'NEVER AGAIN' - Now **UPDATED ** (merged)

[Biggs]

I believe the AFT (and other groups) should focus their attention on not fighting the clubs right to acquire the asset, but to ensure that appropriate covenants are put in place to ensure that the ground cannot be sold to a third party and effectively ensuring that whoever owns the club owns the ground.

Wasn't this part of the principle behind going for the Asset of Community Value status?

 

[Taxman Dave]

I believe the AFT (and other groups) should focus their attention on not fighting the clubs right to acquire the asset, but to ensure that appropriate covenants are put in place to ensure that the ground cannot be sold to a third party and effectively ensuring that whoever owns the club owns the ground.

Wasn't this part of the principle behind going for the Asset of Community Value status?

I think you are right, and can understand why it might have caused an issue or two for the Board!

 

[Mork]

The reason to buy the ground is to stop paying rent and reinvest this in the team especially as the rent increases the higher up the leagues we go.

For me it has to be linked to the redevelopment of the grandstand instead. From the statement...

Based on our recent history, purchasing the freehold once again without a clear plan to directly link that ownership to the redevelopment of the Grandstand or any other improvement for the Football Club, has to be questioned.

I agree with that. However, if said clear plan and strategy is outlined, I'd be willing to support the purchase. There isn't any plan at the moment.

Agreed, come clean with a plan, atleast then we have something to debate, until then AFT absolutely right.

 

[jimsing]

The AFT haven't stopped the purchase, they have only delayed it.

 

[Mark Colling]

The link between buying the freehold and administration is tenuous at best; a wage bill in excess of income, however, was very much a problem.

It is a shame that the AFT seems to have headed down such a single issue, anti-Brent path but still hasn't uttered a single word on the #BTeamBoycott that has unified almost every other Trust in the country.

My resignation as a Trust member has been sealed, which is sad.

 

[Quizmike]

Please tell me that we haven't sent something out to the press complaining that a businessman used the phrase ROI, and then provide no evidence of when this was said. No links, not even a reference.

May I ask in respect of transparency how many members of the AFT flagged this up as a matter of concern? And what percentage of the AFT/ fans in general are in favour of the AFT stance?

Also, there are other fan groups who are not signatories to this press release. Were they approached and declined to sign or not approached at all?

 

[nick_PASTIE]

I don't trust anyone to take the stadium back into club ownership.

It's a tricky one as the law of liability wouldn't allow me to make any "unsubstantiated claims" so that's no personal comment against current directors, although I do have information that has unfortunately made me feel this way. I didn't feel this way three months ago but all I will say as a general point is that I would want to work with people who pay their debts, especially against the smaller businesses. Argyle failed to do this through Admin last time and the club is effectively in the last chance saloon in my tiny brain- if this was to be repeated, I agree NEVER AGAIN.

Is the club run in the best interests of the supporters and people of Plymouth? It's clearly a complicated question to answer but I would much prefer fan ownership of the club in trust than the current arrangement.

As for the questions as to whether the ground is fit for purpose if we rise up the pyramid- it doesn't appear that it's fit for purpose now with the Mayflower out of action, Grandstand and surrounds crumbling and even the other three sides starting to show their age- certainly hasn't aged well, probably as the maintenance hasn't worked well over the last decade.

I would point to Oxford showing that you can succeed with a slightly ambitious board, despite Kassam still owning the stadium and charging the club outrageous rent. They have survived by attracting talent, paying decent wages, getting promoted and then selling on- now possibly repeating process in L1 with signings of Hemmings and Ledson, sale of ODowda and Roofe recouping a net gain of £3.25M. It can be done and the club isn't held back on the level of rent we are paying to PCC on the current deal.

 

[Stuart House]

Perhaps the question is not what are benefits of the club owning the ground but do people trust Brent.

On paper it is easy to make a strong argument for the club owning the ground. Yet there are many people against it.

Is this because people don't trust Brent and the current board?

 

[Pettgreen]

This letter has been drawn up out of almost paranoid fear. understandable considering those undersigned being so close to the survival of the club.
I do think though you are all being very overprotective and thus preventative to development and making the club an attractive investment. JB is not a reckless businessman, quite the opposite from where I look in. That won't change.
Everybody wants a new grandstand and for facilities and matchday experience to improve (the latter doesn't take much!) but for that to happen there has to be an attractive asset to borrow against. Now this is where the fear comes in. Does the board borrow against the asset? With interest rates at record lows and real estate values at near highs one could argue yes do it! Argyle could get a sizable mortgage to rebuild the grandstand. As we know however the fortunes of a football club fluctuate wildly over the years and certainly over the period of a £20m+ mortgage (I think it would be quite a bit more if it were an amibitious development). So, repatriate the £135k rent into a mortgage payment, you will need a fair bit more to pay back the full sum + interest. You can't rely on just the success of the club. You need to bring other sources of income through investment or hotel or conference facilities.
I recently did a bit of stuff at Brighton and that seems to be a good model. Although the food offering was hideous! I digress.

