New Grandstand - 2 day public consultation

[IJN]

Ian we get your closer connection and friendly relationship with Mr Brent and no doubt you have more of an insight into certain agendas but you don't have to do patronising when answering/discussing things you see differently to others.

If I come across that way Tuggers I apologise.

I simply wanted to be rude! :twisted:

Joking apart, the only advantage I have on this debate is that I know the man well. He's a very decent human being, that always works for me.

 

[memory man]

A really good Fans Forum that one. Must have been around 100 there and some challenging questions asked and answered.

I noticed that JB's stammer gets more pronounced the more challenging the question. No stammer though when he condemned the internet angry place.

I am not the brightest star in the sky and this (imho verging on personal) remark has gone over my head. Is there a question hidden in the statement "condemned the internet angry place"?

 

[Green Planet]

We have to get away from the idea that HHP car park belongs to the Club. It no longer does, it is owned by James Brent, and we have NO say in what he does with it.
Saying that, I do believe whatever he does with that land, and we now know what he is proposing, it will be of some benefit indirectly to PAFC, being so close to Home Park, it will have some effect on footfall at Home Park itself.

Hi all - first post, having watched the FF am really confused with this debate. Didn't JB confirm in response to Graham Clark's question that given the development of HHP won't deliver a grandstand then the profit sharing agreement remains in place. So Argyle will receive 50% of any development profits. This seemed accepted by both JB and SH who both felt such a windfall could be better used than putting it to phase 2.

Worth remembering that Argyle already received the best part of half a million pounds for the land in the first place.

For me HHP is what saved Argyle as without it it's unlikely JB or anyone else would have come near the club with a barge pole.

HHP was the get out of jail card - you can't play the card and then ask for it back.

 

[jimsing]

Interesting point of view. I thought that if the proposed development did not take place by a certain date then a certain sum of money would be handed over to Argyle as compensation.

I'm talking off memory now, I have made no research, but that was what I believed to have occurred.

I may be wrong of course.

 

[Green Planet]

From the FF video it appears perfectly clear that should HHP be developed profitably then PAFC will share in the profits. This is consistent with what was publicised at the time of the land sale. The accusations within this thread of JB profiting at the club's expense are bizarre in this context.

 

[Mike Greening]

From the FF video it appears perfectly clear that should HHP be developed profitably then PAFC will share in the profits. This is consistent with what was publicised at the time of the land sale. The accusations within this thread of JB profiting at the club's expense are bizarre in this context.

That is how I understood it. :clap:

 

[Rob GT4]

From the FF video it appears perfectly clear that should HHP be developed profitably then PAFC will share in the profits. This is consistent with what was publicised at the time of the land sale. The accusations within this thread of JB profiting at the club's expense are bizarre in this context.

If this is true it's fantastic news and I don't believe common knowledge on this forum, can anyone clarify?

 

[The Duke]

Ian we get your closer connection and friendly relationship with Mr Brent and no doubt you have more of an insight into certain agendas but you don't have to do patronising when answering/discussing things you see differently to others.

If I come across that way Tuggers I apologise.

I simply wanted to be rude! :twisted:

Joking apart, the only advantage I have on this debate is that I know the man well. He's a very decent human being, that always works for me.

I don't think anyone is questioning what sort of person he is. I'm sure he's a good guy and comes over that way. It's his business decisions relating to PAFC which some are questioning.

 

[PL2 3DQ]

We have to get away from the idea that HHP car park belongs to the Club. It no longer does, it is owned by James Brent, and we have NO say in what he does with it.
Saying that, I do believe whatever he does with that land, and we now know what he is proposing, it will be of some benefit indirectly to PAFC, being so close to Home Park, it will have some effect on footfall at Home Park itself.

Hi all - first post, having watched the FF am really confused with this debate. Didn't JB confirm in response to Graham Clark's question that given the development of HHP won't deliver a grandstand then the profit sharing agreement remains in place. So Argyle will receive 50% of any development profits. This seemed accepted by both JB and SH who both felt such a windfall could be better used than putting it to phase 2.

Worth remembering that Argyle already received the best part of half a million pounds for the land in the first place.

For me HHP is what saved Argyle as without it it's unlikely JB or anyone else would have come near the club with a barge pole.

HHP was the get out of jail card - you can't play the card and then ask for it back.

Yes and it's been missed by many, it's explained by JB at 8 minutes on the video.

The original agreement in 2012 was the club selling the land behind the grandstand at market value of £465,000 to HHP Nominee with a clause that the club would also get a free grandstand or a profit share of any development on that land.

The £465,000 also stopped the club going bust.

The profit share agreement from the land on Higher Home Park, ice rink etc, is still in place. The club will receive money when this land is built on.

 

[Rob GT4]

That's more like it, great news :thumbup:

 

[Penmaster]

From the FF video it appears perfectly clear that should HHP be developed profitably then PAFC will share in the profits. This is consistent with what was publicised at the time of the land sale. The accusations within this thread of JB profiting at the club's expense are bizarre in this context.

That is how I understood it. :clap:

Well that answers everything then. I don't see how JB can be criticised if this is the case?

 

[IJN]

I don't think anyone is questioning what sort of person he is. I'm sure he's a good guy and comes over that way. It's his business decisions relating to PAFC which some are questioning.

Yeah, it's a right mess up there isn't it?

 

[The Duke]

I don't think anyone is questioning what sort of person he is. I'm sure he's a good guy and comes over that way. It's his business decisions relating to PAFC which some are questioning.

Yeah, it's a right mess up there isn't it?

We need to safe guard our club for the future. There are some huge decisions being made

 

[Argyle Nutter]

Can any one confirm whether the profit share only relates to the ice rink & assosiated commercial properties within the HHP boundaries, Or does it include those contained within the new Vets/ Hotel venture as well.

 

[Green Planet]

It's probably worth reiterating that at face value it's hard to see where significant profits are going to come from if the development has to fund the ice rink.

However, I was really interested to read that whereas detailed planning permission is being sought for the grandstand and ice rink only outline permission is being sought for the rest of the development proposals, ie the principle of the development will be established for the rest of the development but another application will be needed for the detail. JB confirmed that the stand and rink would be built first. This suggests that the building of the ice rink is not dependent on the rest of the development proposals and as such is being separately funded. Potentially good news for PAFC as the adjoining development might actually yield a decent profit if that's the case.