Virtually Debt Free. Thanks to SH

Yea Man wrote:

Well we've got the Argyle fan sugar daddy we wanted.  On a very small scale compared to the big clubs but nonetheless this is fantastic news.

Argyle really is in the right hands again at long last.

How is he a sugar daddy? Has he put more money (cash) into the Club than it is worth?

Chemical Ali wrote:

Graham Clark posted this on pasoti-

Four years ago in October 2015 the nominal shareholding value of the Club was £1.2m. Simon Hallett first invested £500,000 in April 2016 taking the nominal value to £1.7m.

We are now at just over £16m nominal value with Simon and Jane Hallett's share being just over £15.5m. That includes the purchase of James Brent's shareholding to secure majority control and now his 97% holding.

The cancellation of the loan means a saving annually of around £225,000 in loan and interest repayments. That will help cash flow and the bottom line.

That is the size of Simon and Jane's investment in the Club. Never in all the years of supporting the Club did I expect anyone to invest at this scale in the Club and in this manner. It is an understatement to say we, as supporters, are eternally grateful in these difficult times of financing football, particularly in the lower Leagues.

Thank you, so much.

Frankly GC is talking through his arse. Nominal Value is just that - a value in name only. Last week Thomas Cook had a "nominal" value of several million, this week the "nominal value" is feck all. I could say my house has a nominal value of £500,000-that doesnt mean either that I paid that for it or that anyone else would pay me that for it! I doubt that the Hallett family has put in anywhere near what the "true value" of the Club is. The "true value" being what a willing buyer would pay for it. It isnt a one way street either, SH gets 97% of the gate money TV fees, advertising etc etc In that respect it is a safe investment for SH I suspect that Brent has had a lot more cash (eg the £500,000 "investment quoted by GC) from SH than PAFC has. People see terms like "investment" "debt free" "debt write off" "profit" etc and really dont understand what they mean.

Grovehill wrote:

Chemical Ali wrote:

Graham Clark posted this on pasoti-

Four years ago in October 2015 the nominal shareholding value of the Club was £1.2m. Simon Hallett first invested £500,000 in April 2016 taking the nominal value to £1.7m.

We are now at just over £16m nominal value with Simon and Jane Hallett's share being just over £15.5m. That includes the purchase of James Brent's shareholding to secure majority control and now his 97% holding.

The cancellation of the loan means a saving annually of around £225,000 in loan and interest repayments. That will help cash flow and the bottom line.

That is the size of Simon and Jane's investment in the Club. Never in all the years of supporting the Club did I expect anyone to invest at this scale in the Club and in this manner. It is an understatement to say we, as supporters, are eternally grateful in these difficult times of financing football, particularly in the lower Leagues.

Thank you, so much.

Frankly GC is talking through his arse. Nominal Value is just that - a value in name only. Last week Thomas Cook had a "nominal" value of several million, this week the "nominal value" is feck all. I could say my house has a nominal value of £500,000-that doesnt mean either that I paid that for it or that anyone else would pay me that for it! I doubt that the Hallett family has put in anywhere near what the "true value" of the Club is. The "true value" being what a willing buyer would pay for it. In that respect it is a safe investment for SH I suspect that Brent has had a lot more cash (eg the £500,000 "investment quoted by GC) from SH than PAFC has. People see terms like "investment" "debt free" "debt write off" "profit" etc and really dont understand what they mean.

Everyone but you is clueless eh Groovy?

The 3% is appearently owned by Wrathall and Halliday - keep yer heads down boys!!

Grovehill wrote:

akagreengull wrote:

So we actually have a owner with real assets financially  safeguarding the club  - how refreshing.

How do we know he is spending his own money?

I love a good conspiracy theory...

What are you suggesting?  That he's acting as an agent for other 'investors', or that he's borrowed the money in order to give to Argyle for 'free', in order to portray himself as a Pilgrim Robin Hood?

Grovehill wrote:

Chemical Ali wrote:

Graham Clark posted this on pasoti-

Four years ago in October 2015 the nominal shareholding value of the Club was £1.2m. Simon Hallett first invested £500,000 in April 2016 taking the nominal value to £1.7m.b

We are now at just over £16m nominal value with Simon and Jane Hallett's share being just over £15.5m. That includes the purchase of James Brent's shareholding to secure majority control and now his 97% holding.

