HHP is dead. (soon to be official) - But that is not all...

Richard Blight wrote:

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Good to see you boys are still fooking delusional.

A bit sad to see that so many of you would be happy for PCC to spunk huge amounts of cash on a new stand for you to wank all over when at the same time they would be cutting funding to old people's services leaving the old and vulnerable to starve or freeze.

Hardly surprising that you have this perception of entitlement when so few of you have ever had a job.

I'm sure someone will correct me but I think money spent on a new grandstand would come from capital expenditure budgets and quite likely to be borrowed.

Money for old people's services etc. comes from a different budget. Possibly a revenue budget?

You are probably right but no matter how you cut it LT has a point.

Not a very good one though.

The duties of any council are very varied. Obviously they have to maintain roads, run social services, get bins emptied, run libraries and God knows what else. One of those "what elses" is promotion of The City. Nothing else gets near Argyle's ability to write the word "PLYMOUTH" large locally, nationally and internationally. Nothing.

The council would be failing one of its core purposes, me as a citizen and Argyle as a tenant if it did not adequately maintain the stadium and, indirectly, help Argyle to be successful. The case for replacing the grandstand is nigh on irrefutable and its importance to the future financial well-being of the club, if done properly, cannot be over-stated.

And... yes. I live in Plymouth, pay my council tax in the city and I, or members of my family are at least, am impacted either positively or negatively by the services (not) provided.

So as long as this is protected in some way so that yet more money doesn't end in Brent's over-flowing pension pot and the club gets the intended benefit then I am all for it.

One way of doing this would be for PCC to demand a 20% stake in the club and then appoint AFT to act as its proxy. Or similar.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Richard Blight wrote:

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Good to see you boys are still fooking delusional.

A bit sad to see that so many of you would be happy for PCC to spunk huge amounts of cash on a new stand for you to wank all over when at the same time they would be cutting funding to old people's services leaving the old and vulnerable to starve or freeze.

Hardly surprising that you have this perception of entitlement when so few of you have ever had a job.

I'm sure someone will correct me but I think money spent on a new grandstand would come from capital expenditure budgets and quite likely to be borrowed.

Money for old people's services etc. comes from a different budget. Possibly a revenue budget?

You are probably right but no matter how you cut it LT has a point.

Not a very good one though.



The duties of any council are very varied. Obviously they have to maintain roads, run social services, get bins emptied, run libraries and God knows what else. One of those "what elses" is promotion of The City. Nothing else gets near Argyle's ability to write the word "PLYMOUTH" large locally, nationally and internationally. Nothing.

The council would be failing one of its core purposes, me as a citizen and Argyle as a tenant if it did not adequately maintain the stadium and, indirectly, help Argyle to be successful. The case for replacing the grandstand is nigh on irrefutable and its importance to the future financial well-being of the club, if done properly, cannot be over-stated.

And... yes. I live in Plymouth, pay my council tax in the city and I, or members of my family are at least, am impacted either positively or negatively by the services (not) provided.

So as long as this is protected in some way so that yet more money doesn't end in Brent's over-flowing pension pot and the club gets the intended benefit then I am all for it.

One way of doing this would be for PCC to demand a 20% stake in the club and then appoint AFT to act as its proxy. Or similar.[/quote

any one for a fanzine

"Brents HHP was an ill-conceived plan from the very outset.

Schools and dentists in a football stadium? Dear oh dear. And why would we have had to endure such madness? Well, because Brent wouldn't have had to finance it due to grants he would have been looking to hoover up, that's why. Is that the action of a man who has the best interests of Argyle as his No1 priority? Is it foook.

It just didn't make any sense on any level. Had it happened, Argyles long-term dreams and aspirations would have been shattered. Access roads for a hotel, killing any realistic expansion of the horseshoe. Who dreams this sort of sh1t up?

