New Grandstand - 2 day public consultation

[PL2 3DQ]

The real consultation period will be when the Council consider the application.

I'm fine with the grandstand redevelopment (even though I wish it was better) so I'd like to see that happen ASAP.

The hotel and ice rink are not suitable for Central Park. Why does there need to be hotel on an area of designated open space ? If Brent wants to build a hotel then the deal should be that some of the development profits go towards Phase 2 of the grandstand development and making that happen.

It's been explained many times that the hotel is not being built on open space but on land that already has a commercial building on it (the vets) and has been become ramshackle.
Central Park is not losing any green space from the three developments.

After completion no building will be higher than the Life Centre.

 

[jimsing]

Looking at Graham's post & yours again grumps it states that either the provision of a Grandstand OR 50% from the HHP development, Not looking to poor scorne on anyone or the plans in general as I think the plans are very good, but the plans involve the refurbishment with enhanced facilities of the old girl, so does this remove the 50% profit liability, as in effect they have provided a "Grandstand" albeit refurbished.

No mate. The agreement was made originally back in 2012(?) when Brent bought the HHP land. If his original plan had been built, then that would have wiped out any future 50% profit share. Hallett lending the club the money to do the refurb is a totally different arrangement.

So to emphasise once more, any future profit from development of the HHP land benefits PAFC DIRECTLY to the tune of 50%.

This is why developing this land to it's absolute maximum potential is so important to our football club.

Considering the opinions expressed on here, I assume that 50% of losses would also apply if we had an ice hockey team.

Give me strength.

No Davie. Argyle are not liable to incur any losses made from any HHP Development.

They are however due to gain under the profit-sharing agreement made six years ago.

There is no risk attached to PAFC - the football club.

I'm not sure I could make it any clearer.

What is abundantly clear is that people are muddying the waters by expressing opinions when they have absolutely no clue whatsoever about the 50% HHP profit share agreement.

I refer the honourable Grumpy gentleman to Graham's reply, above.

 

[The Grumpy Loyal]

The clue Jimsing, is that the scenario whereby Argyle don't get profit share was only if Argyle were provided with a Grandstand at no cost to the club - it states it in black and white!

Argyle are borrowing money from Hallett for the Grandstand.

Brent even confirmed Argyle would be entitled to a 50% profit share on Saturday.

You've referred me to Grahams reply - and it pretty much clarifies what I'm saying!

 

[Stuart House]

Does it say any where that there will be a profit share from HHP should the Grandstand be funded independantly from the HHP developments.

The statement only says that the profit share will kick in if HHP is developed and a grand stand is not built. But a grand stand is being built, just funded differently.

This would suggest there is no profit share. May be this is what Graham is getting at.

 

[The Grumpy Loyal]

Does it say any where that there will be a profit share from HHP should the Grandstand be funded independantly from the HHP developments.

The statement only says that the profit share will kick in if HHP is developed and a grand stand is not built. But a grand stand is being built, just funded differently.

This would suggest there is no profit share. May be this is what Graham is getting at.

Brent CONFIRMED on Saturday that PAFC would profit share under his proposed HHP development. I'm not making it up.

PL23DQ confirmed Brent's confirmation earlier in this thread, even.

In the simplest of terms, Argyle stand to gain from any HHP development. The point I was making earlier is that it is in Argyles interests to maximise any potential profits from that development.

 

[davie nine]

Looking at Graham's post & yours again grumps it states that either the provision of a Grandstand OR 50% from the HHP development, Not looking to poor scorne on anyone or the plans in general as I think the plans are very good, but the plans involve the refurbishment with enhanced facilities of the old girl, so does this remove the 50% profit liability, as in effect they have provided a "Grandstand" albeit refurbished.

No mate. The agreement was made originally back in 2012(?) when Brent bought the HHP land. If his original plan had been built, then that would have wiped out any future 50% profit share. Hallett lending the club the money to do the refurb is a totally different arrangement.

So to emphasise once more, any future profit from development of the HHP land benefits PAFC DIRECTLY to the tune of 50%.

This is why developing this land to it's absolute maximum potential is so important to our football club.

Considering the opinions expressed on here, I assume that 50% of losses would also apply if we had an ice hockey team.

Give me strength.

No Davie. Argyle are not liable to incur any losses made from any HHP Development.

They are however due to gain under the profit-sharing agreement made six years ago.

There is no risk attached to PAFC - the football club.

I'm not sure I could make it any clearer.

What is abundantly clear is that people are muddying the waters by expressing opinions when they have absolutely no clue whatsoever about the 50% HHP profit share agreement.

I am pleased that you want to build up your strength but I do not need you to provide me with an arrogant, facetious, 'know it all' explanation.

I prefer to read the intelligent, considered opinion of Graham Clark who has clarified the fact about risks without resorting to the impression that you give of being an 'expert'.

