Bellamy a Bluebird?

[tuscaloosa]

Cardiff City are just incapable of winning enough games for promotion either by automatic or play-offs. They have proved it over the last few years, for some reason they just lose it on the final push. I think they have a supercillious attitude to the game.

 

[FordGreen]

Cardiff City are just incapable of winning enough games for promotion either by automatic or play-offs. They have proved it over the last few years, for some reason they just lose it on the final push. I think they have a supercillious attitude to the game.

Long may it continue! :grin:

 

[Greenskin]

It isn't actually Argyle that is borrowing that money, though, is it?

In technical terms,no,its not the football club.But that didn't stop Southampton going into admin,in spite of their best efforts to wriggle off the hook using the same type of methodology,ie splitting the football club from the holding company and claiming they were not interrelated.Worse case scenario;PAFC Holdings borrow a sum of £15m from banks to partially pay for the South stand.Problems are encountered in meeting the repayments and PAFC and PAFC Holdings go into admin,which they surely would if the Saints precedence is anything to go by.A CVA is drawn whereby local businesses get only a fraction of what they are owed.I remember in the past that you have quite rightly pointed out that in the Portsmouth case the effect this could have on local employment etc,so what exactly is the difference morally between other clubs embarking on a risky strategy and Argyle doing the same? Genuine question,i really can't see the difference.

As I recall Southampton's holding company arrangement was rejected because the holding company had no assets at all that did not relate directly to the football club: it owned St Mary's, the training ground and nothing else. It was impossible to make the case that the holding company and the FC were anything but one and the same.

The proposals for HP and Central park are a different kettle of fish altogether.

Is it risky? That depends on what you mean by "risky". "Risky" is one of those words with an emotional impact but no actual hard meaning. It always sits well with a nice bit of flowery rhetoric for just that reason.

During the recent TC Q&A sesh TC posted this:

To understand this concept it is first important to understand that although they are both owned by the same people they are set up as two entirely separate companies each with it's own limited liability.

In a limited company any debt is limited entirely to the assets within that company.

If the ground was in the ownership of the football club and the club went bust, the ground would be sold off and the proceeds distributed amongst the creditors.

If the ground is owned by a property holding company and the club went bust, this asset does not belong to the club and therefore the creditors cannot touch it, even though they are the same owners.

To answer your question as to why the bank is more willing to lend to the property holding company than the football club this is simple.

The property holding company has a business plan (enabling development in yesterdays herald) that demonstrates an ability to generate an income in excess of expenditure. The company stands on it's own merit.

The football club currently has expenditure in excess of its income and survives solely on the generosity of its shareholders…..not a sound proposition for banks to lend money.

http://pasoti.co.uk/talk/viewtopic.php?t=45468

I don't think the Pompey analogy holds much water either. They squandered their money on players' wages and transfer fees and when payback time arrived there was nothing left that they could cash-in against. The plans here will leave all sorts of stuff built out of bricks and mortar which will have a redeemable value should the worst happen.

Risky? Maybe but if hard-headed businessmen see it as an investment worth making then the risk is obviously considered to be manageable (by them at least).

Tony Campbell stated above that one of the reasons for the holding company being set up was that creditors "could not touch it",ie the ground itself.Two questions arise from that;

a.The way i read that is that creditors would not get any money from the sale of the ground should the worst happen.They would presumably include HMRC and many local businesses would not get their money,so what is the difference,morally,between what clubs like Cardiff and Pompey have done and what Argyle would do if they went into admin under the procedures outlined by Mr Campbell?

b.Who actually would get the proceeds if the ground were ever to be sold?

I understand what you said about the bricks and mortar etc,i guess that would all depend on the profitability or otherwise of the ventures involved [cinema,hotel,retail,etc] and who would own any land which had resale value.I'm not saying that i'm anti the proposals,just very concerned about the funding and where any shortfall could leave our club,which would be a fair definition of risk assessment for me in this particular case.It strikes me as very strange that supporters who supported the fire sale of 2007 [future of the club at stake etc] can now seem to be so seemingly unquestioning and supportive of a proposal which ,certainly in pure financial terms,represents a far bigger risk to the clubs future.Anyway,i do hope you're right about the hard headed businessmen making a sound decision,if everything goes well i don't deny that the proposals could be a superb facility.Maybe the retail outlets could include a Matalan-the players wouldn't have to go far for their suits then.

 

[Y2J]

I'm honestly glad we're not in that league right now.

Premier League Lite.

 

[Greenskin]

Tony Campbell stated above that one of the reasons for the holding company being set up was that creditors "could not touch it",ie the ground itself.Two questions arise from that;

a.The way i read that is that creditors would not get any money from the sale of the ground should the worst happen.They would presumably include HMRC and many local businesses would not get their money,so what is the difference,morally,between what clubs like Cardiff and Pompey have done and what Argyle would do if they went into admin under the procedures outlined by Mr Campbell?

[/quote]

There's the difference. They have done all of the ridiculous, underhanded and corrupt things that they have done, Argyle could theoretically do them but have not.[/quote]

The point is though that Argyle have implemented a system that would,if the worst came to the worst,allow them to escape paying off debts to their creditors,as admitted by Mr Campbell above.No,they have not had recourse to using it as yet [and i hope they never do],but then,as the split between the disparate parts of the club only occurred recently and no money has yet been committed to building the new facilities,its hardly likely that they would have.If in the ultimate,Argyle do escape as other clubs have done,from meeting their repayment obligations,then IMHO,they will have acted as immorally as the others and will deserve any censure that comes their way.Lets hope it doesn't come to that.

