Q and A review

Earwegoagain wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

.

I think the question about he budget should have been phrased like this, "do Argyle spend the sixty percent of club turnover on the playing budget?"
A bit harder to wriggle out of, we all know we don't pay the full sixty it's obvious to anyone but the social climbers but any waffle other than a straight yes would make it obvious.

The question that Hallett answered was asked by me in the following manner via email to Rick Cowdery

Just having a few thoughts while lying around on my sun lounger and it's my understanding that due to the Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP) - the Financial Fair Play framework that limits the amount a club can spend on wages as a proportion of turnover at 60% for League One.

Could you please tell us the percentage of turnover at Argyle that is going on player wages?

If it's not at 60%, why not?

The following was also asked:

The internet is awash in rumours that the club is already paying down Simon and Jane Hallet's loan and therefore wasting money as the work at Home Park is not ready to go ahead.  Can you confirm if that is the case and if so, how much has been paid?


Hallet's answer refutes the ridiculous claim put forward by SFD that Argyle were already paying interest on the loan.

It's not that ridiculous a claim it all depends on the terms and conditions, it could have been a loan to the club and not tied to the development, it obviously has been earmarked just for the refurb which is a small piece of good news. What constantly knarks me is the hissiness used by the Club when answering questions like these, they have been constantly lacking in detail and treat us like mushrooms. As an aside nothing that Brent has done has filled me with confidence that he will always do the sensible or clever thing far from it.

Point of order:

Just because Rickler says I have said something it doesn't mean that I have. I certainly don't recall it if I did. He just desperately wants me to have said it so he can needlessly, relentlessly stick the boot in yet again.

As you were.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

.

I think the question about he budget should have been phrased like this, "do Argyle spend the sixty percent of club turnover on the playing budget?"
A bit harder to wriggle out of, we all know we don't pay the full sixty it's obvious to anyone but the social climbers but any waffle other than a straight yes would make it obvious.

The question that Hallett answered was asked by me in the following manner via email to Rick Cowdery

Just having a few thoughts while lying around on my sun lounger and it's my understanding that due to the Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP) - the Financial Fair Play framework that limits the amount a club can spend on wages as a proportion of turnover at 60% for League One.

Could you please tell us the percentage of turnover at Argyle that is going on player wages?

If it's not at 60%, why not?

The following was also asked:

The internet is awash in rumours that the club is already paying down Simon and Jane Hallet's loan and therefore wasting money as the work at Home Park is not ready to go ahead.  Can you confirm if that is the case and if so, how much has been paid?


Hallet's answer refutes the ridiculous claim put forward by SFD that Argyle were already paying interest on the loan.

It's not that ridiculous a claim it all depends on the terms and conditions, it could have been a loan to the club and not tied to the development, it obviously has been earmarked just for the refurb which is a small piece of good news. What constantly knarks me is the hissiness used by the Club when answering questions like these, they have been constantly lacking in detail and treat us like mushrooms. As an aside nothing that Brent has done has filled me with confidence that he will always do the sensible or clever thing far from it.

Point of order:

Just because Rickler says I have said something it doesn't mean that I have. I certainly don't recall it if I did. He just desperately wants me to have said it so he can needlessly, relentlessly stick the boot in yet again.

As you were.

In fact it could have been me that first raised the question, not that I want to get in the way of a bitchfight.

This thread shows the value of having the odd breakfast with a fan. Relationships are struck, Brenty has Newell, Hallett has Ricks.
Couldn't care less exactly what has been questioned or not, but sometimes it's a good idea to really really really stick the boot in publicly, right or wrong, as sometimes the ire of the person targeted is raised enough to ensure they have to refute the allegation point blank. It's a common ploy where humans are concerned, and helps to address just a tad the obvious ludicrous imbalance of power between football virgin owners and long term fans.

Here's the text from the baggo on 5th january 2017 announcing the loan:

baggo wrote:

ARGYLE today lit the green touch paper for the redevelopment and expansion of the grandstand and new conferencing & banqueting centre at Home Park.

The development will, in large part, be financed by a £4.1m loan to the club from director Simon Hallett and his wife Jane. Co-owner Simon will also buy, for cash, 900,000 further shares in the club and Richard Holliday will buy 65,000 new shares.  

In addition, all existing loans from shareholders Chairman James Brent, Tony Wrathall, and Simon Hallett will be converted into equity – reducing the overall debt levels of the club and so paving the way for Argyle to invest in redeveloping the New Mayflower and Conferencing Centre. All the revenues generated from these facilities will be owned by Argyle.

