My main question and concern was about the football debt being paid by the scant resources of the club over the next 3 years. As for gratitude, fine I have heaps of it in store for later until then I remain the inquisitive barsteward I have always been. An opponent of Brent? Not at all, I am just not ready to join the happy clappy Brent is god clique just yet, not that I would ever be invited :lol:
-
This site is sponsored by Lang & Potter.
The cost of Brent's bid?
- Thread starter Iggy
- Start date
newtonorient":1suj5nxp said:
I understood that it was 0.77p in the pound (0.77%) - 100 times your figure; 1/100 of the OP's figure. I know for sure that it's not 77p - that's a whopping 77% - while .0077% is effecftively nothing. That would mean that a creditor would get £1 for every (nearly) £13,000 they were owed. Let's say they were owed £1.3 million - they'd get £100 back!
Drop the p off the end of 0.0077 and it would be right.
I'm not sure of the exact scenario but it's the unsecured creditors who get the .077p in the £, the secured creditors are owed around £5m and the Football Creditors debt is £3m add to that the administrators fee and the quoted £1m+ to see us through this season the total debt is on the face of it around £9-10m. Brent's bid is said to be in the region of £5m and he is currently negotiating the afore mentioned debts so, I'm guessing, we will probably be carrying forward around £3m, maybe more, which will have to be paid from revenue over the next few years.
According to the CVA the secured creditors (apart from Lombard, and maybe the Trust) will be paid from the TV money and I assume part of the FC debt will be paid in instalments from income.
It would be nice to know, when the deal is done (assuming it is done) the exact financial position and the impact this will have on developing the team.
The sale of the ground to PCC would not in theory reduce the debt. Brent's financial input would reduce but that money (or most of it) will probably go direct to Lombard.
According to the CVA the secured creditors (apart from Lombard, and maybe the Trust) will be paid from the TV money and I assume part of the FC debt will be paid in instalments from income.
It would be nice to know, when the deal is done (assuming it is done) the exact financial position and the impact this will have on developing the team.
The sale of the ground to PCC would not in theory reduce the debt. Brent's financial input would reduce but that money (or most of it) will probably go direct to Lombard.
Good OP and some very valid points. I'd like to know how much JB is putting in and what are the terms of that? If it's a loan, then essentially the football club is taking on more debt!
I do however think it's entirely fair that the football debts are taken on, afterall these are player wages, transfer fees that the club gambled on to get us back go the Championship. I do think it would be unfair for us to have to pay any debts relating to the world cup shambles (consultancy fees etc) but I believe they are all under the unsecured creditor status and hence get .077p in the £.
I do however think it's entirely fair that the football debts are taken on, afterall these are player wages, transfer fees that the club gambled on to get us back go the Championship. I do think it would be unfair for us to have to pay any debts relating to the world cup shambles (consultancy fees etc) but I believe they are all under the unsecured creditor status and hence get .077p in the £.
Nothing sinister I feel. They are aware that all these questions can be put to Mr Brent tomorrow after he has made his statement. I look forward to hearing more from him and will be happy when he has concluded his purchase. However, I am not of the opinion that he is the Messiah as some seem to think. He is a hard nosed businessman at the end of the day, he will be looking to maximise his profit from developing the adjoining land and benefitting from it's future income streams. He will be extremely prudent on the football investment side I am sure and I have no problem with that after the mismanagement of recent years. I just wonder how long it will be before these boards are full of posters demanding large sums of money are spent on new players and wages we cannot afford chasing the dream just as they were 3 or 4 years ago and poor James Brent is reviled by a majority of the fans. Very, very few clubs have a large majority of the fan base fully behind their current board of directors or owner and it often doesn't last long, such is the fickle nature of the average football fan. Best of luck Mr Brent, you will surely need it.
I'm hoping that James Brent is aiming for the same thing as the old (Stapleton led) board.
This is to develop Home Park in such a way that extra revenue is generated for the club. I am talking about conference rooms and other facilities which can bring in cash during the summer and when there are no home fixtures.
If Home Park does not belong to the club (i.e. it is Council owned) I am not sure if this will happen or not.
However, it's better to have Argyle's main asset owned by the local community rather than property developers who are only looking to line their own pockets. I think Brent's bid has better potential to develop the ground for the benefit of Argyle rather than for the benefit of private individuals.
Time will tell.
This is to develop Home Park in such a way that extra revenue is generated for the club. I am talking about conference rooms and other facilities which can bring in cash during the summer and when there are no home fixtures.
If Home Park does not belong to the club (i.e. it is Council owned) I am not sure if this will happen or not.
However, it's better to have Argyle's main asset owned by the local community rather than property developers who are only looking to line their own pockets. I think Brent's bid has better potential to develop the ground for the benefit of Argyle rather than for the benefit of private individuals.
Time will tell.
L
Laughter My Ploy
Guest
Something in the back of my mind about Ticketus....either they took a charge on the ground and/or called in personal guarantees....someone will remember what occured
On the secured debt....the value of the ground only covered Lombard and the Trust....word had it that Brent was negotiating a lower amount than outstanding to Lombard....it is understood that there a personal guarantees on the mortgage by ex directors....at some point in the process the administrator was threatening legal action to get other debt on the ground ie Suroys loan unsecured....get remember if this happened or the mere threat of a court case forced Suroy to do that
On the TV money....I think it was some of the Mastpoint money that was going to get paid off in full from that pot
On the secured debt....the value of the ground only covered Lombard and the Trust....word had it that Brent was negotiating a lower amount than outstanding to Lombard....it is understood that there a personal guarantees on the mortgage by ex directors....at some point in the process the administrator was threatening legal action to get other debt on the ground ie Suroys loan unsecured....get remember if this happened or the mere threat of a court case forced Suroy to do that
On the TV money....I think it was some of the Mastpoint money that was going to get paid off in full from that pot
This is what is happening. It appears James Brent is not buying it for any personal cash at all. He will only take over if the council buy the ground for 1.7million. He will pay off a portion of lombard loan with 700k and put the remaining £1m of that into the club to keep it running. Players will be paid off over 5 years. That's his bid! Not injecting any cash at all. The Administrators want a better deal but nothing on table officially. Why is everyone behind it? Maybe because Chris Webb and Peter Jones will be offered places on board or have a great involvment in the club. Plenty of water to flow yet that's for sure
Would i be right to think that once Lombard has been paid off the ground belongs to the club debt free?
Therefore unless rental costs are less than the ongoing maintainance and associated overheads, i can see no reason to sell it off to the council other than for a large cash injection.
Therefore unless rental costs are less than the ongoing maintainance and associated overheads, i can see no reason to sell it off to the council other than for a large cash injection.
What a tedious thread.
I wake up and listen to James Brent talking absolute sense on Sparksy this morning and then this.
Just let Akkeron sort out this mess and be grateful.
And i have no self esteem issues.
I wonder how we will get on on Saturday. COYG.
I wake up and listen to James Brent talking absolute sense on Sparksy this morning and then this.
Just let Akkeron sort out this mess and be grateful.
And i have no self esteem issues.
I wonder how we will get on on Saturday. COYG.
