Mankover Planning application submitted

Frank Bullitt wrote:

Peggy wrote:

PatDunne wrote:

I always thought Pig would live in a nicer house than ********(address from public realm, PCC PLANNING PORTAL)

It might be in the public realm, but please let's not do this. It just gives him the excuse to do similar with other people's personal details, and we all know where that leads.

Agreed. The moment there is any mention of his address on ATD he will have a ready made excuse as to why a monthly subscription to "Mega Big Ass" drops on his doorstep.

Surely "Lemon Party Boys"?

Swim with the tide the latest to nail Newells rear end on Pig Central

"We were promised a £10 million stand before in exchange for some cheap land and a large scale development being slapped next door.

Now we're getting £5million debt and another large scale development. How did £10million gift turn into a £5 mil loan?! No wonder the cinema pulled out if all the surplus was expected from them. That's why I think the man is in it for himself to be perfectly honest. Shame. The initial refurb proposal was pretty good, then we got lumbered with a tonne of add ons later on."

The ref needs to stop the fight, Graham Clark is killing him.

and Newell admits to breaking the NDA of the twatty Wanking Group Committee

alannotivvy wrote:

and Newell admits to breaking the NDA of the twatty Wanking Group Committee

No it was a DNA he signed, either he is so dim he can't place 3 letters in the right order or I don't know what he's up to

He's so impossibly dim having had his arse handed to him a dozen times today that he still continues to dig that hole deeper.....GC has absolutely mullered him on that one and I can see him having log in issues

harvetheslayer wrote:

He's so impossibly dim having had his arse handed to him a dozen times today that he still continues to dig that hole deeper.....GC has absolutely mullered him on that one and I can see him having log in issues

He wouldn't dare do that to GC. Not in a million years.

I used to think that about John Lloyd.

harvetheslayer wrote:

He's so impossibly dim having had his arse handed to him a dozen times today that he still continues to dig that hole deeper.....GC has absolutely mullered him on that one and I can see him having log in issues

No mate ... GC is wrong ... And the last sentence .... a bit unnecessary ... But clear about how he feels.

alannotivvy wrote:

and Newell admits to breaking the NDA of the twatty Wanking Group Committee

Two lots of rules (we know he loves rules) broken in 24 hours.

Do we know if the Mike Greening who started the thread over there is the same Mike Greening who's objected to the planning application?

Peggy wrote:

alannotivvy wrote:

and Newell admits to breaking the NDA of the twatty Wanking Group Committee

Two lots of rules (we know he loves rules) broken in 24 hours.

Do we know if the Mike Greening who started the thread over there is the same Mike Greening who's objected to the planning application?

Why ? He has an opinion and has stated it. Different from yours. So ? I thought you supported diversity ?

Total respect for Peggy over this, the type of person Argyle need along with John Lloyd you would think, but it appears Brent wants to surround himself with pricks like Nool.

nikkk wrote:

Peggy wrote:

alannotivvy wrote:

and Newell admits to breaking the NDA of the twatty Wanking Group Committee

Two lots of rules (we know he loves rules) broken in 24 hours.

Do we know if the Mike Greening who started the thread over there is the same Mike Greening who's objected to the planning application?

Why ? He has an opinion and has stated it. Different from yours. So ? I thought you supported diversity ?

You can feck off as well. Anybody who trots out that line has obviously been briefed by Newell (and he can feck off again today).

If I choose to comment on the fact that somebody's made a post saying 'we must support this application because some people don't', and then that same somebody appears to object to the application, then I will. Got it?

Peggy wrote:

Do we know if the Mike Greening who started the thread over there is the same Mike Greening who's objected to the planning application?

Was there a set of 'clappy hands' after his comment?

Peggy wrote:

nikkk wrote:

Peggy wrote:

alannotivvy wrote:

and Newell admits to breaking the NDA of the twatty Wanking Group Committee

Two lots of rules (we know he loves rules) broken in 24 hours.

Do we know if the Mike Greening who started the thread over there is the same Mike Greening who's objected to the planning application?

Why ? He has an opinion and has stated it. Different from yours. So ? I thought you supported diversity ?

You can feck off as well. Anybody who trots out that line has obviously been briefed by Newell (and he can feck off again today).

If I choose to comment on the fact that somebody's made a post saying 'we must support this application because some people don't', and then that same somebody appears to object to the application, then I will. Got it?

Either someone is playing silly buggers with Mike Greening's name, or Mike Greening doesn't know what he is doing.

Either way it's worth highlighting what's going on as we all know the type of dirty tricks Nool and his mob like to get up to.

nikkk wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

He's so impossibly dim having had his arse handed to him a dozen times today that he still continues to dig that hole deeper.....GC has absolutely mullered him on that one and I can see him having log in issues

No mate ... GC is wrong ... And the last sentence .... a bit unnecessary ... But clear about how he feels.

No Nikkk. Ian named another member of the Grandstand Working Party within that thread. She is unable to defend herself (given he was speaking on her behalf) as she signed a NDA. Ian, however, remains free to say he likes despite being on that GWP and seemingly playing an active part in defending the indefensible.

