New Vice Chair For Trust

Jethro wrote:

So another puppets there to not ask the questions of the club we want answers too.
the question is who's pocket is this kid in webbys,tubbys perhaps"

Hopefully you'll find the post I've just made to be satisfactory. There was never any suggestion coming from the club or from any reliable source that profits/revenue from the ground floor retail units will go to the club. The only suggestion to the contrary was the one post on Pasoti to which Rickler refers which was an issue of semantics. As has been in the public domain for a while, some money from selling the units will go the club's way (if the whole thing ever happens) but profits from the club will NOT go the club's way and there was never any serious suggestion that they would.

I thought they would be rented and the rent went to Brent/Akkeron/whateverhiscompanyiscalled. I didn't think they'd be sold and then owned by the retailer.

hairy j wrote:

I thought they would be rented and the rent went to Brent/Akkeron/whateverhiscompanyiscalled. I didn't think they'd be sold and then owned by the retailer.

Well such an arrangement would first have to involve those units being transferred from the club to Brent/Akkeron/whateveryoucallit from PAFC in the first place. Brent may well then choose to rent out the units and have the rent from them of course, but that would still involve PAFC initially selling the units to Brent.

So James Brent is selling the units to himself? Brent essentially owns the majority of the club (Wrathall owns 5%). PAFC is James Brent. See, that's why it's confusing.

hairy j wrote:

So James Brent is selling the units to himself? Brent essentially owns the majority of the club (Wrathall owns 5%). PAFC is James Brent. See, that's why it's confusing.

Brent's sold a lot of stuff to himself though. The HHP car park land being the prime example- transferring it away from the club (that he owns) to being a piece of land that he personally owns(as opposed to owning it secondhand via the club). It is confusing/complicated but it's what's going on.

I'm asking rhetorical questions here. I think if the sale of the units to Brent Enterprises is market value and that the sale values are transferred to the club as playing budget, most people won't mind. That won't happen. Call me cynical but the club (as we know it and see it) won't benefit at all.

Taking it for granted that PCC still owes the freehold to Home Park and bits haven't been sold off quietly, PAFC is the leaseholder of Home Park. Units under the new stand would have to be sub-leased and only for the length of Argyle's lease. This could only happen with the freeholders ( PCC) permission. Considering the council are raising Argyle's rent by £30,000 a year due to the increased value because of these units, any sum of money received by PAFC in creating the sub-leases will soon disappear to the freeholder (PCC), making it highly unlikely PAFC would benefit from having these units under it's own stand.

Now if Argyle were to keep the units themselves and rent the units out to A.N.Other than the club would benefit from the rental of these units minus the increase in rent to PCC. That is not the way I've heard anybody describe what is going to happen to those units.

As far as I understand it, Akkeron are building the stand and the units underneath. Akkeron if anybody will benefit from the creation of sub-leases under the stand and of course the council with their extra £30,000 in rent. Now if that's not very basically what's happening then somebody from Akkeron needs to explain in plain English exactly what is going to happen, if the thing is ever built. As far as I can see there is very little to benefit PAFC.

So the reality is...

Nobody seems to have a clue what the real situation is?

Well, Graham might...

And there's Sam telling me, " we all know exactly"....



I'd start asking questions again if I were you Sam.

Rickler wrote:

So the reality is...

Nobody seems to have a clue what the real situation is?

Well, Graham might...

I'd start asking questions again if I were you Sam.  

I'm not trying to be obstructive but I really don't quite see what bit isn't clear. Akkeron will sub-let the rental units and will receive the profits from them. Argyle won't. That's basically what me and Richard have both said and it's what's been public for a while. What more questions are there to ask?

HairyJ: I agree with your assessment that the money going to the club won't benefit the playing budget. We are effectively paying 30k a year extra and getting no extra profit. We will receive a small sum from Akkeron for buying the sub-lease from us, yes but the line that has been mooted is that that is the money that will mean we can afford a fantastical 17,700 capacity rather than a less-fantastical (yes I am being sarcastic in case I needed to spell it out) 16,400 capacity. Brent is funding the bare minimum and by buying the ability to sublet those retail units from the club from Argyle, the money that goes to the club from that purchase means we can a marginally bigger stand.

So basically, we don't benefit except for that we have a 17,700 ground at the end of it all instead of a 16,400 one. Party!

