Final nail in the coffin

Hopefully categorical confirmation that HHP is a dead duck will come soon, so the rejoicing can commence.

A 'one hell of a beating' style post would certainly be the order of the day.

All very nice to have brand new shops and restaurants etc, creates unskilled jobs for locals and students, but all the profit from said outlets will just leave Plymouth and go into the hands of shareholders of multinationals.
Better to encourage small and medium businesses, tech and light industry to grow, get some innovation going and enterprise zones, with tax concessions. Perhaps encourage some industry that has links to the graduate outturn of the university and colleges, encourage some of the bright sparks to stay in the area.
Service industry jobs such as cinema, shops, restaurants with low skills cant be sniffed at, but Plymouth needs to make stuff, be to 'go to' place for certain careers, create the conditions for entrepreneurs, and clusters of interrelated industries to thrive rather than be a terminal parochial ghetto where the best you can hope for is a dead end retail or call centre job, and to piss your money into the tills of Frankie and Bennys or he Brent Empire every weekend.

Pafcintheplace wrote:

A 'one hell of a beating' style post would certainly be the order of the day.

Karma indeed.   

Graham Clark wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I don't doubt that it can be sold on. I'm sure it happens all the time.

But surely the purchaser has to honour the original agreement?

They can't just foreclose because they feel like it, can they? Or had Brent defaulted rendering original agreement void?

The new owners of the former Lloyds Bank debt and now of the former Akkeron hotels took the assets rather than seek payment of the debt from Akkeron. Hence the residual of James Brent's hotel business (8 hotels I think) is left virtually debt free with profitable hotels (his words). He has publicly referred to this many times recently He has also made it clear that the restructured hotel business has no direct connection to PAFC Ltd as they are financed separately

As for the Pavilions in the last Five Direction Ltd accounts it was valued at £4.5m and that is before any development potential is identified and realised. So why would it go into administration? I understood that the £2m payment was a dowry payable over 10 years to assist with annual running costs. The Council had a £1.5m liability (and rising) to rid themselves of when they sold the Pavilions for £1 together with a £200,000 annual payment to the new owner.

Whilst work on Oldway Mansions Listed Building itself has not started, because the leases remain under negotiation, part of the agreed enabling work to finance the overall project was for McCarthy & Stone to build over 50 apartments on the site. They are advertising that work has commenced on site with a show apartment open in June this year.

one pedantic point - pavilions valuation in 5 Directions accounts is £4.05 million.

And let us not forget that after the transfer of this Plymouth asset to 5 Directions for £1 then £900,000 of Pavilions £4.05million worth was transferred into Mr & Mrs Brent's pension pot.

Most of us on ATD would'nt buy a cheap second hand car off Brent yet Tudor and his cronies give him the keys to the Pavillions!
let's all sit back and watch the show shall we ?

akagreengull wrote:

Most of us on ATD would'nt buy a cheap second hand car off Brent yet Tudor and his cronies give him the keys to the Pavillions!
let's all sit back and watch the show shall we ?

Beggars belief, he didn't have to lift a finger to get a very large pressy!

It all comes back to that age old statement, who Polices the Police?

Are the council autonomous beyond reproach, systems, checks, audits from Central Government?

Surely the council is policed by you the voters of Plymouth.....is there local elections this May ?

zyph wrote:

Surely the council is policed by you the voters of Plymouth.....is there local elections this May ?

There's a world of difference between voting someone into Office, and subsequently controlling what they do once they get there.

Czarcasm wrote:

zyph wrote:

Surely the council is policed by you the voters of Plymouth.....is there local elections this May ?

There's a world of difference between voting someone into Office, and subsequently controlling what they do once they get there.

Absolutely, half of em are as thick as pigsh-t, making million ££££sss worth of decisions.

It's No wonder posh boy has got away with so much.

All the Presidents Men wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

zyph wrote:

Surely the council is policed by you the voters of Plymouth.....is there local elections this May ?

There's a world of difference between voting someone into Office, and subsequently controlling what they do once they get there.

Absolutely, half of em are as thick as pigsh-t, making million ££££sss worth of decisions.

It's No wonder posh boy has got away with so much.

Well yes he has - but for how much longer can the reluctant bidder make excuses for not a breeze block being laid anywhere in Plymouth or Paignton.

Whilst work on Oldway Mansions Listed Building itself has not started because the leases remain under negotiation.

But McCarthy & Stone Singer Court is

We are delighted to announce that full planning permission has been granted and construction is underway for the Retirement Living development of 54 one and two bedroom retirement apartments.
This retirement development in Paignton will be situated in Manor Crescent, a short distance from Torquay Road, the main arterial route in Paignton town centre and ideally located for shops and amenities.

Properties for sale

Our development is close to the Oldway Mansions

Mansion Key dates for your diary

Construction is now underway with apartments going on sale in June 2014. The show complex will open in August 2014, and expect to welcome our first homeowners in October 2014. To be one of the first to receive details of this development as soon as they become available,

What would happen to Brent if he cannot agree a lease for the Mansion?
Have he sold part of the ground off already?

I think that's what he is all about, grabbing land to sell on at full market value without any intention of building anything himself.