Supporters will be consulted about the plans for the redevelopment and expansion of the grandstand in a working-group to be set up by the club. No date has been set for the start or completion of the project, but James has previously said he would like a redeveloped grandstand to be a centre point of the city's 2020 Mayflower 400 celebrations and it is intended that work will start as soon as planning permission has been received.

In a club statement issued on Thursday, January 5, James heralded the announcement as “a further important and exciting milestone for Argyle”, which will “provide 21st century hospitality for our supporters and material additional revenues...to invest into the club and team.”

Echoing the Chairman’s sentiments, Simon said that the development would benefit Argyle supporters on match-days and “help provide the long-term revenue base for further investment in the team.”

The loan from Simon and Jane Hallett will be repaid, together with interest at a rate expected to be less than 3% per annum, over the next 30 years in equal instalments.  

The full statement reads:

THE Board of Plymouth Argyle Football Club Limited (‘PAFC’) today announced that it has reached agreement with its shareholders for the issue of new shares and a long-term loan to refinance the existing shareholder loans and finance the redevelopment and expansion of the Grandstand for the club and a Conferencing and Banqueting Centre.

The announcement follows the issue of c. £1.7m of new shares to buy back Home Park from Plymouth City Council in October of last year.  

Under the terms of a memorandum of understanding signed today, PAFC will issue a total of 3.081 million new £1 ordinary shares to existing shareholders as follows:

• £1,398,074 to companies indirectly owned by Mr and Mrs James Brent;
• £1,521,360 to Mr Simon Hallett;
• £97,000 to Mr Tony Wrathall.
• £65,000 to Mr Richard Holliday

Mr Holliday will also convert c. £100,000 of his Convertible Loan Notes into 100,000 shares.

The new share issue will be used to repay all the existing shareholder debt, which aggregates to £2.116m and to raise £965,000 of the funding required for the new grandstand.

In addition, Mr Simon and Mrs Jane Hallett have agreed to lend PAFC an amount of £4.1m. This loan, together with interest (at a rate which is expected to be less than 3% per annum), will be repaid in equal instalments over the next 30 years.

Upon completion of the transaction (and allowing for conversion of all the loan notes), the shares in PAFC will be owned as follows:

• companies owned by Mr and Mrs James Brent –50.1 %;
• Mr Simon Hallett – 41.9%;
• Mr Tony Wrathall – 2.9%;
• Mr Richard Holliday and associated family funds – 5.1% (assuming conversion of the remainder of his convertible loan notes).

Therefore, the club will have c. £7m of shares in issue, an additional £965,000 of cash and no shareholder loans other than the new facility, which is being made available to fund construction of the redeveloped and expanded Grandstand.

PAFC will soon begin consultation with its supporters on plans for the Grandstand and Conference Centre, 100% of the revenues from both of which will be owned by PAFC.

An invitation is being issued today for fans to submit their resumes to join a working group to consult with the club on the development of these plans.

Argyle Chairman James Brent said: “Today is a further important and exciting milestone for Argyle, as we continue to move from the last chapter of recovery to a new one of significant and sustainable improvement.

“The re-development and expansion of the Grandstand and new Conference Centre will provide 21st century hospitality for our supporters and material additional revenues – match-day and non match-day – to invest into the club and team. We will increase the attendance capacity for today and preserve the ability to further increase in the future.

'The other members of the Board and I thank Simon and his wife, Jane, for all that they have done for Argyle and for the further major investment they are making.”

Director Simon Hallett said: “Jane and I are delighted that we can support Argyle in this way and help provide improved facilities for our supporters, players and staff.

“The investment by the club will not only make for a better match-day experience, but help provide the long-term revenue base for further investment in the team.”

The Board wishes the Green Army and team a safe and fruitful trip to Anfield on Sunday.

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

The loan was registered as a charge at Companies House on 14th February 2017.

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

It is easy to see why a humble fan might consider the loan to be in situ.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

It is easy to see why a humble fan might consider the loan to be in situ.

Humble? Lol.

You mean it's easy to see how you got it all so wrong!

...and bleat all you like about being abused. It's what you always do when you've been exposed for propagating bullshit!

beesrus wrote:

This thread shows the value of having the odd breakfast with a fan. Relationships are struck, Brenty has Newell, Hallett has Ricks.

