Argyle financial Report

Iggy wrote:

How do we know that it is sustainable debt, debt is just debt.

How do we know its not?


And no debt is not debt.

People who take out a mortgage have a debt, as long as they can make the payments, its substainable debt.

Its the same as most football clubs.
hence
Liverpool for instance have debts of nearly 70million, but the can afford to cover those debts, they are nowhere near finacial trouble.

Its not as cut and dry as some people are trying to make it.

Most Football clubs in fact nearly all carry a level of debt, its when you cannot meet that debt or you run out of cash, thats when they go tits up.

It would be good if they told us that then.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Iggy wrote:

How do we know that it is sustainable debt, debt is just debt.

Nail on the head Piglet, plenty of debt is sustainable for at least a week or so when you have the thick end of £200k in the bank, trouble is that one apparent positive was a snapshot at the end of a week in which you had two home games, one of which was your demi cup final, Chrissy games too so probably more than the usual level of PotD'ers.

Three things to consider, abbreviated accounts aren't worth the paper they are written on, accountants generally do not understand business, the people running businesses generally know fook all about the relevance of their accounts.

All that could possibly be drawn from these revelations is that you be pretty skint and wouldn't be sucking in air at all without Brent, I say again, why the fook do you hate him so much? No other bugger wants you other than Usury Nikk and I refer to m'learned friend the Red Star's comments regarding the more obvious signs of his slippery feckage, as if the company he kept wouldn't be warning enough.

Mr.Ig makes a decent suggestion, hunker down for the five and then see where you stand, while Jimbob is going forward with the mini stand and the rest of the dev he will keep you ticking while the only real wolf at your door will be the guy with the key. Worst case you would hit the end of that road with another Admin to cut your debts away but as most of that debt would be to Brenty I doubt he will be planning on that scenario so there would be a decent chance of a debt free club with a council owned, and may I suggest, a well sorted 'little' ground in which some dude with a few quid might have a go at the prize.

In the same time frame the mighty ECFC is most likely to be a shiite little club with a half wreck of a ground but you don't really hear us constantly bitching now do you?

dont let cobi know that

Hugh Watt wrote:

It would be good if they told us that then.

What so you thought Argyle were debt free?

I agree there should be a club statement and maybe there will be now there is unrest, but seriously how many clubs make a statement just because their finacial records are published.

125+1 wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

It would be good if they told us that then.

What so you thought Argyle were debt free?

I agree there should be a club statement and maybe there will be now there is unrest, but seriously how many clubs make a statement just because their finacial records are published.

No I didn't.

I'd like to know whether the debt is serviceable and we were told that everything was going to be transparent. That is what the PASB is supposed to be there for. I'm sure you understand why

Given there was no statement from the last lot regarding debt so the masses were informed it would be a bit naive to think any would be forthcoming from the current lot despite transparency promises made.

What I don't understand is where anyone can draw any conclusions from what has been published that is accurate. From those that know a thing or two about accounts it seems they are all saying that you cannot take anything from these and come up with anything conclusive. In other words it's pointless trying. Is it just an assumption that Argyle is in trouble because it has debts because people are waiting for the wheels to come off again and the word debt has come up in accounts. There are loads of clubs with debt so why should it be so different for Argyle.

Meet the new boss same as the old boss... I get on my knees and pray we don't get fooled again

£3.5 million debt due to be repaid in the next three/four years!

Even with a promotion and a cup run (unless we get a replay against Man Utd) this is never going to be paid off from football income.

As for John Lloyd saying the club and Akkeron will need to "get together" to pay this sum, I thought John was more aware that he seems to be-the Club is Akkeron is Brent is the club etc.

