Trust relays member concerns to the club | PASOTI
  • Welcome to PASOTI. Sponsored by Lang & Potter

Trust relays member concerns to the club

T

Tim Chown

Guest
http://www.argylefanstrust.com/2012/12/07/trust-relays-member-concerns

The Argyle Fans Trust is concerned at reports in the media this week that club captain Darren Purse has been placed on the transfer list for financial reasons. Given the club's recent history and its current league position, we understand the anxiety felt by many of our members, and other supporters, on hearing this news. With the team's recent poor form, our precarious league position and falling attendances, supporters are naturally concerned about the future direction of the club.

Accordingly the AFT has written to the club to share its members' concerns, and to put certain questions to the board. We would like to emphasise that we want to help James Brent build a new era of transparency at Home Park, and reach his stated goal of a top 5% governance model at the club. In the past James Brent has been very open with supporters and, in light of recent events, we hope that he will continue to be so by addressing their concerns and issuing a clear statement of direction.

Many supporters have raised concerns over the club's performance on the pitch and the lack of football experience within the club, so it is welcome that we have seen the introduction of Colin Sexstone to the club's board, a former chief executive at Bristol City. With recent announcements about a Director of Football being appointed it appears that the club is seeking to bring in further football experience, but there have also been some mixed messages about what the role specifically involves. It is natural that supporters want to know in clear and simple terms what plans are in place to address the current league position, so the Trust has asked the club to inform supporters of those plans.

We are obviously very appreciative that James Brent has stated that he is funding the shortfall in the club's finances this season, but at the same time at our recent AGM our members commented that there is no public information on the current status of the club's finances. It is thus hard for supporters to understand where the club stands on debt repayment beyond the current season, and to fully appreciate the resulting restrictions on the club's operations, in particular on player budgets.

Recent statements from the club have indicated that the club is in a healthy financial position, but with the transfer listing of the club's captain, reportedly for financial reasons, it is only natural that supporters may feel concerned. It has also been stated that James Brent has needed to put more money into the club than anticipated; the Trust has thus also sought confirmation that the money put into the club is by way of gift and has not added to the club's debt.

The Trust will be playing an active part in the newly formed Plymouth Argyle Supporters Board (PASB) meeting this Saturday, 8th December, where we intend to put forward these concerns and reinforce our position regarding the need for transparency in the operation of the club. The Trust will be working with and through the PASB to help ensure the greatest possible level of transparency and open, two-way communication is built with the club we all share a common passion to see be successful.
 
Jul 29, 2010
13,412
2,957
Let's hope a better response is recieved to a fans collective than a fan (singular) got today.......

Dear Plebs,

Do one.

Chris Parsons,
Communications Manager,
The peoples (sic) republic of 'give a sh*t'.

Honesty?
Integrity?
Trust
Openness
Transparency

Argyle's delivery on last seasons campaign platform is getting shorter and shorter by the week :furious:
 
Jan 29, 2010
2,526
48
plymouth
Will the trust be asking why the worst manager in the history of football is still in employment with the club?As for the money that James Brent has , alledgedly , put in to cover the shortfall in attendances it is only right and proper that this loss shoud fall on him personally as it is entirely his fault that this bufoon is still the manager of this club.Please tell him that Plymouth Argyle supporters deserve far more than he has given so far , which is virtually nothing.
 

bodspafc

🇰🇪 Welicar Donor
Aug 8, 2005
1,015
69
Bristol
Graham Evans":d0o36v5h said:
Will the trust be asking why the worst manager in the history of football is still in employment with the club?As for the money that James Brent has , alledgedly , put in to cover the shortfall in attendances it is only right and proper that this loss shoud fall on him personally as it is entirely his fault that this bufoon is still the manager of this club.Please tell him that Plymouth Argyle supporters deserve far more than he has given so far , which is virtually nothing.

:roll:

You might have a valid point, but comments like that stopped me reading the rest of your post.
 
