Home Park Ownership

[Green Barmy Bill52]

I'm sure I read in somewhere on a piece on here regarding the purchase that James Brent stated that he wants the purchase of the ground to be done by the board so that it remains within the club, I took it that he meant that the money had to come from investors into the club, I feel that mr Halley will probably be investing a bit more in the club

 

[dunlop]

Akkeron Leisure Limited are the parent company of Plymouth Argyle Football Club Limited and Natatomisam are the ultimate controlling company of both. The latter two companies are jointly owned by James Brent and his wife. Akkeron Leisure Limited are a party to the 2011 lease with PCC and the Football Club. They acted as guarantor, without which the Football Club could not sign the lease agreement.

With regard to placing land and buildings into other companies within the Natatomisam group. That has already happened when HHP Nominee Ltd purchased the HHP land from the Football Club for a sum of £465,000 (the market value as ascertained by the District Valuer). James Brent is the sole Director of HHP Nominee Limited. In its latest 2014 accounts it shows assets of £224 with £24 in cash. So where is that ownership within the group now. Who paid all the fees for the ill fated HHP project? Why is it not listed as an asset in the owning company accounts? Perhaps some of the more forensic among us could answer that?

It has been stated that the rental agreement of £135,000 per annum (subject to an RPI annual increase) was a deal that could have cut both ways. Assuming we have a turnover of £4m (we don't know as the figure has never been published in any accounts) then say the current rent of around £142,000 would represents around 3.5% - a relatively small but very manageable proportion. If the club paid £202,000 if in the Championship as suggested then it would be an even smaller proportion. In the last year of Championship football the accounts showed a turnover of £8.6m. The projected rent would be 2.3% of turnover - even more manageable and the savings on paying the rent if the freehold was purchased - not even the wages of one mediocre Championship player.

So in the absence of timescale for the grandstand what are the actual reasons for buying the freehold. If it is bought in October this year the train will have left the station with no-one knowing its eventual destination. Some thought that in 2007 when the Football Club last bought the freehold and how right they were

Graham

Thank you for posting some of the very few facts that are available. I am amazed that since the data from Companies House is now free, others, including the Trust would have looked and made representations to the Club.

Of course, representations could and should be constructive, but try to ascertain what the clubs proposals are. I fear the current Trust Board are nice people but perhaps need a more focussed approach. Perhaps they need some additional experience?

Dave Nine - sorry about the happy pills I would love to have your trust in the Brent/Hallett axis, but I just can't until there is something more tangible to believe in.

Hi Tony

Until we get more transparency from Brent the concerns/ fears will always be there, Graham excellent post highlites the fact we do not know where we are heading. I can't understand all the secrecy we have had two supporters groups the original GASB that was set up by JB and the AFT neither have been able to create a relationship with the board that gives comfort to the fan base that the club is the main priority, hopefully come October we may more transparency but I am not holding my breath.

Off topic slightly I went to watch Plymouth Parkway last night and was surprised at the amount of ex Argyle supporters who were there including ex directors Paul Stapleton Tony Campbell and John McNulty there were also ex season ticket holders who now follow Parkway, as per usual I had the P taken out of me because I still have my season ticket, their main concern why they gave up on going to HP was the way JB was running the club.

I realy enjoyed last night plenty of banter with ex local players good football although a bit one sided Parkway won 10 nil and with Mark Russell at the helm are making strides ro go further up the Peninsula leagues I can see them becoming more of a threat to Argyle if things at HP don't change.

Let them stand in block 3/4 in the Devonport spouting their crap Mike and im fairlly sure that there would be a few lads to put them straight. :thumbs:

That comment was meant in a light hearted way no offence taking its part of being an Argyle supporter I can give as good as I get.

 

[jimsing]

To continue to rent or to buy?

If the Club continues on its present path and pays rent, then that money will be lost forever. Money will have to be found each and every season in the years to come.

If we purchase the freehold then the money will have to come from a loan. Very manageable I would suggest at this time, with very low interest rates, and with the prospect of not having to pay anything when the loan is repaid. A drawback may be that we will need to have guarantors, but surely this could be taken up by the present board of directors, and could be passed on to new owners when the time comes to sell.

If we leave the purchase for another five years time, then we will have paid five years of rent, with nothing to show for it, money which could have been put towards the purchase of the ground, which will eventually lead to no payments having to be paid at all.

What do we want for the future? A lifetime of paying rent (might as well just throw the money away) or pay off a loan to purchase the freehold which will eventually be paid for (and the Club will be financially better off) and will become an asset to the Club.

IF the rental of the ground increases yearly AND also increases according to the league that the Club are in, AND the freehold is only able to be purchased every five years, then surely it makes sense that the freehold is purchased NOW whilst the ground rent, and interest rates, are at their LOWEST.

This would mean, of course, that the Club would have to borrow the money to fund the purchase in the first place, but in the long run it would be financially beneficial for the Club to do away with the rental of the ground for future years. Once the loan has been repaid the money set aside could be spent in other areas.

However, there is one proviso, and that is that the loan does not get separated from the Football Club. The responsibility must remain with the football club.

We do not want to go down the route that we went down before and we must ensure that any loan taken out will be placed in the Clubs hands and not to any individual or group of investors.

I'm not sure how this works in practice, but, IF the freehold is to be purchased, it is imperative that the Football Club itself own the freehold, otherwise all financial advantages for the Club will disappear and will be put into the hands of the investors.

Purchase - YES. Investors - NO.

 

[jerryatricjanner]

That about sums it up for me with my limited knowledge too.

 

[Andy S]

their main concern why they gave up on going to HP was the way JB was running the club.

They are concerned that the club is being in a fit and proper manner?