The cancellation of the loan means a saving annually of around £225,000 in loan and interest repayments. That will help cash flow and the bottom line.

That is the size of Simon and Jane's investment in the Club. Never in all the years of supporting the Club did I expect anyone to invest at this scale in the Club and in this manner. It is an understatement to say we, as supporters, are eternally grateful in these difficult times of financing football, particularly in the lower Leagues.

Thank you, so much.

Frankly GC is talking through his arse. Nominal Value is just that - a value in name only. Last week Thomas Cook had a "nominal" value of several million, this week the "nominal value" is feck all. I could say my house has a nominal value of £500,000-that doesnt mean either that I paid that for it or that anyone else would pay me that for it! I doubt that the Hallett family has put in anywhere near what the "true value" of the Club is. The "true value" being what a willing buyer would pay for it. It isnt a one way street either, SH gets 97% of the gate money TV fees, advertising etc etc In that respect it is a safe investment for SH I suspect that Brent has had a lot more cash (eg the £500,000 "investment quoted by GC) from SH than PAFC has. People see terms like "investment" "debt free" "debt write off" "profit" etc and really dont understand what they mean.

Nominal value is what the value of that share is worth on the balance sheet of the company. So when Simon Hallett first paid £500,000 for 500,000 £1 shares that was his ‘investment’ in the Club. He has repeated that several times including a £3m investment for 3,000,000 shares a few months ago and £4m for another 4,000,000 shares as part of the loan cancellation.

You are confusing nominal value with market value. A good example of this is when he paid James Brent £1.45 for a number of £1 shares as part of the takeover process.

Whether anyone would pay £15.5m for his 97% shareholding depends upon the market value a willing purchaser is prepared to pay. Under Stapleton the stadium including HHP was valued at over £10m. Since, then the Grandstand has been rebuilt with all its hospitality revenue generating facilities, paid for by Simon Hallett’s investment, plus the repurchase of half of HHP. In the last accounts the stadium was valued at £1.7m pre-redevelopment. I suspect that will significantly increase to reflect the level of investment in the asset.

In addition to investment in the assets of the Club outstanding loans have been paid off and a trading loss has been covered. Whether this is termed as investment is a moot point but it does represent additional funds injected into the Club as part of the overall £15.5m paid.

It's good that Hallet has put millions in, rather than Brent who took millions out. Remind me how much he made for 'saving us'

Under Simon we have an owner prepared to do what is needed to get this club moving in the right direction. He doesnt just say what he will do he does it and seems to have the club in mind unlike brent who had his pension pot his main focus.

Graham Clark wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

Chemical Ali wrote:

Graham Clark posted this on pasoti-

Four years ago in October 2015 the nominal shareholding value of the Club was £1.2m. Simon Hallett first invested £500,000 in April 2016 taking the nominal value to £1.7m.b

We are now at just over £16m nominal value with Simon and Jane Hallett's share being just over £15.5m. That includes the purchase of James Brent's shareholding to secure majority control and now his 97% holding.

The cancellation of the loan means a saving annually of around £225,000 in loan and interest repayments. That will help cash flow and the bottom line.

That is the size of Simon and Jane's investment in the Club. Never in all the years of supporting the Club did I expect anyone to invest at this scale in the Club and in this manner. It is an understatement to say we, as supporters, are eternally grateful in these difficult times of financing football, particularly in the lower Leagues.

Thank you, so much.

Frankly GC is talking through his arse. Nominal Value is just that - a value in name only. Last week Thomas Cook had a "nominal" value of several million, this week the "nominal value" is feck all. I could say my house has a nominal value of £500,000-that doesnt mean either that I paid that for it or that anyone else would pay me that for it! I doubt that the Hallett family has put in anywhere near what the "true value" of the Club is. The "true value" being what a willing buyer would pay for it. It isnt a one way street either, SH gets 97% of the gate money TV fees, advertising etc etc In that respect it is a safe investment for SH I suspect that Brent has had a lot more cash (eg the £500,000 "investment quoted by GC) from SH than PAFC has. People see terms like "investment" "debt free" "debt write off" "profit" etc and really dont understand what they mean.

Nominal value is what the value of that share is worth on the balance sheet of the company. So when Simon Hallett first paid £500,000 for 500,000 £1 shares that was his ‘investment’ in the Club. He has repeated that several times including a £3m investment for 3,000,000 shares a few months ago and  £4m for another 4,000,000 shares as part of the loan cancellation.