Jan 29, 2010
2,526
48
plymouth
Can you think of anybody worse? This is Argyles,s lowest ebb , Fletcher must go if we are to have any hope of retaining league statrus.
 

Keepitgreen

🏆 Callum Wright 23/24
🇰🇪 Welicar Donor
♣️ PACSA Member
♣️ Senior Greens
✅ Evergreen
Jade Berrow 23/24
🎫 S.T. Donor 🎫
🚑 Steve Hooper
✨Pasoti Donor✨
🌟Sparksy Mural🌟
May 12, 2008
12,487
1,557
Plymouth
bodspafc":3nd4apx6 said:
Managed Kettering a few years back.
For the amazingly long spell of 39 days.
 
Jul 6, 2011
3,826
346
Richard Lester":1tllaqst said:
I'd like a proper explanation of why Jordan Copp has been released .

:iagree: Needs to be explained and not swept under the carpet.
Sorry to say it, but I no longer trust Fletches judgement and we could be losing a diamond windfall here as in Ben Tozer a few years back.
 

bodspafc

🇰🇪 Welicar Donor
Aug 8, 2005
1,015
69
Bristol
Keepitgreen":tu0vf9xz said:
bodspafc":tu0vf9xz said:
Managed Kettering a few years back.
For the amazingly long spell of 39 days.

Yes, he didn't last long, because he was that bad. Which proves my point - in the history of football, there have been worse managers than CF.
 
B

bandwagon

Guest
Babararacucudada":f8c1rc12 said:
Recently I posted this:

We have never actually been told quite how bad the hangover from administration is. I tried to piece it together as best as I could when I wrote http://thetwounfortunates.com/is-plymou ... n-turmoil/ and nobody has ever questioned the figures that I came up with.

The costs involved that needed to be "underwritten" (there's that word again!) by Brent were:

Unpaid Wages: £3,300,000;
CVA: £100,000;
Lombard: £700,000;
PAST&DT: £330,000;
Admin Fees: £388,010;
Land Purchase: £700,000;
Football Creditor Debt: £388,289;
Totalling: £5,906,299

Against that c.£6m Brent received £1.6m from the council for the re-purchase of Home Park.

The deals struck for repayment of each of those debts are different but it isn't a huge leap to guess that c. £1m/yr is being taken from club income as a result unless Brent is paying (as opposed to "underwriting") them and there is no indication that this is the case.

All of which must have been taken into account when the various club budgets were set. Or am I being hugely naïve here?

I don't buy the 8000 figure. Apart from its obvious contextual absurdity it has been attributed to Peter Ridsdale. Well anybody who just accepts any business plan he comes up with needs their head seeing to.

If we guess that club turnover is now in the region of £4m/yr losing £1m of that is obviously hugely significant. After that apply the league 55% salary cap and the pressures are clear.

Tugboat's (and John Lloyd's recently on another thread) reasoning that we might have a few years of this grim struggle ahead isn't doom-mongering in any shape or form. It is stark realism.

Especially when you add in the money lost by the club this season. Crowds averaging (an entirely predictable) 6156 so far over the 10 home league games so far means we are 18460 paying fans down (against that predicted 8000 over the same period) equating to another c. £250k so far.

Since then I have been informed that the £700k paid for "land purchase" and "Lombard" are, in fact, the same cash sum so the total costs incurred by our exit from administration should be amended to £5,206,299 plus whatever the losses since are. If my guess of £250k is correct then we are looking at a sum owed of around £5.5m.

I'd like to know a number of things regarding this sum and some of the component parts.

1. Is £5.5m an accurate estimate of the debt that the club currently has hanging over it as a result of the exit from administration?

2. If not then what is an accurate figure to describe the same debts?

3. Is this debt, whatever it actually is, to be paid for by Argyle or by Akkeron?

4. Are the various repayment schedules for these sums, especially the £330k owed to PAST&DT, being honoured in time and in full by whomsoever it is that is paying?

