Five Directions now owns 20% of Argyle

According to Companies House Five Directions Limited now owns 20.91% (1,398,074 £1 shares out of a total of 6,685,477) of the £1 shares in PAFC Company Limited.

Five Directions Limited was set up in February 2012 just before James Brent signed the deal with PCC to buy the Pavilions for £1 (and trouser a £2m dowry to cover expected on-going losses). It was also just before HHP Nominee Limited bought Higher Home Park for £425,000 from the club.

Five Directions Limited have since had the Pavilions revalued a number of times and in the 2016 accounts it is valued at £5,513,501 (page 7 of 2016 accounts).

In the 2015 accounts the Pavilions was revalued from £4.5m to £6m which has since depreciated from £6m to the £5,513,501.

In the 2016 accounts (Page 7) it refers to a Current Asset Investment of £1,398,074 for share capital of an unnamed fellow group undertaking following a debt for shares deal.

This Current Asset Investment of £1,398,074 is, coincidentally, exactly equivalent in value to the £1 shares Five Directions Limited hold in PAFC Company Limited.

So the company that owns the Pavilions now owns 20.91% of PAFC.

The increase in valuation of the Pavilions by £1.5m (2015 accounts) may have provided the funding for the acquisition of the freehold of Home Park in October 2016.

So PCC by selling the Pavilions for £1 may ultimately, through completely legitimate revaluations and the passage of time,  have indirectly also provided the funding for the acquisition of their own freehold asset at Home Park. Sweet, eh? That quid must have been the best one that James Brent ever spent - if that was how it all happened.

This all raises a couple of questions... Why does Five Directions Limited need to own 20.91% of PAFC and what happens to unravel this if the Pavilions is sold?

Firstly I find all this a bit Snoopy, lol. Secondly great bit of snoopering that is Franny although I'm sure that there is nothing to see here, its all agenda driven trouble making by the usual suspects, why shouldn't Brent make money off the back of Argo and in Brent we trust. Have I missed anything out?
This isn't at all surprising and just adds to the worry that when Brent finally does one the club will be ridden with debt to various sources in and outside of the board. The convoluted and many layered funding structure we have in place makes a mockery of the free grandstand that we were promised.
Is this an additional share offering where the club has made the shares to get the money?

is this another way of brent still being able to get money if he sells up and ships out, still keeping the 20% mentioned here ?

With Brent's dedication to transparency I'm sure we'll all find out soon.

five directions sounds like a shit tribute boy band

Perhaps five direction, can point us in the right direction to finding the Liverpool cup money?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

The increase in valuation of the Pavilions by £1.5m (2015 accounts) may have provided the funding for the acquisition of the freehold of Home Park in October 2016.

So PCC by selling the Pavilions for £1 may ultimately, through completely legitimate revaluations and the passage of time,  have indirectly also provided the funding for the acquisition of their own freehold asset at Home Park. Sweet, eh? That quid must have been the best one that James Brent ever spent - if that was how it all happened.

This all raises a couple of questions... Why does Five Directions Limited need to own 20.91% of PAFC and what happens to unravel this if the Pavilions is sold?

As is usual with you, a lot of supposition.

Why don't you actually turn up at a fanfest and confront Brent with these type of questions yourself?

Maybe you could give him a directors phone number Ricks?

Yea Man wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

just don't use your main email address we don't know who else has access to his emails.....

Earwegoagain wrote:

Maybe you could give him a directors phone number Ricks?

((((sniggers))))

Hmmm!! The plot & the skullduggery thickens at the theatre of schemes by the looks of it

Rickler wrote:

Why don't you actually turn up at a fanfest and confront Brent with these type of questions yourself?

How quaint Ricks. Do you really think such a Q and A at Philanthropist Towers will change the direction of the tide ? Geddon.

I'm a big believer of leaving the opposition with nothing but themselves to push against, revisit your martial art philosophy. The long battle is won outside of such bulk standard EFL demanded "democratic" occasions.
Having said that, this detail from sir frank seems confirmation of what Brent confirmed a few months ago, at last, putting some balance sheet figures as vulnerable ordinary share capital as opposed to loans. It roughly matched what your compatriot Hallett did.
I don't much care how the guy presents his accounts, one way or the other, as it's all gone too far to worry about such things. I care about his motive, something of which he's hardly likely to admit to and come blabbing at a Q and A.

Earwegoagain wrote:

Maybe you could give him a directors phone number Ricks?

Or he could do what I did... Raised myself from my sun lounger and used google.

...and then made the call.

But SFD won't...He'll jump to conclusions, pass them off as facts, and fellow do nothing'ers like Beezy will lap it up and proclaim it all to be true!

...and you wonder how Brent gets away with stuff? SFD and Beezy are your answer. Brent must just love 'em!

