Home Park News (grandstand & Training piches)

harvetheslayer wrote:

The amount of people who were taken in by brents deliberate attempt to deceive to curry favour over his non development was quite startling including myself initially.
Most of those peoples attitudes is now never mind what did you expect for £5 million, no other fans would put up with this cvnt

Exactly why it's appropriate to call Brent a shyster.
SHYSTER

Animal farm are up in arms because grumpy loyal dared suggest many were eternally grateful.....there will be kids reading this who in 2050 will be still hearing this shight about Brent ffs

Taken from Argyle Free Chat

Here's a report from someone who attended the PACSA meeting last night:-

1. The money the Board have committed to Stage 1 to provide the new roof and floodlights for the Grandstand refurbishment in excess of the £5m provided by Simon and Jane Hallett is ‘substantial’ although confirmed at less than £1m.

2. The Board have committed other substantial sums to the further improvement of the Harpers Park drainage, new fencing to prevent damage and vandalism, the Home park pitch improvements and essential maintenance on essential items (unspecified) at the Home Park stadium.

3. Simon Hallett commented on how soon the unbudgeted income from the Liverpool games had been swallowed up by expenditure on the improvements.

4. Martyn Starnes confirmed that they were hopeful that the planning application for the Grandstand would be submitted within four weeks but the plans were subject to continuing refinement (there had been a meerting of the Grandstand Working Group earlier the same day.

5. Martyn Starnes confirmed that the reported 500 capacity for supporters bars included the capacity of the GT’s Marquee which is to be retained for the foreseeable future subject to licencing etc. He also confirmed that the far Post Club would not be opened for the start of the season as that are was where the initial constructional activity would take place. He confirmed that there would be accessibility of the supporter’s bars from outside the stadium. He hoped that , subject to proven demand, that there could be a 7-day-a-week bar facility open to supporters.

6. Simon Hallett confirmed that there was no funding in place, at this stage, for Stage 2 and that the cost of Stage 2 had not been finalised. It was hoped that once Stage 1 had been completed and was generating income then that would assist in securing additional funding for Stage 2 as would income from additional attendances.

7. Martyn Starnes confirmed that so far 5,000 Green Memberships had been sold and 1,000 White Memberships. Both figures were substantially in advance of the same stage last season particularly the sale of White Memberships.

8. Simon Hallett confirmed he wanted to concentrate on improving the pre and post-match experience at the stadium. That was his focus based on his experience in the USA.

9. Martyn Starnes declined to confirm whether or not the ‘competitive playing budget’ was in excess of the reported last season’s League 1 average of £3.5m. That figure is from the Portsmouth Chief Executive who confirmed publicly that Pompey’s playing budget would be £3m for this season. Both Martyn and Simon confirmed that Derek Adams likes to ‘outperform’ his playing budget as he did last season.

10. During the meeting the signing of Ryan Edwards was confirmed. Martyn Starnes said that a compensation payment with Morecombe had been agreed and paid as the player was u-24. He said the signing was a ‘coup’ as a lot of clubs had expressed an interest in signing him.

11. Martyn Starnes confirmed that there is an expectation That Derek Adams will replace the nine players released and keep the squad numbers roughly the same as last season. That is his decision and not a Board decision, so expect up to another six signings. He also confirmed that as we are in League 1 now we are a much more attractive proposition for loan signings, particularly from the Premiership. Derek Adams has got a good reputation for looking after and reporting progress on loan signings.

12. The new playing kit details will be released soon (within days) . The delay has been caused by the main sponsor Ginsters consideration of revamping their brand logo. It is anticipated that the new shirts will contain a revised logo if confirmed by Ginsters.. The away kit will be released a few days later. He confirmed that Derek Adams had played a part in the new home and away kit selection

13. Finally, Simon Hallett and his wife decided to confirm their investment in the club after receiving an overwhelming welcome at the Senior Greens. Simon confirmed that his wife in particular is smitten with the supporters at the club even though previously she had no track record of interest in any sport. They are planning to go on the tour to Holland before they return to the US.

So basically a fence and a bit of grass seed costs £1 million these days.

