AFT meets with Tudor Evans about HHP (plus club statement)

[Biggs]

I don't think the loss of the hotel is that dramatic. JB is a businessman. He's used to things going against him. He's far from stupid and anyone who thinks otherwise needs a shake. One door closing is another door opening, there are lots of options available and I'm sure JB will be exploring them.

In my mind having a tri sporting centre is a potential. Albion, argyle and raiders all playing in the vicinity, a decent size ice rink that doubles as a basketball court (mentioned loads of times by loads of ppl) all merging into one significant development. You could even bung a cinema and eaterie in there on a reasonably sized footprint. That coupled with the life centre brings all elements of Plymouth sports together in one convenient place, seems to make much more sense IMHO rather than having something hospitality centric.

Yes, but the hospitality tenants (hotel, cinema and restaurants) were the ones effectively paying for the sports and leisure side (grandstand and ice rink). Who pays for that now?

 

[PL2 3DQ]

Sold a load of cobblers by Brent then... Ready your escape pod please James and let's have an owner with a focus on football. He doesn't care about us.

I still think he does, but from this new information and the lack of any progress on the Pavilions/Civic Centre/Oldway/any Akkeron-led development, it's pretty clear he's bitten off more than he can chew. To the point where I'd be stunned if any of those projects get off the ground :sad:

I don't see much evidence of him caring. The bloke is attending games and getting wet on pitches, face value he looks like he's enjoying it. But his plan is rotten, it's rotten for the future and needs of the club. We've been told the club's future is dependent on this development, that's now an apparent lie. We've been told the ice rink had to go up at HHP, despite it boxing in our stand and abolishing all expansion opportunities; there's another lie. His ownership has been a total disaster to say the least. The greatest achievement is not being the worst side in the basement division twice. Whoopy. There's only one chaps interests going first in all this.

And Nik, they seem like issues to take up with Tudor Evans not the AFT. He, afterall, is the one saying such things. The AFT merely pass on his message.

Absolutely. I'm not in the least bit comfortable with what he is saying. I'm afraid to me it seems a little too much opinion turning into fact, and I'd much rather hear from JB or Akkeron and get a properly balanced perspective, before relying too much on what is being reported here.

Could you be specific, what points do you feel are inaccurate?

As I said before I am concerned that TE is quoting as fact snippets of speculation and or gossip that he has picked up on. In my opinion the trust is wrong to publish a one sided story that as we can see leads to a whole heap of angst when we simply do not know if it is justified. Take the hotel as an example. Perhaps the original tenant has pulled out.... but who is to say that there aren't alternatives ready to step in. And we don't know if the development starting could provide a leverage option to provide funding rather that rely on its completion. There are so many pieces to the story that simply should not be regarded as fact. TE has no way of knowing unless he has had specific conversations with JB or Akkeron exactly what the true position is. And that seems not to be the case. Without a reply from JB and Akkeron this can not be relied upon as fact.

Exactly! Hopefully the club/James Brent/Akkeron/Plymouth City Council will respond soon to give a balanced view.

 

[Ham Green]

The idea of having "everything under one roof" (ice / basketball / handball / concerts / expo's) is something a lot of European cities have already implemented with great success, which makes it so frustrating that Akkeron and the city council didn't really go for it. And the idea of making HHP a proper sports hub was (still is) very appealing.

What we got instead was an ice arena with a tiny spectator capacity (what is it with Brent and small capacities?) and a vague nod to having an ice hockey team (not a franchise though). Meanwhile the pavilions is going to have its capacity slightly increased (why?). There's too much about the plans that simply doesn't make sense, clarification hasn't been forthcoming, questions have been met with silence and people (important people, not just us plebs) have become frustrated. Brent may not be a stupid man but he must have flaws, and it seems PR may be one of them. I wonder what Peter Jones' role at the club is these days, he seems awfully quiet.

Nikkk - if Tudor Evans is wrong then it's up to the club to come out and say something. It would make a nice change if they did. We've allowed them to remain silent for far too long, it's time for them to pee or get off the pot, and it's time for us to start properly calling them out.