Of course Hallet has me in his back pocket!  Which is why Hallet complained that my question was "loaded"!  You'd know that if you actually watched the video, as opposed to just making crap up,.

You and SFD  share many traits.  One of which is both of you have absolutely no idea about certain topics and just sprout whatever rubbish comes into your head.  Just because you can think it, doesn't make it true.

Just like the Brent's Romanian farming subsidies you are always banging on about, without providing a single shred of proof!

Let's not go here again hey?

I can't split posts at the sec as my phone won't let me but let's not let another decent thread descend into bitching.

Watched the video with interest, cleared up some of my queries, and not to bothered now about Brent linking his development to the Grandstand rebuild...if it's true that Akkeron are picking up all the overhead costs then ok with me.
My one grouse is the poor distribution of the microphone to people who had questions...sometimes ok, other times none existent.....poor result for us video watchers...it's not as if there was to many there to cope with.

Yea Man wrote:

Let's not go here again hey?

I can't split posts at the sec as my phone won't let me but let's not let another decent thread descend into bitching.

It is NEVER me that goes "here".

One day it'll filter through. Admittedly it seems to be taking a huge amount of time to do so but it will. One day.

Rickler wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

It is easy to see why a humble fan might consider the loan to be in situ.

Humble?  Lol.

You mean it's easy to see how you got it all so wrong!

...and bleat all you like about being abused. It's what you always do when you've been exposed for propagating bullshit!

And so it goes on and on and on and on with sad, monotonous predictability.

And let us not lose sight of the fact that the reason I think the loan is in situ is because it is, the club released a statement to that effect and it is legally registered. Even Hallett said so on Saturday. Quite frankly I haven't the faintest idea as to what Rickler is banging on about.

That won't stop him from continuing though.

zyph wrote:

Watched the video with interest, cleared up some of my queries, and not to bothered now about Brent linking his development to the Grandstand rebuild...if it's true that Akkeron are picking up all the overhead costs then ok with me.
My one grouse is the poor distribution of the microphone to people who had questions...sometimes ok, other times none existent.....poor result for us video watchers...it's not as if there was to many there to cope with.

Yep.....poor microphone dispersal trumps a sub standard mankover, pony ice rink, needless office block and piss poor parking provision all day every day

Rickler wrote:

beesrus wrote:

This thread shows the value of having the odd breakfast with a fan. Relationships are struck, Brenty has Newell, Hallett has Ricks.

Of course Hallet has me in his back pocket!  Which is why Hallet complained that my question was "loaded"!  You'd know that if you actually watched the video, as opposed to just making crap up,.

You and SFD  share many traits.  One of which is both of you have absolutely no idea about certain topics and just sprout whatever rubbish comes into your head.  Just because you can think it, doesn't make it true.

Just like the Brent's Romanian farming subsidies you are always banging on about, without providing a single shred of proof!

I know a darn sight more of what is going on in the park than you do. BUT, at this moment in time, I couldn't care less what goes on with the internal finances of PAFC as I don't support the current regime. Why would I watch such a piece of propaganda and tick fulfilment ? I just wouldn't.
For 10 years your main tactic has been to ask questions, and where has it got you ? You're still none the wiser despite running around trying to get an audience with some PAFC shareholder. And the enterprise is still following Brent's tune as far as he can play any instrument that is.
You just like the sound of your own voice. The question addiction is more basic and probably goes waaaaay back. One day you might just get an answer or two to life, not that it will mean a hill of beans. Oh, and if you were doing your job, you wouldn't have missed the Romanian farm subsidy. Go do your own homework. My online life isn't here to satisfy you, quite simple really.
Dear oh dear. Hallett's got you sown up.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

And let us not lose sight of the fact that the reason I think the loan is in situ is because it is, the club released a statement to that effect and it is legally registered. Even Hallett said so on Saturday. Quite frankly I haven't the faintest idea as to what Rickler is banging on about.

That won't stop him from continuing though.

Don't get slippery again and try and shift the focus! What you haven't mentioned is that you insinuated if not downright claimed that Argyle were paying interest on that loan and were wasting money in doing so, as the club were not ready to move ahead with development.

And you were 100% wrong! As you often are.

Hey Frank, if you see one of my earlier posts I likened the PAFC  Q and A session to Prime minister's questions where an MP stooge always gets up and asks their own PM an easy mark. Rickler, MP for the West Coast duly obliged......" Would the right honourable investment manager, Mr Hallett  please confirm that the unruly online mob have got it all wrong and that you're a good egg ? "
Guffaw guffaw Order order !