GreenSam wrote:

Jethro wrote:

So another puppets there to not ask the questions of the club we want answers too.
the question is who's pocket is this kid in webbys,tubbys perhaps"

Hopefully you'll find the post I've just made to be satisfactory. There was never any suggestion  coming from the club or from any reliable source that profits/revenue from the ground floor retail units will go to the club. The only suggestion to the contrary was the one post on Pasoti to which Rickler refers which was an issue of semantics. As has been in the public domain for a while, some money from selling the units will go the club's way (if the whole thing ever happens) but profits from the club will NOT go the club's way and there was never any serious suggestion that they would.

Errrr..." That's bollox Sam, when this was all muted,  it was originally STATED that all the income from retails units bar 1 or possibly 2, (I remember it like an elephant) would go to the club, this was used as a sweetener to the fans as a great income for the CLUB, not  BRENT, not his pension pot, nada, the CLUB, do your homework as a trust, find where it was originally stated and challenge this and go against your hero nool, THAT is the question that still needs to be asked, make those feckers admit that they have pulled the wool over the club and fans and fecked us off interminably, or to change this outrageous situation so the club does get some of this dream like £1-2 million from this cluster feck that Brent claims will happen, ask to see those figures, I dare you?

Obfuscation, lack of openness and lack of transparency, that is what is happening and it is fecking disgraceful, don't muddy the waters by saying the cluster feck may not happen, don't let them get away with this. Trust has to be earned, you're meant to be fighting for the fans and their concerns, prove that you will!?

Can you, will you, or are you the soft centre the club wanted in the trust?

Man with two hats makes things much confuscious.

Really Sam?

GreenSam wrote:

 I'm not trying to be obstructive but I really don't quite see what bit isn't clear. Akkeron will sub-let the rental units and will receive the profits from them. Argyle won't. That's basically what me and Richard have both said and it's what's been public for a while. What more questions are there to ask?

It’s not what you both said at all.  In fact its not even what you said on this thread earlier --

GreenSam wrote:

The facts as I understand them are these:

The club will sell off the ground floor retail units to the highest bidder. The club gets an immediate sum of money from the purchase of those units but from then on in, the buyer reaps all the profits from them.

That was what was put in the public domain a while back and has been generally assumed to be the case ever since. After asking a couple of questions and doing a bit of cursory research, that is still set to be the case.

Which of course is different again to the first two scenarios Richard outlines here --

Richard Blight wrote:

Taking it for granted that PCC still owes the freehold to Home Park and bits haven't been sold off quietly, PAFC is the leaseholder of Home Park. Units under the new stand would have to be sub-leased and only for the length of Argyle's lease. This could only happen with the freeholders ( PCC) permission. Considering the council are raising Argyle's rent by £30,000 a year due to the increased value because of these units, any sum of money received by PAFC in creating the sub-leases will soon disappear to the freeholder (PCC), making it highly unlikely PAFC would benefit from having these units under it's own stand.

Now if Argyle were to keep the units themselves and rent the units out to A.N.Other than the club would benefit from the rental of these units minus the increase in rent to PCC. That is not the way I've heard anybody describe what is going to happen to those units.

As far as I understand it, Akkeron are building the stand and the units underneath. Akkeron if anybody will benefit from the creation of sub-leases under the stand and of course the council with their extra £30,000 in rent. Now if that's not very basically what's happening then somebody from Akkeron needs to explain in plain English exactly what is going to happen, if the thing is ever built. As far as I can see there is very little to benefit PAFC.

So which is it?  
And who did you ask recently when you got your info and how would they know?



And as for ‘biting’...  I know the message Newell was sending to everyone.  He does it with Graham Clark and others...    He’s pathetic.

I have also seen the results of Newell’s “long chats” with people.  They normally contain a pack of lies.  One of his long chats has cost me the friendship of one good friend.    Newell is a scumbag, and personally speaking...  If you  get pally with him, you won’t be getting any votes from me!

Good luck.