Can anyone really see Brent ( who gets mugs, sorry, volunteers to do the menial tasks at the club for free) actually putting his hand in his pocket to pay the multi million pound FC debt? If he ever had any intention of doing so, he would have done it when he bought the club. As it is, this debt repayment is like a concrete weight dragging the club to the bottom of the sea. The football club is being deprived of the oxygen of it's own gate money to pay off the historical debt. People are comparing debt to a mortgage- what Brent is doing at the moment is like asking someone to pay their own mortgage and the mortgage arrears of the people they bought the house from

Give it eighteen months and the minions will start saying how disappointed JB is that the fans aren't supporting the club in big enough numbers, he's done all he can, it's affecting his health etc. etc. as a prelude to him calling in the receivers and jetting off to Dubai a few weeks before the FC debt has to be paid in full.

And when the football club dies it presents a golden opportunity for the mass development of what was once Home Park  

Grovehill wrote:

£3.5 million debt due to be repaid in the next three/four years!

Even with a promotion and a cup run (unless we get a replay against Man Utd) this is never going to be paid off from football income.

As for John Lloyd saying the club and Akkeron will need to "get together" to pay this sum, I thought John was more aware that he seems to be-the Club is Akkeron is Brent is the club etc.

Can anyone really see Brent ( who gets mugs, sorry, volunteers to do the menial tasks at the club for free) actually putting his hand in his pocket to pay the multi million pound FC debt? If he ever had any intention of doing so, he would have done it when he bought the club. As it is, this debt repayment is like a concrete weight dragging the club to the bottom of the sea. The football club is being deprived of the oxygen of it's own gate money to pay off the historical debt. People are comparing debt to a mortgage- what Brent is doing at the moment is like asking someone to pay their own mortgage and the  mortgage arrears of the people they bought the house from

Give it eighteen months and the minions will start saying how disappointed JB is that the fans aren't supporting the club in big enough numbers, he's done all he can, it's affecting his health etc. etc. as a prelude to him calling in the receivers and jetting off to Dubai a few weeks before the FC debt has to be paid in full.  

Great post Grovehill, thats why nool banned you from the farm!

Grovehill wrote:

£3.5 million debt due to be repaid in the next three/four years!

Even with a promotion and a cup run (unless we get a replay against Man Utd) this is never going to be paid off from football income.

As for John Lloyd saying the club and Akkeron will need to "get together" to pay this sum, I thought John was more aware that he seems to be-the Club is Akkeron is Brent is the club etc.

Can anyone really see Brent ( who gets mugs, sorry, volunteers to do the menial tasks at the club for free) actually putting his hand in his pocket to pay the multi million pound FC debt? If he ever had any intention of doing so, he would have done it when he bought the club. As it is, this debt repayment is like a concrete weight dragging the club to the bottom of the sea. The football club is being deprived of the oxygen of it's own gate money to pay off the historical debt. People are comparing debt to a mortgage- what Brent is doing at the moment is like asking someone to pay their own mortgage and the  mortgage arrears of the people they bought the house from

Give it eighteen months and the minions will start saying how disappointed JB is that the fans aren't supporting the club in big enough numbers, he's done all he can, it's affecting his health etc. etc. as a prelude to him calling in the receivers and jetting off to Dubai a few weeks before the FC debt has to be paid in full.  

With all the arselickers painting the club and Plymouth in general as some sort of wonderland, Brent is playing this like a Coolhand Luke - he will hold that latent debt as a sword to the fans' heads!! This will not end happily yet again and can see admin kept bubbling as the last resort - Pompey just went through the mill but they have sold 10k ST's, something we couldn't ever match!! Reading between the lines a basket case!!

If their the planning gets refused then it will be our fault when the club goes into admin again. With that £1 to £2m of non match day income flooding into the club all year round we could pay the debt in no time. 

Iggy wrote:

If their the planning gets refused then it will be our fault when the club goes into admin again. With that £1 to £2m of non match day income flooding into the club all year round we could pay the debt in no time. 

It will always be blamed on us fans that didn't believe in the rosey hype created by the superfans and the anointed one - I really don't care anymore!!

Bandwagon wrote:

Iggy wrote:

If their the planning gets refused then it will be our fault when the club goes into admin again. With that £1 to £2m of non match day income flooding into the club all year round we could pay the debt in no time. 

