Investment in the club

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

People are commenting and giving opinion on what exactly at the moment? Bugger all as you say because that is pretty much what we know. When the detail comes out, then is the time to either praise of condemn surely.

Which is pretty much what I said.

Thanks for the stereotype. I don't comment on Pasoti.

Regardless of whether you think this is good news or bad news for the club - and to be honest the piece on the Baggo is so vague it's hard to make a considered judgement - I thought that Mr Brent had said that any 'unbudgeted' income would be used to accelerate payments to the unpaid staff. So, given that the baggo states that:

'Plymouth Argyle Football Club today announces that it has raised more than £700,000 in additional cash for the club.
This exceeds the amount that it had budgeted to raise at the time of acquisition by Akkeron Leisure in October last year.'

So does that mean that the staff can look forward to being paid-up a bit quicker?

That's why I used the word "most" and not "all" Cerbera.

Staff payments is one thing that you can watch this space for and if it doesn't happen take Brent to task over beause that is one statement that is firmly in the public domain and was quite specific.

The full impact of this news may not be known for years. It could seem like a great deal for the club over the next few years, but 15 years down the line when Brent is long gone, it could be disastrous. It is a pretty vague statement at the moment that has come in for a bit more negativity on Pasoti than I thought possible.

Apart from Grovehill's quip about his back garden sale, the funniest comment I saw came from Quintrell Green, who I honestly thought was joking:

Quote:

I hope it does not have [say] 20 storeys as there would be danger of guests renting out their balconies at a cheap rate to attract spectators of the games from entering and save them paying £20 to enter the ground. It would be a bit like those luxury flats on St John's Wood Rd, hear Lords Cricket Ground. A big loss of revenue there! Keep you eye on that Mr Chairman?

So somebody paying £50 a night for an average hotel room, or £100 a night for a decent hotel room, will need watching to see if they rent out their room to someone else trying to avoid the £20 entrance fee to watch Argyle playing in League 2 from a balcony? I bet the club will be hiring security specifically to stamp out this money spinning racket.

I saw that and my first thought was 'Yeah, Lords is always empty during a Test Match, but the balconies around the ground are packed like sardines.'

What a plank.

As if Argyle v Dover Athletic is going to inspire ticket touts to rent out hotel rooms on the quiet. Still, it gave me a laugh, and that doesn't happen very often where Argyle are concerned these days.

Greenjock wrote:

The full impact of this news may not be known for years. It could seem like a great deal for the club over the next few years, but 15 years down the line when Brent is long gone, it could be disastrous. It is a pretty vague statement at the moment that has come in for a bit more negativity on Pasoti than I thought possible.

Apart from Grovehill's quip about his back garden sale, the funniest comment I saw came from Quintrell Green, who I honestly thought was joking:

Quote:

I hope it does not have [say] 20 storeys as there would be danger of guests renting out their balconies at a cheap rate to attract spectators of the games from entering and save them paying £20 to enter the ground. It would be a bit like those luxury flats on St John's Wood Rd, hear Lords Cricket Ground. A big loss of revenue there! Keep you eye on that Mr Chairman?

So somebody paying £50 a night for an average hotel room, or £100 a night for a decent hotel room, will need watching to see if they rent out their room to someone else trying to avoid the £20 entrance fee to watch Argyle playing in League 2 from a balcony? I bet the club will be hiring security specifically to stamp out this money spinning racket.

I think that people would pay money to have their windows blocked up to avoid having to watch the matches.

Quintrell Green is usually sensible but he's lost the plot.

Bogsider wrote:

Quintrell Green is usually sensible but he's lost the plot.

I don't know him or of him, but it just tickled me. Really can't see it being a major problem.

Out of curiosity if i had 275k to invest could i get a better return on it than 5%?

Interesting this is done BEFORE formation of the GAS Board (a waste of time BEFORE this happened now its irrelavnt in MY view).

i see this as another mastpoint scenario

You just know what this means! - "We will look at building additional capacity now and structuring it so we can add further capacity at a later date."

The £700,000 paid by Brent's pension fund for the purchase of the 'car-park'area is to be used for operating costs. Any funding to develop the ground will be extra.

Statement from James Brent on radio Devon.

knecht wrote:

The £700,000 paid by Brent's pension fund for the purchase of the 'car-park'area is to be used for operating costs. Any funding to develop the ground will be extra.

Statement from James Brent on radio Devon.

Correct.

He also seemed to be saying the funds might help the purchase of new players, which is good. But I didn't hear him say anything about paying the staff some more of what they're owed, which isn't so good.

The report of this in today's WMN contains some worryingly familiar phrases;

"flagship leisure and sports development"
"talks with property investors" (Are Suroy & Toddie back on the scene, or even Heaney-that would really get the farm wound up!)
"Plymouth Argyle will receive benefits from any development"
"seperate company set up" to buy the land"
"moves aimed at reassuring the big institutional investors which were reluctant to invest in football"

The more I hear, the more i realise I've heard it all before


I'm also puzzled by the way this is being covered in most of the media as "Argyle" or "the football club" getting the benefit of the deal.

It makes it all sound as if Brent & Co. are giving something to the fans. They are not. They are making deals and investments in their own businesses. The only benefit to fans is that they may be able to watch the team from a new building-presumably at a "new" price..

If Tesco build a new store in Saltash, it's not described as "Tesco give Cornwall a new store"

Peggy wrote:

knecht wrote:

The £700,000 paid by Brent's pension fund for the purchase of the 'car-park'area is to be used for operating costs. Any funding to develop the ground will be extra.

Statement from James Brent on radio Devon.

Correct.

