Home Park Ownership

[Rich McLean]

When I go self employed with my partner in 2021, I am aiming to set up an IT Infrastructure Projects company (no employee's as I will be a one man band), pub/restaurant (run by both of us, with employee's) and a photography business (run by she who must be obeyed) which will be under an umbrella company, owned by both of us, but shares of which to be decided.

The Umbrella company will hold all the assets liabilities and rights, and become the investment vehicle. As a company, it won't actually do anything. The other 3 will run independently of one another, so if one hits the wall, it won't affect the other two. But it allows money to be moved from one to the other easily and minimises risk to property and assets.

The pub acts as a cash flow business, money in and out all the time. The IT Projects company however receives payment once works are complete, and major projects can last for many months. So I use the cash flow from the pub to fund my expenses in the IT business, until I receive payment for services. I then pay what I borrowed from the pub back into that business.
It saves borrowing money from a lender and its interest free. Also any big earnings I make can be distributed into the other companies (new photography equipment in order to make investments. However, two out of the 3 will have VAT to pay, as the photography business is classed as a service, and thus VAT doesn't apply.

 

[Baby Face Johnson]

When I go self employed with my partner in 2021, I am aiming to set up an IT Infrastructure Projects company (no employee's as I will be a one man band), pub/restaurant (run by both of us, with employee's) and a photography business (run by she who must be obeyed) which will be under an umbrella company, owned by both of us, but shares of which to be decided.

The Umbrella company will hold all the assets liabilities and rights, and become the investment vehicle. As a company, it won't actually do anything. The other 3 will run independently of one another, so if one hits the wall, it won't affect the other two. But it allows money to be moved from one to the other easily and minimises risk to property and assets.

The pub acts as a cash flow business, money in and out all the time. The IT Projects company however receives payment once works are complete, and major projects can last for many months. So I use the cash flow from the pub to fund my expenses in the IT business, until I receive payment for services. I then pay what I borrowed from the pub back into that business.
It saves borrowing money from a lender and its interest free. Also any big earnings I make can be distributed into the other companies (new photography equipment in order to make investments. However, two out of the 3 will have VAT to pay, as the photography business is classed as a service, and thus VAT doesn't apply.

I am self-employed but have not the first clue about accountancy or company set up and law, so forgive me, I have no clue how any of this works :lol: Could you not move money between the three on a personal level without the complex company set up?

 

[Rich McLean]

When I go self employed with my partner in 2021, I am aiming to set up an IT Infrastructure Projects company (no employee's as I will be a one man band), pub/restaurant (run by both of us, with employee's) and a photography business (run by she who must be obeyed) which will be under an umbrella company, owned by both of us, but shares of which to be decided.

The Umbrella company will hold all the assets liabilities and rights, and become the investment vehicle. As a company, it won't actually do anything. The other 3 will run independently of one another, so if one hits the wall, it won't affect the other two. But it allows money to be moved from one to the other easily and minimises risk to property and assets.

The pub acts as a cash flow business, money in and out all the time. The IT Projects company however receives payment once works are complete, and major projects can last for many months. So I use the cash flow from the pub to fund my expenses in the IT business, until I receive payment for services. I then pay what I borrowed from the pub back into that business.
It saves borrowing money from a lender and its interest free. Also any big earnings I make can be distributed into the other companies (new photography equipment in order to make investments. However, two out of the 3 will have VAT to pay, as the photography business is classed as a service, and thus VAT doesn't apply.

I am self-employed but have not the first clue about accountancy or company set up and law, so forgive me, I have no clue how any of this works :lol: Could you not move money between the three on a personal level without the complex company set up?

You can move money directly between the two. The holding company is there just to hold assets or if you are holding investment money for all three for a rainy day. So if the pub goes bust, all the assets in there held by the parent would be unaffected, where as if it were all separate, then the assets would go with it.

If you know one of your companies is about to go bust, you can also move the balance into another company to minimise the losses.

So if Brent ends up buying the Stadium, if the club itself owns it, then if the club does hit the wall, the stadium gets sold to the highest bidder. If on the other hand the stadium was sold to a holding company and the club went bust, the stadium would still be owned by that company.

Hopefully that would never happen, but if you are Mr Brent, as a business man, which option would you chose?

 

[Baby Face Johnson]

When I go self employed with my partner in 2021, I am aiming to set up an IT Infrastructure Projects company (no employee's as I will be a one man band), pub/restaurant (run by both of us, with employee's) and a photography business (run by she who must be obeyed) which will be under an umbrella company, owned by both of us, but shares of which to be decided.

The Umbrella company will hold all the assets liabilities and rights, and become the investment vehicle. As a company, it won't actually do anything. The other 3 will run independently of one another, so if one hits the wall, it won't affect the other two. But it allows money to be moved from one to the other easily and minimises risk to property and assets.

The pub acts as a cash flow business, money in and out all the time. The IT Projects company however receives payment once works are complete, and major projects can last for many months. So I use the cash flow from the pub to fund my expenses in the IT business, until I receive payment for services. I then pay what I borrowed from the pub back into that business.
It saves borrowing money from a lender and its interest free. Also any big earnings I make can be distributed into the other companies (new photography equipment in order to make investments. However, two out of the 3 will have VAT to pay, as the photography business is classed as a service, and thus VAT doesn't apply.

I am self-employed but have not the first clue about accountancy or company set up and law, so forgive me, I have no clue how any of this works :lol: Could you not move money between the three on a personal level without the complex company set up?

You can move money directly between the two. The holding company is there just to hold assets or if you are holding investment money for all three for a rainy day. So if the pub goes bust, all the assets in there held by the parent would be unaffected, where as if it were all separate, then the assets would go with it.