An ice rink too big for local galas, yet too small to support a realistic attempt at a National League Ice Hockey Franchise. Who thought that was a good idea? Add to that the dismissal of any thoughts of building it in an area that didn't mean it was jammed up against a 4,800 capacity ministand, with no commitment to put a fans bar in, and absolutely no chance of extending the stand at all, ever.

Who in their right mind could ever be happy to see any of that sh1t happening?

In years to come we will probably look back and laugh out loud that such ludicrous plans ever saw the light of day.

Thank God it will now not be happening."

Someone on the farm who knows what they are talking about
that will be him banned before too long.

Pisspoti has caught the action - rattled, poor ollie geezer and others having puppies!!

When we had the new pitch put in the holes were drilled for rugby posts. The posts can still be found under the lyndy tied to the roof. So the pitch is big enough for both rugby and football.

I dont have a issue with ground sharing if it means we have a good quality two tiered grandstand. Not the piece of shite that brent was planning to build.

If we do rebuild the granstand is there no grants that we can apply for. Can`t we get grants from sport england or the lottery.

I wonder what is "potentially libellous" about the comment that was removed? While not entirely correct as there was obviously other means of funding as well. I thought it was common knowledge that HHP had missed out on a grant from the Dept. of Education.

Richard Blight wrote:

I wonder what is "potentially libellous" about the comment that was removed? While not entirely correct as there was obviously other means of funding as well. I thought it was common knowledge that HHP had missed out on a grant from the Dept. of Education.

"Well, because Brent wouldn't have had to finance it due to grants he would have been looking to hoover up, that's why. Is that the action of a man who has the best interests of Argyle as his No1 priority? Is it foook."

BRENT OUT NOW!!!!

Strange that whenever this sort of debate occurs quite a number of the pasoti mods post- Ollie, Monkeywrench, Greenthing, justanotherfan (ponty will be along soon)- its almost like they are told to defend the project.

Chemical Ali wrote:

Strange that whenever this sort of debate occurs quite a number of the pasoti mods post- Ollie, Monkeywrench, Greenthing, justanotherfan (ponty will be along soon)- its almost like they are told to defend the project.

either that or they really are just blinded as to what brent is really doing to pafc, i made a post on there a while ago saying brent out and it got put in junior pasoti or whatever they call it, the only people who should be put in junior pasoti are the mods themselves lol

Looks to me that almost everyone over there is pretending they haven't seen this thread.

I wonder where they think other funding can be found that JB hasn't been able to access. Assuming this rumour has some legs and JB hasn't been able to find the funding of course.

Chemical Ali wrote:

Strange that whenever this sort of debate occurs quite a number of the pasoti mods post- Ollie, Monkeywrench, Greenthing, justanotherfan (ponty will be along soon)- its almost like they are told to defend the project.

Ollie Arshole Shows promise, creepy enough to be Nools next site manager.

Blink and you'll miss it

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

AstiSpumante wrote:

Blink and you'll miss it  

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

what are we meant to see?

Has Tommy Cooper come back to do the now you see it, now you don't - posts going up in smoke before your very eyes!!

Wow, that lasted 2 or 3 minutes before being pulled by the smokin' hot pasotimods...........luckily I was quick enough to copy it before it was pulled

Posted on Pasoti by ExRated
Post subject: Re: AFT meets with Tudor Evans about HHP (plus club statement)


The Grumpy Loyal wrote:
How in Gods name is stating that Brent would have received grants for the Dentist and Studio school a "potentially libellous comment" ?

It is a statement of absolute fact, for christs sake!


Ollieargyle9 wrote:
That wasn't what you said though...

What you've written here is fine and wouldn't have been removed as its not nearly as inflammatory as what you posted initially. Your original comment was however worded entirely differently and was removed for both yours and the sites protection.


