The Mankover all action Thread.

Anybody occupying a company executive board position is better than thou, more intelligent, funny, bright, and frankly a better fan of Argyle, than you lot will ever be. It just makes sense.
Shoiuld you but raise an eyebrow, you'll all be tarred as the jealous envious grunts that you are

Commenting on the new diversity fan of a thousand years, probably another bright funny and intyelligent soul, there's a fine old network of people established now, those who have crept onto positions in health, education and any other nest of juicy government assets. They're all champing at the bit to take away from you those loss making assets that are ruining your life and that of your children, so why not a football club ? They have your interests in mind. Jim's done the university bit, made some useful contacts, and is still busy trawling the Devon and Exeter health "Trust LOL" with his oversized net.
Corruption doesn't exist in the UK, only anarchy and loss making government institutions, apparently. Saw four privatised Mitie road/parks workers this morning leaning on their shovels looking into a hole. You know, just like the council used to.

We are very careful to keep the corruption away from rank and files lice officers (well we try to) but anyone above them in the chain it's fair game to line your nest. Rob the dole and your going down, fiddle an MPs expenses and it's an apology needed for the "mistake".

Great post from a farmer,


It is what it is- croneyism, tokenism, positive discrimination, etc I’m sure ,but it needs to happen to ensure progress for the club. It sends a message to the community and business that the club is progressive.

Look forward to a child on the board as the next obvious step and a focus group for some representatives of the bovine population to discuss how we square the Ginsters sponsorship with the Vegan and flexitarian markets.

Lol.

Earwegoagain wrote:

Great post from a farmer,


It is what it is- croneyism, tokenism, positive discrimination, etc I’m sure ,but it needs to happen to ensure progress for the club. It sends a message to the community and business that the club is progressive.

Look forward to a child on the board as the next obvious step and a focus group for some representatives of the bovine population to discuss how we square the Ginsters sponsorship with the Vegan and flexitarian markets.

Lol.

I think he's got it. Not wrong though, is he!

P.O.I wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

Great post from a farmer,


It is what it is- croneyism, tokenism, positive discrimination, etc I’m sure ,but it needs to happen to ensure progress for the club. It sends a message to the community and business that the club is progressive.

Look forward to a child on the board as the next obvious step and a focus group for some representatives of the bovine population to discuss how we square the Ginsters sponsorship with the Vegan and flexitarian markets.

Lol.

I think he's got it. Not wrong though, is he!

Biggs doesn't get it does he?


nick_PASTIE wrote:
It is what it is- croneyism, tokenism, positive discrimination, etc I’m sure ,but it needs to happen to ensure progress for the club. It sends a message to the community and business that the club is progressive.

Look forward to a child on the board as the next obvious step and a focus group for some representatives of the bovine population to discuss how we square the Ginsters sponsorship with the Vegan and flexitarian markets.


"Grow up.

How is this cronyism but all previous middle-aged male appointments not? The whole point of it is to look outside the box, and makes perfect sense given the very clear intention of the club to get more women and families attending. Both her and Jo Cubbon’s professional credentials are entirely appropriate for the role, selected after a ‘process led by a specialist recruitment firm’.

And I must be missing something re the negative reception of the quotes. I thought it was a good piece"

Yes you are missing something but as one of the JB fan club you might as well be lobotomised as you can't or won't think for yourself. The phrase "process led by a specialist recruitment firm" should read alarm bells, these are basically two people Brent has been working with why would he need specialist advice?

The theme running through this bullshit that makes me larf is that it is somehow a moral crusade to have more children and women watching professional football. Clearly, there's millions of that oh so downtrodden demographic just baying to get into a football ground to scoff a cold pasty and watch a bunch of skinny men run around screaming at each other. They're probably hiding behind the sofa, sending their children out to the countryside ....."please God, not me next"
It's akin to making a morality out of what is what is essentially VAT on fuel, but calling it a "green tax". It's all for your own good. The squire knows best.
Can't wait for the next CEO appointment. That'll be a hoot.

