marin(er) wrote:Tavypilgrim wrote:marin(er) wrote:
And you said the same about you not going because of Heaney!!
Hey, how do you think people feel about x isles posts....and yours come to that?
I said I would think twice about going because of Heaney. I also won't be buying a merchandise etc. However my primary reason for this is that I have no money. If I did I would probably be paying on the day, therefore reserving the opportunity to withdraw my support if the club is not run well. I still hope to attend 8-12 home matches this season.
Rallying against a contingency plan like you are just makes no sense. To give an example...
I recently went caving, a torch amongst other things is a requirement. I packed my favourite torch with the intention of it being the one I was to use. I also had another torch, It wasn't
my favourite as I personally don't think it is as powerful, and it doesn't attach to my head like the other one. However I took it anyway, as a contingency, just in case. I never did need the contingency torch, but there was no harm in taking it.
Why do you think there is any harm in having a contingency bid?
You obviously are certain it won't be needed, yet you still feel sure it would fail and be impracticable anyway, and feel the need to consistently put it down. I ask you what is the harm in trying to have a contingency?
Even if it is needed and does turn out to be impractical(something I doubt), then we haven't lost anything by trying. If the PB falls through(If... I'm not saying it will or won't). Then
without a contingency we have one option... liquidation. With a contingency we at least have something to try before liquidation. The end result might be the same either way, but at least with a contingency there is a chance if the worst should happen.
I can understand someone not feeling that a contingency will be needed. But your stance doesn't make an iota of sense. Why not just ignore it safely in the knowledge that it will never be needed?
Here is the big misconception. I am not anti contingency plan, I am not anti Heaney, I am certainly not anti argyle.
I originally took umbrage to the fact that people were moaning about Heaney making profit. Why the hell shouldnt they? What say do we have on something that isn't ours etc. etc.
I have stuck to my guns throughout, unlike some. And as x isle would say, it's principles...
I actually wish Brent got in there first then there might not have been all this in fighting, he didn't though and here we are.
There are some big short comings with Heaney for sure but there are, in my opinion, with Brent also.
I take particular issue with the ground though and that's it. It's not ours, let them do what needs to be done as long as it saves our club. I don't see it as fair that all this started because of what greedy, short, Ginger Heaney was going to make.... I don't care!! But people who asked that should also ask that about Brent but they don't.
Here's what Brent said (which falls in with Chris Webb's answer to you about their being no development plans)
Through his Akkeron Group, the North Devon-based investor and former Plymouth City Development Company chairman said he was ready to pump enough cash into Argyle to stabilise the club.
Increased use of Home Park for non-football events could provide a cash boost without the immediate need for development, he said, while any "modest profits" would go straight back into the football club.
http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/REVEALE ... story.html