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

[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.

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.

The 80% figure or 525 fans is from a survey conducted in December 2013.
The stats from the AFT survey this summer states -
50.% in favour of the club buying the ground,
30% against the club buying the ground and
20% unsure. Thanks to Argy1e for digging out the numbers on another thread.

The Herald had a story on it...
Link

 

[signalspast]

I feel pretty sure the council will place similar covenants on the ground the same as they did last time to protect it

 

[Stan]

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.

Absolutely.

 

[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.

The 80% figure or 525 fans is from a survey conducted in December 2013.
The stats from the AFT survey this summer states -
50.7% in favour of the club buying the ground,
30% against the club buying the ground and
20% unsure. Thanks to Argy1e for digging out the numbers on another thread.

The Herald had a story on it...
Link

They had a mandate for the action they took, namely the ACV. As made clear from the outset the statement is NOT an AFT initiative, but is supported by members of the AFT board.

 

[Since I Was 33]

I note on PCC's Facebook page they are looking for feedback on how the best way of tackling the £19 Million shortfall they have.

 

[Bermudian Green]

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.

Offset against that £135k is how much is the landlord paying each year for upkeep of the stadium. If it was in club-ownership, the club would be 100% liable.

 

[Quintrell Green]

I feel pretty sure the council will place similar covenants on the ground the same as they did last time to protect it

I am also of that opinion. Local councillors are not like remote MP's. They have their ears closer to the ground and would be conscious of local wishes to protect Home Park for footballing use, rather than a possible new IKEA store or a distribution centre for The Range! They would pass resolutions in committee for PCC's Legal dept to act appropriately.

 

[Ollieargyle9]

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.

Offset against that £135k is how much is the landlord paying each year for upkeep of the stadium. If it was in club-ownership, the club would be 100% liable.

I seem to recall many calling for JB to fund upkeep and maintenance merely a few months ago. I can only assume the club is already liable under the tenancy and that upkeep by the landlord is minimal at best. I can't imagine the Plymouth tax payer is funding upkeep of any significance at Home Park.

I actually included maintenance as one of the alternative uses of the funding under the assumption that none was being done as it was.

 

[xmastree]

Until it is clear who exactly owns the ground after the assumed purchase, quoting figures for savings on rent payable is a nonsense. If the ownership is within a nominee company owned by some/all directors then there will be rent to pay. How much? We have no idea.

 

[Ted]

Can't be bothered to read 4 pages, partially because the AFT statements are doing my head in.

Sound like petty, annoying children throwing their toys out of the pram.

Grow up. Act like adults, stop going power mad, or acting like you are the almighty.

Stop pretending it's all for the cause, you have probably never stopped and thought you could be holding the club back.

Seriously, get a life. Then you'll know some things are more important.

 

[Josh Pope]

Can't be bothered to read 4 pages, partially because the AFT statements are doing my head in.

Sound like petty, annoying children throwing their toys out of the pram.

Grow up. Act like adults, stop going power mad, or acting like you are the almighty.

Stop pretending it's all for the cause, you have probably never stopped and thought you could be holding the club back.

Seriously, get a life. Then you'll know some things are more important.

That's quite an opinion for someone who can't be bothered to read 4 pages.

This isn't even an AFT statement as such, and there's only been two in the past few days after a long period of quietness while they were all off on their holidays.

Fail to see how you can react in such a petulant way to this news and perhaps if you don't have it within yourself to read a few pages then perhaps this site isn't for you. At least, if you did then people would have more respect for your take on this.

'You could be holding the club back' sounds like the sort of thing you hear spouted by someone who has vested interests as well - how on earth can you say such a thing of fan groups who have the best interests of the club in their aim. Either vested interests or naivety are the issues here, and I'm not convinced I know which is worse.

 

[Mannamead Green]

Great statement.

 

[Phil Sloggett]

A tricky one really. I want to trust James Brent. I do trust James Brent, mostly anyway.

The club almost went out of business a few years ago. That is the reason that James Brent owns most of the club. One of the main issues a few years ago revolved around the stadium being redeveloped. Yes, I am sure James Brent has good intentions overall. However, he is a businessman. He also has other projects which, to he honest, haven't exactly gone to plan. He was a banker, yes. Does that mean the club is not at risk with regards to decisions he makes? Our previous chairman was an accountant, don't forget.


A reminder of the types of difficulties a club can face with such a scenario (I appreciate this is very much 'at the end of the scale' and plenty of positive scenarios are out there, we simply wouldn't hear about them).

http://m.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/4788111. ... s__United/


It is a shame that James Brent appears to be challenging the AFT (and this statement isn't just an AFT thing). I don't think the people concerned are doing this for publicity. I think they are doing it because of genuine concerns (whether founded or not, and one could argue it is better to be cautious).

I do believe that James Brent would be better served trying to demonstrate why he feels it is better the club owns the stadium. One could argue that he has done that by highlighting the rent vs mortgage argument. However, the way he is doing it doesn't quite sit right with me (personally). The mortgage argument is of course another interesting one. These developments would run into millions of pounds. This would require outside investment. Who would then own the stadium (in reality)? An outside investor with little or no attachment to the club? Could we end up with a situation where we end up with a hotel on the site of Home Park, which offers little benefit to the club (but plenty of benefit to others)?

If these issues don't crop up in the next year or so, what about 5 years time? What about 15 years time?

James Brent could well be a stand up guy who only wants the best for the club. What about the time he decides to pass it on to someone else (stadium and all).

Some people have a lot of (potentially) valid concerns. I think it is right they have the opportunity to air them. I don't buy into the "It is their club, they can do what they want with it". I truly hope that isn't what we have become (and I don't think we have, certainly not at the present time). When we survived going bust by the skin of our teeth I remember a lot of people saying "Never Again" (including some very high profile posters on here).

Did we mean it?


There are, I'm sure, plenty of valid reasons for the club owning Home Park. However, if that is to happen, I hope that the board look to demonstrate that it is the right thing and the purchase is unlikely jeopardise the future of the club at any stage (though quite how they could not I'm not sure).

A dialogue between the fans and the board appears to be more important than ever right now. It is a great shame that such a dialogue seems incredibly unlikely at this present time.

It will be interesting to see how things develop over the next few months.

 

[Chancellor]

Why is this now a poll?

 

[TonyD]

I have seen the Oxford model mentioned once or twice and thought maybe its worth a mention they they spent 6 years in L2 before gaining promotion.....

and 17 years have passed since there decline started in 1999