Another week passes at the Brentihad, and no sign of a Main Contractor for the Modular Mankover or a start date.

Seven more years, seven more years, seven more years, geddon there Green Jimbo.

4 months after planning granted and 14 months since Hallett provided the funds to refurb the Grandstand and place his charge against Home Park we see absolutely nothing occuring

Surely even the most green tinted buffoon on animal farm must be starting to twig that this has gone pear shaped. It was rumoured that the Disabled stand was coming down right after Peterborough ??

WTF is occuring Brent ??

harvetheslayer wrote:

Surely even the most green tinted buffoon on animal farm must be starting to twig that this has gone pear shaped. It was rumoured that the Disabled stand was coming down right after Peterborough ??

WTF is occuring Brent ??

They still think we're a roof and corners FFS

Freathy wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

Surely even the most green tinted buffoon on animal farm must be starting to twig that this has gone pear shaped. It was rumoured that the Disabled stand was coming down right after Peterborough ??

WTF is occuring Brent ??

They still think we're a roof and corners FFS

The village idiots will believe anything the village squire tells them.

harvetheslayer wrote:

WTF is occuring Brent ??

Well the Pavilions car park didn't sell itself. No doubt people going to events there will be told they can use the park and ride.

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

Peggy wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

WTF is occuring Brent ??

Well the Pavilions car park didn't sell itself. No doubt people going to events there will be told they can use the park and ride.

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

Yes saw the Herald links yesterday. Am assuming the car park was part of the £1 deal he shafted from PCC for the Pavilions originally
Horrible nasty devious repulsive fat spotty twat that he is.
Someone on freechat during week claimed I hated him and I responded I didnt as such but he really is a horrible cvnt

feck off Nool whilst I'm at it.

harvetheslayer wrote:

Peggy wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

WTF is occuring Brent ??

Well the Pavilions car park didn't sell itself. No doubt people going to events there will be told they can use the park and ride.

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

Yes saw the Herald links yesterday. Am assuming the car park was part of the £1 deal he shafted from PCC for the Pavilions originally
Horrible nasty devious repulsive fat spotty twat that he is.
Someone on freechat during week claimed I hated him and I responded I didnt as such but he really is a horrible cvnt

feck off Nool whilst I'm at it.

It looks like the odious little man has done a nice little bit of entrepreneurial business courtesy of P.C.C. , nice money if you can get it.

The pavilions cost the people 38 million pounds to build, it was so badly run by Tudors gang that it was loosing one and a half million pounds a year, the rest is history, £38 million stolen from the people and given to Brent by Tudor.

Looking forward to another week of non action on the Mankover front along with total silence from the Tent Master about the Supporters Bar.

Roll up, roll up !
Gimme your money, you clowns
A million ain't so much for a mobile home on a five year lease.

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

beesrus wrote:

Roll up, roll up !
Gimme your money, you clowns
A million ain't so much for a mobile home on a five year lease.

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

PatDunne wrote:

The pavilions cost the people 38 million pounds to build, it was so badly run by Tudors gang that it was loosing one and a half million pounds a year, the rest is history, £38 million stolen from the people and given to Brent by Tudor.

Labour are financial very astute — Not.

Graiser wrote:

PatDunne wrote:

The pavilions cost the people 38 million pounds to build, it was so badly run by Tudors gang that it was loosing one and a half million pounds a year, the rest is history, £38 million stolen from the people and given to Brent by Tudor.

Labour are financial very astute — Not.

That is a somewhat generalised statement or do you mean Plymouth specifically?

The whole pavillions/millbay/boullevard/central park/life centre/sport england thing right from the early days under Stapleton has been dealt with on a non-partisan basis, given that they were long term policy aspirations of PCC. Evans moved in where Pengelley signed off. Nothing to do with the financial nous of two tired old parties you can't put a cigarette paper between, who are now well and truly cap in hand to central Westminster government. And not an EU bad boy in sight. Do your homework.

