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

[Electronic]

Is it time to lock this thread now. For all the shouting and counter shouting, accusations and counter accusations not one person has stated they've changed their mind on the development et al so the only thing this thread is now doing is providing people a reason to vent spleen.

What does locking it achieve, apart from stifling potential debate?

The debate has pretty much ended. Have you changed your position?

I have. Since discovering that only outline planning is being sought for HHP with full for Grandstand, I hope planning is granted from this initial application. I feel the AFT should have taken this into consideration also and not objected, but taken a stance of objection against full planning for HHP unless a conversation could be had to discuss the benefits for the football club (and not some going flim flam about swarms of Nandos fans buying up all our tickets after they've stuffed themselves with chicken and run it off in the gym).

If the above is nailed-on true, that works for me too. Grandstand goes ahead unabated and the rest gets properly considered on its merits. Hopefully that would mean yes to the ice rink and hotel on Western Gateway and no to the offices, food, drink outlets. Keep Central Park as a leisure/sports complex.

 

[IJN]

Always makes me smile when people come on here spouting anti Pasoti stuff and then complain that they’re being picked on.

As for personal abuse, only last night an ex Chairman of the AFT posted an homophobic comment to one of our own on FreeChat. Now that IS personal abuse pal!

It’s quite simple if you don’t like Pasoti don’t read it. It’s what normal people would do, it’s what I do to the hate sites.

 

[Electronic]

I know it's a lot of pages but have you been keeping up?

The grandstand refurb on its own will not generate the income levels that the club are looking for. It will look prettier and tidier than it is now but that isn't what the whole idea of the refurb is about.

Have you not been keeping up? Anything outside the grandstand refurb won't generate any money at all for Argyle.....oh, sorry, forgot the unbudgetable twelfth of never payment due under the 50% windfall arrangement.

So, actually, the benefit to PAFC is 100% about the refurb. The potential revenue to Argyle will be from the increased capacity, conference facilities, supporters bar etc....all of which are internal to the refurb and nothing to do with HHP....oh, and entirely funded, straightforward and not at all reliant on the superfluous stuff within HHP.

What would be the point of carrying out the refurb on the grandstand if that is all it will achieve?

Increase capacity? Just more empty seats on match days until an underfunded team started to deliver on the pitch

Conference facilities? Which only bring in a fraction of their potential because it is in an isolated location. The hotel is therefore a must to make the conference facilities at least competitive.

Supporters Bar? 340 days a year will be empty because there is nothing to draw people into the area.


The whole point of refurbishment of the grandstand is to bring income into the club. Your plan would be good for match days but it would hardly be a money spinner. It would be like a ghost town on days Argyle weren't playing.

Agree that the hotel is a good idea and have no problem with it. If I said that it was in error. Ditto the ice rink. Still feel the offices, gym and retail units are superfluous. Don't buy the theory that casual Argyle fans flock there because there is a handy McDonalds next to HP and any bars etc would simply provide competition to what is on offer in the ground. James Brent clearly thinks that with his claim of 'competition is good'.

Ultimately, LC, we come at it from different angles. I back the parts of the plan which I feel benefit PAFC and clearly differ on which parts we feel those are. I even back those parts which I think benefit Plymouth as a whole (even though I live in London). To me, that is a balance between a strong football club infrastructure, other sporting/leisure opportunities to enhance the life centre (ice rink) and the maintenance of a good green lung (the park). I also don't want to see HP hemmed in forever by some scratty food/drink outlets (world class, my ass) and unnecessary office space which brings no tangible benefit (in my view) to PAFC.

Finally, i don't see James Brent as the devil incarnate, as some do. I believe he has done some really good things for Argyle but I also feel he could have done other things differently. Time will tell on this latest venture but I maintain the wrong approach has been taken in how it best might benefit the club.

Horse for courses, different strokes for different folks etc.

 

[Ollieargyle9]

Is it time to lock this thread now. For all the shouting and counter shouting, accusations and counter accusations not one person has stated they've changed their mind on the development et al so the only thing this thread is now doing is providing people a reason to vent spleen.

What does locking it achieve, apart from stifling potential debate?

The debate has pretty much ended. Have you changed your position?

I have. Since discovering that only outline planning is being sought for HHP with full for Grandstand, I hope planning is granted from this initial application. I feel the AFT should have taken this into consideration also and not objected, but taken a stance of objection against full planning for HHP unless a conversation could be had to discuss the benefits for the football club (and not some going flim flam about swarms of Nandos fans buying up all our tickets after they've stuffed themselves with chicken and run it off in the gym).

If the above is nailed-on true, that works for me too. Grandstand goes ahead unabated and the rest gets properly considered on its merits. Hopefully that would mean yes to the ice rink and hotel on Western Gateway and no to the offices, food, drink outlets. Keep Central Park as a leisure/sports complex.