It will always be blamed on us fans that didn't believe in the rosey hype created by the superfans and the anointed one - I really don't care anymore!!

Youum naaaat wanted anyway matey !

I'm more than aware of the nature of the ownership of the club at present and I am under no illusions that PAFC is entirely dependent on the continued support of James Brent and Akkeron.

What I am inferring in my comment elsewhere is that by the time these large liabilities fall due, the iteration of PAFC we see then may be very different - will it be still be a part of the Akkeron group, or will it have been asked to stand on it's own two feet by then?

If it has been devolved from Akkeron, then how will those liabilities have been spread, or reassigned?

Will they be on PAFC's balance sheet, or on Akkeron's, or perhaps another holding company?

These are the questions that should be asked. Assuming that those liabilities cause no concern because there will always be an income stream to manage the debts assumes that the income streams will be large enough to satisfy the banks.

From what we've seen of the Grandstand process (in which retail units that were to deliver to PAFC suddenly no longer do so), that kind of assumption is somewhat baseless.

Hence my questions on the other thread.

If only the club would re-open their relationship with the AFT!

Then those questions could get asked and if they weren't answered then we would all be able to draw our own conclusions to that.

There is no point in asking the PASB to ask the same questions as there are several members there who wouldn't rock the boat by asking awkward questions.

Perhaps Mr President could answer the questions? He's assured people there is nothing to worry about and that Mr Brent is omnipotent so surely either Mr Brent or his mouthpiece on earth should be able to put some meat on the bones?

Trust trust in people not facts and accounts, its what got us into trouble before.
#headsinsand

125+1 wrote:

Iggy wrote:

How do we know that it is sustainable debt, debt is just debt.

How do we know its not?


And no debt is not debt.

People who take out a mortgage have a debt, as long as they can make the payments, its substainable debt.

Its the same as most football clubs.
hence
Liverpool for instance have debts of nearly 70million, but the can afford to cover those debts, they are nowhere near finacial trouble.

I think it depends on what you mean by sustainable?

I refer you to the redoubtable Mr.Lloyd's comments re the outcome of the Brent tenure, if he intends to use you like a twenty dollar whore, as we all hope, your debts, short of a serious and sustained improvement of your on field performances, will not be sustainable, should he be the spawn of Satan, as some of us fear, you will be fine and dandy, soft debts owed to a philanthropic owner, or in your case to a club without it's own pot to pith in, are as previously speculated, not "debt" at all.

Liverpoo are a good example, they have been bailed out as many times as that paddleless canoe you floated up Poo Creek in not so very long ago, same as Manure under the Glazers initial offering, some of their debt was close to what Usury Nikk would be charging, now both clubs have their "debt" under very reasonable control.

That is of course where any similarity ends, Poo and the Scum are huge money machines with masive worldwide support, Muff are just a rich man's tool to generate even greater riches, you mugs need to pucker up and realise that these are the good times while he needs you about a tenth as much as you need him, when he has grabbed the all the cash he can you could be in a real pickle when any "debt" will be real "debt".

John_Lloyd wrote:

I'm more than aware of the nature of the ownership of the club at present and I am under no illusions that PAFC is entirely dependent on the continued support of James Brent and Akkeron.

What I am inferring in my comment elsewhere is that by the time these large liabilities fall due, the iteration of PAFC we see then may be very different - will it be still be a part of the Akkeron group, or will it have been asked to stand on it's own two feet by then?

If it has been devolved from Akkeron, then how will those liabilities have been spread, or reassigned?

Will they be on PAFC's balance sheet, or on Akkeron's, or perhaps another holding company?

These are the questions that should be asked. Assuming that those liabilities cause no concern because there will always be an income stream to manage the debts assumes that the income streams will be large enough to satisfy the banks.

From what we've seen of the Grandstand process (in which retail units that were to deliver to PAFC suddenly no longer do so), that kind of assumption is somewhat baseless.