And as for the pavillions, most people knew that would be a flop at the time and were opposed to it, but it made no difference, councils have their mates to please, especially when there are national capital "grants" to be had, as with the latest Central Park money. As it happens, i was dead against the building of the theatre  royal too at the time, but that has beaten all the odds and been a financial success and a very well respected artistic institution. And apart from the ARC conctrete award (probably for most concrete needlessly used ), the frontage isn't that displeasing, given what might have been there.

beesrus wrote:

Roll up, roll up !
Gimme your money, you clowns
A million ain't so much for a mobile home on a five year lease.

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

geddon bees

beesrus wrote:

The whole pavillions/millbay/boullevard/central park/life centre/sport england thing right from the early days under Stapleton has been dealt with on a non-partisan basis, given that they were long term policy aspirations of PCC. Evans moved in where Pengelley signed off. Nothing to do with the financial nous of two tired old parties you can't put a cigarette paper between, who are now well and truly cap in hand to central Westminster government. And not an EU bad boy in sight. Do your homework.

And as for the pavillions, most people knew that would be a flop at the time and were opposed to it, but it made no difference, councils have their mates to please, especially when there are national capital "grants" to be had, as with the latest Central Park money. As it happens, i was dead against the building of the theatre  royal too at the time, but that has beaten all the odds and been a financial success and a very well respected artistic institution. And apart from the ARC conctrete award (probably for most concrete needlessly used ), the frontage isn't that displeasing, given what might have been there.

I was against the new theatre as well I was more in favour of the Palace refurb but that wasn't an option. No doubt when all of Union St is closed the council can cumpolsory purchase it all and give it to Brent as well.

Earwegoagain wrote:

beesrus wrote:

The whole pavillions/millbay/boullevard/central park/life centre/sport england thing right from the early days under Stapleton has been dealt with on a non-partisan basis, given that they were long term policy aspirations of PCC. Evans moved in where Pengelley signed off. Nothing to do with the financial nous of two tired old parties you can't put a cigarette paper between, who are now well and truly cap in hand to central Westminster government. And not an EU bad boy in sight. Do your homework.

And as for the pavillions, most people knew that would be a flop at the time and were opposed to it, but it made no difference, councils have their mates to please, especially when there are national capital "grants" to be had, as with the latest Central Park money. As it happens, i was dead against the building of the theatre  royal too at the time, but that has beaten all the odds and been a financial success and a very well respected artistic institution. And apart from the ARC conctrete award (probably for most concrete needlessly used ), the frontage isn't that displeasing, given what might have been there.

I was against the new theatre as well I was more in favour of the Palace refurb but that wasn't an option. No doubt when all of Union St is closed the council can cumpolsory purchase it all and give it to Brent as well.

He would probably build some car parks to flog off in a few years time.

akagreengull wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

beesrus wrote:

The whole pavillions/millbay/boullevard/central park/life centre/sport england thing right from the early days under Stapleton has been dealt with on a non-partisan basis, given that they were long term policy aspirations of PCC. Evans moved in where Pengelley signed off. Nothing to do with the financial nous of two tired old parties you can't put a cigarette paper between, who are now well and truly cap in hand to central Westminster government. And not an EU bad boy in sight. Do your homework.

And as for the pavillions, most people knew that would be a flop at the time and were opposed to it, but it made no difference, councils have their mates to please, especially when there are national capital "grants" to be had, as with the latest Central Park money. As it happens, i was dead against the building of the theatre  royal too at the time, but that has beaten all the odds and been a financial success and a very well respected artistic institution. And apart from the ARC conctrete award (probably for most concrete needlessly used ), the frontage isn't that displeasing, given what might have been there.

I was against the new theatre as well I was more in favour of the Palace refurb but that wasn't an option. No doubt when all of Union St is closed the council can cumpolsory purchase it all and give it to Brent as well.

He would probably build some car parks to flog off in a few years time.

Build something? I'll have some of what your smoking bhey!