spowell's on fire, on the farm !

Some weird obscure shit about fireworks now on 'argyle discussion', yet argyle's role in the world cup is shunted off to terraces. Bizarre

The Lord moves in mysterious ways.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Coxside_Green wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Dick Trickle wrote:

"I firmly believe that the building of the new stadium and the resultant success of the football club has given this City the confidence to believe in itself. People are proud to say they come from this City and I am convinced that this would not have been the case if firstly the ground had not been built and secondly the football club had not capitalised on that with two promotions to the top tier. Everyone here believes the football club and the City can achieve anything that they set their minds to and that includes winning the FA cup this Saturday. We are Hull and we're not going to London for a day out."

Mayor of Hull

It's amazing what ambition and belief can do isn't it?

Indeed. We had a better side than them for the first half of 2007/8 season. Now Plymouth, not Hull, is the biggest city/catchment area in England never to have achieved top flight staus and the resultant 15/20k solid fanbase. Even they wouldn't be able to squeeze into brent's farm supported folly.

There's some tropes trotted out every now and then that, while initially they may appear to have an element of truth, are completely irrelevant.

Comparing Argyle to Darlington is one; comparing Plymouth to Hull is another.

Quite literally nothing in UK sport compares to what has happened in Hull and it is impossible to replicate anywhere else.

Hull, as a city, got lucky. Due to a quirk of historical municipal planning the Hull council, for reasons I do not know, took complete control of the city's telephone system meaning that it enjoyed a complete monopoly in the area. Decades later this was considered anti-competitive and so it was sold off to "open up the market" according to modern mantra.

The result of this was a windfall of many millions of pounds to Hull council which promised the city that it would build sporting facilities second to none. At a stroke it was goodbye to crumbling Boothferry Park and hello a magnificent municipally bought and paid for state of the art (with capacity to add) stadium.

From that base Hull's rise has been meteoric but none of it would have, could have happened, without the current council's pure, dumb luck (or the olde tyme council's vision and foresight if you prefer).

No other city or region in the country, especially in the current economic climate but at any time it would be unthinkable, could do what happened there.

Our council certainly won't do what they did simply because it definitely couldn't even if it wanted to.

So... yes it is galling to see Hull's success. And... yes I suppose Hull and Plymouth are similarly-sized provincial outposts with vaguely similar histories of under-achievement. But... what happened there can not and will not happen here (or anywhere else ever again).

Didn't Plymouth have a slice of luck too with the sale of Citybus or is that somehow different?  The last I recall was PCC were still sitting on that little windfall (happy to be corrected if that is now not the case).  Depending on whose figures you believe between Brent and the WG, just 5-10% of that money could be enough to help deliver a stand we could all be happy with?

Citybus was pretty much the same thing but far, far smaller. I don't have the figures to hand for either but it was something akin to Hull getting £200m and Plymouth getting £2m*. Not the same thing at all, really.




*I'm happy to be corrected because these figures are complete guesswork and chosen just to make a point.

As already pointed out, it was £20m, admittedly not as grand as Hull's huge
windfall but then our local football club's needs weren't so grand either, hence my 5-10% making a huge difference. If we no longer have the money then it's all irrelevant of course.

Elias wrote:

Spowell doesnt get it. God what a dumbass

Go on then, enlighten me before I put you back on ignore...

nzgreen wrote:

Strikes me Brent does his best stuff during recessions. That's when he can prey on the economically vulnerable, get a bargain for nothing. Its what he learned during his Citibank days. What little money does change hands is never Brents. Always someone else's. In our case those loans "he" has given will be the first payments due when he leaves. And he will find a way to get it back too. Even if we're liquidated.

Exactly what has happened to our club since promotion 2004. Nobody had a penny to spend but were happy to take what they could and indeed they did to the tune of £17m plus.

I know one or two might disagree (in defence)...

spowell92 wrote:

Elias wrote:

Spowell doesnt get it. God what a dumbass

Go on then, enlighten me before I put you back on ignore...

crack him back on ignore.

Just to use a bit of spin which wont be totally accurate from a business point of view but should really hit supporters hard...

We ended up with debts of £21m dating back to recorded losses since 2005. Since exiting admin we've paid shed loads through bucket rattling. PCC are potentially sitting on enough wonga to provide a bit of cash in the name of 'bettering the city' (for want of a better term), yet we can't afford the extra £2m give or take a million to afford something we'd all be happy with?

