AFT statement on HHP development and **new update 19th Sept*

[SWTT]

People on this forum keep harping on about the minority being objectors. Indeed even mention of "tiny amount". A poll was set up this morning on a forum that has several thousand members and the current status is 124 votes support the refurb but object to or have concerns about other aspects of the plan. 18 support the application in its entirety. 124 v 18 isnt exactly a minority. I expect if a poll was held here it would pretty much be the reverse so a guess would be the fanbase is a 50/50 split.

That's a loaded question though isn't it?

The option to "support the refurb but object to or have concerns about other aspects of the plan" is not an option on the table. Its either support the current application or don't support it surely?

And that's where James Brent's decision to bind the applications was wrong. A cynical view may be that he's tugging on the emotional pull of getting the Grandstand sorted in order to better his personal business interests. Gambling on the club for his personal gain.

I've looked at a few of the supporting statements put in. Many talk about how the Grandstand is in the best interests of the club and support on that basis. Does an independently funded refurbishment of an existing building allow free reign for erecting new (fairly large) buildings on a separate site for completely different business motives? Some seem so concerned, now that the plan was put forward as this hybrid venture, that we might once again be let down on the Grandstand front that they'll overlook the rest.

I don't like that it's as black and white as support or oppose. The FoCP state that they support on the conditions of.... So if those conditions are not met, or a conversation is not opened up with them, they would object. Likewise, the AFT state they object to the project as a whole, but totally support the Grandstand and Ice Rink. The hybrid application bungs too much together; at best as a cost saver, at worst as a manipulative tool.

 

[PL2 3DQ]

People on this forum keep harping on about the minority being objectors. Indeed even mention of "tiny amount". A poll was set up this morning on a forum that has several thousand members and the current status is 124 votes support the refurb but object to or have concerns about other aspects of the plan. 18 support the application in its entirety. 124 v 18 isnt exactly a minority. I expect if a poll was held here it would pretty much be the reverse so a guess would be the fanbase is a 50/50 split.

Is that on John Lloyd's anti-James Brent Facebook page?

The PCC planning website, where it matters, had 58 letters of support and 38 objections.

Why is it anti-James Brent? There are plenty of people on there who support James Brent. Its a forum pretty much how Pasoti used to be when I joined 16 years ago, all opinions were welcome provided they didnt cross some pretty broad boundaries. These other sites only exist because this site has suffocated debate.

There's no debate being suffocated here, maybe you're just not used to other people having a different opinion and standing their ground?

Anyway, the club have noted the strong support for the application from those living in the region ....

We are delighted to see the strong support for the plans from people who live in Plymouth and in Devon and Cornwall. Of those who have commented and who have declared that they live in the city or region, three times as many have supported the plans as have objected.

Its incredibly ironic that you, who used to quite rightly question everything and who was vehemently against Brent in the first place, is now one of those that have had the stuffing knocked out of them. And dont give me any evangelical bull about how you have seen the light!

Blimey I must have hit a nerve if you're dragging up stuff from over 6 years ago.
I presume you're referring to Paul Buttivant who I supported, I wasn't against JB because at the time he wasn't a bidder.
Over time it became clear Buttivant (and Kevin Heaney, Terry George etc) didn't have the funding and when JB became a bidder he actually had the funding and was the best option to save PAFC, which was all that mattered.
Six years ago it was a needs must situation from everyone so that Argyle could be saved.

 

[Frazer Lloyd-Davies]

I think we need to accept that the club is a private entity and that James Brent doesn't 'owe' us anything. To be frank, this business is his, not ours, and that within legal reason he can do as he pleases.

Whilst I support the development, I accept that it is not perfect. However, I think it is naive to expect a perfect development, from our perspective as fans. At the end of the day, we're not paying for it.

If we have to have a few offices to get a new stand then so be it. In my book, that's a fair compromise and one I can live with. The parking 'issue' is a non starter for me. If people sincerely think that this will cause conjestion issues, then clearly they haven't been to other cities or other football stadiums.

As for the capacity issue, am I not right in saying that we can build on top of the other three stands? If so, I don't see a smaller Mayflower being a problem. Two tiers on three sides and one tier on the other should be ample, especially considering the door to the Premier League is all but closed.