Tgwu wrote:

Taken from Argyle Free Chat

13. Finally, Simon Hallett and his wife decided to confirm their investment in the club after receiving an overwhelming welcome at the Senior Greens. Simon confirmed that his wife in particular is smitten with the supporters at the club.

One can only wonder who shes bumped into......

^^ lol

Hugh Watt wrote:

So basically a fence and a bit of grass seed costs £1 million these days.

Sounds to me like the same characters involved in the Oldway Manor "fees" disaster are poking about at Argyle. Nice work if you can get it. Wonder if any of the contractors have connections with Brent ? He does like to have a pot shot at anything and everything where there's a few quid up for grabs.
And it sounds like Argyle will be put yet another million in debt for the pleasure of this refurb. Up and up and up.

[quote="beesrus"]

Hugh Watt wrote:

So basically a fence and a bit of grass seed costs £1 million these days.

Sounds to me like the same characters involved in the Oldway Manor "fees" disaster are poking about at Argyle. Nice work if you can get it. Wonder if any of the contractors have connections with Brent ? He does like to have a pot shot at anything and everything where there's a few quid up for grabs.
And it sounds like Argyle will be put yet another million in debt for the pleasure of this refurb. Up and up and up.

Doesn't appear to have anything to do with more debt - sounds like the Board have committed some of last season's profits to the new roof / floodlights in the same way they committed some to the training ground

Yes, possibly, but who can tell with the very careful wording that comes out of Home Park these days.
There's plenty of money to increase the value of the assets but not for the football, even if the money was derived from the football in the first place. That Liverpool windfall might well have made a huge difference to a promotion push next season, with no budgetary risk whatsoever. A massive chance squandered just to increase the asset value of the club at no cost to the owners. That's a profit for them in the long term, not the football. This is the sort of behaviour that so incensed Holloway

Are you seriously suggesting that the club shouldn't be investing any profits it makes into infrastructure?

Improving the training facilities, increasing the refurbishment budget, catching up with maintenance, repaying the PCC loan early - surely this is better use of unbudgeted income than throwing it at some desperate attempt at instant promotion - you say no budgetary risk - what would happen to next year's budget if promotion wasn't achieved and no cup run came along?

If the shareholders are looking to maximise profits they'd be better off following your advice and getting the club to the championship, offloading it smartiish and letting someone else worry about improving the infrastructure.

MAK wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting that the club shouldn't be investing any profits it makes into infrastructure?

Improving the training facilities, increasing the refurbishment budget, catching up with maintenance, repaying the PCC loan early - surely this is better use of unbudgeted income than throwing it at some desperate attempt at instant promotion - you say no budgetary risk - what would happen to next year's budget if promotion wasn't achieved and no cup run came along?

If the shareholders are looking to maximise profits they'd be better off following your advice and getting the club to the championship, offloading it smartiish and letting someone else worry about improving the infrastructure.

With regard to the emboldened bit above, the budget would return to normal the year after, with nothing lost, promoted or not. If you can't understand that, there's no point conversing. And lets get rid of a certain myth that the likes of Brent have been peddling after his 50 billion dollar disaster across the pond, the opposite of austerity is not bankruptcy. In any case, there's already £5 million plus going into infrastructure as you call it, most of it billed to the club for the next 30 years.
Not all football fans are stupid. Mak.

MAK wrote:

beesrus wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

So basically a fence and a bit of grass seed costs £1 million these days.

Sounds to me like the same characters involved in the Oldway Manor "fees" disaster are poking about at Argyle. Nice work if you can get it. Wonder if any of the contractors have connections with Brent ? He does like to have a pot shot at anything and everything where there's a few quid up for grabs.
And it sounds like Argyle will be put yet another million in debt for the pleasure of this refurb. Up and up and up.

Doesn't appear to have anything to do with more debt - sounds like the Board have committed some of last season's profits to the new roof / floodlights in the same way they committed some to the training ground

Argyle have spend a fair few £'s on Harper Park on the request of DA, they were running out of funds until the Liverpool and sell on money came along, also some from Mrs. Hallett.

The top pitch has been relayed and fitted with drainage and a sprinkle system like the main pitch.

The bottom all the same as top pitch but no sprinkle system in the ground.

Plus a big water tank to feed the sprinkle system.