It would appear current plans are now dead, would the WGs plans be more appealing? If so, should pressure be applied to a fairly wealthy PCC (at least they should be wealthy)?

I ask because we've heard very little next to nothing from our landlord.

Person Of Interest wrote:

By all accounts, I'm now hearing, due to the price of breeze-blocks and no-nails, JB's master plan has been further reduced to a 'nano'-stand - with a 'ledge', rather than a shelf.

News just in............ De-Lar say's it's about the right size for the club in it's effort to move forward whilst being sustainable for the future of PAFC.

Is that something you've seriously heard or a wind-up? I only ask as it could feasibly be either. It sounds too ghastly to be anything but a wind-up but you never know these days.

If the stand's capacity was reduced to the bare minimum as prescribed by the council then that'd take the stadium to an overall capacity of 16,300. Which, post-segregation, directors box and the like would effectively be 15,700 at best.

That is something that would be the absolute last straw for many people, including me. It would blow the capacity debate wide open again and would be the trigger for affirmative action in my view.

What next, a pigeon loft? Anything that shits on fans?

It's obviously out of Brent's league, the requirements of a football club etc. He needs a 'friendly' way out.

spowell92 wrote:

Elias wrote:

Spowell doesnt get it. God what a dumbass

Go on then, enlighten me before I put you back on ignore...

I will choose that time, not you !

I wish I could remember who Elias is/ was before his 14th name change but he might have to join Hairy and Sensi on he naughty step.

GreenSam wrote:

Person Of Interest wrote:

By all accounts, I'm now hearing, due to the price of breeze-blocks and no-nails, JB's master plan has been further reduced to a 'nano'-stand - with a 'ledge', rather than a shelf.

News just in............ De-Lar say's it's about the right size for the club in it's effort to move forward whilst being sustainable for the future of PAFC.

Is that something you've seriously heard or a wind-up? I only ask as it could feasibly be either. It sounds too ghastly to be anything but a wind-up but you never know these days.

If the stand's capacity was reduced to the bare minimum as prescribed by the council then that'd take the stadium to an overall capacity of 16,300. Which, post-segregation, directors box and the like would effectively be 15,700 at best.

That is something that would be the absolute last straw for many people, including me. It would blow the capacity debate wide open again and would be the trigger for affirmative action in my view.

A number of points here but it all boils down to one uber-point: This goes to show exactly how ruthlessly Brent has set and controlled the agenda since (possibly before) Day 1 on this; it shows how assinine Newell, Webb and their cohorts' complicity has been; it shows how subservient, crucial and effective the control of Pasoti has been to Brent.

It's time for the Darlington argument to be brushed off: "Look at poor old Darlo - a band new massive ground didn't do them any good, did it?"

No. No, it did not. That's undeniable. It is also specious.

The comparison with Darlo, if anything, proves exactly why Argyle does need a "stadium like that" even if they do not. The crucial point here is that Plymouth is not similar to Darlington in any way other than being similarly distant from London.

I can't be arsed to look these figures up, so correct away to your heart's content if you are so inclined, but: Plymouth is a city with 300,000 residents whereas Darlington has fewer than 100,000; the nearest PL team to Plymouth is 160 miles away whereas Darlington has Sunderland and Newcastle on its doorstep (Middlesbrough, too); I'd be very surprised if people travelled more than 10 miles locally to watch Darlo whereas we have fans regularly making the trip from various parts of Cornwall, North Devon and, even, Somerset. It's comparing apples with oranges: both fruits but not the same thing at all.

Darlo is a handy comparison for potential though: we played them at Wembley; it's a similar distance from Wembley. In 1996 we took 34,000 fans and they took 9,000. Do they need a 25,000 stadium? No. Do we? No.

We need a bigger one.

Which shows how pernicious, cold-blooded and thorough has been the control of debate on this topic.

"Most people would be happy with 20,000." Really? I wouldn't. Not by a long way.

The crucial point here, of course, is that we don't need that capacity now so the "oooh... need a 46,000 World Cup stadium like the New World planned, do we? Look where that got us!" line gets trotted out.