I have always raised an eyebrow at the long range Americans making a pig's ear of local fault lines. Go in guns blazing, without a care to the future. Yeah.. solves everything at a stroke.
I particularly remember the "outstanding" quotes from the heroic televised bomber air crew during Iraq 1 or was it Iraq, the sequel, as they released their missiles 3,000 miles away from the action. Outstanding, and another fine mess for the world to deal with for another 200 years.

As to the passing off of facts, I was under the impression everybody paints their own picture of life, even you, or have I missed something along the way ?
I'm a big believer in if the majority of Argyle fans want to become Akkeron fans, they should do so. My main concern is the park, which most fans couldn't give a monkey's about. If the council have sold the community down the river in this case, there is nothing we can do but vote them out next May, and start again, making it as difficult as possible for the park profiteers to actually put their plans together.

beesrus wrote:

As to the passing off of facts, I was under the impression everybody paints their own picture of life, even you, or have I missed something along the way ?

Indeed you have missed something. Facts are facts, not "impressions" that everybody paints in their own picture of life.

...and your first paragraph above. You do get carry on. Nice prose, but what does it have to do with anything being discussed?

Rickler wrote:

beesrus wrote:

As to the passing off of facts, I was under the impression everybody paints their own picture of life, even you, or have I missed something along the way ?

Facts are facts, not "impressions" that everybody paints in their own picture of life.  

Is that so ? I expect you'll find the squire's "facts" are very much different to mine.
Obviously, I need to catch up on the latest gospel to re educate myself.This might make you feel uncomfortable, but your adulation of so-called "empirical fact" puts you somewhat in bed with Sir Frank.

Here's a sweet tickle from the NewYorker commenting on a recent empirical study on the marriage of fact and human behaviour that created said fact. Hope it's not too Eastern seaboard for you.  

The New Yorker wrote:

The vaunted human capacity for reason may have more to do with winning arguments than with thinking straight.

irrefutable 200% correct scientific study trying to square a circle

Rickler wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

The increase in valuation of the Pavilions by £1.5m (2015 accounts) may have provided the funding for the acquisition of the freehold of Home Park in October 2016.

So PCC by selling the Pavilions for £1 may ultimately, through completely legitimate revaluations and the passage of time,  have indirectly also provided the funding for the acquisition of their own freehold asset at Home Park. Sweet, eh? That quid must have been the best one that James Brent ever spent - if that was how it all happened.

This all raises a couple of questions... Why does Five Directions Limited need to own 20.91% of PAFC and what happens to unravel this if the Pavilions is sold?

As is usual with you, a lot of supposition.

Why don't you actually turn up at a fanfest and confront Brent with these type of questions yourself?

Possibly because he doesn't want another drink thrown at him

Just bumping this for obvious reasons.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

According to Companies House Five Directions Limited now owns 20.91% (1,398,074 £1 shares out of a total of 6,685,477) of the £1 shares in PAFC Company Limited.

Five Directions Limited was set up in February 2012 just before James Brent signed the deal with PCC to buy the Pavilions for £1 (and trouser a £2m dowry to cover expected on-going losses). It was also just before HHP Nominee Limited bought Higher Home Park for £425,000 from the club.

Five Directions Limited have since had the Pavilions revalued a number of times and in the 2016 accounts it is valued at £5,513,501 (page 7 of 2016 accounts).

In the 2015 accounts the Pavilions was revalued from £4.5m to £6m which has since depreciated from £6m to the £5,513,501.

In the 2016 accounts (Page 7) it refers to a Current Asset Investment of £1,398,074 for share capital of an unnamed fellow group undertaking following a debt for shares deal.

This Current Asset Investment of £1,398,074 is, coincidentally, exactly equivalent in value to the £1 shares Five Directions Limited hold in PAFC Company Limited.

So the company that owns the Pavilions now owns 20.91% of PAFC.

The increase in valuation of the Pavilions by £1.5m (2015 accounts) may have provided the funding for the acquisition of the freehold of Home Park in October 2016.

So PCC by selling the Pavilions for £1 may ultimately, through completely legitimate revaluations and the passage of time,  have indirectly also provided the funding for the acquisition of their own freehold asset at Home Park. Sweet, eh? That quid must have been the best one that James Brent ever spent - if that was how it all happened.

This all raises a couple of questions... Why does Five Directions Limited need to own 20.91% of PAFC and what happens to unravel this if the Pavilions is sold?

The same thing that happens on cowboy builders. Have numerous companies/businesses registered then when the shit hits the fans with one of them, and people start to cotton on to the shenanigans, all the debt and legal issues are passed to that one and business as usual. A bit like Brent and his hotel business. Nothing will change until the individual and not the company/business are made culpable.