Graham Clark":294ouyw8 said:I think yet again we find the future of the football club at a watershed. I wrote as much almost two years ago to the day.
The positives are that two years on we have seen the football club move towards a sustainable financial position with losses falling and debt due for repayment (outside the loans made by Directors) becoming more manageable, particularly, with the PCC loan to reduce the exposure of the balloon payment due in October 2016.
On the field the Board and the Chairman in particular, has fully backed the manager in the assembly of a squad capable of promotion despite the disappointment of the last two results. Attending matches at Home Park has become more joyous as the calibre of player and quality of play has reached levels unseen in the last five seasons or so.
So why the watershed? As ever the sustainable future of the club is inextricably linked to generate additional off field revenue. Quite simply we have a grandstand and facilities that are not fit for purpose. Refurbishment, with the excessive abnormal of dealing with potential asbestos together with the expensive requirements of meeting the Green Guide is not an option.
There are only two ways to fund the grandstand either as part of an overall externally funded leisure development or an arrangement whereby the stadium owner, PCC fund the build, funded by a higher rent, RPI linked, that would enable a better return on investment than the long term interest rates now on offer and likely to be in the future.
An externally funded leisure development in what the commercial market may perceive as a secondary location was always going to be vulnerable to better locationally placed commercial schemes and so it has proved with not only with the long planned Bretonside development (which was part of the Council's Core Strategy going back several years) but also other locations such as RWY, Sutton Harbour and Millbay. The chances of such a scheme funding a £8-10m grandstand continue to recede as the City tries to combat an uncertain commercial climate. The uncertainty and reluctance to invest will increase as Bretonside progresses towards implementation. That is why we are at a new watershed.
A couple of months ago discussions were progressing with the Council with a view to the Executive and Members of the ruling group supporting the principle at least of PCC funding a grandstand with the club paying a substantially enhanced rent to fund it. It would have enabled a 365 day operation of corporate, banqueting and conference facilities that would have provided significant income for the club to create a sustainable financial future and the ability to enhance the team on the pitch. It is hugely regrettable that whatever reason negotiations were unable to be progressed. With no formal comment from either side we can only speculate overthe reasons why. Whatever, it is imperative that these talks can resume and that bridges can be built. The Council have been exceptional in their continued support for the football club and the ruling Labour Group deserve great credit for the foresight in trying to see a way forward. It will probably need concessions, including the achievable and appropriate scale of development on HHP, and the ability to extend the stadium on a less restricted basis in the future if talks can restart. The imperative must be the beneficial and sustainable future of the football club.
Finally, a few connected comments on what has been said on this thread. I remain surprised this debate remains on the 'Rumours' board given the personal knowledge of some who have posted on here. The 'resignation' rumour was circulating from authoritative sources weeks ago. That this allegedly has been added to and verified by a current Board member is more than just unfortunate and unhelpful. Finally, the Chris Webb point has some legitimacy. There has been no clarity as to whether his views expressed in his Herald column or on Twitter are his own views or those of the football club given his President's role Without such clarification it is understandable that Council Members and Officers could not see or understand any disassociation. It has not been helpful.
Finally, let's make it clear that James Brent HAS lent the football club substantial sums from within his Group of companies. At the end of the day it is his and his wife's personal money as Directors of the Holding Cpmany and LLP. I have no idea whether any interest is attributable to these loans, perhaps only a Board member would know, but such inter company loans attract a lot of HMRC interest to ensure it is not a method of avoiding tax and so applying a commercial rate to anyloan is entirely appropriate in accounting terms.
Thank you Graham for the clearest answer to an uncomfortable truth to many and for explaining the issues without needing to get personal.