This autumn James Brent and the PAFC Board have the option of purchasing the freehold of Home Park from Plymouth City Council.
I was surprised to read in the recently published results of the Fans Survey that a slight majority of fans (50.7%) were in favour of the freehold option being taken up. Most fans will recall the Stapleton Board purchasing the freehold of HP and I know that some see it as a key moment in our descent into financial distress and ultimately into Administration. Given that none of us want the club to go that way again, the figure supporting a reversion to private ownership surprised me, and I am also alarmed that there has been so little comment on it within these pages.
Let me make it clear that I am actually broadly in support of the ground being owned by PAFC. It would give the club a much needed significant asset, either to use as collateral should it wish to borrow money or as an attraction to future investors. The key to me is that, if the ground is to go into private ownership then it must be owned by the club itself in perpetuity. If not, then PCC ownership is the safe option from a fan's perspective.
My big concern is that, as far as I can see, there is nothing to stop the PAFC Board purchasing the freehold of Home Park and placing it into a private company owned by some/all of them, rather than as an asset of PAFC itself. I believe that some of the land around Home Park is already in the ownership of one of JB's companies. If this happened it would mean that the ground was seperated from the club, and would raise the prospect that in the future the club and the ground could be owned by entirely unconnected private entities - a dangerous situation that almost inevitably could be exploited by an unscrupulous landlord.
This is not a personal attack on JB or other current Board members. I would feel exactly the same way whoever owned the club. Please don't bother with the "We trust James to do the right thing" sort of comments, as that's not really the point. If my scenario above panned out, we could see a future owner of the ground (but not the club), using the freehold as collateral to invest in a risky commercial proposition, thereby endangering the club's home. We could also see a future owner using the freehold as collateral for a big personal loan, for example to buy one of Princess Yacht's finest creations. Do we want that? I certainly don't.
Does anyone share my concerns?
I was surprised to read in the recently published results of the Fans Survey that a slight majority of fans (50.7%) were in favour of the freehold option being taken up. Most fans will recall the Stapleton Board purchasing the freehold of HP and I know that some see it as a key moment in our descent into financial distress and ultimately into Administration. Given that none of us want the club to go that way again, the figure supporting a reversion to private ownership surprised me, and I am also alarmed that there has been so little comment on it within these pages.
Let me make it clear that I am actually broadly in support of the ground being owned by PAFC. It would give the club a much needed significant asset, either to use as collateral should it wish to borrow money or as an attraction to future investors. The key to me is that, if the ground is to go into private ownership then it must be owned by the club itself in perpetuity. If not, then PCC ownership is the safe option from a fan's perspective.
My big concern is that, as far as I can see, there is nothing to stop the PAFC Board purchasing the freehold of Home Park and placing it into a private company owned by some/all of them, rather than as an asset of PAFC itself. I believe that some of the land around Home Park is already in the ownership of one of JB's companies. If this happened it would mean that the ground was seperated from the club, and would raise the prospect that in the future the club and the ground could be owned by entirely unconnected private entities - a dangerous situation that almost inevitably could be exploited by an unscrupulous landlord.
This is not a personal attack on JB or other current Board members. I would feel exactly the same way whoever owned the club. Please don't bother with the "We trust James to do the right thing" sort of comments, as that's not really the point. If my scenario above panned out, we could see a future owner of the ground (but not the club), using the freehold as collateral to invest in a risky commercial proposition, thereby endangering the club's home. We could also see a future owner using the freehold as collateral for a big personal loan, for example to buy one of Princess Yacht's finest creations. Do we want that? I certainly don't.
Does anyone share my concerns?