It's another specious argument. Obviously we don't need that (not yet, anyway... just how many could have watched that QPR game, including travelling fans, had we been able to get them in? 46,000 is about right as far as I can tell!) but what we do need is the scope to add to whatever it is we get. If we could add then 20,000 now would be OK. But we can't add to the horseshoe - even Akkeron's Johnny-on-the-spot agreed that at the Theatre Royal so why people think it's a viable option beats the shit outta me - so it won't be.

The debate here isn't, or at least shouldn't be, about whether or not a few rows of seats increases capacity from Too Bloody Small to (TBS + 10%) or (TBS + 20%) or decreases it to (TBS -10%) it's about the whole plan and the whole plan is sadly lacking in so many ways - even if the control of the "debate" is not.

Any "purported" Argyle fans unable to condemn the paucity of Brent's vision for what could be and happy to Quisling themselves and prosper in cap-doffing servitude to risibly myopic under-funded planning need to take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask themselves who it is they really support these days because from where I sit it doesn't even appear as though they are Proper Fans anymore.

So if we are prepared to settle for a demonstrably inadequate 17800 then an even more inadequate 15000 makes little difference. But neither would 20,000 either.

The amazing thing is that however low we set the bar we still struggle to clear it.

No. The really amazing thing is quite how Brent has been allowed such a free-ride and how he has been allowed to get away with it.

Agree with you there SFD, speccy has had an easy ride, he has far reaching tentacles in the council and probably runs rings around them, same with pisspoti - made them a few promises, given them titbits and a few gongs and freebies to cling on with, job done, full control.

I see it alot like the EU, perniciously taking control of the UK, only speccy was doing it (council on board and more involvement in plymouths affairs) way before we went into admin, rendering his reluctant bidder stance an absolute farce. He probably had development plans drawn up on the back of a box of matches with sums done on his tickler papers (normal detail to which we fans have become accustomed to) after we were bidding for the World Cup, which strangely enough is what our ground will now look like if it happens, a WC!

Didn't Brent also have his fingers in the local NHS as well?

GreenSam wrote:

Person Of Interest wrote:

By all accounts, I'm now hearing, due to the price of breeze-blocks and no-nails, JB's master plan has been further reduced to a 'nano'-stand - with a 'ledge', rather than a shelf.

News just in............ De-Lar say's it's about the right size for the club in it's effort to move forward whilst being sustainable for the future of PAFC.

Is that something you've seriously heard or a wind-up? I only ask as it could feasibly be either. It sounds too ghastly to be anything but a wind-up but you never know these days.

If the stand's capacity was reduced to the bare minimum as prescribed by the council then that'd take the stadium to an overall capacity of 16,300. Which, post-segregation, directors box and the like would effectively be 15,700 at best.

That is something that would be the absolute last straw for many people, including me. It would blow the capacity debate wide open again and would be the trigger for affirmative action in my view.

Come on, Sam. I thought you were sharper than that. No nails!!  

This sounds very interesting..

wilfredo posts on PASOTI :-

''The new stand is a dead duck. It's not going to happen
Why ? Because nobody and I mean nobody are interested in investing in it. Taken from a reliable source''.


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

It would not surprise me in the slightest, the Internet body language has been indicating it for a little while.

Good news if true

FFS Brent, just stick the seats back in the Mayflower and spring clean the the old gal on top - then do one!!

Bandwagon wrote:

FFS Brent, just stick the seats back in the Mayflower and spring clean the the old gal on top - then do one!!

   + fill in the corners and we'll have a great looking stadium, imho.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Person Of Interest wrote:

By all accounts, I'm now hearing, due to the price of breeze-blocks and no-nails, JB's master plan has been further reduced to a 'nano'-stand - with a 'ledge', rather than a shelf.

News just in............ De-Lar say's it's about the right size for the club in it's effort to move forward whilst being sustainable for the future of PAFC.

Is that something you've seriously heard or a wind-up? I only ask as it could feasibly be either. It sounds too ghastly to be anything but a wind-up but you never know these days.

If the stand's capacity was reduced to the bare minimum as prescribed by the council then that'd take the stadium to an overall capacity of 16,300. Which, post-segregation, directors box and the like would effectively be 15,700 at best.

That is something that would be the absolute last straw for many people, including me. It would blow the capacity debate wide open again and would be the trigger for affirmative action in my view.

