PETITION

knecht wrote:

Happy Daze wrote:

4 minutes ago
Jacqueline Snow, United Kingdom

23 minutes ago
Dane "Cuckoo" Bunney, United Kingdom

26 minutes ago
Tringreen the Mincer, United Kingdom

one hour ago
Lee Poofter Jameson, United Kingdom
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Methinks it is being got at to devalue it

I was just about to post the same. That's a pity.

Indeed. Newell's latest post combined with a big smiley is to ask Graham Clark if he's signed the petition yet. I've a feeling that if he hasn't something jokey about ole Graham will be. How many Mickey Mouse entries will there be by the end of tonight?

He's such a fucktard though that this only galvanises people and turns waverers into sceptics, sceptics into anti's and anti's into vigilantes.

There will be fallout from this. The team can escape relegation but once the planning permission is in well that's permanent.

Pokesdown wrote:

knecht wrote:

Happy Daze wrote:

4 minutes ago
Jacqueline Snow, United Kingdom

23 minutes ago
Dane "Cuckoo" Bunney, United Kingdom

26 minutes ago
Tringreen the Mincer, United Kingdom

one hour ago
Lee Poofter Jameson, United Kingdom
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Methinks it is being got at to devalue it

I was just about to post the same. That's a pity.

Indeed. Newell's latest post combined with a big smiley is to ask Graham Clark if he's signed the petition yet. I've a feeling that if he hasn't something jokey about ole Graham will be. How many Mickey Mouse entries will there be by the end of tonight?

He's such a fucktard though that this only galvanises people and turns waverers into sceptics, sceptics into anti's and anti's into vigilantes.

There will be fallout from this. The team can escape relegation but once the planning permission is in well that's permanent.

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

Thats the petition hijacked, no doubt he has 60 email addresses to do so

unfortunately Punch, the email address doesn't even have to be valid.

So, the petition has been infiltrated and ruined by the pigs from Pasoti, in an attempt to devalue, mock and unhinge the attempt to highlight genuine concerns and awareness in a orderly manner, and Newell has a big grin on his face!

This, I was going to use the word 'man' but thought better of it - person, Mr Newell, has become unhinged. Surely it's time to section him. Nurse!!

Person Of Interest wrote:

So, the petition has been infiltrated and ruined by the pigs from Pasoti, in an attempt to devalue, mock and unhinge the attempt to highlight genuine concerns and awareness in a orderly manner, and Newell has a big grin on his face!

This, I was going to use the word 'man' but thought better of it - person, Mr Newell, has become unhinged. Surely it's time to section him. Nurse!!

And according to folk like Andy S from the farm (not the Trust bloke btw) and 125+1 from here all of us that are against the current HHP plans are engaged in gang/lynch mob type abuse against those that are for the current HHP plans.

These people are so hypocritical they will argue black is white.

Person Of Interest wrote:

So, the petition has been infiltrated and ruined by the pigs from Pasoti, in an attempt to devalue, mock and unhinge the attempt to highlight genuine concerns and awareness in a orderly manner, and Newell has a big grin on his face!

This, I was going to use the word 'man' but thought better of it - person, Mr Newell, has become unhinged. Surely it's time to section him. Nurse!!

The "man" is welcome to his tinpot pathetic mini stand and his laughing stock football team.

I hope he enjoys watching Argyle stuck to the root of the football league because he'll never see us rise through the leagues again.

Sold out for a parking space and a seat in the director's box.

W@nkers.

I have a feeling, based upon his reply, that underneath it all Graham is sceptical at best about the validity of the HHP development. No facts, just a feeling.

Pokesdown wrote:

I have a feeling, based upon his reply, that underneath it all Graham is sceptical at best about the validity of the HHP development. No facts, just a feeling.

I've read so much lately, so I don't remember who I'm quoting here, but, as someone said, 'There's a hell of a rocky road to go down yet before Brent finally get's his mini grandstand, and his millions'. Today, as again, someone else has said, I think we saw what may have been the first tell-tale signs and the first shudder of uncertainty from Brent about the whole friggin shooting match.

Brents half baked development wont get off the ground its all starting to unravel.

There is still time for JB to present a decent and Chairman-like alternative to the original proposal. Planning could be interesting if he decides not to consider his options. I think that he has underestimated the people of Plymouth. More educated than you would realise

Pokesdown wrote:

I have a feeling, based upon his reply, that underneath it all Graham is sceptical at best about the validity of the HHP development. No facts, just a feeling.

Player, I agree.

As you know, I'm always on Graham Clark watch as I think his views are sage....he definitely appears both irked by Newell & Co and playing a straight bat with fact-based posts to tease out chinks in the steamroller Pasoti pro-stance

I'm convinced that Mr Clark acts only with integrity and the love of his club. Some of the sycophants that surround JB would do well to take a leaf out of his book. If only the so-called President of PAFC had the same perspective and morals

He comes over as a well read, inelegant and articulate kinda fella, dealing only in fact, logic and common sense. He's Newell's nightmare.