Yes let's build a leisure complex and not put any food outlets on it, that'll draw in the punters.

Are you hungry after your gym session? Kids starving after ice skating? Don't worry you can buy them pie and chips from one of the Home Park vans! Everyone knows gym buffs and young families flock to burger vans.

As for the offices, too right if we're building a brand new conferencing facility I sure as hell don't want a load of office workers on site who could potentially hire it out. Are we some sort of business or something.

 

[Electronic]

Is it time to lock this thread now. For all the shouting and counter shouting, accusations and counter accusations not one person has stated they've changed their mind on the development et al so the only thing this thread is now doing is providing people a reason to vent spleen.

What does locking it achieve, apart from stifling potential debate?

The debate has pretty much ended. Have you changed your position?

I have. Since discovering that only outline planning is being sought for HHP with full for Grandstand, I hope planning is granted from this initial application. I feel the AFT should have taken this into consideration also and not objected, but taken a stance of objection against full planning for HHP unless a conversation could be had to discuss the benefits for the football club (and not some going flim flam about swarms of Nandos fans buying up all our tickets after they've stuffed themselves with chicken and run it off in the gym).

If the above is nailed-on true, that works for me too. Grandstand goes ahead unabated and the rest gets properly considered on its merits. Hopefully that would mean yes to the ice rink and hotel on Western Gateway and no to the offices, food, drink outlets. Keep Central Park as a leisure/sports complex.

Yes let's build a leisure complex and not put any food outlets on it, that'll draw in the punters.

Are you hungry after your gym session? Kids starving after ice skating? Don't worry you can buy them pie and chips from one of the Home Park vans! Everyone knows gym buffs and young families flock to burger vans.

As for the offices, too right if we're building a brand new conferencing facility I sure as hell don't want a load of office workers on site who could potentially hire it out. Are we some sort of business or something.

Define 'we'....are you speaking as an Akkeron fan, or an Argyle fan?

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

I know it's a lot of pages but have you been keeping up?

The grandstand refurb on its own will not generate the income levels that the club are looking for. It will look prettier and tidier than it is now but that isn't what the whole idea of the refurb is about.

Have you not been keeping up? Anything outside the grandstand refurb won't generate any money at all for Argyle.....oh, sorry, forgot the unbudgetable twelfth of never payment due under the 50% windfall arrangement.

So, actually, the benefit to PAFC is 100% about the refurb. The potential revenue to Argyle will be from the increased capacity, conference facilities, supporters bar etc....all of which are internal to the refurb and nothing to do with HHP....oh, and entirely funded, straightforward and not at all reliant on the superfluous stuff within HHP.

What would be the point of carrying out the refurb on the grandstand if that is all it will achieve?

Increase capacity? Just more empty seats on match days until an underfunded team started to deliver on the pitch

Conference facilities? Which only bring in a fraction of their potential because it is in an isolated location. The hotel is therefore a must to make the conference facilities at least competitive.

Supporters Bar? 340 days a year will be empty because there is nothing to draw people into the area.


The whole point of refurbishment of the grandstand is to bring income into the club. Your plan would be good for match days but it would hardly be a money spinner. It would be like a ghost town on days Argyle weren't playing.

Agree that the hotel is a good idea and have no problem with it. If I said that it was in error. Ditto the ice rink. Still feel the offices, gym and retail units are superfluous. Don't buy the theory that casual Argyle fans flock there because there is a handy McDonalds next to HP and any bars etc would simply provide competition to what is on offer in the ground. James Brent clearly thinks that with his claim of 'competition is good'.

Ultimately, LC, we come at it from different angles. I back the parts of the plan which I feel benefit PAFC and clearly differ on which parts we feel those are. I even back those parts which I think benefit Plymouth as a whole (even though I live in London). To me, that is a balance between a strong football club infrastructure, other sporting/leisure opportunities to enhance the life centre (ice rink) and the maintenance of a good green lung (the park). I also don't want to see HP hemmed in forever by some scratty food/drink outlets (world class, my ass) and unnecessary office space which brings no tangible benefit (in my view) to PAFC.

Finally, i don't see James Brent as the devil incarnate, as some do. I believe he has done some really good things for Argyle but I also feel he could have done other things differently. Time will tell on this latest venture but I maintain the wrong approach has been taken in how it best might benefit the club.

Horse for courses, different strokes for different folks etc.

The bringing in of partners that will provide refreshment outlets and offices and the gym, brings in finance that will help pay for the hotel and ice rink. We all know that JB doesn't have the money for these in his back pocket so this is how he finances his developments. It's risky because if those partners pull out it scuppers the whole development which was what happened to his previous plan. The club needs that hotel to make their conference facilities competitive with other venues. The package as a whole will benefit the club. Unfortunately though it means that you can't just select the bits you like.