 

[GreenSam]

Hi Nik,

He did not say exactly in which specific circumstances he heard which specific chunk of information but given that he is working with Akkeron (amongst others) about the future of the city, I'd guess that that's a fairly safe assumption- at least in part.

Sam.

I'm not so sure that it is a "fairly safe assumption" to be fair. And it doesn't surprise me that he did not mention where he has heard these "chunks of information." Have you raised this with JB or Akkeron before releasing this statement/report ?

I imagine perhaps that there are confidences and confidentiality issues with him revealing exactly where every detail was heard from. If any of it is at in the slightest bit untrue (bar the parts that are his own subjective opinion and not relating to facts), then I am sure it will be fully refuted.

We did indeed give and the club notice and send a copy of this to the club prior to publishing as is the current practise with regard to all AFT releases which are significant and/or pertaining to the football club.

To be clear- this isn't us attacking them. It's passing on what information we've been given and we'd love the club to open up constructive dialogue about it. Not only about the statements made, but also about a solution-focused approach potentially including what we can possibly do to help.

Sam, regarding the red highlighted section - did the AFT wait for a reply from the club before publishing the opinions and views of Tudor Evans? There is obviously two sides to every story.

There are two sides to every story but then I'd argue that the follow on from that is that both sides of the story should be heard. In the post-administration era of transparency, we are of course more than happy (we'd love to, in fact) engage in dialogue with the club about such an issue. Your point is (I gather) that we should have spoken to the club and waited for their response first before publishing anything. It's a point of view and it's a view that I'm sure you're not alone in. But I'd say two things to it:

1) By the principles of transparency, openness and representativeness, I don't think we should hold back any information longer than is necessary. It may be that the clubs responds to Tudor Evans and of course we'd publish that response too. However, I see little to be gained by waiting a few days to publish both views simultaneously- and more to be gained by updating our members in good speed. Always better I think, to be fully open at the earliest point to get a flavour of the member's mood. This is to fulfil our duties of transparency to them and in my view is more in the spirit of open debate. I don't feel that information ought to be suppressed any longer than is absolutely necessary. Better, to my mind to have this in the open as it unfolds rather than to give all information 'in one go' at the end. And we did of course give the club the promised notice by sending them a copy of the statement before it came out.
2) You are quite right that there are two sides to every story and we all are hoping to hear the other one. But if TE had said anything that was factually inaccurate ( putting aside his own opinions which are subjective of course) then it would (quite understandably) have been jumped upon very quickly. As it stands, this hasn't happened.

I hear what you're saying and it's an argument which was considered. However, I still feel in my heart of hearts that we have done the right thing and still gave the club the promised notice regardless. It should again be noted that we kept the club fully informed of our schedule. We also gave a club official the precise time which we were planning to publish after we had sent him the minutes and did not receive any communication to the contrary after that email was sent. Hope that clarifies,

Sam.

 

[esmer]

Sold a load of cobblers by Brent then... Ready your escape pod please James and let's have an owner with a focus on football. He doesn't care about us.

I still think he does, but from this new information and the lack of any progress on the Pavilions/Civic Centre/Oldway/any Akkeron-led development, it's pretty clear he's bitten off more than he can chew. To the point where I'd be stunned if any of those projects get off the ground :sad:

I don't see much evidence of him caring. The bloke is attending games and getting wet on pitches, face value he looks like he's enjoying it. But his plan is rotten, it's rotten for the future and needs of the club. We've been told the club's future is dependent on this development, that's now an apparent lie. We've been told the ice rink had to go up at HHP, despite it boxing in our stand and abolishing all expansion opportunities; there's another lie. His ownership has been a total disaster to say the least. The greatest achievement is not being the worst side in the basement division twice. Whoopy. There's only one chaps interests going first in all this.

And Nik, they seem like issues to take up with Tudor Evans not the AFT. He, afterall, is the one saying such things. The AFT merely pass on his message.

Absolutely. I'm not in the least bit comfortable with what he is saying. I'm afraid to me it seems a little too much opinion turning into fact, and I'd much rather hear from JB or Akkeron and get a properly balanced perspective, before relying too much on what is being reported here.