 

[Greenskin]

Tony Campbell stated above that one of the reasons for the holding company being set up was that creditors "could not touch it",ie the ground itself.Two questions arise from that;

a.The way i read that is that creditors would not get any money from the sale of the ground should the worst happen.They would presumably include HMRC and many local businesses would not get their money,so what is the difference,morally,between what clubs like Cardiff and Pompey have done and what Argyle would do if they went into admin under the procedures outlined by Mr Campbell?

b.Who actually would get the proceeds if the ground were ever to be sold?

I understand what you said about the bricks and mortar etc,i guess that would all depend on the profitability or otherwise of the ventures involved [cinema,hotel,retail,etc] and who would own any land which had resale value.I'm not saying that i'm anti the proposals,just very concerned about the funding and where any shortfall could leave our club,which would be a fair definition of risk assessment for me in this particular case.It strikes me as very strange that supporters who supported the fire sale of 2007 [future of the club at stake etc] can now seem to be so seemingly unquestioning and supportive of a proposal which ,certainly in pure financial terms,represents a far bigger risk to the clubs future.Anyway,i do hope you're right about the hard headed businessmen making a sound decision,if everything goes well i don't deny that the proposals could be a superb facility.Maybe the retail outlets could include a Matalan-the players wouldn't have to go far for their suits then.

We haven't really moved that far from where we were before the Freehold was purchased, though, have we? Then PCC was the landlord and trousered the money when the freehold was sold and the landlord will trouser the money if the freehold is sold once again. If that was to occur then that will be the property developing company and not the football club.

In the process we will have moved on from having a ramshackle and largely not-fit-for-purpose stadium surrounded by acres of potholes, dog poo and derelict concrete to a swanky 27k (at least) stadium surrounded by state of the art leisure facilities.

The problem is...?

No problem at all if everything works out.Lets hope your faith in the future is justified.

 

[Greenskin]

The point is though that Argyle have implemented a system that would,if the worst came to the worst,allow them to escape paying off debts to their creditors,as admitted by Mr Campbell above.No,they have not had recourse to using it as yet [and i hope they never do],but then,as the split between the disparate parts of the club only occurred recently and no money has yet been committed to building the new facilities,its hardly likely that they would have.If in the ultimate,Argyle do escape as other clubs have done,from meeting their repayment obligations,then IMHO,they will have acted as immorally as the others and will deserve any censure that comes their way.Lets hope it doesn't come to that.

Yes it has.

Was the work on the pitch paid for by PAFC the football club or PAFC's property developer directors out of their own pockets and was it paid for before or after the sale of the ground by the club to those directors (assuming that the sale of the ground has been completed)?

I can confirm that the contract and invoice for the ground was made out to Home Park Properties Ltd.

http://www.pasoti.co.uk/talk/viewtopic.php?t=45464

Point taken,but £500,000 is hardly a sum likely to push the club into serious problems though,is it,not like £20m for the south stand or however many megabucks is needed to pay for the odeon,hotel california and college cottages.I think you knew what i meant by "building the new facilities" and its the first time i've heard that the pitch has been built,not laid.Bigger tests than the relaying of a pitch will come in terms of finding the required funding for the ground and CP facilities,and as stated before ,i sincerely hope that the parties involved are up to cutting the mustard in order to fulfil your vision of the future.

 

[pilgrim_pete]

The Football League have threatened Cardiff with an abandonment of the deal, if they cannot show them how they are paying for it.

Good on 'em.

 

[Tavypilgrim]

The Football League have threatened Cardiff with an abandonment of the deal, if they cannot show them how they are paying for it.

Good on 'em.

I would love it if the deal fell through. Thousands of Cardiff folk left with their Craig Bellamy shirts as a reminder that cheating doesn't pay.

But the football league are practically toothless when it comes to this sort of thing.

 

[boletus edulis]

The Football League have threatened Cardiff with an abandonment of the deal, if they cannot show them how they are paying for it.

Good on 'em.

I would love it if the deal fell through. Thousands of Cardiff folk left with their Craig Bellamy shirts as a reminder that cheating doesn't pay.

But the football league are practically toothless when it comes to this sort of thing.

I suspect that on paper they are not toothless in regards to player registration. But the issue is whether they would do anything about it.

 

[FordGreen]

I think we all know the answer to that one - Cardiff will get away with it AGAIN! :twisted:

 

[Marlin]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 926215.stm


Not the most surprising news, but the FL have approved everything.

There are times as a football fan (increasingly so) that you just feel less and less comfortable with the football industry. It makes you question how much longer the whole business can go on and hold the publics interest

 

[Quinny]

For a competition run by the English FA, a club that doesn't play in any Welsh competitions - what a joke.

Harsh and a little unfair. Until the early '90s there was no League of Wales and there were a dozen Welsh teams plying their trade in the English leagues (albeit most were non-league). There was a Welsh cup competition which they were all allowed to play in, but because it wasn't affiliated to any FA, there wasn't a route into Europe for the winners. When the LoW was created, those who were professional teams in the English top 4 divisions (plus Newport County and Merthyr) were not interested in joining the new league, and why should they (from a business sense?)

Anyway, where's your ire for Berwick Rangers - an English team playing in the Scottish leagues?

 

[HBLC]

My Cardiff mate has been singing...

No income tax, No VAT
We don't care we got bellamy
Whits and Jay and chops will score
Motherwell bailiffs at our door
...
God bless poverty
Viva poverty.......

 

[FordGreen]

THAT just about sums that poxy bleddy club up! :twisted: