Akkeron response to WG

Quote :

Akkeron’s professional team has estimated the incremental costs of the changes would be £2.62m or £1,200 per additional seat, as opposed to the £0.8m and £364 per seat suggested by the Working Group.

A response to the Working Group’s proposals has been provided to the Plymouth Argyle Supporters Board and is being published on their website.

Argyle owner and chairman James Brent said: “I thank the AFT Working Group again for their proposal.

“As a group of volunteers who, to my knowledge, have no experience of building similar structures, they have worked hard to find a way of adding more seats at a relatively low cost.

“However, rightly, in my view, sporting stadia are subject to detailed regulations to ensure both the safety of our fans (e.g. in relation to escape routes) and their comfort (e.g. kiosks and toilet facilities). To meet these requirements, the space required for, and the cost of, the additional seats is materially greater than the AFT Working Group have assumed.

Stopped reading after the bold tbh. They're hardly gonna turn round and go "You know what m8s, they're right!" are they?

Quote :

We can increase the capacity to more than 20,000 simply, quickly and economically. Engineers at BDP – one of the UK’s largest architectural practices, along with other members of the consultant team – have investigated, confirmed and costed this

So doesn't that beg the questions how, where, how much and why not do it now?

How civil of Brent to not even respond directly to the AFT. You can read my response on the PASB website where my friends Tony Hooper and Jon Back are members.

Wanker

Asset stripping, like taking candy from a Janner baby! What a guy! Hope the council find something wrong with the road or now, even more against this than ever. Any protest, I'll be there!

Greenjock wrote:

How civil of Brent to not even respond directly to the AFT. You can read my response on the PASB website where my friends Tony Hooper and Jon Back are members.

Wanker

As well as being foretold despite his internet exile by the 2nd worse club president ever

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

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

Bring the whole stinking plans crashing to the ground by any means possible.

Time for the "Nuclear" option

punchdrunk wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

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

Bring the whole stinking plans crashing to the ground by any means possible.

Time for the "Nuclear" option

Total agreement!

Dougie wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

How civil of Brent to not even respond directly to the AFT. You can read my response on the PASB website where my friends Tony Hooper and Jon Back are members.

Wanker

As well as being foretold despite his internet exile by the 2nd worse club president ever

Old pl2 faced had the info pretty sharpish too. Oh he couldn't wait to post it, his thread had traces of semen on it where he didn't quite wipe his screen thoroughly.

Oh well if your wife and mother both abandon you I suppose you have nothing better to do.

I wouldn't call for the 'Nuclear option' (listing) quite yet. Remember it will permanently restrict our ability to redevelop the Grandstand. The current custodian is just that, a current custodian. One day he will go and maybe, just maybe it will be our turn to have a euromillions winner/oil baron in charge.

There are still a number of hoops this project has to get through before it is given the go ahead - the next stage will be political. Let's try the political option before going 'nuclear'.

Dougie wrote:

Quote :

We can increase the capacity to more than 20,000 simply, quickly and economically. Engineers at BDP – one of the UK’s largest architectural practices, along with other members of the consultant team – have investigated, confirmed and costed this

So doesn't that beg the questions how, where, how much and why not do it now?

'Economically' is one of those lovely vague terms, like 'competitive'.

No explanation for the huge price discrepancy, so here's my thought

The current Public Consultation plans show the only access to the shelf via normal stairways with no turnstiles at the entrances (or more exactly Emergency Exits), implying that the shelf will be for use of people entering via the corporate zone entrance.

If the 900 seat shelf becomes a 3500 seater tier for general use, the correct access infrastructure needs to be put in place with turnstiles and wider stairways. With the stand engulfed by the school building, retail boulevard and club shop there is no logical position for the turnstiles or route for stairs.

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

X Isle and his latest fixation with the excessive use of smileys, telling everyone to button it.
That creep makes my blood boil.

punchdrunk wrote:

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

X Isle and his latest fixation with the excessive use of smileys, telling everyone to button it.
That creep makes my blood boil.

He's on the cnut list that's for sure!