ExRated wrote:
The full, un-edited, un-censored post by The Grumpy Loyal is available to view over on Argyle Talk Democratic, The only forum where Argyle fans(and fans of other clubs) can post anything that doesn't break the law without fear of draconian censorship and underhand bullying by the chosen few. Come and join us in the land of free speech, have your say without fear of 'login difficulties on your next visit'..................There goes another pasoti account :funny: ........I'll get me coat :coat:

Hi - big fan of his site and finally registered,

Like many posters on here my dreams for PAFC are much bigger than what HHP would have delivered but if there is any truth in the Council developing the grandstand this, in my view, leaves the club far worse off than it would have been if HHP had gone ahead. I thought I'd be celebrating any kind of confirmation that HHP is dead but I find myself thinking that HHP would have been the best solution  for the club after all.

If the Council do develop they are legally obliged to do so on a commercial basis, that means charging the club a true commercial rent and recouping it's capital expenditure within a commercial timeframe. If they stick to Brent's proposed capacity and the same / similar design, you will be looking at an £8 to 10 million outlay with a maximum repayment period of 35 years. One benefit of PCC developing is that they could obtain preferential terms on the borrowing required, however, even so, rent payable by the club is likely to increase by at least £400K per year (and that's not even considering the effect of inflationary rent reviews as time goes on).

So, we're still going to end up with a 17.5K capacity ground but instead of PAFC having to pay an extra £30K a year rent had HHP gone ahead it's going to have to find an extra £400K minimum. That seems an awful lot of money just for the ability to be able to expand. Now look ahead 10 years, unless we're bought by a filthy rich benefactor it's highly unlikely we'll be enjoying premier league football and even if it's championship football nobody will be rushing to build extra seats. That means over  that 10 year period we would have paid around £3.7 million in extra rent then we would have had HHP gone ahead, that's £3.7 million that could have been spent on the team if Brent could have delivered HHP. He can't, so it's a pointless argument but any dreams that this rumour will lead to the ground of our dreams are way off the mark, even if they were minded to the Council couldn't build it any bigger as the club simply couldn't afford the extra rent.

AstiSpumante wrote:

Wow, that lasted 2 or 3 minutes before being pulled by the smokin' hot pasotimods...........luckily I was quick enough to copy it before it was pulled

Posted on Pasoti by ExRated
Post subject: Re: AFT meets with Tudor Evans about HHP (plus club statemenPostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:31 pm

Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 9:39 pm
Ollieargyle9 wrote:
The Grumpy Loyal wrote:
How in Gods name is stating that Brent would have received grants for the Dentist and Studio school a "potentially libellous comment" ?

It is a statement of absolute fact, for christs sake!


That wasn't what you said though...

What you've written here is fine and wouldn't have been removed as its not nearly as inflammatory as what you posted initially. Your original comment was however worded entirely differently and was removed for both yours and the sites protection.



The full, un-edited, un-censored post by The Grumpy Loyal is available to view over on Argyle Talk Democratic, The only forum where Argyle fans(and fans of other clubs) can post anything that doesn't break the law without fear of draconian censorship and underhand bullying by the chosen few. Come and join us in the land of free speech, have your say without fear of 'login difficulties on your next visit'..................There goes another pasoti account :funny: ........I'll get me coat :coat:

LOL. So according to OllieArgyle9.... saying that Brent would have hoovered up grants for the school and dentist to be built is "potentially libellous". Jesus Wept.

I just love this from dear old Ian though....they've got a "top lawyer" on the Mod team advising them. I wonder if that's the same fella who advised him to sue for 100k (but settle for 75)



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

tosspotty the gift that keeps on giving

GreenHart wrote:

Hi - big fan of his site and finally registered,

Like many posters on here my dreams for PAFC are much bigger than what HHP would have delivered but if there is any truth in the Council developing the grandstand this, in my view, leaves the club far worse off than it would have been if HHP had gone ahead. I thought I'd be celebrating any kind of confirmation that HHP is dead but I find myself thinking that HHP would have been the best solution  for the club after all.