5. Are these various payments being made out of the club's gross turnover or out of the 55% as defined by the salary cap? Or in some other way? If in some other way how, by whom and under what terms?

6. What is the feedback so far from the Football League regarding our adherence to the plan submitted to them which led to the return of our Golden Share?

I'm so glad you are collating the information on behalf of the fans - this word 'transparency' linked with the new regime just seems so misplaced!! It's no wonder that some of us are coming up with our own versions of what is laid out before us - we all know how £5.5mill escalates...... ask our old feinds!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
 

Mike Greening

♣️ Senior Greens
✅ Evergreen
🎫 S.T. Donor 🎫
✨Pasoti Donor✨
🌟Sparksy Mural🌟
Aug 2, 2008
3,469
22
bandwagon":1f9tpare said:
Babararacucudada":1f9tpare said:
Recently I posted this:

We have never actually been told quite how bad the hangover from administration is. I tried to piece it together as best as I could when I wrote http://thetwounfortunates.com/is-plymou ... n-turmoil/ and nobody has ever questioned the figures that I came up with.

The costs involved that needed to be "underwritten" (there's that word again!) by Brent were:

Unpaid Wages: £3,300,000;
CVA: £100,000;
Lombard: £700,000;
PAST&DT: £330,000;
Admin Fees: £388,010;
Land Purchase: £700,000;
Football Creditor Debt: £388,289;
Totalling: £5,906,299

Against that c.£6m Brent received £1.6m from the council for the re-purchase of Home Park.

The deals struck for repayment of each of those debts are different but it isn't a huge leap to guess that c. £1m/yr is being taken from club income as a result unless Brent is paying (as opposed to "underwriting") them and there is no indication that this is the case.

All of which must have been taken into account when the various club budgets were set. Or am I being hugely naïve here?

I don't buy the 8000 figure. Apart from its obvious contextual absurdity it has been attributed to Peter Ridsdale. Well anybody who just accepts any business plan he comes up with needs their head seeing to.

If we guess that club turnover is now in the region of £4m/yr losing £1m of that is obviously hugely significant. After that apply the league 55% salary cap and the pressures are clear.

Tugboat's (and John Lloyd's recently on another thread) reasoning that we might have a few years of this grim struggle ahead isn't doom-mongering in any shape or form. It is stark realism.

Especially when you add in the money lost by the club this season. Crowds averaging (an entirely predictable) 6156 so far over the 10 home league games so far means we are 18460 paying fans down (against that predicted 8000 over the same period) equating to another c. £250k so far.

Since then I have been informed that the £700k paid for "land purchase" and "Lombard" are, in fact, the same cash sum so the total costs incurred by our exit from administration should be amended to £5,206,299 plus whatever the losses since are. If my guess of £250k is correct then we are looking at a sum owed of around £5.5m.

I'd like to know a number of things regarding this sum and some of the component parts.

1. Is £5.5m an accurate estimate of the debt that the club currently has hanging over it as a result of the exit from administration?

2. If not then what is an accurate figure to describe the same debts?

3. Is this debt, whatever it actually is, to be paid for by Argyle or by Akkeron?

4. Are the various repayment schedules for these sums, especially the £330k owed to PAST&DT, being honoured in time and in full by whomsoever it is that is paying?

5. Are these various payments being made out of the club's gross turnover or out of the 55% as defined by the salary cap? Or in some other way? If in some other way how, by whom and under what terms?

6. What is the feedback so far from the Football League regarding our adherence to the plan submitted to them which led to the return of our Golden Share?

I'm so glad you are collating the information on behalf of the fans - this word 'transparency' linked with the new regime just seems so misplaced!! It's no wonder that some of us are coming up with our own versions of what is laid out before us - we all know how £5.5mill escalates...... ask our old fiends!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Is the sums raised by the Fan Fests being factored into the sums?