

I use the park every day this time of year. You don't.

Rickler wrote:

Les Miserable wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

It's not what I said because that is just how arithmetic works. It's unassailable fact. There's nothing at all to argue against unless you wish to adopt a nonsensical position and then defend it like only a true feckin idiot would.

It's because it was me saying it.

Just ignore him.

As usual SFD...  You can't even read what I wrote properly. If you had, you wouldn't be blathering on about arithmetic still.  And as usual...  It's just another excuse to play the "I'm being picked on" card.You blather on with your own stupid theories..   I'll keep proving how stupid they and you are.

As per normal wildly wrong in every imprortant respect. Ricklerworld is like some sort of anti-reality where anything that gets even slightly intellectual is bullshit.

For starters there's the 25k thing. I plucked that figure out of thin air, did i? No. It was the capacity of the Darlodome and, for them, it was always going to be far too big. How could they ever hope to get near that figure if all they could muster for Wembley was 9000? A 9000 capacity stadium for them would have been about right.

By similar reckoning we could justify a 34k stadium but did I run with that figure? No. I kept with Darlo's 25k because it was their "white elephant" that I was considering. There was no smoke and mirrors or chicanery - it was all there explicitly for the best part and implicitly for anybody with an ounce of sense to recognise.

Could we fill a 25k stadium? Well if Swansea, Cardiff, Leicester, Norwich, Ipswich and about a dozen or more others could then so could we.

Do we need that capacity now? Probably not but it should always be borne in mind that one day we'll need it - and when we do, as others have pointed out, it'll be too late to do anything about it.

It all boils down to vision and planning to succeed rather that meek acceptance of continuing failure and mediocrity; about allowing us the chance to dream rather than hamstringing us for ever.

You're obviously happy for us to be perpetually pants and I'm not.

Simple as that really.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

You're obviously happy for us to be perpetually pants and I'm not.

Hey, I'll have you know Ricks is travelling across Iddesleigh's ocean, just to get a view of his pants hung out to dry at Wembley.

Rickler wrote:

Oh great...  Operate on a 80% full basis.

Jeez...

and as for SFD...

Blah feckin Blah... Nobody is using averages to prove anything. I'm using highest gate figures.

Historically, facts prove -

Attendance wise.... we still don't need a 25,000 seat stadium until we are in the premiership because we never get anywhere near filling that many seats.

...and all your 'average' bullshit does nothing to disprove that fact.

But if we ever got to the premiership, we'd have to close part of the ground to rebuild it using your logic!

It's the only way he'll ever see more than 15k Argyle fans in one place - if he had his way.

Rickler wrote:

Lord Biro wrote:

Amsterdamage wrote:

You're ( Rickler ) starting to sound like you might be corporate and couldn't give a feck about the rest of us.

Where have you been Amster ? Outside of the long running Sir Frank?\rickler confrontation, Ricks' macro view has always been bottom line top down money stuff. It's what he believes in. It's a religion over there. They have their own Profit and Loss god squad. The poor lad can't imagine a different community vista.

You really are becoming a bore Biro.  A real bore.  ..and by other posters recent remarks, I'm not the only one who thinks it.

Yes, I believe in Capitalism.  So does most of the world.  I am not the devil.  It's you that's the odd one out.

Actually there's quite a school of thinking that suggests that capitalism as a system is also flawed. We currently have a class of wealthy people who do little but speculate others money in order to perpetuate their wealth. Like James Brent.
when people start realising that no matter how hard you work, how hard you hate immigrants, lefties etc you will never be allowed to join that club. Do you really believe that one of your kids could become the president of the US OF A if they just work hard and do their best?

Lord Biro wrote:

I have always always been in favour of filling in the corners at the same height as the Barn Park and renovating the old stand and Mayflower. Didn't Forest do something similar ?
Of course, the underneath would be totally changed to provide modern infrastructure and facility.

Wot I said years back.
My tickets are here and my parcels of green things. I'm sure one of the green things spoke to me.

205 tickets sold today

tigertony wrote:

Lord Biro wrote:

I have always always been in favour of filling in the corners at the same height as the Barn Park and renovating the old stand and Mayflower. Didn't Forest do something similar ?
Of course, the underneath would be totally changed to provide modern infrastructure and facility.

Wot I said years back.

There's lots of fans, Tone, that think that should have been the way forward. All the talk of a rusting old grandstand is a bit of a joke when we find out the new stadium is rusting even faster.
The new corners could rise quite quickly in height as they bend around toward the grandstand without impinging on the existing visual impact to the park. Old and new on that one side of the ground might make a great juxtaposition given sensitive design.
Brent's Plan A had a ludicrously higher Barn Park end, that was of no benefit to the club whatsoever, and towered over the lower lie of the land outside as it climbs up around past the old Far Post club.

