Argyle at it again

[Chuckles]

Surprised this has not hit the press before now. All comments from Greenjock and Jabba are exactly how it is.

 

[Tringreen]

Too right you hear me say that.

The football club are effectively paying £30'000 a year for the privilege of land they currently lease from PCC to be transferred in freehold interest to the Akkeron Group for the sole benefit of their shareholders - i.e James and Nicola Brent. How you can blithely dismiss that extremely pertinent fact in a post which seems to be making the frankly astonishing argument that Brent is some kind of benefactor to PAFC is a mystery to me.



PAFC currently pay an annual rent of £165'000 (including the extra rent the club pays for the benefit of their owner's acquisition of yet more of their land) which is automatically increased in the event of each promotion they may (or may not) achieve. To my shame I have no idea how much we pay to ECC, but if I recall past threads on here correctly those who are more au fait with the situation claim a figure far less than that. I accept Home Park must be considerably more valuable than our ground, but is it that much more valuable?

PAFC has a buyback option of 12 times times the original price every five years, which means that if they were to buy it back today they would pay £1.98 million for the privilege. It seems to me that such a buyback would net PCC a gross profit of half-a-million pounds. Whether that can be described as "advantageous terms" or not, I couldn't say, given that I have no knowledge of commercial property values. All I do know is that they would be buying back a ground with every last one of its assets stripped by Brent and with a number of retail units and a medical centre located in one stand which are all leased to the Akkeron group (prop. J. Brent esq) Absolutely none of the revenue goes to the football club and any revenue they receive from the remainder of the stand looks to be nothing like the sum Brent formerly implied on the tin. If you want to praise him for providing an aesthetic improvement over the current Mayflower, then fair enough, but I was always under the impression that the whole point of ground development was to increase revenue streams that allow the football club to grow. There are serious doubts as to whether Brent's scheme (and if you ask me "scheme" is the word) will produce any major financial benefit for the Greens in the end.



I'd be prepared to bet that the only "longer term" James Brent has his eye on is getting the hell out of Dodge with his profits before the eye-watering balloon payment for the remaining football and secure debt (IIRC principally the the series of charges on the ground) left over from the administration becomes due in three years. This figure is estimated by Argyle fans in the know to be at least £3 million and possibly more - a debt which is being increased every day by the loans this so-called benefactor is making to PAFC to cover their day-to-day shortfall. (The break-even figure of the plan reluctantly accepted by the Football League relies on an average attendance of 8'000). It will be very interesting to see what his attidude to this debt turns out to be when he gets rid of the club

I'd also be prepared to bet that James Brent has absolutely no intention whatsoever of ever buying back the ground. If that was the case then why did he refuse to go ahead with the takeover unless PCC was prepared to buy the ground back from PAFC? After all, this is something they had always adamantly refused to do (hardly surprising given the cuts in public services PCC is having to make) until Brent threatened to pull out and let the club fold unless they complied. Given the controversy this decision caused and the objections among a section of Plymouth council-taxpayers it is entirely possible that the buyback clause was actually driven by PCC in order for them to sell their sudden and dramatic policy volte-face to sceptics.

In any case why would Brent or any future by back a ground, with all its assets stripped and with no room for further expansion or development without prohibitive extra costs due to the proximity of the HHP development and associated access road? For collateral on more loans or debt rescheduling? Where would they get the money from?

IMO Brent's sole interest was in acquiring the development land attached to the ground with the covenants removed as a condition of his "saving" the club. Effectively PCC put £1.5million into Brent's pocket to purchase the club and to cover all or part of the adminstration costs (CVA etc). There is as yet no evidence that he either has or is intending to put a red cent into the club beyond the aforementioned loans, or that he has any particular interest in the football side, beyond letting things tick over and leaving the rest up to Sheridan.

Spot on Jabba. PAFC is being boxed in, asset stripped, kept in debt [brent doesn't invest, he loans and increases the club's debt], and when he moves on he will still make money out of the club/development. Meanwhile, the local self promoting dimwits, who rattle buckets and act as superfans, will be dreaming of the day they can actually run the show.
God help PAFC.