I love his put down of the "volunteers" when referring to the Trust WG. Perhaps he would like to also put down the "volunteers" with no football experience whatsoever who infest the "commercial" dealings at the club ? or the volunteers who painted the Far Post Club ? or the volunteers who clear up his business's litter ?
No ? Thought not.
Maybe there's a new glass ceiling developing in the Big Society under our new Tory boy.... locals volunteer, drafted in "professionals" from London registered Akkeron get paid big time Charlie money. It's not looking good, I must say. Worse than Todd's bunch in certain areas. There will be a falling out when the penny drops.
#selectivebusinesslogic

Having just read the detailed response from Akkeron on the PASB website,their people have done a thorough investigation into the merits of the WG proposals into enlarging the grandstand and their replies make good common sense.

greensleeves wrote:

Having just read the detailed response from Akkeron on the PASB website,their people have done a thorough investigation into the merits of the WG proposals into enlarging the grandstand and their replies make good common sense.

You might just as well say the same thing about the AFT WG thoughts.
Easy to "make sense" anywhere anytime when you are the judge and jury.
Name your subject GS, give me the power to finally approve or diss your proposal, and I'll wipe the deck with your thoughts. Easy peasy ... it's called power.
Don't know about the planners, but this will obviously go to full council, where who holds the power is not so clear. Local councillors are where it's at ... many of them are more reactive to public pressure than planners.

Dougie wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

How civil of Brent to not even respond directly to the AFT. You can read my response on the PASB website where my friends Tony Hooper and Jon Back are members.

Wanker

As well as being foretold despite his internet exile by the 2nd worse club president ever

Dougie who was worse than chris brent/webb/?

I think I know the answer to that one. The Invisible Man from Japan

worried of penzance wrote:

I think I know the answer to that one. The Invisible Man from Japan

Indeed. Plus its a play on the current presidents 2nd greatest living janner motif.

Those mugs on the farm make me laugh, because the property speculator say it will cost two million to make his hated mini stand into a proper grand stand and the trust say it will cost eight hundred grand they automatically believe what brenty tell them is gospel!!! no wonder argyle have been shit for years when you have loads of gullible numpty's supporting them !the bottom line is brent wants to box the football club into a small shit stadium he also says its only forty percent full, well brent if you invested in team and signed quality players on decent money maybe you would get more in, ever thought of that?

Size isn't everything.

It's what you are able to do with what you've got that's more important.

That's why I'm less bothered by the size of the proposed grandstand than the club's ability to expand said grandstand in the future. That's why I'm more bothered about the ability to make reasonable extensions to the horseshoe without the constraint of the road. That's why I'm far more bothered about the loss of income caused by the purloining of space within the footprint that belongs to PCC and leased by the club.

Its forty percent full because we are finishing 20/21st in L2 year after year FFS.
Try explaining that to the numptys on the farm for crying out loud, i aint Einstein by any means but even i can see the game Brenty boy is trying to play.

Sadly, this may be an important comment made by Graham Clark on pasoti......

"It is about time the true facts are made known. On 31st October 2011 Green Pilgrim Ltd (now PAFC Ltd) and Akkeron Leisure Ltd. signed a lease of Home Park with Plymouth City Council. The document is a public one and available from the Land Registry for a small charge.

In paragraph 3 of the First schedule of the lease it is written

"The right subject to obtaining all the consents to redevelop the Grandstand provided any new development will include a modern replacement grandstand with a MINIMUM SEATING CAPACITY OF 3,800 which faces onto the remainder of the Premises, save as otherwise be agreed."

That means by building a grandstand of 4,800 Akerron are building 1,000 seats MORE than they are bound to do by the terms of their lease agreement with the Council.

Why, 3,800? That is because the horseshoe has a capacity of 12,600 and the ground is currently licenced for 16,388. Therefore, the minimum requirement of the Council is for Akkeron to match the existing capacity with the new grandstand. Akkeron have gone a step further and increased the seating by 1,000 seats or so.

As always I am only interested in making the facts more widely known and given the intensity of the debate I felt it appropriate to do so.."

An interesting extra piece of information to be thrown into the discussion.

So Brent comes out the hero, going over and above. Why didn't the council take into account the empty Mayflower terracing, what was the capacity when the temporary seats were in place?