I accept that your opinion, on this occasion, was correct but there have been many occasions when you have had to back down e.g. your initial comments about Simon Hallett's motives.

 

[SWTT]

Does it say any where that there will be a profit share from HHP should the Grandstand be funded independantly from the HHP developments.

The statement only says that the profit share will kick in if HHP is developed and a grand stand is not built. But a grand stand is being built, just funded differently.

This would suggest there is no profit share. May be this is what Graham is getting at.

The Grandstand is already built... By your interpretation Argyle were "had" with that agreement from the moment the ink dried.

 

[Stuart House]

Does it say any where that there will be a profit share from HHP should the Grandstand be funded independantly from the HHP developments.

The statement only says that the profit share will kick in if HHP is developed and a grand stand is not built. But a grand stand is being built, just funded differently.

This would suggest there is no profit share. May be this is what Graham is getting at.

The Grandstand is already built... By your interpretation Argyle were "had" with that agreement from the moment the ink dried.

Sorry, New Grandstand

 

[jimsing]

The clue Jimsing, is that the scenario whereby Argyle don't get profit share was only if Argyle were provided with a Grandstand at no cost to the club - it states it in black and white!

Argyle are borrowing money from Hallett for the Grandstand.

Brent even confirmed Argyle would be entitled to a 50% profit share on Saturday.

You've referred me to Grahams reply - and it pretty much clarifies what I'm saying!

Perhaps I'm reading this wrong but Graham's first paragraph states

"I am not sure where the claim that "the club will still receive 50% of profit from the HHP development." has come from."

Does this not indicate that in his opinion the 50 per cent of profit does not apply?

 

[SWTT]

Does it say any where that there will be a profit share from HHP should the Grandstand be funded independantly from the HHP developments.

The statement only says that the profit share will kick in if HHP is developed and a grand stand is not built. But a grand stand is being built, just funded differently.

This would suggest there is no profit share. May be this is what Graham is getting at.

The Grandstand is already built... By your interpretation Argyle were "had" with that agreement from the moment the ink dried.

Sorry, New Grandstand

When are they building a new Grandstand? Must have missed that announcement.

 

[Stuart House]

Ok fair point, it does say 'new' grandstand. Which isn't happening.

Either way this was a statement not a legal document so the wording might be different.

Hard to say either way without seeing the contract from the original purchase.

 

[SWTT]

On the basis of the HHP development not contributing either a new Grandstand or any refurbishment of the ground, I would be disappointed if Argyle did not benefit in another way. It would be nice to have some clarity about the benefit for Argyle.

 

[gaspargomez]

The real consultation period will be when the Council consider the application.

I'm fine with the grandstand redevelopment (even though I wish it was better) so I'd like to see that happen ASAP.

The hotel and ice rink are not suitable for Central Park. Why does there need to be hotel on an area of designated open space ? If Brent wants to build a hotel then the deal should be that some of the development profits go towards Phase 2 of the grandstand development and making that happen.

It's been explained many times that the hotel is not being built on open space but on land that already has a commercial building on it (the vets) and has been become ramshackle.
Central Park is not losing any green space from the three developments.

After completion no building will be higher than the Life Centre.

Hotel would be substantially larger and bulkier than the existing veterinary building. It would therefore have a greater visual impact and lead to a reduction in openness. The character of the park would be changed in that location.

The Life Centre is already a tall and bulky building- an additional building a similar height to that would have a massive effect on the appearance of the area. Not to mention the car- parking implications referenced above.

It provides no benefits to Plymouth Argyle and only harms the area. If Brent wants a hotel, there are more appropriate locations.

 

[Ade the green]

I think you need to forget about the hotel because in the position it's proposed it no longer has any influence on or from Home Park. Whether you complain about the hotel as per you need to re-sign on to the FoCP and crack on there.

Whether JBs involvement is relevant to his being owner of Argyle is for you to justify to yourself and so the only real quarrel you have is whether the ice arena, restaurants, gym and heaven forbid a cafe is going to be as invasive as the knackered car park, outdated port a cabin superstore, marquee and a few skips will be.

I think, if the plans go ahead the stadium will be immediately surrounded by a pedestrianised area which will encourage more people to visit the area. More people visiting the area can only be of a benefit to the club.

 

[gaspargomez]

I dont understand why the hotel has to be part of the same planning application.

Brent will say that its to present a comprehensive plan of the area. More likely, its a way of increasing his chances of getting permission for the hotel. If the Council reject the hotel then they also reject the grandstand, which would be bad from a political point of view.

You say a hotel would have no impact- but I've explained why the visual impact would be much greater. The vets surgery might be scruffy but it is fairly inconspicuous. Furthermore a large hotel is not the only way of improving that part of the park. Then there is the effect on car-parking to consider, as discussed by Graham Clark.

However, I suspect the city Councillors are too weak and easily led to seriously challenge Brent on these points, so the scheme is sure to be approved.