 

[Dylan]

Cracking stuff and Luuurve it more everytime I read it!

Thank you, especially Jabba....

 

[Liquidator]

It's so alarming what's happening at PAFC - our worst nightmare is being played out in front of us. Brent may look like a meek and mild adult version of Harry Potter but this man is as hard as nails and very manipulative. Our Trust put together a Working Group of construction experts from the fan base and who put together a fantastic alternative to the plans for Home Park. Brent paid lip service to their proposals and the Brent mafia very publicly called into question the integrity of this group of professionals in a bid to discredit what they were proposing. He has no interest in real fan engagement - choosing instead to surround himself with yes-men who are just hanging on for the next prawn sandwich and willingly do his bidding. Backed by the aggressive Peter Jones - he is riding roughshod over our club. We will not see his backside for dust when this development is finished. He's had his business practices called into question in Private Eye before and I'm hoping that they pick up what he's up to in Plymouth.

 

[Dylan]

Why doesn't anyone go to the papers with this stuff?....

Hislop would love this stuff in Private Eye, as you mention..

 

[rightwing]

Thank you Jabba and all the Argyle contingent for making the situation crystal clear. I am truly amazed and frankly appalled that the new grandstand will not be treated solely as an Argyle entity. This will severely limit future ambition - I am surprised that PCC were not more aware of this aspect and could perhaps have brought some pressure to bear to rectify it.

As far as we are concerned, Chorlton will no doubt announce shortly that the Fountains Centre has been acquired for FITC use. This will mean that the building will be retained instead of being demolished as was the situation with the published Plan A, when the whole area would have been redeveloped as student accommodation and new hospitality facilities. In retaining the Fountains Centre building this will mean that the only enabling area in his plan is behind the Big Bank. This in turn will only produce a very small enabling contribution whilst off field income generation would largely be confined to the existing St. James' Centre. So, no ambition whatsoever. That is why I am so keen to promote Plan B. Facilities incorporated into the new crossfield stand would produce substantial off field income, whilst the greater sized enabling area behind this new stand right up to the garage land would produce a vastly increased enabling contribution.

 

[richard_portland]

Thank you Jabba and all the Argyle contingent for making the situation crystal clear. I am truly amazed and frankly appalled that the new grandstand will not be treated solely as an Argyle entity. This will severely limit future ambition - I am surprised that PCC were not more aware of this aspect and could perhaps have brought some pressure to bear to rectify it.

As far as we are concerned, Chorlton will no doubt announce shortly that the Fountains Centre has been acquired for FITC use. This will mean that the building will be retained instead of being demolished as was the situation with the published Plan A, when the whole area would have been redeveloped as student accommodation and new hospitality facilities. In retaining the Fountains Centre building this will mean that the only enabling area in his plan is behind the Big Bank. This in turn will only produce a very small enabling contribution whilst off field income generation would largely be confined to the existing St. James' Centre. So, no ambition whatsoever. That is why I am so keen to promote Plan B. Facilities incorporated into the new crossfield stand would produce substantial off field income, whilst the greater sized enabling area behind this new stand right up to the garage land would produce a vastly increased enabling contribution.

Do you think the trust/club will consider plan b?

 

[rightwing]

Do you think the trust/club will consider plan b?

Plan B has been considered by both the Trust and the Club. During the course of July I had several sessions with Laurence Overend from the Trust, and a sesssion with Taggy from the Club who presented all my ideas and financing proposals to the Club Board. I also had several earlier sessions with Roger Conway who, with Chorlton, effectively forms half of the Club Redevelopment Group. I think it is fair to say that they all liked the plan, particularly Laurence and Taggy as by the time I saw them I had come up with better structured financing.

Their argument is that the costs of the plan have not been fully identified. However my discussions with Laurence basically centred on identifying these costs, and I sought approval from the Trust Board to talk to architects, developers etc so that my group could fully identify both the costs and various elements of the financing plan. However I have come to the conclusion that the Club has once again nobbled the Trust, and, despite initial agreement to do so, Laurence has not put my request to the Trust Board.