We all, as fans need to decide what is most important. New grandstand? If so then let the board and JB purchase the freehold and trust them to manage things sensibly without great risk.
Never let the club get near administration again? Status quo and hope that DA has the skills to get us up the leagues to generate more revenue thus an upward spiral.

The board need to understand and acknowledge the fears of some. I fear, due to scars running so deep, that a vocal part of the fan base will not listen to whatever is said and will strongly oppose any move. Which is a shame.

I support the intention to buy the freehold with the current regime as it is as I see great promise in the outcome in terms of a tangible asset to spur the club on. There is always risk in what we do in business. I think the risk in getting the freehold is minimal. It is how the club move on afterwards that is the risk. I just don't see JB as a risk taker/gambler! Having said that he did take on Argyle!!

This is not a dig at the views of the undersigned and those who align themselves with it. I appreciate the deep feelings, we are all fans believe it or not! :scarf:
All the best

 

[Ollieargyle9]

I can't honestly see what the problems with the club owning the ground are.

We are currently paying 135k a year in rent all of which is money going straight down the drain from the club's point of view. Money that could be going towards the playing budget, money that could be spent on ground maintenance, money that could be spent on additional coaching staff...training equipment, better fan experience, a better media team the list of revenue outlays goes on and on. The point is there are many better uses of the club's resources, if you ask me paying rent is far from the top of that list especially when the repayments will only ever increase should we be promoted and yet further stifle our club's progress.

Say we don't purchase the ground then and continue to make these repayments, to what end? To prevent an imaginary evil businessman from buying the club from JB and splitting club from it's biggest asset. To what purpose would they do that? As far as I'm aware they cannot use the ground for any other purpose than football, they certainly wouldn't get planning permission to build on Central Park, certainly not without providing alternative accommodation for the 8,000 strong Green Army on a match-day. So what are they left with? Presumably charging us rent :doh:

Would mistakes of the past be repeated should we have the asset in the club's control? Possibly, JB won't be here forever and we never know who's hands we will end up in future. It's a worry of course it is, the problem with that approach however is we will never progress as a football club if we live in fear of the unknown, if we refuse to take risks because there are nasties living in the shadows. There will always be nasties living in the shadows unfortunately and if not nasties there will be plenty of other obstacles waiting for us. The thing is you are far better placed with capital to sell, borrow against or entice additional investors in with when these obstacles present themselves. Being a "steady Eddie" club who refuses absolute bare-minimal risks like this will inevitably stagnate leaving it at even bigger risk of financial turmoil by way of dwindling gates and down right disinterest, where do we go then? We would hold nothing of value, no potential.

It has been said on this thread that the AFT cannot debate against a strategy we know nothing of, I'll therefore raise you a "you cannot argue against a fantasy and the imaginary". You can imagine the worst case scenario possible and yes it sounds scary but it isn't real, it is of course possible as we know all too well but you cannot prevent it entirely and you certainly shouldn't try to prevent it by making this club completely uninvestable.

For me I would like to know the strategy behind this, the benefits the club stands to gain in the eyes of the board. If it is purely a cost-benefit of rent v interest repayment or whether this ties in with a wider plan, whether it makes the grandstand redevelopment more viable. That said however I do not feel we should hold the club to ransom for the sake of that. For me this purchase makes complete sense whatever the plan is (because I trust JB's plan and therefore the plan for the foreseeable is in the club's interest even if a future owner's may not be). I want us to progress as a football club and feel we are best placed to do so with out the shackles of rental expenditure and with a balance sheet worthy of decent investment. I cannot support this statement and cannot support a Trust wasting its time on an issue that in my view will ultimately hold back our club.

 

[Pettgreen]

Yep well said. Fear is the driving force of the statement imo. Fear of the unknown looking forward and fear of past mistakes being repeated looking back.

 

[PL2 3DQ]

In the recent AFT survey a slight majority of fans (50.7%) wanted the club to take up the option of buying the freehold. It's a small majority but the UK left the EU on a small majority. The views of the fans shouldn't be ignored.