Could you be specific, what points do you feel are inaccurate?

As I said before I am concerned that TE is quoting as fact snippets of speculation and or gossip that he has picked up on. In my opinion the trust is wrong to publish a one sided story that as we can see leads to a whole heap of angst when we simply do not know if it is justified. Take the hotel as an example. Perhaps the original tenant has pulled out.... but who is to say that there aren't alternatives ready to step in. And we don't know if the development starting could provide a leverage option to provide funding rather that rely on its completion. There are so many pieces to the story that simply should not be regarded as fact. TE has no way of knowing unless he has had specific conversations with JB or Akkeron exactly what the true position is. And that seems not to be the case. Without a reply from JB and Akkeron this can not be relied upon as fact.

You think the Trust would be right to keep such information from the fanbase? The last thing we want now is another stand off between the club and the AFT and to portray this as an attack by the AFT on the club is very damaging. It isn't, they are merely relaying Mr Tudor's comments.
I agree frank and candid clarification would be very welcome from Mr Brent, let's hope we get it.

 

[Captains Log]

For me, I'd rather no new stand but an owner who is in it for the football... Seems a better option than a shiny new, non profit making, half empty stand and an owner who is in it for the wrong reasons.

I can't believe how short some peoples memories are. James Brent was (and still is unless somebody can tell me different) the only thing stopping the club going out of business.

 

[Ham Green]

http://www.pafc.co.uk/news/article/club ... 82174.aspx

CLUB STATEMENT

 

[GreenSam]

Thanks Esmer. This isn't a statement of our own views. The only views we've offered are offers of help. I don't want to get drawn into a long debate on here this evening but three things are worth considering

1) The alternative option would have been to withhold the information without publishing it. I repeat- in the name of a transparent Trust, that is an idea which is really disagreeable to me.
2) If we had published anything that was false, I am nigh on certain that it would have been come down upon by a ton of bricks. Let's also remember that Tudor Evans is running the city. He'd be far better placed than the average man not to feel the need to rely on the grapevine. It's a pretty safe assumption that he knows what he's saying to be certain.
3) This is absolutely NOT an attack on the club. It's a faithful account of a meeting with a transparent and open offer of dialogue/help at the end of it.

 

[xmastree]

Sold a load of cobblers by Brent then... Ready your escape pod please James and let's have an owner with a focus on football. He doesn't care about us.

I still think he does, but from this new information and the lack of any progress on the Pavilions/Civic Centre/Oldway/any Akkeron-led development, it's pretty clear he's bitten off more than he can chew. To the point where I'd be stunned if any of those projects get off the ground :sad:

I don't see much evidence of him caring. The bloke is attending games and getting wet on pitches, face value he looks like he's enjoying it. But his plan is rotten, it's rotten for the future and needs of the club. We've been told the club's future is dependent on this development, that's now an apparent lie. We've been told the ice rink had to go up at HHP, despite it boxing in our stand and abolishing all expansion opportunities; there's another lie. His ownership has been a total disaster to say the least. The greatest achievement is not being the worst side in the basement division twice. Whoopy. There's only one chaps interests going first in all this.

And Nik, they seem like issues to take up with Tudor Evans not the AFT. He, afterall, is the one saying such things. The AFT merely pass on his message.

Absolutely. I'm not in the least bit comfortable with what he is saying. I'm afraid to me it seems a little too much opinion turning into fact, and I'd much rather hear from JB or Akkeron and get a properly balanced perspective, before relying too much on what is being reported here.

Could you be specific, what points do you feel are inaccurate?

As I said before I am concerned that TE is quoting as fact snippets of speculation and or gossip that he has picked up on. In my opinion the trust is wrong to publish a one sided story that as we can see leads to a whole heap of angst when we simply do not know if it is justified. Take the hotel as an example. Perhaps the original tenant has pulled out.... but who is to say that there aren't alternatives ready to step in. And we don't know if the development starting could provide a leverage option to provide funding rather that rely on its completion. There are so many pieces to the story that simply should not be regarded as fact. TE has no way of knowing unless he has had specific conversations with JB or Akkeron exactly what the true position is. And that seems not to be the case. Without a reply from JB and Akkeron this can not be relied upon as fact.