I met Taggy on 19th July.My proposals were put to the Club Board shortly afterwards. I emailed Taggy again last Thursday saying that I have had no feedback from the Club Board (I understand from Laurence that James Forsyth had been instructed by the Club Board to write to me). I have not yet received a reply from Taggy.

Why is my group of seasoned professionals getting no co-operation in trying to fully identify all the costs and financing streams? If you were a member of the Club Redevelopment Group would you like to admit failure?

 

[Joe Grundy]

Almost all that Greenjock & Jabba has written is absolutely accurate - saves me having to do it.

Beware of men bearing gifts. Brent has played a blinder. He has trickled out information when it suits him and to whoever he chooses. He has cut off communication with the democratically elected Fans Trust and has set up his own body - Plymouth Argyle Supporters Board, PASB. This body has effectively been told behave yourselves or we won't talk with you about anything meaningful. The formation of the PASB was a farce from the beginning: endless delays in signing off minutes; some crappy involvement in the beginning from some academic at the University with vast experience in evolving community groups who then disappeared after not attending meetings; the electorate included little 5 yr old kiddies; the PASB was roundly supported by pasoti led by Newell, Webb, Delarr, Jameson et al; the Trust was the object of a vile campaign of innuendo, dirt-digging and other dirty tricks designed to get pasoti on-side with Brent's plans. There are still people who are or who have been involved with the Trust who won't put their names into the public arena for fear of consequences. I am not suggesting Brent was involved with all this but one questions the company he keeps, having early on made it crystal clear that Newell is a friend.

In the meantime, there has been a campaign in the local press by the Council, Brent & the above pasoti-ites. This campaign has included the releasing of half-truths with important points conveniently omitted. For example, after the local Planning Committee passed the plans, the following day or thereabouts, Brent suddenly looked at the back of his notes and must have said "Oh, bother! I forgot to say that I needed a bit of land to be handed to me freehold rather than the present leasehold! Oh dear! I'm sure they won't mind if I ask nicely." As jabba or Jock says above, even one of the Tory councillors stated that this amounted to blackmail but there was nothing to be done about it. A consequence of that is that the club will be charged an extra £30,000 a year for the privilege.

At the Planning Meeting Brent stood up to make a speech. And what a weird one it was! What were his plus points for this development? In the order he delivered them: better toilets for women; this was ALL being done for the benefit of the club; it will improve the health of the community (a cinema?! A row of restaurants?! A hotel!?); new sports changing rooms for local footballers; new trees; an impressive new gateway to the park; and 1,000 jobs created (the fact that 600 of these would be temporary whilst it was being built is irrelevant. And there are other issues I'd have with that figure that would be too boring to go into again.) What a man!! The speech was so lacklustre that one would almost believe that it was already a done deal. Indeed, the solicitor acting for the Friends of Central Park asked him how much he had paid - his response to this was to threaten legal action if she didn't retract. He may have been right to do so but it does make you wonder.

NONE of the income from the commercial development will be going to the club (unless like a wicked uncle who after he has had his wicked way with you suddenly produces a lollipop to say that'll shut you up & he decides out of the goodness of his heart to give us a shiny shilling). This is categorically against his message to fans groups early on when he waged a hearts & minds campaign. Early on he said that all of the income from the footprint of the existing grandstand would be for club benefit. Then one of the directors said maybe "one or two" of the commercial units would be used to generate income for the developers. Now NONE of it is going to the club. yet there are still posters on pasoti & in the local press who talk as if at least some of it will. They're either deaf & blind, thick as the proverbial or part of the campaign of disinformation.

I have no problem with Brent making money. I have a big problem when he makes it at the expense of our club and insults my intelligence in the process.

The local press are not interested in any of this.

I'll stop there. Beware of men who say they have a wonderful plan who will solve all your problems. They are often from Nigeria and use get-rich schemes on the internet to drain you dry. Sometimes they are much closer than that.

 

[Jason H]

Thankyou all for what is an excellent discussion (something that usually happens when Jabba gets involved!).