Hence my questions on the other thread.

The "football club" has a negative equity in excess of £3 million- that's why no one- not even shylocks and money lenders- will get involved with it until the debt "goes away." Certainly makes JB's "valuation" of the club if the fans want to buy in, insulting to their intelligence Neither would any sane man burden his profit making enterprises with such a debt that can't be written off against tax. If anyone with the wherewithal to do so, was going to pay off the FC debt, they would have done so by now.

As it stands, about £250,000 of the gate money has to go to paying the installments on this debt each year- until the final reckoning comes- what happens then is anybody's guess.

My guess is that Brendan will be back-I just hope Ridders doesn't fancy any more "walking holidays" in the westcountry

that walking holiday turned into a wanking holiday for the siamesetwins, and i feel we havent seen the last of guilfool, either.  until the creditors are forced to have their payments reduced further to pence in the pound, no one will touch argyle and the banker will have made his wife a bit happier.

if argo were a house it would be in negitive equity, unsellable, better to knock down and sell the land.

afc argyle 2015

Nikkk is right to say that the debt overhang doesn't matter because it isn't yet due and those that say we are lucky to have James Brent because ultimately it is him who is on the hook for that debt and if he wasn't then the club would have folded are right too.

That's a very blinkered way of considering the wider picture though. Those accounts show a loss of about £1m and only go up to the end of December. It is probable that the overall losses for that season were considerably higher. I'd hazard a guess at £1.25m minimum because costs were being cut all the time and the rate of money loss would have slowed considerably. It's still a good whack to bung on top of the historic debt.

I guess the future liabilities included the current players' contracts, anticipated running costs and the historic debt so not all of that liability will become due at once and much of it will be absorbed in day-to-day budgeting. Again this supports what Nikkk has said about it not being a problem.

The big questions are how are costs going to be cut back without harming the standard and numbers of the players that we recruit and how are we going to meet the final payment of all that historic debt when it becomes due?

The first question is very much Sheridan's problem, and if he can find a way then he is a manager at the very top of his game, but the second lands straight on to James Brent's lap. How can the club find £2m or so out of income without wrecking our chances of being successful and, if Brent does not finance that £2m (and he has pretty much said that he will not) then what happens if we are unable to meet payments? Another re-negotiation? Would the league allow that without imposing some draconian penalty? Would the PFA stand for it?

And exactly when will Brent want his £1.25m back?

And what are "intangibles"? Does that include gate money? Are "intangibles" code for turnover? If so then that includes the £475k from the land sale which brings the £3m+ down to less than £3m.

And we will need £3m or so to pay the final payment when due and to pay Brent's loan back.

But right now nobody wants excessive sums of money back so there is no problem but relatively soon they will and then there will be.

It would be very re-assuring to know that the club had a credible plan in place for when that day comes, because make no mistake it will come, and if we default when it does I wouldn't be in the least surprised to see the League crack down on us harder than they have cracked down on any club ever before.

And if there is no serious threat looming and if this is all in-hand and accounted for in the greater vision for shepherding the club's finances then where is the harm in saying so and telling us exactly how it will be done?

I guess a big chunk of money was gained when FES sponsored the Devonport End and the Family Enclosure? Quite how big an amount is anybody's guess but I reckon it would be a hell of a lot more than any other sponsor would be prepared to shell out.

The next big announcement concerning Nikkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk will surely be a deal to sponsor the whole stadium or the new ministand and maybe this is why Nikkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk is so laid back about it all?

Well they've just bought that annoying twerp with the drum a season ticket so maybe the next little gem will be sponsoring the feckin drum itself!

[quote="Greenjock"]I guess a big chunk of money was gained when FES sponsored the Devonport End and the Family Enclosure? Quite how big an amount is anybody's guess but I reckon it would be a hell of a lot more than any other sponsor would be prepared to shell out.

It was about 100K for the Devonport End I understand