 

[IJN]

The last plan was scuppered by the Council offering up Bretonside at the same time Paul.

By the way, the AFT objected to that one as well. :roll:

 

[GreenSam]

The last plan was scuppered by the Council offering up Bretonside at the same time Paul.

By the way, the AFT objected to that one as well. :roll:

Did they? I'm certain no objections came from the AFT or even to my knowledge any individual board members at the time.

Esmer seems to back up this recollection of mine earlier in the thread. The AFT worked on a working group to provide an alternative plan but they didn't object to the JB plans when the WG plans were rejected.

 

[GreenSam]

Is it time to lock this thread now. For all the shouting and counter shouting, accusations and counter accusations not one person has stated they've changed their mind on the development et al so the only thing this thread is now doing is providing people a reason to vent spleen.

What does locking it achieve, apart from stifling potential debate?

The debate has pretty much ended. Have you changed your position?

I have. Since discovering that only outline planning is being sought for HHP with full for Grandstand, I hope planning is granted from this initial application. I feel the AFT should have taken this into consideration also and not objected, but taken a stance of objection against full planning for HHP unless a conversation could be had to discuss the benefits for the football club (and not some going flim flam about swarms of Nandos fans buying up all our tickets after they've stuffed themselves with chicken and run it off in the gym).

What's your source for this about it being full permission for the grandstand and outline permission for HHP Sam? I was under the awareness it was outline permission for both?

 

[IJN]

The last plan was scuppered by the Council offering up Bretonside at the same time Paul.

By the way, the AFT objected to that one as well. :roll:

Did they? I'm certain no objections came from the AFT or even to my knowledge any individual board members at the time.

Esmer seems to back up this recollection of mine earlier in the thread. The AFT worked on a working group to provide an alternative plan but they didn't object to the JB plans when the WG plans were rejected.

I am getting old Sam but I'm sure Symons did say something in the Herald, and despite denials, all of us at the FoCP meeting were told by the Chairman of the FoCP that they were working closely with the AFT to get the plan stopped. She was a JP and Symons is well, shall we say, unreliable at best. I know who I choose to believe.

 

[Stan]

The last plan was scuppered by the Council offering up Bretonside at the same time Paul.

By the way, the AFT objected to that one as well. :roll:

HHP 1 was granted Planning permission long before the Bretonside development was announced. It was scuppered because it was ill thought out.

 

[GreenSam]

The last plan was scuppered by the Council offering up Bretonside at the same time Paul.

By the way, the AFT objected to that one as well. :roll:

Did they? I'm certain no objections came from the AFT or even to my knowledge any individual board members at the time.

Esmer seems to back up this recollection of mine earlier in the thread. The AFT worked on a working group to provide an alternative plan but they didn't object to the JB plans when the WG plans were rejected.

I am getting old Sam but I'm sure Symons did say something in the Herald, and despite denials, all of us at the FoCP meeting were told by the Chairman of the FoCP that they were working closely with the AFT to get the plan stopped. She was a JP and Symons is well, shall we say, unreliable at best. I know who I choose to believe.

It's no secret that Andy Symons and indeed many members of the AFT at that time had their doubts about the plan which probably accounts for some comments in the Herald but there were certainly no formal objections made. There's a big difference between having personal doubts about something and trying to get it stopped.

As for the FOCP thing, as you say there were a number of denials immediately after. Not just from Andy Symons who I'm aware you don't like but also from everybody else involved with the AFT at that time. Obviously I wasn't there so didn't hear the exact wording but I suspect she either said something vague enough that it could be interpreted one way or the other, misspoke or if she spoke correctly and unambiguously, was under the wrong impression.

In any case, there were certainly no statements against the development that time or any objections on the planning portal either.

The last plan was scuppered by the Council offering up Bretonside at the same time Paul.

By the way, the AFT objected to that one as well. :roll:

HHP 1 was granted Planning permission long before the Bretonside development was announced. It was scuppered because it was ill thought out.

Agreed. I remember it being mooted that work on it would start in October 2013. Bretonside wasn't announced until well into the spring of 2014.

 

[Ollieargyle9]

What does locking it achieve, apart from stifling potential debate?

The debate has pretty much ended. Have you changed your position?

I have. Since discovering that only outline planning is being sought for HHP with full for Grandstand, I hope planning is granted from this initial application. I feel the AFT should have taken this into consideration also and not objected, but taken a stance of objection against full planning for HHP unless a conversation could be had to discuss the benefits for the football club (and not some going flim flam about swarms of Nandos fans buying up all our tickets after they've stuffed themselves with chicken and run it off in the gym).

