Pavillions stands smack bang in the middle of the councils plans for that part of the city Joe that's why they want it moved.
I am not saying councils are perfect GAT, in fact I hate them for their politically correct cr@p. Cutting essential services whist employing cycling development officers and senior diversity managers and inclusivity champions. I hate them for bus lanes all over the place (especially as I just got caught on the camera which I didn't know was on Tavistock Road whilst innocently trying to get into B&Q without queuing for 25 minutes behind tarffic which was going somewhere entirely different). Also, having had some involvement with them in large projects, I hate the lack of decisiveness, lack of accountability and that they are strictly 9 to 5 animals, half of them are job sharing and they seem to have about 8 weeks holiday plus 4 guaranteed sickness per yearso you can never get hold of the bast**ds when you need them. And talk about corruption, they'll run a mile rather than attend a meeting where there are a few free limp sandwiches for lunch in case they get accused of being suborned. They are literally terrified of having any decison going out to judicial review so it's safety first every time. But in this case, they've done the right thing for the city. As regards to the size of the stand, can we leave that argument until there aren't enough tickets to go around on a regular basis? My best guess? Sometime around the next Blue Moon.
Yes notdistant local councils...don't we all love em.....by the way I hope you felt a little better after emptying your spleen over Plymouth's. My local council has always had one party running it... so....it is so one way in it's approach to things that certain areas of the borough are very neglected and under funded.....but that is enough about housing association/council properties....so that tells you notDistant who runs it...okay one more clue they start with a C. Although I'm more uptight about our local MP (Boris's little Brother)....rumour has it that when he got the chance to replace the retiring MP...he had to get the map out to find where it was..... hey enough politics....this is a football website.
Distant, i agree with your views on the council and they are exactly as you say.. i have to deal with them because of our son.. they are a complete joke.. but as you say.They do not reply to emails of calls or always in a meeting when i can to discuss and then they say the money is not an issue for the respite.. what a lie.. So i hate them as much as you do for the cameras ect. I have no patience with them as they are all jobsworths in the deptartments i deal with and have no backbone. No one can make a decision on their own.. I am now in another battle with them.. Over care and respite.. I will be glad when we get the result through the NHS for the liability.. but that is years away.. then we can move on.. As for the stand size i have no comment further than what i have input before.. nothing..
I'm sorry Notdistant but the size of the ground and who benefits from it still remains a big issue. Once its built we we are stuck with the capacity and once the ice rink is built the Grandstand capacity will not be able to be increased. If you look at what Brent proposes to build at HHP ..... 1. A Hotel who realistically will want to stay in a hotel behind a football stadium .... 2. Cinemas ..... they will be become a thing of the past people are watching films for a fraction of the cost in the comfort of their own homes ..... 3. An ice rink .... now that will be used as the one in Pavillions is always packed ..... do I want it built where they propose to build it knowing that while it remains standing the grandstand can never expand ..... the answer to that one Notdistant is NO ...... I can remember going to Argyle where there were crowds of 30K + .... who's to say we would never get those crowds again ..... the only thing the council haven't capitulated on is making the public pay to use the Central Park car park .... that in itself makes Brent's proposed underground car park redundant because who will pay to park there when they can park for free within spitting distance of HHP. I respect yours and Lyndys views, however I don't see what is planned for HHP is either beneficial for Argyle nor the people of Plymouth as a whole.
Well well well if it isn't Mr Punchdrunk. Are you slumming it or is this the only site that would let you on these days? It isn't full of wierdos so would have thought it a bit tame for you. One thing you may have noticed. You can have an alternative opinion without getting slated on here. Nobody dismisses anyone else and posts snoozing signs or rows of Z's. It's fairly polite society and I would like to think it would stay that way. One thing I would pick up on straight away. People on this site have generally taken to judging Brent on what they see develope. He was not lauded as a great saviour by everyone at the outset and still isn't. Nobody has gradually changed their minds to speak of by going from great love to great hate. People in the main were sceptical at the start. Some have come to the conclusion that he is ok and others have come to the conclusion that he is not to be trusted. Not many have thought the new build was fantastic either. However, what a number do is judge each thing on it's merits rather than lump everything into a love or hate category. Most people think that the Councillors of Plymouth are a bit on the rubbish side but not everyone thinks they have been bribed just because they have agreed to allow Brent his way. It's competance rather than honesty that is in question. I think it's a bit unfair to brand people's opinion of Brent as hating people with money lyndhurst. Personally I couldn't care less how rich somebody else is and never have. I judge them on what I see of them and what I perceive their character to be. There is always gut feeling also and however bizaar that might be it is something we all have about others at times. I don't think the info given to me was a mistake at all. I believe it was intentional to mislead people. After all what comeback can there be to that sort of thing. Telling the great unwashed who have no say in any of the process something to keep them quite for the desired amount of time? Whatever next and who would have thought it. Transparency with the supporters. Don't tell me you didn't hear that mentioned at the start of the reign. It soon vanished when the supporters questioned stuff and wouldn't just lie down. You may have expected nothing to be dished out but you can't deny he said it which in my book constitutes a lie. Don't tell me you didn't hear the bit about ex board members not being allowed back either. Clearly another lie which cannot be disputed. The only part he has stuck to is not putting his hand in his pocket for the club. Now if he had lied about that I wouldn't be so critical. I'm not even totally against the size of the development although I would have preferred it to have been 20000 at least. I don't subscribe to the argument about crowd size in years gone by. It is a fact that many many more times than not the size of this proposed build would have been big enough for the demand and only a comparitive few games would have exceeded it. Don't lie about the opportunities to increase capacity in the future though. And there you have it. One lie after another some of which is in the public domain even if my bit about outlets was never actually in writing. Is it that suprising people are sceptical about Brent? Is it that surprising that people have come to the conclusion he is not to be trusted with anything? Their reasons for it have maybe grown as time has gone on in the sense of a chinese whisper type thing but he has brought a lot of it on himself. As for local councillors, well they bring most things on themselves anyway and always have and there isn't much daylight between opinions on that subject.