 

[IJN]

What I still don't understand is the car parking fixation.

As far as I recall, the police we dead against lots of parking post Manchester Arena. Surely it would make sense o follow their recommendation wouldn't it?

 

[Princerock]

The Grandstand plan should stand alone, piggy-backing James Brent's "extras" onto it just causes suspicion and with James Brent's building track record many feel that it adds a ball and chain to Mr Hallett's paid for development....sneaking in under the radar comes to mind. But it had been noticed by, Highways England, who have found problems, as pointed out eloquently by Graham Clark.

 

[Electronic]

If we have to have a few offices to get a new stand then so be it. In my book, that's a fair compromise and one I can live with.

But that's the whole point...we don't! Where in the original announcement about the grandstand refurb (it isn't a new stand) did it say it was contingent on a commercial development on HHP, from which Argyle stand almost nothing to gain? It didn't. The announcement was that a funded refurb (thanks to a loan from the Halletts) would be undertaken. The beef with the plans for most (reasonable) objectors is that a simple fully-funded goal of updating the Mayflower has been harnessed to an unnecessary planning application for HHP from which Akkeron/James Brent stand to gain and which puts the entire scheme at risk of stalling or being delayed.

I wish James Brent good fortune in his other business ventures but as a PAFC fan I'm pretty furious that he's unneccessarily complicated something with direct benefits to the club - funded with someone else's money! - and all to enable something which will only contribute to his own wealth, not the club's. I think it's out of order and I don't understand why Simon Hallett isn't furious about it (unless, of course, he is).

 

[The Duke]

Well done JB for not only submitting a hybrid application, when quite clearly the grandstand should be a separate one. But also for creating division in our fan base. His popularity is rapidly declining and no wonder!

Says WHO exactly? Or is this another AFT myth? :roll:

If you haven't even worked that out yet...

 

[IJN]

Is it 'eloquent' because you agree with it?

JB sneaked this in did he? Or is that a figment of your imagination.

Tell me, in your world do you think he didn't court advice and direction in the many Board meetings?
Do you think he sprung this on the Hallett? Really?

I think some people get confused between what goes in on in the real world with what goes on in their life.

Going back to the AFT, I see we have the new board member objecting, which is her right of course, but isn't it strange that EVERY member of the AFT board is objecting. Wouldn't normal demographic of any group contain people that wouldn't agree with the rest?

No wonder I and many, many others see this as a campaign!

Strange that these noisy few are still attempting to make so much din.

Perhaps Pasoti can send in a support E mail. We could use a tag line of Plymouth for people that live in Plymouth! :thumbs:

 

[GreeNick]

I live in London, don't go to Home Park that often as much as I would want to, and I rarely comment in PASOTI, but, to be quite frank, I thought AFT's statement was a rather pathetic nitpicking. We are now in the 21st Century, for Christ's sake! The new grandstand and HHP badly needs a redevelopment with all those new amenities such as eateries, new gym, ice rink, etc. They would sit well with the Life Centre.

Many other modern stadiums around the country have similar incentives, even with new housing and this can benefit the city more. I very much hope that PCC will approve the planning permission.

 

[HPRJohn]

Well done JB for not only submitting a hybrid application, when quite clearly the grandstand should be a separate one. But also for creating division in our fan base. His popularity is rapidly declining and no wonder!

His popularity isn't declining with me - It goes up every time I meet the man or read interviews with him. He has taken us from the very real possibility of ceasing to be, to a point where an application for major development and improvement can be submitted. I'd love to see the whole development take place, I believe it would make HP and the surrounding area a vibrant place to be on match day. A walk to a ticket office without dodging potholes. A club shop fit for purpose. A finished stadium (including all the bits under the stand for the players!!). An extra place to get a beer in a glass rather than a plastic beaker. Food not served from a caravan!

I also think it is sad that in a discussion about the AFT statement - when somebody states they have cancelled their membership on the back of it they are subject to petty patronising comments. It should set alarm bells ringing if members are leaving based on their actions. As numbers dwindle you will become more irrelevant than you currently are. A shame as a valid fans trust where debate and differing opinions was welcomed would be something worth investing in.

 

[Chancellor]

Is it 'eloquent' because you agree with it?