You are confusing nominal value with market value. A good example of this is when he paid James Brent £1.45 for a number of £1 shares as part of the takeover process.

Whether anyone would pay £15.5m for his 97% shareholding depends upon the market value a willing purchaser is prepared to pay. Under Stapleton the stadium including HHP was valued at over £10m. Since, then the Grandstand has been rebuilt with all its hospitality revenue generating facilities, paid for by Simon Hallett’s investment, plus the repurchase of half of HHP. In the last accounts the stadium was valued at £1.7m pre-redevelopment. I suspect that will significantly increase to reflect the level of investment in the asset.

In addition to investment in the assets of the Club outstanding loans have been paid off and a trading loss has been covered. Whether this is termed as investment is a moot point but it does represent additional funds injected into the Club as part of the overall £15.5m paid.

So, on your figures, hes paid about £8 million for what was worth over £10 million 10 years ago-add on the building works and inflation, thats quite a safe investment-like buying a house for less than it was worth 10 years ago and has had an extension added on in the meantime. And who was that £8 million paid to? Certainly not into the football club, which is where I think a lot of people get confused.

Grovehill wrote:

akagreengull wrote:

So we actually have a owner with real assets financially  safeguarding the club  - how refreshing.

How do we know he is spending his own money?

We don't, but clearly the guy has some real wealth unlike you know who.

Rickler wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

akagreengull wrote:

So we actually have a owner with real assets financially  safeguarding the club  - how refreshing.

How do we know he is spending his own money?

I love a good conspiracy theory...

What are you suggesting?  That he's acting as an agent for other 'investors', or that he's borrowed the money in order to give to Argyle for 'free', in order to portray himself as a Pilgrim Robin Hood?

I am not suggesting anything. But I would point out that SH is by profession an Investment Banker-ie he invests other peoples money for them. I also think Brent & Co would have been aware of the reaction, should he have sold out to a Kagami [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

akagreengull wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

akagreengull wrote:

So we actually have a owner with real assets financially  safeguarding the club  - how refreshing.

How do we know he is spending his own money?

We don't, but clearly the guy has some real wealth unlike you know who.

And we know this  how? Remember Michael Knighton, Robert Maxwell? Or even Brent who was also portrayed as a Miliionaire Banker (before that was reverted to rhyming slang) Now Dan MacCauley WAS seriously minted-didnt stop him being a pillock though. I really am not trying to be negative, I am just pointing out the realities while everyone else rides a wave of misplaced euphoria, mainly based on misinterpretting whats  actually going on
Im actually feeling quite positive. I think SH is out to make money and the best way of doing that is to get Argyle up a couple of Divisions.

Grovehill wrote:

akagreengull wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

akagreengull wrote:

So we actually have a owner with real assets financially  safeguarding the club  - how refreshing.

How do we know he is spending his own money?

We don't, but clearly the guy has some real wealth unlike you know who.

And we know this  how? Remember Michael Knighton, Robert Maxwell? Or even Brent who was also portrayed as a Miliionaire Banker (before that was reverted to rhyming slang) Now Dan MacCauley WAS seriously minted-didnt stop him being a pillock though. I really am not trying to be negative, I am just pointing out the realities while everyone else rides a wave of misplaced euphoria, mainly based on misinterpretting whats  actually going on
Im actually feeling quite positive. I think SH is out to make money and the best way of doing that is to get Argyle up a couple of Divisions.

Nope...  The best way for Simon Hallett to make money is to keep doing what he's been doing.  Investing in the stock market.  About the most stupid thing he could do - going on past history - is to invest in a tin pot football club.

Maybe there's another reason he's doing what he's doing...  Maybe he's a fan and wants what's best for the club?

The value of a Football Club is made up of many constituent parts. Just dealing with the 'investment' issue first the money paid for shares will be shown as 'Proceeds from the issue of shares' in any accounts and shown on the balance sheet. With the Club now required to publish full accounts these proceeds will be listed.