The new fence are like the kind you see going around schools and are inside the Devon hedges this time.

The Devon Hedges was neglected and abused by Argyle and PCC had made them repair the damage.

[quote="beesrus"]

MAK wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting that the club shouldn't be investing any profits it makes into infrastructure?

Improving the training facilities, increasing the refurbishment budget, catching up with maintenance, repaying the PCC loan early - surely this is better use of unbudgeted income than throwing it at some desperate attempt at instant promotion - you say no budgetary risk - what would happen to next year's budget if promotion wasn't achieved and no cup run came along?

If the shareholders are looking t

With regard to the emboldened bit above, the budget would return to normal the year after, with nothing lost, promoted or not. If you can't understand that, there's no point conversing. And lets get rid of a certain myth that the likes of Brent have been peddling after his 50 billion dollar disaster across the pond, the opposite of austerity is not bankruptcy. In any case, there's already £5 million plus going into  infrastructure as you call it, most of it billed to the club for the next 30 years.
Not all football fans are stupid. Mak.

The budget retiring to normal = a budget cut - increasing the budget for one year only in the hope you get lucky is a nonsense - thankfully not all football club boards are stupid either

beesrus wrote:

In any case, there's already £5 million plus going into  infrastructure as you call it, most of it billed to the club for the next 30 years.
Not all football fans are stupid. Mak.

So who should be paying for the stadium improvements if not the club? Who else would pay for it? Nobody is the answer. ...and under the council it was falling down and they were far from interested in improving it for someone else to make a profit. In fact, they seem dying to unload it every chance they got. Which is what they did in the end...

Actually its going to be the punters that are paying for it. Over 30 years.

Hugh Watt wrote:

Actually its going to be the punters that are paying for it. Over 30 years.

Depends on your definition of punters - if you mean match day punters you can make a case for saying that they won't be paying a penny.

2.1m at 3% over 30 years would v roughly cost about 200k a year (assuming there's no balloon payment arrangement). Argyle will expect to comfortably generate that from non-match day use of the conference facilities alone.

This non match day conference thingy seems a banker, wonder why Plymouth doesn't have such a thing already....

MAK wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

Actually its going to be the punters that are paying for it. Over 30 years.

Depends on your definition of punters - if you mean match day punters you can make a case for saying that they won't  be paying a penny.

2.1m at 3% over 30 years would v roughly cost about 200k a year (assuming there's no balloon payment arrangement). Argyle will expect to comfortably generate that from non-match day use of the conference facilities alone.

Really. £4k per week profit. Even at JBs very optimistic 20% profit margin is extra £20k per week turnover.

Not so straight forward when operating on capacity of a quarter of Sandy Park miles from it's prime location.

What a load of nonsense our new member MAK talks. If the money, this money, that money, any money, isn't put into the football budget, but put to capital expenditure, then it's all extra bunce to the twins.  I wonder what formula the squire uses when arriving at a figure for his playing "budget" every year.
While we're at it, ever since he's been here, Brent has got away with putting 50% of "unbudgeted" income toward paying down debt. Why pay it off earlier ? there was no need, well apart from his own. Now, given the Liverpool thing,  it looks like he's appropriating 100% of that income now the club is supposedly "debt free". Strange that    

Every season nearly always sees unbudgeted income from the football operation for this or that reason, and it was historically always ploughed back into the football team. If you devalue the playing squad with, say, a Purrington 300K, that money received was ploughed back into the squad to shore up the quality of the team. Not any more under the squire. He's just into property uplift, under the guise of jam tomorrow for a football team that never sees any of it. I suspect the new academy will just be seen as a puppy farm to make money for the owners. It's amazing how gullible some people are.
I've got an idea. As the squire is all for paying down debt earlier than necessary, how about in future paying off Hallett's loan earlier than scheduled. Somehow, I doubt that will happen as it's a nice safe haven in turbulent financial climate change where there's too much dosh and too few assets in the real world.
It's all mirrors.

Non of my ISSA accounts pay what Hallet is getting so please can I 'give something back' and loan the cash to Argyle and let the 'Janners' uplift my income - I'd want a secured mortgage obv, but it would make me feel good to have the fans laud me for my generosity.

