HHP

I blame all 6.

The cricket pitch wasn't flat. It was very sloped. I do wonder though about the land on which now sits Goals - this used to be a much larger astroturf which was flat. I believe the cricket club leased that too, but I'm not sure.

Why blame all six? There was nothing Jones, Foot and Warren could do to stop it.

And Stapleton's son was the manager of Goals which kinda' gives the game away.

If they didn't even put it on the agenda for the club board to discuss then they couldn't have tried that hard.

I don't object to Stapleton, Dennerley and Gill buying that land at all because they are perfectly at liberty to do what they like as individuals but that doesn't mean that I still don't think Argyle should have bought it.

LOl.. Half the fan base think the club should never have bought HP never mind anything else...

SFD, So who exactly does the tenancy agreement between the club and the landlords? There would clearly be a conflict of interest and would be open to abuse. If you're comfortable with that then you're more naive than I thought you were.

Nobody does a tenancy agreement.

Which part of "the club should have bought it" is so hard to understand?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Nobody does a tenancy agreement.

Which part of "the club should have bought it" is so hard to understand?

It's just a sweeping statement Franny.

Rollo quite clearly explains why it would never have happened.

Not you as well!

I don't much care for why it didn't happen. It not happening is my grumble here. If you want to make excuses for it not hapening then go ahead. Changes nothing. It should have happened. They should have moved mountains to achieve it. They did not. They should have found a way to make it happen - and probably would have done if they weren't all too busy trying to stitch each other up all the time. They collectively failed.

In fact looking back the Foot, Jones, Warren, Stapleton, Gill, Dennerley board get the easiest ride imaginable in Argyle circles. Apart from buying McCauley out what did they actually achieve other getting lucky on the back of Sturrock's (appointed by McCauley when he was chairman) success in a semi-re-built (again thanks to McCauley not them) stadium?

They were all in place to enjoy some of a successful period for the club during which they advanced the infra-structure not at all, invested in the team not at all, before they bitterly fell out amongst themselves and variously sold their minimal investments at a huge profit when they left - and if they did not leave they steered us into the abyss of administration.

Against a background of all of that it is rather amazing that Sturrock did as well as he did and that his various successors kept it going as long as they did.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Argyle was offered that land first. The board was split as to whether or not to buy it. Foot, Jones and Warren wanted all available money to be poured into the team which was amazingly short-sighted. Stapleton, Gill and Dennerley went ahead and bought it anyway and Goals ended up on the site.
Should Argyle have bought the cricket club land? Of course it should have. There was never a serious case for not buying it.

WRONG.

Plymouth Argyle FC were not offered the land first. You have difficulty in grasping this fact. The directors were offered the land first. Three thought that the money should be spent on improving the team rather than improving the personal property portfolios of the board.
The other three contained the chairman's double vote. They were always going to prevail and indeed did. This was to be a personal transaction.
That the club should have been offered the opportunity is irrelevant.
It wasn't.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Argyle was offered that land first. The board was split as to whether or not to buy it. Foot, Jones and Warren wanted all available money to be poured into the team which was amazingly short-sighted. Stapleton, Gill and Dennerley went ahead and bought it anyway and Goals ended up on the site.
Should Argyle have bought the cricket club land? Of course it should have. There was never a serious case for not buying it.

WRONG.

Plymouth Argyle FC were not offered the land first. You have difficulty in grasping this fact. The directors were offered the land first. Three thought that the money should be spent on improving the team rather than improving the personal property portfolios of the board.
The other three contained the chairman's double vote. They were always going to prevail and indeed did. This was to be a personal transaction.
That the club should have been offered the opportunity is irrelevant.
It wasn't.

rollo just let it go its better for your health. he will never admit he is in the wrong no matter how much truth you provide. Better just let it go.

I don't doubt that Argyle were offered the cricket club first. I just totally dispute the logic behind how it was some sort of tipping point and how it was preferable to investing in the team.

If this gets the go ahead then it will be the final nail in the coffin for HHP

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

That plan is likely to be shelved or severely downsized by SWW as the plans for new water treatment plant at Roborough are coming in closer to £70M than £54M budget. Plan B is to build new plant on land behind Windsor House freeing up some land at existing treatment works by B&Q.

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

another hhp