I said a mortgage at such and such a rate, I think I guessed 3% (I don't recall to be honest but I expect you have a screenshot) but it is actually 2.72% - so there is an error there - as we were told on Saturday, will cost so much per month and so much per year. And it will.

That remains true whether we have started paying it back or not yet and will be true when we do. That's the deal that has been struck.

It isn't "slippery"; it is arithmetic. There's no reason to describe it as anything else because that is what it is.

You are so blinkered by your own hatred and desperation to have a go at me that what I actually said doesn't really matter. I know that. Everybody knows that. Even those who would rather not admit it know that. Even you know it.

You've picked the wrong hill to die on this time just like you did last time and the time before that and that and that.

You already are in a hole of your own making. Stop digging.

beesrus wrote:

Hey Frank, if you see one of my earlier posts I likened the PAFC  Q and A session to Prime minister's questions where an MP stooge always gets up and asks their own PM an easy mark. Rickler, MP for the West Coast duly obliged......" Would the right honourable investment manager, Mr Hallett  please confirm that the unruly online mob have got it all wrong and that you're a good egg ? "
Guffaw guffaw Order order !

Do you mind if I pass on this one?

I have no desire at all to antagonise Rickler. He's far too angry for his own good already.

Angry... Wrong yet again.

I'm laughing at you trying to justify yourself.

So. Who on here actually thinks that purely out of the kindness of his heart, long time American investment banker Hallet is going to lend PAFC at least £4million and accept a far worse deal than he could get elsewhere ? Purely because he suddenly bleeds green ? Does anyone really fall for this type of nonsense ?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

It's neither of those things.

S106 is additional work that may be required to enable the proposed development. Could be anything at all. As an example to get more parking spaces in the P&R car park the lines might need re-configuring and re-painting - whatever that costs would be a S106 cost.

It is not a tax but it is paid to the council. It's more like an associated fee. Or sweetener if you are rather more cynical about it. If you were downright hostile it might be thought of as hush money or a bribe. Baksheesh, maybe?

Except those pejorative terms suggest some sort of illegality and chicanery whereas S106 charges are completely open and above board.

Correct. As I understand it (and I have a bit of experience in this area) s106 is about making sure that any new development doesn't put new burdens on local authorities and council tax payers. So if somebody wants to build a new housing estate, they might be expected to provide a play area, or pay for one. Or pay for relevant road improvements and so on. One of the outcomes of the s106 on the big Redrow development in Demport was a pedestrian crossing, for instance.

Sometimes the developer actually provides whatever's been agreed, as when a housing development includes a play area or community facility. Other times the developer hands over the cash so the council or other public body can organise whatever's needed, like when road layouts have to change etc. The fact that it might involve actual payments does make it a kind of tax, I suppose - but only to those who think the word tax has got four letters and don't see why they should pay it.

For example, if the Squires concrete jungle causes drainage problems then the council tax payers should pay. 'Taxes' are for 'little people'

PatDunne wrote:

For example, if the Squires concrete jungle causes drainage problems then the council tax payers should pay. 'Taxes' are for 'little people'

Zackly.

beesrus wrote:

So. Who on here actually thinks that purely out of the kindness of his heart, long time American investment banker Hallet is going to lend PAFC at least £4million and accept a far worse deal than he could get elsewhere ? Purely because he suddenly bleeds green ? Does anyone really fall for this type of nonsense ?

Silent Si doesn't strike me as a green blooded philanthropist.

akagreengull wrote:

beesrus wrote:

So. Who on here actually thinks that purely out of the kindness of his heart, long time American investment banker Hallet is going to lend PAFC at least £4million and accept a far worse deal than he could get elsewhere ? Purely because he suddenly bleeds green ? Does anyone really fall for this type of nonsense ?

Silent Si doesn't strike me as a green blooded philanthropist.

The Mankover will need another Mankover by the time Silents paid back, he's no more a fan than Akkeron Man.

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

akagreengull wrote:

beesrus wrote:

So. Who on here actually thinks that purely out of the kindness of his heart, long time American investment banker Hallet is going to lend PAFC at least £4million and accept a far worse deal than he could get elsewhere ? Purely because he suddenly bleeds green ? Does anyone really fall for this type of nonsense ?

Silent Si doesn't strike me as a green blooded philanthropist.

The Mankover will need another Mankover by the time Silents paid back, he's no more a fan than Akkeron Man.

Where was he when we were going bust