PatDunne wrote:

Non of my ISSA accounts pay what Hallet is getting so please can I 'give something back' and loan the cash to Argyle and let the 'Janners' uplift my income - I'd want a secured mortgage obv, but it would make me feel good to have the fans laud me for my generosity.

By comparison Tony Rowe and fellow Directors at Exeter Chiefs funded their improvement to the stadium and corporate facilities by a bond issue of £2.33m. The repayment is at 7% per annum.

Under the last accounts the Sandy Park Conference facility had a turnover of £1.5m out of a total Club turnover of £16m or so. What Argyle are proposing is on a par with the main Exeter conference site (750 v 800 capacity). The Chiefs have additional suites recently added, but Argyle have additional capacity in the form of 3 x 40 capacity corporate boxes, the players lounge and the Boardroom which will provide additional flexibility for non-match day income. The total corporate capacity for Stage 1 at Home Park within the Grandstand will something around 1,000 for match day and non-match day. Not quite to the Chief's capacity but a significant facility which will provide a quantum leap in achieving improved match day and non-match day income.

The rate at which Mr & Mrs Hallett have invested their £4.1m is something much less than half the current available commercial market borrowing rate and significantly below the equivalent of what they could earn through their USA investment vehicle. With the capital repayments being equally apportioned over the 30 year loan period being £136,000 and the reported interest being less than 3% the annual total repayment will probably be just shy of £250,000 per annum. With all other Football Club debt now paid that is the cost of providing at Stage 1 2,000 additional seats and significantly improved corporate facilities capable of generating at least £1m additional income per year. I would call that investing in your club as a part owner.

I am rather glad that we have a Director and his wife prepared to make that level of investment at the rate that they are. I welcome the investment given there is no obvious alternative to raise the money. It certainly puts the much lauded owner and Directors of Exeter Chiefs in a different light!

I'm glad we have a Director that has found a secured investment vehicle that outperforms my ISSAs.

Really excellent post and insight into the 'real world'.

I know GC was publically against the club buying back HP but also worth stating that the affordability of the Grandstand loan was further helped by Brent / Hallett stumping up the £1.8 million buy back price.

This was done in exchange purely for an increased shareholding at no cost to the club and thereby removed the rental liability of £135k pa which would have gone up every 5 years and would have gone up significantly upon promotion to the Championship (to the extent that the annual rent would have exceeded the annual cost of the loan.)

The important bit you're missing Graham is that Hallett co-owns the "community club" he's lending money to, so I would hope the deal was cheaper than the dearest on offer. And of course, in the old days directors just invested in their businesses with shareholdings that only received a fiscal return on the business turning a profit. Feels nothing but like an idyllic dream these days with current business practice.

Cast your mind back to Brent's advice in property weekly when he used to pen investment articles for them. His main thrust time and time again in avoiding the risk of the last crash and the coming related next even bigger crash was to find safe investments where "the tenant or mortgagee was not likely to default". So, I can't think of a safer bet than something as the arrangement at Argyle, and even then almost in effect backed up by local government/community if the whole globalised balloon were to go up 30s style and worse. I should hope it was reasonable terms. And that's before we begin to explore the executive class and their methods of avoiding inheritance taxes
And again, who is there to check the extra income generated is going to go to the football ? No public information worth it's salt ever comes out of Argyle as to the financial details. Why would these pair be so shy in not publishing their playing budget at the end of each season, so some of us can actually work out if they have been true to their words and compare with the average spend across the division ? You and John Lloyd may well have been smitten, but many of us haven't.

beesrus wrote:

The important bit you're missing Graham is that Hallett co-owns the "community club" he's lending money to, so I would hope the deal was cheaper than the dearest on offer. And of course, in the old days directors just invested in their businesses with shareholdings that only received a fiscal return on the business turning a profit. Feels nothing but like an idyllic dream these days with current business practice.

