AFT Post AGM Statement + Update 15/12

[Willis88]

I find it mildly funny they're just looking for something else to get uppity about. Never happy unless they're complaining about something.

Akkeron are paying the 206 payment, why should they be concerned about it?

 

[Rixen63]

Probably because it came over as the Chairman doing Argyle a massive favour when that doesn't seem to be the case, which was one of the main reasons for the hybrid application!

 

[metroace]

But as has been said, the Grandstand would have required SOME amount of S106 contribution, a contribution that is rolled up in the overall one for the whole scheme and not being paid by the club. A win, win situation, I would have thought.

 

[Kentishgreen]

Surely the only statement the AFT needs to make is how best to support the club? In my view that means raising money to take a financial stake in the club and therefore get someone on the board. Without that it is as relevant as any other Argyle related pressure group ie great for an exchange of views but unlikely to shape events going forward. We don’t want to risk administration again just to make the AFT relevant.

 

[Ollieargyle9]

Probably because it came over as the Chairman doing Argyle a massive favour when that doesn't seem to be the case, which was one of the main reasons for the hybrid application!

Do you even know what you're on about because I sure as hell don't?

I don't see why there always has to be a caveat imposed on any praise James Brent receives. People have said all along the hybrid application was win-win for both parties; Akkeron getting their developments through whilst saving Argyle significant planning fees and design costs.

This S106 agreement forms part of that saving, you are being unnecessarily pedantic to make an irrelevant criticism of the chairman. Like a petty school child grumbling as the child he bullies is praised by the teacher.

 

[Abbotts Ann Green]

Probably because it came over as the Chairman doing Argyle a massive favour when that doesn't seem to be the case, which was one of the main reasons for the hybrid application!

So how is Akkeron paying all of the planning fees and Section 106 monies not doing Argyle a favour?

Maybe the AFT were going to pay the £200k or so?

 

[Rixen63]

Not sure why you bring AFT into it?
I am simply saying that at the forum JB stated that he was going to pay the 106 due because of potential costs to the local infrastructure, this sounded like that was due in equal measure between the HHO development and the Grandstand refurb, which quite simply is not the case. So no massive saying to Argyle by not paying the 106. If I am wrong please show me how?
This is not being pedantic, it is simple facts.

 

[Ade the green]

Surely the only statement the AFT needs to make is how best to support the club? In my view that means raising money to take a financial stake in the club and therefore get someone on the board. Without that it is as relevant as any other Argyle related pressure group ie great for an exchange of views but unlikely to shape events going forward. We don’t want to risk administration again just to make the AFT relevant.

I hope (personally) that the AFT will never be in the position to buy onto the board. It would certainly do no favours for anyone trying to achieve anything to have someone dumping on them at board level.

 

[Abbotts Ann Green]

Not sure why you bring AFT into it?
I am simply saying that at the forum JB stated that he was going to pay the 106 due because of potential costs to the local infrastructure, this sounded like that was due in equal measure between the HHO development and the Grandstand refurb, which quite simply is not the case. So no massive saying to Argyle by not paying the 106. If I am wrong please show me how?
This is not being pedantic, it is simple facts.

There’s a clue in the title of this thread as to why I brought the AFT into this....

Two applications would have meant two Section 106 payments, I worked in local government, that’s the way they do things and it would not have been 50% each either. Section 106 money is not spent only on a particular application but can be seen more as a tax on developers. Where I last worked all the 106 money was in one account and if you had a particular project you wanted to do you would bid for funding from those monies.

 

[Rixen63]

Thanks for clarifying that, so with your knowledge how much of the 250K do you think is a reasonable representation for the refit?

 

[Kentishgreen]

But we do need to know what the AFT intends to do to support OUR club even if it does just remain a talking shop.

 

[IJN]

I don’t mind the ‘talking shop’ model, it’s the obstructive crap I think pees most Argyle fans off.

 

[Ollieargyle9]

Not sure why you bring AFT into it?
I am simply saying that at the forum JB stated that he was going to pay the 106 due because of potential costs to the local infrastructure, this sounded like that was due in equal measure between the HHO development and the Grandstand refurb, which quite simply is not the case. So no massive saying to Argyle by not paying the 106. If I am wrong please show me how?
This is not being pedantic, it is simple facts.

If you are right prove it yourself...

Trick is you can't can you, there is no breakdown for the S106 agreement by individual building, it doesn't work like that.

It's not a fact, you're just nitpicking an irrelevant point to yet again p*ss on this major victory for the club/board.

It doesn't matter one iota what cost relates to which part of development, point is they're paying it. That is unless you have an agenda that involves chipping away at JB at every turn. Now there's your "simple fact".

 

[Kentishgreen]

I don’t mind the talking shop model either just as long as people don’t start believing their own publicity and take it for granted that they represent the whole constituency rather than a very,very small part of it.

 

[Ade the green]

Any more?