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

[Biggs]

There appear to be 2 issues here. The balloon payment and the proposed development of HHP.
The balloon payment has a deadline which has to be planned for, which I assume is in the board's thoughts.
Whatever the plan is, it will not be supported by 'extra income' from the stand.

The HHP development looks dead in the water as proposed, but there is no impending deadline that has to be met.
If rent\rate relief is coming to an end because of legal restrictions, running costs are going to increase.
There was mention of looking at 'new ways to deliver' the project, however, with no hotel etc. to offset costs, then a complete rethink is required.
I think JB has come into this full of good intentions, but has bitten off more than he can chew. However, any decent project plan should has a risk log, listing ways potential issues can be mitigated. Essentially, there should be a plan B!
Quite often this involves reducing the scope (and scale) of what can be delivered.
Until we hear what the 'new' proposals are, we can speculate until the cows come home, but it just causes more division between all concerned.
Fair play to the trust for surfacing the information. Let's hope the board respond with some transparency.
Drekkly, just does not cut it any more!

That should be popular :coat: . Bloody mess innit?

 

[Knarf Reprah]

£1.9 million .....angel di Maria's pay for six weeks....the world's gone mad

 

[Leigh Rapson]

It's sad isn't it? 1.9m isn't a massive amount of money in the premiership world.

Ps Frank, your comment isn't grammatically correct...one too many full stops! ;-)

 

[fishypilgrim]

It may not be grammatically correct but it is unfortunately true , although it has been for quite a while now .

 

[PL2 3DQ]

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.

 

[fishypilgrim]

Anyway
Hypothectically - let's assume that the HHP plan is completely dead in the water which is perfectly feasible on the basis that the hotel , school and dentist are no longer part of it . What truly is the knock on effect for Argyle . We still have a grandstand , we have the terrace in front of the grandstand which with conversations in the right place ( bearing in mind the PL clubs are trying to go back to safe standing ) it may be possible to re-establish as a standing terrace ?
The ground is still owned by PCC, who presumably as landlords have a duty to maintain the ground in satisfactory condition suitable for purpose .
PAFC have to find approximately £2m between now and October 2016 - 2 years - over and above normal expenditure .
Presumably the current board have budgeted for the correct attendance level that we can expect in division 4 and that that has been approved by the FL and that wages are within the % limit set by FL ?
What is needed now and has been really since Holloway in my opinion ( Paul Stapleton anticipted 15000 gates which really should have been acheivable but for some reason , obscure to me completely , didn't materialise by a considerable margin ) is a team / performance on the pitch to excite and energise the people of Plymouth to come and support their team in numbers .

 

[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.

I think we would all like a frank and open appraisal of the situation from James Brent and I hope he doesn't see this as an attack from the AFT and goes to war against them again. It's in all our interests that he responds positively and involves the AFT and the fanbase in the future of the club, particularly in light of the impending severe problems that would arise if HHP doesn't go ahead. I would say I would be relieved if the development has hit the rocks, I appreciate it would mean there are difficult times ahead but a 17,000 capacity stadium would be a long term disaster for the club.

 

[cheshiregreen]

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.

I think we would all like a frank and open appraisal of the situation from James Brent and I hope he doesn't see this as an attack from the AFT and goes to war against them again. It's in all our interests that he responds positively and involves the AFT and the fanbase in the future of the club, particularly in light of the impending severe problems that would arise if HHP doesn't go ahead. I would say I would be relieved if the development has hit the rocks, I appreciate it would mean there are difficult times ahead but a 17,000 capacity stadium would be a long term disaster for the club.

The AFT report is diametrically opposite to JB's comments in the match day programme saying he was hoping to make a positive announcement soon (or words along those lines).

Time will tell which version is nearest to truth, but the loss of the hotel must be a body blow to a project ....or can someone make an argument that this is a positive.

 

[30green]

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.

 

[nikkk]

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.

It seems not.

 

[esmer]

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.

It seems not.

To be fair if they had waited for a response from the club the deadline for the balloon payment would have come and gone before they got a reply

 

[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?

 

[Leigh Rapson]

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.

 

[nikkk]

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.

 

[Quizmike]

Just to ask what Luke Pollard has to do with anything? Any particular reason he was there?

Also not being up with local politics in Plymouth, is there any political reason for Labour to want to see the HHP development fail?