The value of the Stadium is usually based on comparable values. Clubs that publish full accounts will have that value shown as a fixed asset (subject to depreciation). The Grandstand redevelopment has cost c£9m. Picking a club with a similar turnover (£6.5m in 2018) at random - Shrewsbury Town. Their stadium with a capacity of 9,875 with limited hospitality facilities was professionally valued at £12.4m (2018). On that comparable basis the freehold value (with no debt) Home Park with near double the capacity and vastly improved hospitality and regional standard hospitality and conference facilities could be worth significantly more.

Other value in the Club includes the value of player contracts - many are now on 2-years - so they have a transfer value. The value of leases - Harpers Park after the improvements made. The value of the Club owned part of HHP which had planning permission granted for 24,000ft2 of commercial development granted as part of the ice relocation consent a few months ago. Then we come to the value of 'goodwill' - the value of the Golden Share in the Football League and Argyle as a brand. As long ago as 2012 this was valued in the accounts at £3.2m (subject to depreciation). It would be interesting to see what that goodwill value is now.

So on the basis of the above I would say that Simon Hallett's 'investment' has been well merited.

Grovehill wrote:

akagreengull wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

akagreengull wrote:

So we actually have a owner with real assets financially  safeguarding the club  - how refreshing.

How do we know he is spending his own money?

We don't, but clearly the guy has some real wealth unlike you know who.

And we know this  how? Remember Michael Knighton, Robert Maxwell? Or even Brent who was also portrayed as a Miliionaire Banker (before that was reverted to rhyming slang) Now Dan MacCauley WAS seriously minted-didnt stop him being a pillock though. I really am not trying to be negative, I am just pointing out the realities while everyone else rides a wave of misplaced euphoria, mainly based on misinterpretting whats  actually going on
Im actually feeling quite positive. I think SH is out to make money and the best way of doing that is to get Argyle up a couple of Divisions.

Agree with what you say Grovehill, I don't think there are many football philanthropists around in the world, and although this announcement seems good news and I welcome it, like you I don't entirely subscribe to the current SH euphoria either.

At the end of the day Hallett has put his money where his mouth is, we don't owe the banks feck all, no mast point type deals which does mean for the short term at the least we are secure with crowds that should be big enough to pay the bills. And this is about twelve months since all the smoke and mirrors employed by Jimmy the previously skint to make sure no one knew the real state of the clubs finances. Despite being one of the most miserable bastards on here I struggle to see this in anything other than a positive light. We might get relegated by the shite defence but we shouldn't have any bailiffs knocking.

PatDunne wrote:

It's good that Hallet has put millions in, rather than Brent who took millions out. Remind me how much he made for 'saving us'  

Would love to know, perhaps the bumlicker hiding in the ATD bushes could tell us.

Hallet and his missus have been brilliant for the club basically saving it from the mare.
But wait did'nt all the Brenty fans tell us nobody wanted the club?

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

PatDunne wrote:

It's good that Hallet has put millions in, rather than Brent who took millions out. Remind me how much he made for 'saving us'  

Would love to know, perhaps the bumlicker hiding in the ATD bushes could tell us.

I reckon in the region of 5.5 million but the bumlicker and the rest of the enablers keep that quiet

Let's hope we'll see some more transfer funds on the way. I've got a feeling if we're still struggling by January Hallet will give Lowe some dosh to spend.

RegGreen wrote:

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

PatDunne wrote:

It's good that Hallet has put millions in, rather than Brent who took millions out. Remind me how much he made for 'saving us'  

Would love to know, perhaps the bumlicker hiding in the ATD bushes could tell us.

I reckon in the region of 5.5 million but the bumlicker and the rest of the enablers keep that quiet

Brent will go down in memory for the simpletons as the geezer who saved the club whereas those who can add 2 and 2 know full well the shyster was scheming within 24 hours to start his financial rape of the club.
Considering he put what £3 to £4 million in to stabilise the club earlier this year over and above development costs its hard to argue that but for Hallett Argo could have been in Admin again now

Newell and the bearded wonder Webb should hang their heads in shame over enabling Brent Reg...

Ryan is obviously happy with SH.

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

Jethro wrote:

Done more in a year then Brent ever did in 7.

Hear hear

Isn't it a pity that Hallett wasn't approached during The WOR, anyway we now have an answer to the simpleton fuckwits demanding the name of a rich investor.

Grovehill wrote:

akagreengull wrote:

So we actually have a owner with real assets financially  safeguarding the club  - how refreshing.

How do we know he is spending his own money?

Well we know he ain't spending James Brent's.... .