If you know one of your companies is about to go bust, you can also move the balance into another company to minimise the losses.

So if Brent ends up buying the Stadium, if the club itself owns it, then if the club does hit the wall, the stadium gets sold to the highest bidder. If on the other hand the stadium was sold to a holding company and the club went bust, the stadium would still be owned by that company.

Hopefully that would never happen, but if you are Mr Brent, as a business man, which option would you chose?

I see. Is that ethical practice though?, albeit it is all obviously legal. It doesn't sit right with me, as somewhere along the line some creditors are going to get shafted if one company goes belly up and assets have been moved. Genuine question not arguing for the sake of it :lol:

 

[Rich McLean]

When I go self employed with my partner in 2021, I am aiming to set up an IT Infrastructure Projects company (no employee's as I will be a one man band), pub/restaurant (run by both of us, with employee's) and a photography business (run by she who must be obeyed) which will be under an umbrella company, owned by both of us, but shares of which to be decided.

The Umbrella company will hold all the assets liabilities and rights, and become the investment vehicle. As a company, it won't actually do anything. The other 3 will run independently of one another, so if one hits the wall, it won't affect the other two. But it allows money to be moved from one to the other easily and minimises risk to property and assets.

The pub acts as a cash flow business, money in and out all the time. The IT Projects company however receives payment once works are complete, and major projects can last for many months. So I use the cash flow from the pub to fund my expenses in the IT business, until I receive payment for services. I then pay what I borrowed from the pub back into that business.
It saves borrowing money from a lender and its interest free. Also any big earnings I make can be distributed into the other companies (new photography equipment in order to make investments. However, two out of the 3 will have VAT to pay, as the photography business is classed as a service, and thus VAT doesn't apply.

I am self-employed but have not the first clue about accountancy or company set up and law, so forgive me, I have no clue how any of this works :lol: Could you not move money between the three on a personal level without the complex company set up?

You can move money directly between the two. The holding company is there just to hold assets or if you are holding investment money for all three for a rainy day. So if the pub goes bust, all the assets in there held by the parent would be unaffected, where as if it were all separate, then the assets would go with it.

If you know one of your companies is about to go bust, you can also move the balance into another company to minimise the losses.

So if Brent ends up buying the Stadium, if the club itself owns it, then if the club does hit the wall, the stadium gets sold to the highest bidder. If on the other hand the stadium was sold to a holding company and the club went bust, the stadium would still be owned by that company.

Hopefully that would never happen, but if you are Mr Brent, as a business man, which option would you chose?

I see. Is that ethical practice though?, albeit it is all obviously legal. It doesn't sit right with me, as somewhere along the long some creditors are going to get shafted if one company goes belly up and assets have been moved. Genuine question not arguing for the sake of it :lol:

If I remember correctly, similar occurred with James Brent's hotel chain. He separated one company into two. One with profit making hotels, and the other with loss making. The loss making business then hit the wall, but it never effected the profitable hotels in the process and any other of Brent's companies.

Yes you are correct in that creditors do get royally shafted, however if lenders have it secured on an asset, then they don't lose out.

 

[Baby Face Johnson]

Thanks. Think I'll stick to web development!

 

[cheshiregreen]

1st November and PAFC will own Home Park.

http://m.plymouthherald.co.uk/plymouth- ... story.html

 

[X Isle]

Makes perfect sense...we just saved ourselves between 1.7M and 3.8M over the next 15 years.

Not buying the ground now would've been nuts.

Going forward however we need to ensure careful scrutiny of what Argyle do with their new asset. Raising finance off it is fair enough but repayments must be affordable if we're not to see NWO v2.0.

So, a no brainer right now but it does open up the need to keep our eyes wide open.

 

[Stuart House]

We've come a long way in five years. For this Brent should be applauded, regardless of the areas where we have not succeeded (New Grandstand/Promotion)

For those familiar with Timehop of FB's 'On this Day' feature, my status 5 years ago today was, "The ship is sinking! Bad times, f*&K off NWO! with infamous Argyle crest with a sinking ship as my profile picture.

This news, coupled with those memories just highlight the job Brent has done.

 

[Steve Dean]

1st November and PAFC will own Home Park.

http://m.plymouthherald.co.uk/plymouth- ... story.html

Another gaff from the Herald on the face of it: "We have repaid the loan we took from (Argyle Fans' Trust)." Apart from the strange use of brackets, I'm sure the AFT will be keen to make clear it was the Plymouth Argyle Supporters Training & Development Trust, not the Argyle Fans' Trust. And not the first time for that mistake.

 

[GreenArmy1984]

Fantastic news Argyle owning Home Park Again

Well done to JB & Our Board of directors

 

[TinTin]

Guys...............

As a rule of thumb.....be careful what you wish for ?

No, I do NOT know ALL the answers BUT.........

...........think about what WE KNOW ?

...........think about what we DO NOT know ?

Don't simply speculate by using...............

"What if......................." ?

What if........................." ?

Because they are uncertainties !!

Choose what YOU KNOW.

Then formulate your opinion................but be careful

Good luck tomorrow [Saturday] against the Southampton suburb [ my friend is a BIG SAINTS fan !!]

Keep the Faith :scarf:

 

[Martyn]

Makes perfect sense...we just saved ourselves between 1.7M and 3.8M over the next 15 years.

Not buying the ground now would've been nuts.

Going forward however we need to ensure careful scrutiny of what Argyle do with their new asset. Raising finance off it is fair enough but repayments must be affordable if we're not to see NWO v2.0.

So, a no brainer right now but it does open up the need to keep our eyes wide open.

For once, I totally,totally agree