All the Presidents Men wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Jethro wrote:

So another puppets there to not ask the questions of the club we want answers too.
the question is who's pocket is this kid in webbys,tubbys perhaps"

Hopefully you'll find the post I've just made to be satisfactory. There was never any suggestion  coming from the club or from any reliable source that profits/revenue from the ground floor retail units will go to the club. The only suggestion to the contrary was the one post on Pasoti to which Rickler refers which was an issue of semantics. As has been in the public domain for a while, some money from selling the units will go the club's way (if the whole thing ever happens) but profits from the club will NOT go the club's way and there was never any serious suggestion that they would.

Errrr..." That's bollox Sam, when this was all muted,  it was originally STATED that all the income from retails units bar 1 or possibly 2, (I remember it like an elephant) would go to the club, this was used as a sweetener to the fans as a great income for the CLUB, not  BRENT, not his pension pot, nada, the CLUB, do your homework as a trust, find where it was originally stated and challenge this and go against your hero nool, THAT is the question that still needs to be asked, make those feckers admit that they have pulled the wool over the club and fans and fecked us off interminably,  or to change this outrageous situation so the club does get some of this dream like £1-2 million from this cluster feck that Brent claims will happen, ask to see those figures, I dare you?

Obfuscation, lack of openness and lack of transparency, that is what is happening and it is fecking disgraceful, don't muddy the waters by saying the cluster feck may not happen, don't let them get away with this. Trust has to be earned, you're meant to be fighting for the fans and their concerns, prove that you will!?

Can you, will you, or are you the soft centre the club wanted in the trust?

Man with two hats makes things much confuscious.

Ok yes, it was stated originally that one maybe two will go to the club but I thought we'd pretty much established now that that was no long the case. You seem to be under the misapprehension that I'm coming on here to defend it for some reason. I think it absolutely stinks to high Heaven that none of those retail units will go to the club except for having a slightly less small grandstand. I think it's absolutely shit. As far as I'm aware thought this was a question about 'what the feck is actually happening?' more so than a question of 'what should be happening?' If this was a 'what should be going on debate' then of course it isn't right that we get none of those units. I think it's disgraceful as much as you do but I thought we were talking about the facts as opposed to my personal opinion of the facts. Of course the figures of £1-2 million are wildly optimistic and don't match up with any realistic projections based on a precedent. I'm not here to give a display of PR for the way these retail units have been divided up- I'm merely explaining what will occur. Some people aren't sure and I'm trying to explain what will actually happen. That is all.

However, I take on board it was factually wrong of me to state that there was never any suggestion that they were going to the club. You are correct, initially there was so I take that back. It has been decided since then though that that isn't going to happen any longer which has (sadly, wrongly, badly) been the case for a long while. Clumsy of me not to take that into account initially though and I'll grant you that which is something that may have given you the wrong end of the stick regarding me and my involvement in this thread.

And if you really do think that Ian Newell is my 'hero' then I don't even think that aspect is worthy of a response  

And I'll make the point again that I think there is at the very least a fair chance that this will turn out to be an entirely academic debate. I think (and I stress this is my personal view and not that of the AFT) that the chances of the whole thing collapsing and NOBODY getting ANY money from the retail units are at least good-to-fair.

Rickler wrote:

Really Sam?

GreenSam wrote:

 I'm not trying to be obstructive but I really don't quite see what bit isn't clear. Akkeron will sub-let the rental units and will receive the profits from them. Argyle won't. That's basically what me and Richard have both said and it's what's been public for a while. What more questions are there to ask?

It’s not what you both said at all.  In fact its not even what you said on this thread earlier --

GreenSam wrote:

The facts as I understand them are these:

The club will sell off the ground floor retail units to the highest bidder. The club gets an immediate sum of money from the purchase of those units but from then on in, the buyer reaps all the profits from them.

That was what was put in the public domain a while back and has been generally assumed to be the case ever since. After asking a couple of questions and doing a bit of cursory research, that is still set to be the case.

Which of course is different again to the first two scenarios Richard outlines here --

Richard Blight wrote:

Taking it for granted that PCC still owes the freehold to Home Park and bits haven't been sold off quietly, PAFC is the leaseholder of Home Park. Units under the new stand would have to be sub-leased and only for the length of Argyle's lease. This could only happen with the freeholders ( PCC) permission. Considering the council are raising Argyle's rent by £30,000 a year due to the increased value because of these units, any sum of money received by PAFC in creating the sub-leases will soon disappear to the freeholder (PCC), making it highly unlikely PAFC would benefit from having these units under it's own stand.