Take on dozens of hotels in Admin. Sort the wheat from the chaff and keep a couple of decent ones. Take on Pavillions, HHP, Millbay and civic centre (if he can get his hands on it) £900k here, £450k there,£200k for Pavillions, a little plot of land here and there as well in city centre locations. Brent doesn't need to build fook all. He's got approx. £1.5m of loans on the club but he's still covered his arse for when he fooks off and he still owns bits of HP to ransom any future owner if need be. And to think that I was treated to the "treatment" on pasoti for saying that he may be an asset stripper and to be wary of his motives? Any ringing endorsements of his integrity, honesty and morality whilst your here then X Ilse?

Them McCarthy and stone development us almost finished

FY 310 wrote:

I think that's what he is all about, grabbing land to sell on at full market value without any intention of building anything himself.

  

Many years ago Wai Hung Chung who own the disuse buildings of Stoke Damerel High School for Girls building was taken to court for not securing the building but at the same time he was receiving £80,000 a year from the moblie phone mast owners for them to use the roof space for their moblie phone masts.

How much will Mr Brent receive a year from the mobie phone masts which is now on top of the Civic Centre Building when he take over ownership of the building?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Graham Clark wrote:

As for the Pavilions in the last Five Direction Ltd accounts it was valued at £4.5m and that is before any development potential is identified and realised. So why would it go into administration? I understood that the £2m payment was a dowry payable over 10 years to assist with annual running costs. The Council had a £1.5m liability (and rising) to rid themselves of when they sold the Pavilions for £1 together with a £200,000 annual payment to the new owner.

I was thinking a business losing £1.5m per year, with such a stunningly strong list of acts filling it, is going to munch a £2m dowry pretty quickly but as Green Genie says if it was the pool which was losing all the money then closing it makes The Pavillions a very different animal.

The use of the word "dowry" is interesting.

Quote :

dowry
noun: dowry; plural noun: dowries

an amount of property or money brought by a bride to her husband on their marriage.

It looks rather more like a subsidy to me because there's no wedding or bride anywhere.

I'd best add dowry to the list of words that has been redefined lately ("incentive", "consultation" and "magnificent" immediately spring to mind).

I sat on the Tinside Citizens Jury in 1999 and one of the many things we found out about running swimming pools was all council owned swimming pools right across the country were heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. The running costs were astronomical. Particularly for things like the amount of chemicals they need and the heating costs. I'd be surprised if that wasn't still the case.

Richard Blight wrote:

I sat on the Tinside Citizens Jury in 1999 and one of the many things we found out about running swimming pools was all council owned swimming pools right across the country were heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. The running costs were astronomical. Particularly for things like the amount of chemicals they need and the heating costs. I'd be surprised if that wasn't still the case.

It probably is, but that loss would be offset by tangible and intangible benefits to other outcomes which cost more money. The statutory duty now placed on local authorities for public health means that other funding streams are available to cross-subsidise things like pools and the investment in swimming pools (coupled with incentives for people to use them) reduced burdens on health and social care budgets which are far more expensive and far more pressurised.

You could make a highly effective case that a publically owned swimming pool is investing to save in the long run.

#GreenArmyGrandstand       

  

Gareth Nicholson wrote:

Richard Blight wrote:

I sat on the Tinside Citizens Jury in 1999 and one of the many things we found out about running swimming pools was all council owned swimming pools right across the country were heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. The running costs were astronomical. Particularly for things like the amount of chemicals they need and the heating costs. I'd be surprised if that wasn't still the case.

It probably is, but that loss would be offset by tangible and intangible benefits to other outcomes which cost more money. The statutory duty now placed on local authorities for public health means that other funding streams are available to cross-subsidise things like pools and the investment in swimming pools (coupled with incentives for people to use them) reduced burdens on health and social care budgets which are far more expensive and far more pressurised.

You could make a highly effective case that a publically owned swimming pool is investing to save in the long run.

Indeed. In fact, city parks themselves were initially introduced and have always been heavily subsidised to help produce community health and well being as best they can. And they do.
And so does the NHS and the education system. Is "subsidy" a dirty word these days ? I understand the word to mean a minimal redistribution of wealth to compensate for the hopelessly skewed market place we live in.

Most of the other countries in the world subsidise the railways.

We keep being told the Akkeron are finalising costs and contracts, as well as funding.

Does this mean that all the contentious Planning Approval conditions such as Outland Rd junction with loss of mature trees, traffic control around Lyndhurst and the traffic plan involving southern stealth road impinging on Gilberts Lane have been agreed?

No sign on PCC Planning web portal six months down the line

green_genie wrote:

We keep being told the Akkeron are finalising costs and contracts, as well as funding.

Does this mean that all the contentious Planning Approval conditions such as Outland Rd junction with loss of mature trees, traffic control around Lyndhurst and the traffic plan involving southern stealth road impinging on Gilberts Lane have been agreed?

No sign on PCC Planning web portal six months down the line

That's just another term for immanently.   

Person Of Interest wrote:

green_genie wrote:

We keep being told the Akkeron are finalising costs and contracts, as well as funding.

Does this mean that all the contentious Planning Approval conditions such as Outland Rd junction with loss of mature trees, traffic control around Lyndhurst and the traffic plan involving southern stealth road impinging on Gilberts Lane have been agreed?

No sign on PCC Planning web portal six months down the line

That's just another term for immanently.   

And that's just another term for imminently.   

Bitch.