Sufferedsince68 wrote:

Brents half baked development wont get off the ground its all starting to unravel.

I wouldn't bet on that SS, Brenty boy is PCCs golden boy and money talks the loudest. Always has and always will in the corrupt corridors of power.

GOB wrote:

He comes over as a well read, inelegant and articulate kinda fella, dealing only in fact, logic and common sense. He's Newell's nightmare.

All that effort they put into trying to silence the educated wankers, but another one pops up every five minutes

I must admit I got Graham Clark all wrong because he doesn't seem to come in for the stick others do from the usual suspects.

GC is running rings around Newell at the moment by simply stating facts in a calm manner without obviously taking sides. The truth is a better weapon than any gun or sword methinks.

As far as this petition goes I haven't signed it because I'm not a resident of Plymouth so I think me signing it would just look like me shit-stirring when I wouldn't use the park other than going to football.

You don't have to be a tree hugger Jock, sign it for moral reasons.

GOB wrote:

You don't have to be a tree hugger Jock, sign it for moral reasons.

So is it just the hotel the petition objects to? I can't see how anyone can object to one part without the rest?

I want a bigger stand and room to expand in future but I do realise Akkeron need to make some profit so it's not something I feel I can sign morally or for any other reason really. If I lived in Plymouth I would almost certainly feel different though.

Serious question/concern on this one guys- if the development is turned down on environmental grounds, would that not set a very dangerous precedent for if someone else does come along with a proposal that we all like from a footballing point of view which also involves building on parkland. I want a bigger stand as I've been banging on about for weeks and I have great sympathy with the viewpoint that says it would be better the Mayflower stay as it is to leave open the possibility for a huge grandstand in the future. However, I have very big reservations about this line of approach. Does it not leave it wide open for a plan such as that of the Working Group to be rejected?

I just signed it and 18 minutes before, guess who had signed ?

GreenSam wrote:

Serious question/concern on this one guys- if the development is turned down on environmental grounds, would that not set a very dangerous precedent for if someone else does come along with a proposal that we all like from a footballing point of view which also involves building on parkland. I want a bigger stand as I've been banging on about for weeks and I have great sympathy with the viewpoint that says it would be better the Mayflower stay as it is to leave open the possibility for a huge grandstand in the future. However, I have very big reservations about this line of approach. Does it not leave it wide open for a plan such as that of the Working Group to be rejected?

Hi GS, must say you are becoming a valid voice of reason on the other site and here - whilst I can see your reservations for petition fever I think all of this affair could have been handled better from the start by Mr Brent and that is why fans are becoming entrenched and radical!! There comes a time when us 'Average Joes' say enough is enough and this is just not right - that time has come!!

Bandwagon wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Serious question/concern on this one guys- if the development is turned down on environmental grounds, would that not set a very dangerous precedent for if someone else does come along with a proposal that we all like from a footballing point of view which also involves building on parkland. I want a bigger stand as I've been banging on about for weeks and I have great sympathy with the viewpoint that says it would be better the Mayflower stay as it is to leave open the possibility for a huge grandstand in the future. However, I have very big reservations about this line of approach. Does it not leave it wide open for a plan such as that of the Working Group to be rejected?

Hi GS, must say you are becoming a valid voice of reason on the other site and here - whilst I can see your reservations for petition fever I think all of this affair could have been handled better from the start by Mr Brent and that is why fans are becoming entrenched and radical!! There comes a time when us 'Average Joes' say enough is enough and this is just not right - that time has come!!

I don't think so Sam. If the hotel, cinema, ice rink etc etc don't go ahead in Central Park, an enlarged football ground,standing alone, fit for PL football, wouldn't change the feel or usage of the park at all. It would certainly be impressive though.

Tring the avivas have made a mockery of the petition it's a dead duck with all the joke names on it

The park is completely the wrong place for a hotel and a 10 (or whatever) screen cinema. I can see many objections to this being raised in the formal application stage anyway. I'm still fairly optimistic none of brent's shite will ever be built in the Park. Keep the Mayflower stand as it is with temporary seating which keeps the capacity at ca 20,000. Then when we progress up the leagues under an owner with class, vision and ambition then we can build a GRANDstand worthy of a club the size of Argyle.

BRENT OUT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Greenjock wrote:

I must admit I got Graham Clark all wrong because he doesn't seem to come in for the stick others do from the usual suspects.

GC is running rings around Newell at the moment by simply stating facts in a calm manner without obviously taking sides. The truth is a better weapon than any gun or sword methinks.

As far as this petition goes I haven't signed it because I'm not a resident of Plymouth so I think me signing it would just look like me shit-stirring when I wouldn't use the park other than going to football.

Newell daren't cross Clark in case he actually comes out as against the development in its current form and actually joins a Trust led opposition.

It is going to take that kind of person, to get together with the Trust, along with the likes of Lloyd, Petrie and Nicholson, for an organised and credible opposition to be mounted.

If they don't, the football club will remain village for generations.