Cast your mind back to Brent's advice in property weekly when he used to pen investment articles for them. His main thrust time and time again in avoiding the risk of the last crash and the coming related next even bigger crash was to find safe investments where "the tenant or mortgagee was not likely to default". So, I can't think of a safer bet than something as the arrangement at Argyle, and even then almost in effect backed up by local government/community if the whole globalised balloon were to go up 30s style and worse. I should hope it was reasonable terms. And that's before we begin to explore the executive class and their methods of avoiding inheritance taxes
And again, who is there to check the extra income generated is going to go to the football ? No public information worth it's salt ever comes out of Argyle as to the financial details. Why would these pair be so shy in not publishing their playing budget at the end of each season, so some of us can actually work out if they have been true to their words and compare with the average spend across the division ?  You and John Lloyd may well have been smitten, but many of us haven't.

As far as I am aware only one Chief Executive has come out and stated what his club's playing budget is for the season. That was Pompey's CEO in the light of the agreed takeover. He stated it would be £3m and below what he stated the £3.5m League 1 average was last season. At the PACSA meeting on Tuesday I did ask Martyn Starnes whether we were above or below the average with our 'competitive budget'. He declined to comment other than state he hoped Derek Adams would outperform that budget as he did last year. If I was in his position at this stage of the season I wouldn't want my wage budget being made public in advance of pre-season negotiations with avaricious agents!

Anyone who knows me would concede that I have not been smitten. I am a pragmatist who only wants what is the best possible for my club. Until recently I was an advocate of completing the original Phase 2 of the Home Park Stadium. Being the lead officer at the Council at the time for delivering the stadium in 2002 I was very disappointed that the Club and the Council could not combine to finishing the job which was the prelude to the original freehold purchase in 2007. On reflection and after visiting a number of identikit stadiums and after being engrossed in Russell Moore's excellent book on Home Park I wanted something different. I was originally on the Grandstand Working Group at James Brent's invitation because I wanted to have an influence because I was sceptical as to what could be achieved . The timings of meetings meant that my attendance was impossible.

However, I was more than pleasantly surprised at what had been achieved internally and externally with the proposed Stage 1 and the potential, subject to funding of Stage 2. The integrity of the original Leitch Grandstand has been respected and the Club shop as part of the iconic turnstiles is inspired.Compared to the original Phase 2 which had a capacity of 18,600 (with seating in the two corners and roofed over) Stage 1 almost directly compares.. The proposed levels of hospitality, office and shop / ticket office in the proposed Phase 2 are inferior to what is proposed under Stage 1 of the new proposals. The cost of Phase 2 in current construction cost numbers would be something approaching £10m. With my pragmatist head on I consider that in many ways we are getting something better in terms of capacity and facilities than we would do otherwise. With Mr & Mrs Hallett's £5m plus the Board commitment of short of £1m for the new roof and floodlights it means Board members (shareholders) will have provided investment of just shy of £6m for Stage 1, plus the £1.6m Stadium acquisition cost (from Land Registry figures) and debt repayment.There are costs that other necessary improvements to Harpers Park, the pitch and overdue maintenance on the stadium.

None of this now is development related which is the way most other clubs have attempted to relocate or improve their stadia such as attempted under the ill-fated HHP proposals. Subject to necessary consents delivery of Stage 1 is within the club's control. My aversion to the sale of the freehold was based on the belief that I saw no other alternative for a stadium upgrade other than with the Council loaning the Club money for enhancements in the form of a mortgage (much like the Hallett loan). Agreement with the Council to do this was progressing along at the same time as the £800k loan was granted. In the end for what ever reason it did not happen but I was hopeful in time that it would.

After that disappointment,I never anticipated was that someone would come along and fund the club at a scale that in a way that the Chairman and other Board members were unable. That coupled with unbudgeted income from Cup runs and players sell-ons has helped the Club to be debt free and put substantial resources into a substantial upgrade of the stadium. I. like many others, will be forensic on the detail of Stage 1 and its implementation. We are at a watershed moment in the club's history and I want to embrace it. i know others may not share that view for what ever reason and it comes with concerns about transparency (which is much improved), communication (which again is improving but of course could do better) and the future relationship with HHP and what goes on it. The Club, with the finance behind it, now has no excuses for delivery. The implementation of Stage 1 is the litmus test. With the retention of Derek Adams assured I look forward to having optimism on the pitch as well as off it. I will remain on the case in an objective manner and continue to highlight any issues that need public airing.