Home Park Ownership

[L G]

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.

You can tell you're a newbie Philme.
The fun and games between the Club and the Trust goes back a little further than the end of last season.

 

[Quintrell Green]

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,

You are right there. I worked for a London based plc and I am damn sure that if any customer pitched up at the Chairman's door at HO seeking confidential information, the ground floor security staff would be called to put him in the lift and directed to the front door very swiftly. He would have been told that if he bought a share in that company, he would get a copy of its' annual audited accounts to read once a year, in the post, and it would entitle him to pitch up at the AGM to ask a question in a lottery with perhaps two dozen others. There is no obligation for a company to be publicising every minute action that is being discussed or undertaken. Significant actions need to be disclosed to the Stock Exchange by PLC's but they definitely do not seek prior general public approval. I think the Directorate of PAFC is sufficiently broad and capable enough to ensure that good governance is maintained.

 

[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.

You can tell you're a newbie Philme.
The fun and games between the Club and the Trust goes back a little further than the end of last season.

You can also tell that you're a bit condescending LG. I've been following Argyle since around 1963, just kept away from the condescending comments on here for the last 50 years plus!

 

[L G]

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.

You can tell you're a newbie Philme.
The fun and games between the Club and the Trust goes back a little further than the end of last season.

You can also tell that you're a bit condescending LG. I've been following Argyle since around 1963, just kept away from the condescending comments on here for the last 50 years plus!

I can only apologise, because with your years of experience you'll be well aware 'it is what it is'.

 

[Biggs]

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,

You are right there. I worked for a London based plc and I am damn sure that if any customer pitched up at the Chairman's door at HO seeking confidential information, the ground floor security staff would be called to put him in the lift and directed to the front door very swiftly. He would have been told that if he bought a share in that company, he would get a copy of its' annual audited accounts to read once a year, in the post, and it would entitle him to pitch up at the AGM to ask a question in a lottery with perhaps two dozen others. There is no obligation for a company to be publicising every minute action that is being discussed or undertaken. Significant actions need to be disclosed to the Stock Exchange by PLC's but they definitely do not seek prior general public approval. I think the Directorate of PAFC is sufficiently broad and capable enough to ensure that good governance is maintained.

"We will take fan involvement and corporate governance to a level that has not been seen thus far so we're certainly trying to put the fans at the centre of the football club," he said.

"It is trying to put fans at the centre of the club where they should be. In League One and League Two, with the regional clubs, the passion of the supporters is huge. It's right that you give supporters the right to influence the direction the club is going."

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11750/7435988/Brent-pledges-transparency

 

[propercharlie]

Interesting piece here...would be interested in other folk's (particularly Graham Clark) thoughts on it.

http://thetwounfortunates.com/are-cloud ... home-park/

 

[IJN]

The last time Boris (Willis) took to that Blog, it was the biggest crock of sh** I have ever read.

I won't even bore myself reading all of it but the man is known for his rambling, wild, inaccurate narrative.

This is the man who says that James Brent part owns Pasoti and he has a friend who was at the meeting with David Gadd, Ian De Lar and I when that was discussed.

Quite strange really, as there was only Ian, David and myself in the room.

As a general rule I find that people with imaginary friends aren't to be taken too seriously.

 

[Mark Pedlar]

You claiming that Oddball exists then?

 

[Mork]

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,

Cause we're the customers!

 

[BadBoy]

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,

Cause we're the customers!

It's our football club not a "large concern" and that's why JB "shouldn't", not so sure we're running in the black either for that matter, football finance is a world of smoke and mirrors.

 

[Army green]

Interesting piece here...would be interested in other folk's (particularly Graham Clark) thoughts on it.

http://thetwounfortunates.com/are-cloud ... home-park/

That's a very interesting and quite worrying article. His failed business ventures tells its own story really and doesn't fill me with confidence about Brent and co being able to take this club forward. to be honest it always worried me that a man that has never (before he purchased argyle) been to a football match was going to be the owner of argyle. Not sure where I sit with the ownership of home park, interesting to see how all this pans out, I just hope for the best interests of PAFC.

 

[Penmaster]

Problem is that the ownership of the ground makes Argyle stronger whilst in safe hands but also makes it a lot more vulnerable to being bought by people with non-footballing intentions (as we saw with the NWO).

The ideal resolution for me would be for a fans association to buy a 51% share of the ground in cahoots with the purchase strategy put forward by the current board. This is probably totally unrealistic but would be the only way I can see of putting a platform in place for ground development but the fans retaining significant influence in what happens with the ground moving forward.

 

[jerryatricjanner]

Haven't studied things in any great detail but a worry for me with JB is that with all his companies he seems to use other people's money a lot and little if any of his own yet huge amounts have found their way into his and his wife's pension funds. Does this mean whatever happens in the future to the football club his personal wealth will have increased greatly even if the football club goes to the wall? I am far from a left winger and am actually in favour of the club(not another of Brent's myriad of companies) owning the freehold. I want to trust Brent but am suspicious and a little cynical when people have so many companies shuffling money and loans about with very little actually getting done.

 

[Rich McLean]

Haven't studied things in any great detail but a worry for me with JB is that with all his companies he seems to use other people's money a lot and little if any of his own yet huge amounts have found their way into his and his wife's pension funds. Does this mean whatever happens in the future to the football club his personal wealth will have increased greatly even if the football club goes to the wall? I am far from a left winger and am actually in favour of the club(not another of Brent's myriad of companies) owning the freehold. I want to trust Brent but am suspicious and a little cynical when people have so many companies shuffling money and loans about with very little actually getting done.

Normal business practice to shuffle money around from company to company. Can reduce the amount of tax paid etc.
Also certain companies in certain markets find it hard to secure credit. Sometimes you can secure credit on one company that's less risk, lower interest rates, and move that money into another company that wouldn't get credit, or a much worse deal.

Example is the Firkin Doghouse, Pheasant Pluckers and the Millbridge Inn. The Millbridge pulls in the money, while the other two run at a tax loss (VAT Exempt). Money is moved around from account to account, in order to reduce the amount of tax paid if it was all kept separate. Basically, the books are done so that every year, two of the three pubs are just under the VAT Threshold every tax year so pay didly squat in VAT, while the Millbridge pays the VAT. It's perfectly legal practice as well.

Also other taxes such as Co-operation Tax come into it

Same will apply to many of Brent's companies. You may find a few dormant accounts which are kept under the threshold each year if you do a bit of digging.

EDIT: http://www.ukbudget.com/2016-measures/corporation-tax-loss-relief.aspx

Another reason why money is moved about is shown in the link above. Some companies are set up purposely make a loss, and under 2016 rules, allows profit making companies within a group invest into the loss making company to keep it afloat. Currently, you start up a company, pile all your investment money for the group into that company, and use it as a purchase account for other companies in the group, making losses each year until the balance is 0 then close it down, then rinse and repeat. I am not quite sure how the new rules will work regarding this method, as if you put money back into that business, there is some confusion of if that would be considered a company profit or not.

 

[Baby Face Johnson]

That just sounds like tax avoidance to me; legal though it may be. We're all up in arms when Starbucks or Amazon do it.