AFC Wimbledon ‏@AFCWimbledon 1h1 hour ago

19,066 tickets sold so far ... and counting

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Les Miserable wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

It's not what I said because that is just how arithmetic works. It's unassailable fact. There's nothing at all to argue against unless you wish to adopt a nonsensical position and then defend it like only a true feckin idiot would.

It's because it was me saying it.

Just ignore him.

As usual SFD...  You can't even read what I wrote properly. If you had, you wouldn't be blathering on about arithmetic still.  And as usual...  It's just another excuse to play the "I'm being picked on" card.You blather on with your own stupid theories..   I'll keep proving how stupid they and you are.

As per normal wildly wrong in every imprortant respect. Ricklerworld is like some sort of anti-reality where anything that gets even slightly intellectual is bullshit.

For starters there's the 25k thing. I plucked that figure out of thin air, did i? No. It was the capacity of the Darlodome and, for them, it was always going to be far too big. How could they ever hope to get near that figure if all they could muster for Wembley was 9000? A 9000 capacity stadium for them would have been about right.

By similar reckoning we could justify a 34k stadium but did I run with that figure? No. I kept with Darlo's 25k because it was their "white elephant" that I was considering. There was no smoke and mirrors or chicanery - it was all there explicitly for the best part and implicitly for anybody with an ounce of sense to recognise.

Could we fill a 25k stadium? Well if Swansea, Cardiff, Leicester, Norwich, Ipswich and about a dozen or more others could then so could we.

Do we need that capacity now? Probably not but it should always be borne in mind that one day we'll need it - and when we do, as others have pointed out, it'll be too late to do anything about it.

It all boils down to vision and planning to succeed rather that meek acceptance of continuing failure and mediocrity; about allowing us the chance to dream rather than hamstringing us for ever.

You're obviously happy for us to be perpetually pants and I'm not.

Simple as that really.

If you actually read what I wrote. Hard for you to do as you're blowin' so hard, your cheeks are so puffed up you can't see past your fat nostrils.

I am not questioning the logic of maths and stop insinuating I am. I am arguing with the data you are using to arrive at your conclusion. Bad data in, bad data out.

We do not need a 25,000 seat stadium until we reach the championship. And even then we will barely need that capacity four or five times a season - as we have barely reached that total in single admittance a handful of times in the last fifty years. If we reach the Prem, than HP would probably need to be 35K


I have said nothing about the timescale of development, how it should be done, or how it should be financed.

So with that in mind... Stop your stupid childish claims about the point I am making and stop trying to paint a picture that you and your new found pinko commie friend can use to espouse your political and social venom on.

Trying to tie me to Jimmy is just feckin laughable. You will really sink to anything.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

You make me laugh.

Really. You do.

No I don't.  I'm your worst nightmare.  I call you on your bullshit.

It's laughable you consider yourself an intellectual.

You're a loudmouth, a self centered know it all, and a bully.

It's no wonder you were thrown out of the pasoti mod room.

It's no wonder you were thrown out of that Argyle Party one night in Austria.

You're an asshole.

LOL!

Keep it coming. Rickler, baby! I don't give a toss and it makes me laugh even more.

I really don't care.

As for factual accuracy I was never thrown out of anything in Austria and the rest is just as wildly off the mark.

While on the theme of accuracy the run down on Level 5 data handling was factually accurate.

"I am arguing with the data you are using to arrive at your conclusion. Bad data in, bad data out."

Garbage in garbage out (aka GIGO) is the phrase you were looking for - and illustrating perfectly.

Still laughing.

The synopsis of how aritmetic works was factually accurate.

Our attendance(s) at Wembley were factually accurate.

Darlo's attendance at Wembley was factually accurate.

Plymouth's population was factually accurate.

Darlington's population was factually accurate.

Capacity at the Darlodome was factually accurate.

Other teams in similar-sized cities/towns filling 25k stadia was factually accurate.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

The synopsis of how aritmetic works was factually accurate.

Our attendance(s) at Wembley were factually accurate.

Darlo's attendance at Wembley was factually accurate.

Plymouth's population was factually accurate.

Darlington's population was factually accurate.

Capacity at the Darlodome was factually accurate.

Other teams in similar-sized cities/towns filling 25k stadia was factually accurate.

So what to all that bullshit.. I never questioned it.

What you can't get into your fat stupid head  and  isn't factored in, is how many times the attendance record for a single match has been above 25,000 in the last forty to fifty years.

If it was...  Only an idiot would want a 25,000 seat arena until roaring along in the championship and being in sight of the Premiership, because only a handful of times in a generation would it be filled.

Duh.