A number of points here but it all boils down to one uber-point: This goes to show exactly how ruthlessly Brent has set and controlled the agenda since (possibly before) Day 1 on this; it shows how assinine Newell, Webb and their cohorts' complicity has been; it shows how subservient, crucial and effective the control of Pasoti has been to Brent.

It's time for the Darlington argument to be brushed off: "Look at poor old Darlo - a band new massive ground didn't do them any good, did it?"

No. No, it did not. That's undeniable. It is also specious.

The comparison with Darlo, if anything, proves exactly why Argyle does need a "stadium like that" even if they do not. The crucial point here is that Plymouth is not similar to Darlington in any way other than being similarly distant from London.

I can't be arsed to look these figures up, so correct away to your heart's content if you are so inclined, but: Plymouth is a city with 300,000 residents whereas Darlington has fewer than 100,000; the nearest PL team to Plymouth is 160 miles away whereas Darlington has Sunderland and Newcastle on its doorstep (Middlesbrough, too); I'd be very surprised if people travelled more than 10 miles locally to watch Darlo whereas we have fans regularly making the trip from various parts of Cornwall, North Devon and, even, Somerset. It's comparing apples with oranges: both fruits but not the same thing at all.

Darlo is a handy comparison for potential though: we played them at Wembley; it's a similar distance from Wembley. In 1996 we took 34,000 fans and they took 9,000. Do they need a 25,000 stadium? No. Do we? No.

We need a bigger one.

Which shows how pernicious, cold-blooded and thorough has been the control of debate on this topic.

"Most people would be happy with 20,000." Really? I wouldn't. Not by a long way.

The crucial point here, of course, is that we don't need that capacity now so the "oooh... need a 46,000 World Cup stadium like the New World planned, do we? Look where that got us!" line gets trotted out.

It's another specious argument. Obviously we don't need that (not yet, anyway... just how many could have watched that QPR game, including travelling fans, had we been able to get them in? 46,000 is about right as far as I can tell!) but what we do need is the scope to add to whatever it is we get. If we could add then 20,000 now would be OK. But we can't add to the horseshoe - even Akkeron's Johnny-on-the-spot agreed that at the Theatre Royal so why people think it's a viable option beats the shit outta me - so it won't be.

The debate here isn't, or at least shouldn't be, about whether or not a few rows of seats increases capacity from Too Bloody Small to (TBS + 10%) or (TBS + 20%) or decreases it to (TBS -10%) it's about the whole plan and the whole plan is sadly lacking in so many ways - even if the control of the "debate" is not.

Any "purported" Argyle fans unable to condemn the paucity of Brent's vision for what could be and happy to Quisling themselves and prosper in cap-doffing servitude to risibly myopic under-funded planning need to take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask themselves who it is they really support these days because from where I sit it doesn't even appear as though they are Proper Fans anymore.

So if we are prepared to settle for a demonstrably inadequate 17800 then an even more inadequate 15000 makes little difference. But neither would 20,000 either.

The amazing thing is that however low we set the bar we still struggle to clear it.

No. The really amazing thing is quite how Brent has been allowed such a free-ride and how he has been allowed to get away with it.

A few of us have been saying all of that, for a very, very long time. We've realised what makes the various 'players' tick and have been marginalised . At least the penny is now dropping everywhere except with those who seek position within the club, no matter how village it ends up being.

Partially agree with SFD, sure in the future we would hope that 20k won't be enough. Truth is, for at least the next 2 seasons, 17.5k probably will be enough and in the Championship 20k would be initially acceptable. The design of the stand as it currently is proposed isn't terrible - it just the lack of expansion opportunity that'll be the real killer of future club ability and a loss of ambition.

Bandwagon wrote:

FFS Brent, just stick the seats back in the Mayflower and spring clean the the old gal on top - then do one!!

And do you know what, JB could get the JWs to do all that for free   

There is no ambition, never has been, speccy is just using the club for his own ends, the freebies and prestige that goes with it and boy I bet the club are paying for, it all in loans right down to the pencils rubbers and staples that keep amending the mini stand drawings that are being stripped bare before a brick is even laid.

The real killer was being brought out of admin with millions of £££s of debt still by a man with personal ambition, but said same man without 2 pennies to rub together figuratively speaking.