Sensible, Sorry i didn't mean to offend or be unfair. I simply try to judge on the facts and/or my impression or people. I have met him 3 or 4 times now, had private conversations with him and heard his speeches on a similar number of occasions to closed audiences (i.e. no press or so called supporters reps) . I believe that he is a genuine person who would like to see Argyle successful but equally recognizes that there is no money to be made in football. Whatever he is , he is certainly not the villain some people on here make him out to be. The bottom line is that whatever he does, the overall profit has to be enough to sustain the club until someone comes along with money to waste..
No offense taken lyndhurst. Just putting the record straight from my perspective was all. I don't think Brent is a villain particularly but I do not think of him as this public spirited individual who wants to do wonders for Plymouth either. He wants to do wonders for himself. Now, before anyone jumps on that, I have no objection to the bloke making money out of owning Argyle. Why shouldn't he after all but I do take exception with anyone who lies and it is that I keep harping back to. He may come across as genuine but nobody can escape the fact that his utterances have not always been the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I even have no problem with Argyle being self sustaining either. We did the spend spend spend bit and that got us where we are today. Lets not pretend though that Brent has actually spent anything at all. He got it for nothing at the time of purchase and is set to get money back in return for paper promises regarding certain debts he inheritted. He isn't paying those himself though we the walking gate receipts are.
My biggest disappointment with James Brent is....that he is only lending money to HIS CLUB....to PAFC....he expects to get it back does he.....Will he be expecting interest on his loan (that's a question for notDistant,he'll know) how does he expect to get his loan back and is there a time limit on his loan. Okay there was an expected loss after administration before the debts where repaid over a period.....and Brent covering that loss is probably good business practise and keeps PAFC afloat in the eyes of the FA/League bosses.....but surely he isn't expecting to have it repaid. Wrathall has recently helped a little to ease the cash flow for a directorship in the club he can't stay away from....from what I've heard the staff are not concerned about him coming back...they seemed to think that he tried his best to stop administration by paying the wages for two months out of his own money before the crash....no one else helped to do that from the boardroom. Will Brent eventually write off his loan....or will he expect to have it paid back if he sells up in the future ?....we will just have to wait and see. I'm more on NotDistant and Lyndhurst side regarding Brent.....he probably isn't used to being as open has football fans expect him to be....playing his cards close to his chest is how he likes to run his business's.....football is a totally different world.....more heart than head expected. I've only met James Brent once...at PASALB's pre Christmas get together just months after he had taken over....and he seemed excited over the future and seemed quite genuine about it......he has obviously been on a steep learning curve in a business that is not profitable (accept for only a few of the very biggest clubs) since those early days. I never expected any new owner to throw money at a Div2 club no matter how good their future prospects might be.....but surely you don't expect to get your loans back in football....just get him to ask Wrathall.
Bloody hell Sensible, that's a pretty high hurdle isn't it? There aren't many that could claim that and probably haven't been since the Victorian philanthropists and reformers. Be reasonable. All you can expect is that he's honest, law abiding and hopefully successful since Brent succeeding, even though it won't bring an influx of cash, is the best route to stability at the club. The way football is, stability is a big achievement in itself. I know you felt you were misled by the grandstand presentation but that's far far more likely to have been incompetence than deliberate misinformation.
I agree that it might not be Brent lying...but his Grandstand Presentation Rep talkiing off the top of his head without checking his facts first.....probably sensible put the frighteners on him and he said the first thing that came into his head....okay not acceptable but happens all the time.