If the above is nailed-on true, that works for me too. Grandstand goes ahead unabated and the rest gets properly considered on its merits. Hopefully that would mean yes to the ice rink and hotel on Western Gateway and no to the offices, food, drink outlets. Keep Central Park as a leisure/sports complex.

Yes let's build a leisure complex and not put any food outlets on it, that'll draw in the punters.

Are you hungry after your gym session? Kids starving after ice skating? Don't worry you can buy them pie and chips from one of the Home Park vans! Everyone knows gym buffs and young families flock to burger vans.

As for the offices, too right if we're building a brand new conferencing facility I sure as hell don't want a load of office workers on site who could potentially hire it out. Are we some sort of business or something.

Define 'we'....are you speaking as an Akkeron fan, or an Argyle fan?

You got me, Hubble needs to give that fiver back to Cabbie because I'm actually JB.

"We" as in the party building a brand new conferencing facility in it's grandstand as I quite clearly stated.

Why dispute the points I've raised when you can try and discredit me as an individual instead?

 

[IJN]

The last plan was scuppered by the Council offering up Bretonside at the same time Paul.

By the way, the AFT objected to that one as well. :roll:

Did they? I'm certain no objections came from the AFT or even to my knowledge any individual board members at the time.

Esmer seems to back up this recollection of mine earlier in the thread. The AFT worked on a working group to provide an alternative plan but they didn't object to the JB plans when the WG plans were rejected.

I am getting old Sam but I'm sure Symons did say something in the Herald, and despite denials, all of us at the FoCP meeting were told by the Chairman of the FoCP that they were working closely with the AFT to get the plan stopped. She was a JP and Symons is well, shall we say, unreliable at best. I know who I choose to believe.

It's no secret that Andy Symons and indeed many members of the AFT at that time had their doubts about the plan which probably accounts for some comments in the Herald but there were certainly no formal objections made. There's a big difference between having personal doubts about something and trying to get it stopped.

As for the FOCP thing, as you say there were a number of denials immediately after. Not just from Andy Symons who I'm aware you don't like but also from everybody else involved with the AFT at that time. Obviously I wasn't there so didn't hear the exact wording but I suspect she either said something vague enough that it could be interpreted one way or the other, misspoke or if she spoke correctly and unambiguously, was under the wrong impression.

In any case, there were certainly no statements against the development that time or any objections on the planning portal either.

The last plan was scuppered by the Council offering up Bretonside at the same time Paul.

By the way, the AFT objected to that one as well. :roll:

HHP 1 was granted Planning permission long before the Bretonside development was announced. It was scuppered because it was ill thought out.

Agreed. I remember it being mooted that work on it would start in October 2013. Bretonside wasn't announced until well into the spring of 2014.

I'm very aware of the chronology of when things were announced, but perhaps some of the potential customers were made aware of what was going to be offered and that's why they dumped HP. After all said and done, anyone in their right mind in the entertainment business would rather be down near The Barby wouldn't they?

Shame, because we would have had a brand new stand if that hadn't gone under.

It's all moot though, as I have said, no matter what had been offered, the AFT would have moaned about it, it's what they do, all 13 of them or whatever it is now.

 

[Ade the green]

I have. Since discovering that only outline planning is being sought for HHP with full for Grandstand, I hope planning is granted from this initial application. I feel the AFT should have taken this into consideration also and not objected, but taken a stance of objection against full planning for HHP unless a conversation could be had to discuss the benefits for the football club (and not some going flim flam about swarms of Nandos fans buying up all our tickets after they've stuffed themselves with chicken and run it off in the gym).[/quote]

If the above is nailed-on true, that works for me too. Grandstand goes ahead unabated and the rest gets properly considered on its merits. Hopefully that would mean yes to the ice rink and hotel on Western Gateway and no to the offices, food, drink outlets. Keep Central Park as a leisure/sports complex.[/quote]

Yes let's build a leisure complex and not put any food outlets on it, that'll draw in the punters.

Are you hungry after your gym session? Kids starving after ice skating? Don't worry you can buy them pie and chips from one of the Home Park vans! Everyone knows gym buffs and young families flock to burger vans.

As for the offices, too right if we're building a brand new conferencing facility I sure as hell don't want a load of office workers on site who could potentially hire it out. Are we some sort of business or something.[/quote]

Define 'we'....are you speaking as an Akkeron fan, or an Argyle fan?[/quote]

Can I just ask if your objection is to having any providers of food is just that or if it's a worry that McDonald's and KFC will be the outlet of choice? To be honest with you, I'd object to fast food outlets being on the site but if it's a step up to Nando's or the like I think it will enhance the area.