Now if Argyle were to keep the units themselves and rent the units out to A.N.Other than the club would benefit from the rental of these units minus the increase in rent to PCC. That is not the way I've heard anybody describe what is going to happen to those units.

As far as I understand it, Akkeron are building the stand and the units underneath. Akkeron if anybody will benefit from the creation of sub-leases under the stand and of course the council with their extra £30,000 in rent. Now if that's not very basically what's happening then somebody from Akkeron needs to explain in plain English exactly what is going to happen, if the thing is ever built. As far as I can see there is very little to benefit PAFC.

So which is it?  
And who did you ask recently when you got your info and how would they know?



And as for ‘biting’...  I know the message Newell was sending to everyone.  He does it with Graham Clark and others...    He’s pathetic.

I have also seen the results of Newell’s “long chats” with people.  They normally contain a pack of lies.  One of his long chats has cost me the friendship of one good friend.    Newell is a scumbag, and personally speaking...  If you  get pally with him, you won’t be getting any votes from me!

Good luck.

With regards to the retail units, I think that wires have been crossed in a pretty big way. I seem to have put my message across in a pretty muddled way, which I apologise for. Richard has put across what I meant to say with far more clarity, brevity and ability to get the whole picture across. I think the problem is that I know what I mean to say but I've unfortunately put it across in a really waffly way which has muddied the waters even further. Sorry about that as I don't mean to obfuscate anything. I've been a pretty poor 'teacher' for want of a much better word and in my earlier posts I rushed in making a lot of assumptions about what facts were taken for granted in this conversation and thus I left out some details of the situation which in fact only served to confuse the situation even further. In the simplest terms possible:

Currently the land in which the profitable retail units will be built (if they are) is leased by PAFC. This part of this leasehold will be transferred from PAFC to Akkeron, in which Akkeron will then rent the units out and they will make a profit. So, Akkeron gets profit. PAFC lose another £30k per annum. All that PAFC gain from it is a capacity of circa 17,700 as opposed to a capacity of 16,400. In short, Akkeron gain money, we lose money and all we gain is a slightly less small stadium (but still a small stadium) than we would have otherwise had without this arrangement. Which I agree entirely, is pretty crap on us. This is what I meant to explain initially and is based only on information that has already been put into the public domain- not privately gained information.

The above paragraph lines up with what Richard said earlier in the thread in a much less verbose manner than I initially did. Hopefully the above cuts to the truth in a much more 'to the point' fashion. Any other interpretations of what I've said have been due to my own poor explanation of the state of events.

As for the bold highlighted text Rickler, that is exactly the kind of reaction that was hoped for when he posted that tweet- to send you onto one, quite frankly. I can give you my absolute, personal and unequivocal assurance that I am a free thinker and nothing that he says to me in any conversation would change my opinion on anything without my own critical thinking. I have no idea what happened with regard to you losing a friendship from one of his chats but I can assure you that nothing of that kind will happen in this case. I do not allow myself to be influenced by ANY other people and I take what I hear from all sides with a pinch of salt. I am not so easily led as you think,

Sam.

Newell didn't send me 'onto' anything.  I've seen it all before.

Cheers for putting your time and effort in, and once again...  Good luck.

Rickler wrote:

Newell didn't send me 'onto' anything.  I've seen it all before.

Cheers for putting your time and effort in, and once again...  Good luck.

Fair enough then, just don't let tweets devised for the sole aim and purpose of getting to you to actually get to you! Much appreciated and thank you too.

Well done Sam - said before hold and fight your corner and you will gain the respect of the majority of Argyle fans!!

Don't listen to X as he is a nasty individual. Don't listen to Y as he is a liar. Don't become close to Z as he has 'ulterior motives'. That's exactly what certain people employ on the other side of the fence to discredit and prolong division. Pots and kettles.

It would be nice, as a fan, to know what the situation is. The rent goes up and, I assume, business rates increase at Home Park - that's a good deal for PCC as the landlord. Rent from units goes to Brent - good for Brent (or possibly if they fill them with paying tenants). A one off payment to the club from the sale of the retail units to PAFC - good for the club in the short term but what could have been assets to PAFC in the long term become assets for Brent and it's then up to him if he uses that income to support the club. That's not so good.