It's a while back now and I don't remember it all word for word. The basics is that I looked at the drawings etc and this bloke was floating about talking to various persons in the room. There were several of us looking at one set of prints when he sauntered over in our direction. A couple of questions went his way regarding what we were looking at and then I ask him directly about the content of the build and who would benefit from it. Unequivacle answer was Argyle. No might be or may be about it, it was Argyle. It did not sound anything like an error or an "I think". I think it was James Brent who came into the City on his white charger claiming he was out to put Plymouth on the map for the citizens of Plymouth notdistant. It isn't me putting him on any pedistal and exxpecting too much, he did that all by himself. As for not him lying, well he was the one saying openess was the order of the day and it was him saying no ex director would join the new board. That is personally and not a lackee who might have misunderstood his orders as in Theatre Royal. Stop making excuses for him. Out of interest and you don't have to answer if you would rather not lyndhurst. How did you get to be in the Director's Box several times? Do you have conections in high places.
Cor blimey lyndy old sensible is a bit suspicious ain't he....better tell him....or it will be bamboo splinters under your finger nails next.
To be precise then Sensible, if the guy in the Theatre Royal had said "I think.. blah de blah de blah" you'd have understood it not necessarily to be true. So when you say "I think it was James Brent who came into the City on his white charger...", did he actually say that or are you inferring it? Because I don't particularly remember it one way or the other. I'm not disputing it, just asking the question. Also, do you have a link to Brent saying no ex director would join the new board? All I can find is Chris Webb saying Brent said it..... What is sure is that Brent did recently say: “I am fully aware that Tony’s appointment will raise some questions among the fan-base. However, it is one that I am comfortable with. After taking over the club, we very rapidly got to the bottom of what had gone on in the period leading up to administration. It became abundantly clear that Tony was in no way responsible for the meltdown. Indeed, without his continuing financial support, the club would have failed many months earlier. Tony loves Argyle, and he wants to do all he can to contribute to its recovery, including financial investment. That makes total sense to me, and to all the other board members.” That seems pretty specific and by implication is a criticism of others who were about at the time of the Fall From Grace. Or do we only count things that Brent says (or might have said) as factual when doing so helps make a case against him?
I can't find which post its in, but somebody wrote that the staff were ok with Wrathrall coming back ..... you obviously missed the subtle message via a song played at halftime at the first home match after his reappearance ..... it was "Sell Out" by Reel Big Fish ..... How can he look the staff in the eye after all they went through because of him and the 6 others is beyond me but its ok because he loves Argyle isn't it ..... Are you really sure they were happy to have him back or just keeping their mouths shut to keep their jobs ..... I am a good judge of character, I seem to have a 6th sense about people so I am sticking to my opinion regarding Brent !
There is nothing suspicious or odd about my very occasional visit to the director's box over the last few years although I wouldn't want to go into too much detail. Suffice to say that is just an act of generosity by the club as a reward for some unpaid activity behind the scenes that I volunteer to do for them once in a while (approx once a season). Everyone at the club is very welcoming and of course it provides the opportunity to chat about all things Plymouth Argyle, so I guess I hear some things from those who actually know what is going on rather than what might or might not be in the public domain. Obviously I wouldn't abuse this hospitality by repeating anything on here from what are private conversations. So sorry to disappoint but no brown paper bags and no friends in high places, just a very enjoyable occasional opportunity to watch the match from the opposite side of the ground.
That was just plymborn being mischievious lyndhurst, I was merely curious is all because most people don't get to sit in there. I don't really care if you get to sit there every home game and best of luck with doing it. You notdistant are being a tad pedantic with your "I think" response. The comment was put the way it was to demonstrate it wasn't the man guessing or hedging his answer. Brent and his white charger wasn't meant to be taken literally either. He arrived saying he wanted to do something for the City of Plymouth and that it deserved a football team that was successful. I believe it was said directly by him both on TV and in the press. Regarding the ex director, if you read a story by another ex director it becomes quite clear that this one was up to his eyeballs in everything that went on in Argyle's demise. It is said that he put his money in to actually get in with the newer board members when the Japanese became involved. i.e. for fame and fortune rather than anything else. The statement by Brent about it could either be true or just a cover story to justify his own actions. Now who would you believe, the one there at the time of the fall or the one struggling for a few quid now? I have mixed feeling about him coming back and if prepared to put money into the club when it is the sort of thing I've wanted to happen would I have refused in Brent's shoes? Don't know. However, Brent categorically stated none of them would be allowed to return which was clearly a lie and no amount of sense being made of it changes that fact and it is a fact he said it. Sometimes gut feeling is all you have about somebody. Gat says that her's tells her to avoid this man. Whether logical or not gut feeling will eat away and is not easy to ignore and everyone without exception has it at times. For every poll you have about a subject some will be right and some will be wrong because opposite ends of an argument cannot both be right. Time will tell and I hope I am wrong in the end and he does turn out to be the knight and not the jester. Jury still well and truely out for me but scales have lowered at the don't trust side for now at least.