Nikk, I assume the main reason the AFT are talking to Tudor Evans about this is very fact that they (and the fanbase as a whole) are not being told anything by JB/Akkeron/PAFC. If JB, or someone on his behalf, had said something specific recently (as opposed to a few cryptic programme notes), I don't think the views of Mr Evans would assume such importance.

I appreciate that it may be difficult for JB to speak publically at the moment. Sometimes in business it is better to say nothing rather than to risk already fragile confidence (in the project) by trying to speak positively. The AFT, however, have a duty to their membership to seek answers. If such answers are not forthcoming from the club they are surely entitled to seek opinions from elsewhere and futhermore to publish these.

 

[Quizmike]

Sam, how did the meeting come about? Did you request it or did you get a call from Mr Evans?

 

[GreenSam]

Thanks Esmer. This isn't a statement of our own views. The only views we've offered are offers of help. I don't want to get drawn into a long debate on here this evening but three things are worth considering

1) The alternative option would have been to withhold the information without publishing it. I repeat- in the name of a transparent Trust, that is an idea which is really disagreeable to me.
2) If we had published anything that was false, I am nigh on certain that it would have been come down upon by a ton of bricks. Let's also remember that Tudor Evans is running the city. He'd be far better placed than the average man not to feel the need to rely on the grapevine. It's a pretty safe assumption that he knows what he's saying to be certain.
3) This is absolutely NOT an attack on the club. It's a faithful account of a meeting with a transparent and open offer of dialogue/help at the end of it.

One last edit before I retire for the night in relation to point 2)

The club statement mentions misunderstandings which are not elaborated on. That very well may be so- and it is not the place of the AFT to argue on behalf of Tudor Evans as we are merely the messengers. But a misunderstanding (in which, it isn't clarified who has misunderstood what) is hardly the same thing as a factual inaccuracy.

I'd prefer not to take this any further as I'd like the debate from hereon to be about the actual matters arising from the meeting rather than the painful ins and outs of publication scheduling. But nothing that we did publish has been directly refuted. And that is not an attempt to fight Tudor Evans's corner for him as I'm sure he's capable himself. But what I do feel is that we are more justified than ever in our decision to publish as we did. That's me over and out on the matter.

I really feel the most important things here are the matters which have arisen from the meeting.

PS.- Quizmike- we requested the meeting to try and get a better idea of what was going on regarding the future of the club. Prevention= better than cure.

 

[xmastree]

Disappointingly weak Club Statement. Suggests there are misunderstandings, but doesn't want to dwell on them. No attempt at clarification then, which will create more distrust and possibly more misunderstandings. I'm afraid they don't help themselves sometimes.

 

[Pogleswoody]

Disappointingly weak Club Statement. Suggests there are misunderstandings, but doesn't want to dwell on them. No attempt at clarification then, which will create more distrust and possibly more misunderstandings. I'm afraid they don't help themselves sometimes.

They probably weren't expecting the person who has overall 'power' over the City and it's development to discuss their business with a third party without involving them .. maybe?? :think:

 

[tigertony]

Hi Nik,

He did not say exactly in which specific circumstances he heard which specific chunk of information but given that he is working with Akkeron (amongst others) about the future of the city, I'd guess that that's a fairly safe assumption- at least in part.

Sam.

I'm not so sure that it is a "fairly safe assumption" to be fair. And it doesn't surprise me that he did not mention where he has heard these "chunks of information." Have you raised this with JB or Akkeron before releasing this statement/report ?

Only read this far. Evans does have a remarkable knowledge of ''everything Argyle, Akkers, JB'' My gosh he should be on the board of a multi-billion international conglo... oh hang on conglom ....... business.

 

[esmer]

Disappointingly weak Club Statement. Suggests there are misunderstandings, but doesn't want to dwell on them. No attempt at clarification then, which will create more distrust and possibly more misunderstandings. I'm afraid they don't help themselves sometimes.

Exactly, a very disappointing response.