Personally, I don't care who has banned who from a forum, who's upset who in the past, who doesn't like X, Y and Z as the facts remain, regardless of personal crusades and regardless of internet good guys and internet bad guys. The basic economic model of these units is important - not the fact that someone is getting their knickers in a twist over personality clashes.

GreenSam wrote:

I do not allow myself to be influenced by ANY other people

Except the Trust membership We are in position to represent the membership after all.

The trick is to listen to people, but at the same time appreciate their position and why they're saying what they're saying. That helps you be more objective in forming opinion and deciding what action to take.

Tim

Rickler wrote:

So the reality is...

Nobody seems to have a clue what the real situation is?

Well, Graham might...

And there's Sam telling me, " we all know exactly"....



I'd start asking questions again if I were you Sam.

The last publicly expressed position of PCC and PAFC / Akkeron was contained in the PCC Cabinet Report of 3rd September 2014 (see below). That report makes reference to the retail units in the grandstand. Whether all or some of the information contained in that report still pertains remains to be seen. I understand the football club will make a further announcement at the end of the season. In any case, there remains a number of matters to address before work can commence on site and work on any of these would be an advance signal of a commencement on HHP and the grandstand in the close season. There have been no advance signals to date.

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

I think anybody who fears that Green Sam is going to be brow-beaten, conned or intimidated into compliance and submission is wrongly mistaking his lack of years with a lack of mettle and intelligence. I think he's a fine addition to the AFT and the patience and diplomacy he's has shown so far, not least on this thread but elsewhere too, suggests that very few people would be better suited for the role he has taken on.

My greatest hope is that he is treated like a callow and gullible fool because he'll make mincemeat of those who do - in the most subtle, nicest and most polite way possible, of course.

He, and the AFT generally, need, deserve and will be strengthened by, our trust and support. The crucial difference between them and the calamitously failed PASB is that they are representing the fans to the club and not the other way around.

And there's two things that will empower them in this: the wider membership and active involvement.

If your membership has lapsed then renew it, if you have never joined then sign up now.

We might be desperate for their services far, far sooner than any of us expect.

Sam made an excellent contribution at our AFT board meeting on Saturday.

The minutes and a brief summary should be going online later today. Hopefully Alessandra won't get a migrane reading them and miss the match!

I'm pleased to see Sam in this position. To me he is a logical, rational and level headed young fella that won't be hugged into one side or the other and that's what is needed.

hairy j wrote:

So James Brent is selling the units to himself? Brent essentially owns the majority of the club (Wrathall owns 5%). PAFC is James Brent. See, that's why it's confusing.

Spot on Mr Hairy, one hundred million pounds could go the club, but BRENT is the club, the club is BRENT.....

The 'Tipping point' of 70% of HHP being let includes the hotel, pre let to Akkeron Hotels, we all know about them....

Who on earth will buy into this massive car park beneath the developement with the free park n ride across the way?,

Tim Chown wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

I do not allow myself to be influenced by ANY other people

Except the Trust membership  We are in position to represent the membership after all.

The trick is to listen to people, but at the same time appreciate their position and why they're saying what they're saying. That helps you be more objective in forming opinion and deciding what action to take.

Tim

Well the Trust is influenced by other people of course and so are my actions...but my own personal views and perceptions are not. Of course I act of behalf of the membership so to that level they do influence me but not my *personal* view. I'm afraid that's my sloppy wording coming into play again. Time to take a day off I think!

Tim Chown wrote:

Sam made an excellent contribution at our AFT board meeting on Saturday.

The minutes and a brief summary should be going online later today. Hopefully Alessandra won't get a migrane reading them and miss the match!

Please don't post them a) before the match lest the team read them and lose b) during the match lest we are drawing and the team read them at half time and lose c) during the match lest we are winning and the team read them at half time then lose d) during anytime that might make Mr Sheridan read them at a point that might affect his substitions and we lose e) after the match if we lose lest you drag down into a pit of despair the Pasoti membership and they suggest you are kicking a dead horse when it is down f) after the match if we win when you will be dragging down the feel good factor g) before checking with Pasoti lest they don't agree with the time of the release h) before checking with Mr Jones lest you be sent to Coventry or worse Old Trafford i) before releasing a press releases saying the Trust would like to have James brent's babies and only sainthood would be good enough for the man who has done so much for Argyle