If the Council do develop they are legally obliged to do so on a commercial basis, that means charging the club a true commercial rent and recouping it's capital expenditure within a commercial timeframe. If they stick to Brent's proposed capacity and the same / similar design, you will be looking at an £8 to 10 million outlay with a maximum repayment period of 35 years. One benefit of PCC developing is that they could obtain preferential terms on the borrowing required, however, even so, rent payable by the club is likely to increase by at least £400K per year (and that's not even considering the effect of inflationary rent reviews as time goes on).

So, we're still going to end up with a 17.5K capacity ground but instead of PAFC having to pay an extra £30K a year rent had HHP gone ahead it's going to have to find an extra £400K minimum. That seems an awful lot of money just for the ability to be able to expand. Now look ahead 10 years, unless we're bought by a filthy rich benefactor it's highly unlikely we'll be enjoying premier league football and even if it's championship football nobody will be rushing to build extra seats. That means over  that 10 year period we would have paid around £3.7 million in extra rent then we would have had HHP gone ahead, that's £3.7 million that could have been spent on the team if Brent could have delivered HHP. He can't, so it's a pointless argument but any dreams that this rumour will lead to the ground of our dreams are way off the mark, even if they were minded to the Council couldn't build it any bigger as the club simply couldn't afford the extra rent.

Welcome GreenHart, an interesting, thought provoking first post.

Welcome GreenHart,

I think I heard near enough exactly the same rumour as SFD last night. What was said was the council would announce plans to build the stand. How they would do this or who it involved was not made clear. It could be on their own or in partnership with others. Possibly with Akkeron? Who knows? Until an announcement is made ( or not made) the speculation will continue. At least on here, if others want to stick their heads in the sand and waggle their legs around, that's up to them.

As for the rent question, I'm not sure that's correct. My understanding ( which could be wrong) is the council have to cover the cost of their expenditure. A commercial rent implies making a profit. I can't quite see the council charging the club a rent that it potentially couldn't afford. That would be self defeating and possibly damaging.

Interesting first post and very welcome.

GreenHart wrote:

Hi - big fan of his site and finally registered,

Like many posters on here my dreams for PAFC are much bigger than what HHP would have delivered but if there is any truth in the Council developing the grandstand this, in my view, leaves the club far worse off than it would have been if HHP had gone ahead. I thought I'd be celebrating any kind of confirmation that HHP is dead but I find myself thinking that HHP would have been the best solution  for the club after all.

If the Council do develop they are legally obliged to do so on a commercial basis, that means charging the club a true commercial rent and recouping it's capital expenditure within a commercial timeframe. If they stick to Brent's proposed capacity and the same / similar design, you will be looking at an £8 to 10 million outlay with a maximum repayment period of 35 years. One benefit of PCC developing is that they could obtain preferential terms on the borrowing required, however, even so, rent payable by the club is likely to increase by at least £400K per year (and that's not even considering the effect of inflationary rent reviews as time goes on).

So, we're still going to end up with a 17.5K capacity ground but instead of PAFC having to pay an extra £30K a year rent had HHP gone ahead it's going to have to find an extra £400K minimum. That seems an awful lot of money just for the ability to be able to expand. Now look ahead 10 years, unless we're bought by a filthy rich benefactor it's highly unlikely we'll be enjoying premier league football and even if it's championship football nobody will be rushing to build extra seats. That means over  that 10 year period we would have paid around £3.7 million in extra rent then we would have had HHP gone ahead, that's £3.7 million that could have been spent on the team if Brent could have delivered HHP. He can't, so it's a pointless argument but any dreams that this rumour will lead to the ground of our dreams are way off the mark, even if they were minded to the Council couldn't build it any bigger as the club simply couldn't afford the extra rent.

Welcome. You may have missed that the Council paid Mr Brent £1.6Million for Home Park and then proceeded to not charge him rent nor rates for two years. So maybe a similar deal would be struck again.

If the council do fund the stand with public money and say fans donations, and Brent/Akkeron/Mrs Brent are excised completely from the project, then the remote chance of receiving some lottery funding to assist may become a little less distant. Shurely?

Welcome GreenHart, a sturdy timber like first post.