He also seemed to be saying the funds might help the purchase of new players, which is good. But I didn't hear him say anything about paying the staff some more of what they're owed, which isn't so good.

Funnily enough, the deal is announced the day after the transfer window shut for the season.

Pity this deal wasn't done in January when people were asking why money wasn't being spent on the team and JB was saying there wasn't any available and he wouldn't "break the rules"

Grovehill wrote:

.....
If Tesco build a new store in Saltash, it's not described as "Tesco give Cornwall a new store"

It would be by Tesco.

But then, nobody would shop in Tesco if the the likes of Beany and Stairpost were on the checkout!

As I have said before it is too early to judge Brent on his motives yet, his actions will tell us everything we need to know. I like Grovey find the timeline of this announcement (the day after the window shuts) funny, I am also convinced that Brent's motives aren't just to help out the club, he could build a hotel and put the money it raises in trust for the club or something similar, but like I say I will judge his actions as events unfold, in the meantime lets keep him under scrutiny.

Iggy wrote:

As I have said before it is too early to judge Brent on his motives yet, his actions will tell us everything we need to know. I like Grovey find the timeline of this announcement (the day after the window shuts) funny, I am also convinced that Brent's motives aren't just to help out the club, he could build a hotel and put the money it raises in trust for the club or something similar, but like I say I will judge his actions as events unfold, in the meantime lets keep him under scrutiny.

Amen to that.

One or two have a problem with us keeping Brent and certain people under scrutiny but that isn't going to change.

GOB wrote:

Iggy wrote:

As I have said before it is too early to judge Brent on his motives yet, his actions will tell us everything we need to know. I like Grovey find the timeline of this announcement (the day after the window shuts) funny, I am also convinced that Brent's motives aren't just to help out the club, he could build a hotel and put the money it raises in trust for the club or something similar, but like I say I will judge his actions as events unfold, in the meantime lets keep him under scrutiny.

Amen to that.

One or two have a problem with us keeping Brent and certain people under scrutiny but that isn't going to change.

Quite right too. As with all of these type of deals it's how they're presented. On the face of it, it seems a reasonable deal for the football club and for Mr B. But a bit more investigation would probably reveal that it's a lot more profitable for Mr B than the football club.

Whilst passing, I've just read the questions posed on the land deal thread on the farm. One in particular stood out as the most sycophantic post in the history of the world ever from someone called Greensam. Cringeworthy to say the least.

Meanwhile, we can all expect the staff to have already been paid their owed slice of this suggested windfall?

PlymptonPilgrim wrote:

GOB wrote:

Iggy wrote:

As I have said before it is too early to judge Brent on his motives yet, his actions will tell us everything we need to know. I like Grovey find the timeline of this announcement (the day after the window shuts) funny, I am also convinced that Brent's motives aren't just to help out the club, he could build a hotel and put the money it raises in trust for the club or something similar, but like I say I will judge his actions as events unfold, in the meantime lets keep him under scrutiny.

Amen to that.

One or two have a problem with us keeping Brent and certain people under scrutiny but that isn't going to change.

Quite right too. As with all of these type of deals it's how they're presented. On the face of it, it seems a reasonable deal for the football club and for Mr B. But a bit more investigation would probably reveal that it's a lot more profitable for Mr B than the football club.

Whilst passing, I've just read the questions posed on the land deal thread on the farm. One in particular stood out as the most sycophantic post in the history of the world ever from someone called Greensam. Cringeworthy to say the least.

We need to remember that to all intents and purposes Mr B is the football club and vice versa.

If the football club gets a new stand on the back of the property development, the money "spent" by Brent "development" still stays within Brent's business empire and he (Brent/Akkeron) gains either through increased asset value or higher admission fees.

As I say, if Tesco build a store in Saltash, they can say it's a new store "for the people of Saltash" but you can't go in and help yourself off the shelve & it still belongs to Tesco PLC. Tesco have "given" Saltash a store that they (Tesco) can make money on.

and there was me thinking it was one of the many gifts that Brent has handed out, you know, like car-parking spaces, made up titles etc.

Grovehill wrote:

We need to remember that to all intents and purposes Mr B is the football club and vice versa.

If the football club gets a new stand on the back of the property development, the money "spent" by Brent "development" still stays within Brent's business empire and he (Brent/Akkeron) gains either through increased asset value or higher admission fees.

As I say, if Tesco build a store in Saltash, they can say it's a new store "for the people of Saltash" but you can't go in and help yourself off the shelve & it still belongs to Tesco PLC. Tesco have "given" Saltash a store that they (Tesco) can make money on.

Not necessarily true. I understood it to mean that if Mr Brent develops the car-park - say with a hotel etc - then in return the club get a new stand (or 50% of income from development). I don't think I've seen anywhere that he will retain ownership of the stand other than in the sense that he owns the club. The comparison that works for me is that of a large builder who wants to build lots of houses but in return for permission is required to build a doctors' surgery or pub/community centre or similar. I used to live near Rover's test-track and Heritage Centre and in return for permission to develop the site they were required to make improvements to the nearby road. There is so little detail so far that it is hard to be sure how this will work out. Amongst the detail that is essential before making a proper informed judgement is to what extent the money-generating development is all to be found in the Brent Pension Fund part of the site and how much is to be seen in, say, retail outlet/s, bar/s, cafe/s, conference centre, etc. within the stand.

The stand will be built on ground owned by the council. I will be interested to see if that means an increase in rental due to the council.

knecht wrote:

The stand will be built on ground owned by the council. I will be interested to see if that means an increase in rental due to the council.

Or perhaps a reduction, because they have increased the value of the council's asset?