About right for them then because they certainly didn't.

 

[Andy S]

To continue to rent or to buy?

If the Club continues on its present path and pays rent, then that money will be lost forever. Money will have to be found each and every season in the years to come.

If we purchase the freehold then the money will have to come from a loan. Very manageable I would suggest at this time, with very low interest rates, and with the prospect of not having to pay anything when the loan is repaid. A drawback may be that we will need to have guarantors, but surely this could be taken up by the present board of directors, and could be passed on to new owners when the time comes to sell.

If we leave the purchase for another five years time, then we will have paid five years of rent, with nothing to show for it, money which could have been put towards the purchase of the ground, which will eventually lead to no payments having to be paid at all.

What do we want for the future? A lifetime of paying rent (might as well just throw the money away) or pay off a loan to purchase the freehold which will eventually be paid for (and the Club will be financially better off) and will become an asset to the Club.

IF the rental of the ground increases yearly AND also increases according to the league that the Club are in, AND the freehold is only able to be purchased every five years, then surely it makes sense that the freehold is purchased NOW whilst the ground rent, and interest rates, are at their LOWEST.

This would mean, of course, that the Club would have to borrow the money to fund the purchase in the first place, but in the long run it would be financially beneficial for the Club to do away with the rental of the ground for future years. Once the loan has been repaid the money set aside could be spent in other areas.

However, there is one proviso, and that is that the loan does not get separated from the Football Club. The responsibility must remain with the football club.

We do not want to go down the route that we went down before and we must ensure that any loan taken out will be placed in the Clubs hands and not to any individual or group of investors.

I'm not sure how this works in practice, but, IF the freehold is to be purchased, it is imperative that the Football Club itself own the freehold, otherwise all financial advantages for the Club will disappear and will be put into the hands of the investors.

Purchase - YES. Investors - NO.

This.

 

[davie nine]

their main concern why they gave up on going to HP was the way JB was running the club.

They are concerned that the club is being in a fit and proper manner?

About right for them then because they certainly didn't.

I assumed that Dunlop was referring to the former season ticket holders rather than the former directors.
I would also suggest that the main reason for their intolerance about 'the way JB was running the club' is because he has not got us out of League 2 yet.
I wonder how many of these 'supporters' went to Wembley. If they have changed their allegiance to Plymouth Parkway that is no problem and I hope that they enjoy watching and supporting their new team.
Like Dunlop, I prefer to continue supporting my club, regardless of which league we are in and I am confident that our loyalty will be rewarded in due course.

 

[dunlop]

:happyclap:

their main concern why they gave up on going to HP was the way JB was running the club.

They are concerned that the club is being in a fit and proper manner?

About right for them then because they certainly didn't.

:sigh:

Read the last AFT chairmans last report if you want any any more information.

 

[cheshiregreen]

The 3rd paragraph from the end is also enlightening.

I want us to be very transparent and open, I want things to be planned, I want us to be incredibly customer friendly – and I also want us to have a very good football team.

 

[HC Green]

A couple of points.
Ex season ticket holders at Parkway, it can't be more than a couple dozen as their crowd is in the hundreds. When you consider that since the Championship days we have lost about 3000 season ticket holders they aren't all flocking to Parkway.
We have on the board, Tony Wrathall, the person who lost the most money when Argyle went into administration and I believe unlike other creditors he didn't get a penny back. He not going to be mugged a second time so if things aren't right I think we would soon know about it.

 

[Green Barmy Bill52]

Concerning the comment about JB running the club in a fit and proper way, for one , for the first time in MANY years we are running this club in the black, and if he wasn't running it correctly the FOOTBALL LEAGUE would have had a lot to say before now, I think some people want to know what isn't theirs to know, if you worked for a large concern you wouldn't walk into the head office and demand to see everything, you would be told where to go, so why shouldn't JB say the same,

 

[philmeboots]

Don't you just love the way supporters one minute hail JB as the new messiah when he saved our beloved club and then treat him with total suspicion in his handling of it! He travels the length of the country and rarely misses a match in support of the club and people should thank him for what he has done rather than criticise him for what he hasn't! I for one certainly support the ownership of our home in the same way as I would simplistically prefer to own my house rather than rent it!

 

[xmastree]

IF the freehold is to be purchased, it is imperative that the Football Club itself own the freehold, otherwise all financial advantages for the Club will disappear and will be put into the hands of the investors.

That's the key issue for me. When the Board tells us that the above is indeed the situation, I'll be much more relaxed about it.

 

[SWTT]

Don't you just love the way supporters one minute hail JB as the new messiah when he saved our beloved club and then treat him with total suspicion in his handling of it! He travels the length of the country and rarely misses a match in support of the club and people should thank him for what he has done rather than criticise him for what he hasn't! I for one certainly support the ownership of our home in the same way as I would simplistically prefer to own my house rather than rent it!

Sure, but that's not what people are questioning (not criticising) Brent about. And why the AFT put in an ACV on the freehold so that there could be greater transparency (Brent's promise remember?).

 

[philmeboots]

Given the dialogue that has already taken place and Simon Hallett coming on Passoti to explain his involvement with Argyle even, I hardly think that there are grounds to accuse a lack of transparency. There is a difference between a sharing of everything that is operationally going on with transparency. There has to be a balance otherwise the football club will spend more time communication every minutiae than running itself. It was criticised previously for taking its eye off the ball during the previous regime. It was the AFT that took the decision to withdraw from communications with the club not the other way round. Immature and irresponsible, totally unproductive and surely against its fundamental goals. The club appeared to want to move its liaison with the AFT in proportion to its dialogue with others. Given the AFT's stand in this matter IMO it appears that this action was well justified.