Also, has anyone spoken to PCC to find out more details? JB and the club have the option to buy the freehold but for all we know PCC might be desperate to sell it to raise £1.6m in funds for the city of Plymouth.

I think more details are needed from the club and PCC.

As been mentioned before, the high wages - 87% of turn over - was a huge factor in our fall into administration. That won't happen again.

 

[Zac N]

I can't honestly see what the problems with the club owning the ground are.

We are currently paying 135k a year in rent all of which is money going straight down the drain from the club's point of view. Money that could be going towards the playing budget, money that could be spent on ground maintenance, money that could be spent on additional coaching staff...training equipment, better fan experience, a better media team the list of revenue outlays goes on and on. The point is there are many better uses of the club's resources, if you ask me paying rent is far from the top of that list especially when the repayments will only ever increase should we be promoted and yet further stifle our club's progress.

Say we don't purchase the ground then and continue to make these repayments, to what end? To prevent an imaginary evil businessman from buying the club from JB and splitting club from it's biggest asset. To what purpose would they do that? As far as I'm aware they cannot use the ground for any other purpose than football, they certainly wouldn't get planning permission to build on Central Park, certainly not without providing alternative accommodation for the 8,000 strong Green Army on a match-day. So what are they left with? Presumably charging us rent :doh:

Would mistakes of the past be repeated should we have the asset in the club's control? Possibly, JB won't be here forever and we never know who's hands we will end up in future. It's a worry of course it is, the problem with that approach however is we will never progress as a football club if we live in fear of the unknown, if we refuse to take risks because there are nasties living in the shadows. There will always be nasties living in the shadows unfortunately and if not nasties there will be plenty of other obstacles waiting for us. The thing is you are far better placed with capital to sell, borrow against or entice additional investors in with when these obstacles present themselves. Being a "steady Eddie" club who refuses absolute bare-minimal risks like this will inevitably stagnate leaving it at even bigger risk of financial turmoil by way of dwindling gates and down right disinterest, where do we go then? We would hold nothing of value, no potential.

It has been said on this thread that the AFT cannot debate against a strategy we know nothing of, I'll therefore raise you a "you cannot argue against a fantasy and the imaginary". You can imagine the worst case scenario possible and yes it sounds scary but it isn't real, it is of course possible as we know all too well but you cannot prevent it entirely and you certainly shouldn't try to prevent it by making this club completely uninvestable.

For me I would like to know the strategy behind this, the benefits the club stands to gain in the eyes of the board. If it is purely a cost-benefit of rent v interest repayment or whether this ties in with a wider plan, whether it makes the grandstand redevelopment more viable. That said however I do not feel we should hold the club to ransom for the sake of that. For me this purchase makes complete sense whatever the plan is (because I trust JB's plan and therefore the plan for the foreseeable is in the club's interest even if a future owner's may not be). I want us to progress as a football club and feel we are best placed to do so with out the shackles of rental expenditure and with a balance sheet worthy of decent investment. I cannot support this statement and cannot support a Trust wasting its time on an issue that in my view will ultimately hold back our club.

Well said Ollie-pretty much what I was going to say but you've saved me a lot of typing!

 

[Ceebs]

Unless the directors or financial institution are proposing to gift the the ground to the club then we will still have to make repayments. Therefore, pertinent questions would be at what rate and over what term would the repayments be made? I'm infinitely more comfortable with paying a nominal rent to a benign landlord as per the status quo.

 

[Ceebs]

In the recent AFT survey a slight majority of fans (50.7%) wanted the club to take up the option of buying the freehold. It's a small majority but the UK left the EU on a small majority. The views of the fans shouldn't be ignored.

Also, has anyone spoken to PCC to find out more details? JB and the club have the option to buy the freehold but for all we know PCC might be desperate to sell it to raise £1.6m in funds for the city of Plymouth.

I think more details are needed from the club and PCC.

As been mentioned before, the high wages - 87% of turn over - was a huge factor in our fall into administration. That won't happen again.

I think this suggests there was sufficient mandate for the AFT to seek ACV status for Home Park - taken from the AFT website:

There are many reasons for supporter trusts to register their club’s grounds as ACVs. The long-term protection of the stadium is at the heart of the matter. At present, Home Park is in public hands with the Council, and last year’s fan survey showed that over 80% of Argyle supporters would like it to stay that way, with even higher levels of support for an ACV submission.