Still I'm done with Pasoti. I have made my point clear in the best interests of the Football Club but if I am subject to the same that I endured during the 'Never Again' debate I really will unleash.

all animals are equal, some are more equal than others.......

one way to stop this hideous plan in its tracks is for Simon Hallet, to withdraw his loan now he can see that a large part of the community are against it.

Graham Clark wrote:

nikkk wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

He's so impossibly dim having had his arse handed to him a dozen times today that he still continues to dig that hole deeper.....GC has absolutely mullered him on that one and I can see him having log in issues

No mate ... GC is wrong ... And the last sentence .... a bit unnecessary ... But clear about how he feels.

No Nikkk. Ian named another member of the Grandstand Working Party within that thread. She is unable to defend herself (given he was speaking on her behalf) as she signed a NDA. Ian, however, remains free to say he likes despite being on that GWP and seemingly playing an active part in defending the indefensible.

Still I'm done with Pasoti. I have made my point clear in the best interests of the Football Club but if I am subject to the same that I endured during the 'Never Again' debate I really will unleash.

Defending the indefensible ? Really Graham ??

Sally Parish of Highways England has rubbished the Planning Application transport assessment advising them that they can't refer to HHP Application as it has lapsed and asked for a 6 month delay for them to reassess.

Defend this then Nik

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

Graham Clark wrote:

nikkk wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

He's so impossibly dim having had his arse handed to him a dozen times today that he still continues to dig that hole deeper.....GC has absolutely mullered him on that one and I can see him having log in issues

No mate ... GC is wrong ... And the last sentence .... a bit unnecessary ... But clear about how he feels.

No Nikkk. Ian named another member of the Grandstand Working Party within that thread. She is unable to defend herself (given he was speaking on her behalf) as she signed a NDA. Ian, however, remains free to say he likes despite being on that GWP and seemingly playing an active part in defending the indefensible.

Still I'm done with Pasoti.  I have made my point clear in the best interests of the Football Club but if I am subject to the same that I endured during the 'Never Again' debate I really will unleash.

I think I'm on safe ground to say... Everyone would welcome you posting here a lot more often.

If you have time... Can you clear up Metroaces assertion on Pasoti that there are no minimum parking requirements for the plans under discussion?

Rickler wrote:

Graham Clark wrote:

nikkk wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

He's so impossibly dim having had his arse handed to him a dozen times today that he still continues to dig that hole deeper.....GC has absolutely mullered him on that one and I can see him having log in issues

No mate ... GC is wrong ... And the last sentence .... a bit unnecessary ... But clear about how he feels.

No Nikkk. Ian named another member of the Grandstand Working Party within that thread. She is unable to defend herself (given he was speaking on her behalf) as she signed a NDA. Ian, however, remains free to say he likes despite being on that GWP and seemingly playing an active part in defending the indefensible.

Still I'm done with Pasoti.  I have made my point clear in the best interests of the Football Club but if I am subject to the same that I endured during the 'Never Again' debate I really will unleash.

I think I'm on safe ground to say...  Everyone would welcome you posting here a lot more often.

If you have time...  Can you clear up Metroaces assertion on Pasoti that there are no minimum parking requirements for the plans under discussion?

Who me ? Ha Ha

nikkk wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Graham Clark wrote:

nikkk wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

He's so impossibly dim having had his arse handed to him a dozen times today that he still continues to dig that hole deeper.....GC has absolutely mullered him on that one and I can see him having log in issues

No mate ... GC is wrong ... And the last sentence .... a bit unnecessary ... But clear about how he feels.

No Nikkk. Ian named another member of the Grandstand Working Party within that thread. She is unable to defend herself (given he was speaking on her behalf) as she signed a NDA. Ian, however, remains free to say he likes despite being on that GWP and seemingly playing an active part in defending the indefensible.

Still I'm done with Pasoti.  I have made my point clear in the best interests of the Football Club but if I am subject to the same that I endured during the 'Never Again' debate I really will unleash.

I think I'm on safe ground to say...  Everyone would welcome you posting here a lot more often.

If you have time...  Can you clear up Metroaces assertion on Pasoti that there are no minimum parking requirements for the plans under discussion?

Who me ?  Ha Ha

Don't be a fool.

Rickler wrote:

nikkk wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Graham Clark wrote:

nikkk wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

He's so impossibly dim having had his arse handed to him a dozen times today that he still continues to dig that hole deeper.....GC has absolutely mullered him on that one and I can see him having log in issues

No mate ... GC is wrong ... And the last sentence .... a bit unnecessary ... But clear about how he feels.

No Nikkk. Ian named another member of the Grandstand Working Party within that thread. She is unable to defend herself (given he was speaking on her behalf) as she signed a NDA. Ian, however, remains free to say he likes despite being on that GWP and seemingly playing an active part in defending the indefensible.

Still I'm done with Pasoti.  I have made my point clear in the best interests of the Football Club but if I am subject to the same that I endured during the 'Never Again' debate I really will unleash.

I think I'm on safe ground to say...  Everyone would welcome you posting here a lot more often.

If you have time...  Can you clear up Metroaces assertion on Pasoti that there are no minimum parking requirements for the plans under discussion?

Who me ?  Ha Ha

Don't be a fool.

Nice. Thanks.