JB sneaked this in did he? Or is that a figment of your imagination.

Tell me, in your world do you think he didn't court advice and direction in the many Board meetings?
Do you think he sprung this on the Hallett? Really?

I think some people get confused between what goes in on in the real world with what goes on in their life.

Going back to the AFT, I see we have the new board member objecting, which is her right of course, but isn't it strange that EVERY member of the AFT board is objecting. Wouldn't normal demographic of any group contain people that wouldn't agree with the rest?

No wonder I and many, many others see this as a campaign!

Strange that these noisy few are still attempting to make so much din.

Perhaps Pasoti can send in a support E mail. We could use a tag line of Plymouth for people that live in Plymouth! :thumbs:

What proportion of Pasoti lives in Plymouth?

 

[Chancellor]

People on this forum keep harping on about the minority being objectors. Indeed even mention of "tiny amount". A poll was set up this morning on a forum that has several thousand members and the current status is 124 votes support the refurb but object to or have concerns about other aspects of the plan. 18 support the application in its entirety. 124 v 18 isnt exactly a minority. I expect if a poll was held here it would pretty much be the reverse so a guess would be the fanbase is a 50/50 split.

Is that on John Lloyd's anti-James Brent Facebook page?

The PCC planning website, where it matters, had 58 letters of support and 38 objections.

Why is it anti-James Brent? There are plenty of people on there who support James Brent. Its a forum pretty much how Pasoti used to be when I joined 16 years ago, all opinions were welcome provided they didnt cross some pretty broad boundaries. These other sites only exist because this site has suffocated debate.

There's no debate being suffocated here, maybe you're just not used to other people having a different opinion and standing their ground?

Anyway, the club have noted the strong support for the application from those living in the region ....

We are delighted to see the strong support for the plans from people who live in Plymouth and in Devon and Cornwall. Of those who have commented and who have declared that they live in the city or region, three times as many have supported the plans as have objected.

Its incredibly ironic that you, who used to quite rightly question everything and who was vehemently against Brent in the first place, is now one of those that have had the stuffing knocked out of them. And dont give me any evangelical bull about how you have seen the light!

Blimey I must have hit a nerve if you're dragging up stuff from over 6 years ago.
I presume you're referring to Paul Buttivant who I supported, I wasn't against JB because at the time he wasn't a bidder.
Over time it became clear Buttivant (and Kevin Heaney, Terry George etc) didn't have the funding and when JB became a bidder he actually had the funding and was the best option to save PAFC, which was all that mattered.
Six years ago it was a needs must situation from everyone so that Argyle could be saved.

Dont overestimate yourself, nerves unhit.

Just find it laughable that someone can have their own principles changed completely by self-perceived positions of power.

 

[PL2 3DQ]

Dont overestimate yourself, nerves unhit.

Just find it laughable that someone can have their own principles changed completely by self-perceived positions of power.

What 'position of power'?

 

[lunarjetman]

Strange that these noisy few are still attempting to make so much din.

I have nothing whatsoever to do with the AFT but based on conversations I heard at Argyle the other day, I think its more than a few people who don't like this planning proposal.

I think the question people need to ask themselves is whether they would support a hotel, offices and retail outlets on this part of Central Park if there was no connection to Argyle. I'd wager that many people reading this forum would be opposed to it.

As far as I understand it, the grandstand redevelopment is being self-funded by the club and has nothing to do with the other commercial development being proposed. The club will not benefit from these commercial developments and I agree with those who say that it would cause traffic problems and spoil the appearance of the area.

The grandstand redevelopment seems be a tactic to try and get the other development approved by the Council and win the support of the public.

I don't mind the area being regenerated, but the quantity of development being proposed is far too much for this site. There are other places in Plymouth to build offices and hotels.

 

[lunarjetman]

Also, surely the way to speed up the grandstand redevelopment is for the club to submit a separate planning application ? I can't see a stand-alone planning application for a new grandstand attracting much controversy.

By including it as part of a much larger planning application it slows the whole process down.

That's why I'm a bit cynical about the motives of the board on this occasion. It only adds weight to my suspicion that this is an attempt to force the Council to approve an otherwise unacceptable commercial development.