Come on James Brent, I am waiting.

ejh wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

It's only the first step of many that need to be taken but getting McCormick on board is more of a statement about out intentions than any more empty words about next season's budget could possibly be.

Don't get me wrong, it's only one signing and it means very little if we lose all our other best players. But if we can get Reid, Nelson, Young and a few new signings tied down too then that'd really be a big indication. Far more so than any PR. Actions> words.

How is that a statement of ambition? They are players we already have, and McCormick signing is hardly Liverpool holding on to Suarez. Most clubs in England wouldn't have signed McCormick for free.

Hmm...perhaps you're right on Luke because he's very settled down here anyway so maybe not the most difficult in the world to keep hold on. He's excellent ability wise but for a number of reasons perhaps not a particularly big coup on reflection.

Roll on Nelse and Reuben then. Both of those I would say, would be statements with their form this season.

You wouldnt find a better goalkeeper anywhere on the wages we are prepared to pay. Scares the shit out of me when I see people raving about players like Young, Hourihane and Nelson.

theyre about the best we have so theyre bound too.

brent out

I am not sure about Young, I have always liked him and you can see he has something about him. BUT he can't pass the ball, his crossing is sporadic at best he should apparently be a CCC player but he struggles at this level sometimes, why is that? Unfortunately I think that this is his level.

Gareth Nicholson wrote:

To fisk James's bulletpoint list of "many improvements":

- "Relegation dog-fight". Congratulations! But it's the faintest of praise. The mentality of "we're less crap than we were for the last few years and we've a better owner than the ones before" isn't setting a very high bar and at the moment we're still clipping it on the way up. To labour the metaphor, it feels like we're still flailing around while the people we should be aspiring to are using the Fosbury flop.

- "competed for promotion". Bullshit. How long did we spend in a playoff position? The table here says we finished one game in the top 7. That's not competing for promotion. It's flattering to deceive.

- "strong leadership teams". Really? Then show it. It's about bloody time.

- I have to say I'm incredibly sceptical on the financial performance, especially the break-even forecast for 14/15. It should also be shocking that after what we've been through any other owner of the club should be able to get away with saying any of this without backing it up with evidence. Same as the accelerated payments to creditors. Show us.

- Nuff congratz on the family club thing and on the GTs work

- "we are well advanced in delivering this". No. No you're not. When your job is to build something and you're yet to even put a spade in the ground, you are not in any way "well advanced".

- "while we have materially reduced the club's external debts..." Hmmm. This sentence is very interesting. And bloody scary.

And one less thought through comment. Talking about the alignment of stars makes you look like a twat. It's guff of the guffiest variety. You're not some passive hippy waiting for the cosmos to magically arrange itself and map out your future. You are supposed to be fully in control of a major development project. FFS.

Great post Gareth. Yes, if 'competed for promotion' meant spending a week in the play-off places than let's pat ourselves on the back. West Brom also competed for the Champions League places by that criteria.

"while we have materially reduced the club's external debts..." I've heard some waffle in my time in annual reports, but this takes the cake. Materially reduced? By how much - a pound?

"well advanced" in delivering the development? Akkeron have given no indication that they could develop so much as a flat-pack sideboard, with the instructions.

Perhaps the stars will "align" just in time so the mystic lip-quivering one can shit or get off the pot.

The scary bit about that statement for me is 'materially reduced the club's EXTERNAL debts'.

For all the things Brent may lack, he's always very clever with words. He can put a spin on things which is true in as much as what it says but it does not tell the whole story. As Gareth said, that line puts a chill down my spine.

The insinuation is that we haven't seriously reduced our debts full stop whatsoever. We've just only reduced what we owe to Football Creditors outside the club. The amount we owe to Wrathall, the GTs and Brent himself probably outstrips that.

I've said it before and I'll say it again- it wouldn't in the least surprise me if the club was in more debt now than it was on the day Brent took over in October 2011. Not in the least.

GreenSam wrote:

The scary bit about that statement for me is 'materially reduced the club's EXTERNAL debts'.

For all the things Brent may lack, he's always very clever with words. He can put a spin on things which is true in as much as what it says but it does not tell the whole story. As Gareth said, that line puts a chill down my spine.

The insinuation is that we haven't seriously reduced our debts full stop whatsoever. We've just only reduced what we owe to Football Creditors outside the club. The amount we owe to Wrathall, the GTs and Brent himself probably outstrips that.

I've said it before and I'll say it again- it wouldn't in the least surprise me if the club was in more debt now than it was on the day Brent took over in October 2011. Not in the least.

Difficult to say in view of the lack of published accounting information.When was the last time a set of up to date accounts was in the public domain? I seem to remember someone [may have been Lord Tisdale actually] saying that league 2 clubs aren't obliged to publish as much information as clubs higher up the pecking order and that Argyle's accounts may just appear as a subsiduary of the parent company whose name escapes me.The breakeven crowd figure in the first full season of Brent's reign was pitched a fair distance away from the actual outcome,so presumably the club lost a considerable amount in that period-so much has happened since which would need to be taken into account. Fletchers dismissal,Sheridan's salary,the paying off of unwanted players,recruitment of many loan and some permanent signings,the development and design costs for HHP-all these things are in the equation,so difficult to ascertain the true position and who is bankrolling any losses incurred and under what terms.

Well there has to be someone external who is bankrolling losses (by loaning, not gifting) and that was Brent up to a point.

It seems that he either ran out of disposable money to loan us or he decided he didn't want to throw any more of what he saw as good money after bad. Enter Wrathall.

That's my take on it anyway. Incredibly concerning that we still NEED bailing out so much though.

I think the wagebill is actually much larger than some on here probably think it is, but that still doesn't really justify the amount of losses that we've made. Design costs for HHP, perhaps?

GreenSam wrote:

Well there has to be someone external who is bankrolling losses (by loaning, not gifting) and that was Brent up to a point.

It seems that he either ran out of disposable money to loan us or he decided he didn't want to throw any more of what he saw as good money after bad. Enter Wrathall.

That's my take on it anyway. Incredibly concerning that we still NEED bailing out so much though.

I think the wagebill is actually much larger than some on here probably think it is, but that still doesn't really justify the amount of losses that we've made. Design costs for HHP, perhaps?

Why should the club pay for the design costs of HHP when it is clearly not the sole beneficiary?

Dick Trickle wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Well there has to be someone external who is bankrolling losses (by loaning, not gifting) and that was Brent up to a point.

It seems that he either ran out of disposable money to loan us or he decided he didn't want to throw any more of what he saw as good money after bad. Enter Wrathall.

That's my take on it anyway. Incredibly concerning that we still NEED bailing out so much though.

I think the wagebill is actually much larger than some on here probably think it is, but that still doesn't really justify the amount of losses that we've made. Design costs for HHP, perhaps?

Why should the club pay for the design costs of HHP when it is clearly not the sole beneficiary?

Indeed,just speculation on my part.As i said,without detailed accounts and notes,it's very hard to be exact about the financial situation at HP.

Dick Trickle wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Well there has to be someone external who is bankrolling losses (by loaning, not gifting) and that was Brent up to a point.

It seems that he either ran out of disposable money to loan us or he decided he didn't want to throw any more of what he saw as good money after bad. Enter Wrathall.

That's my take on it anyway. Incredibly concerning that we still NEED bailing out so much though.

I think the wagebill is actually much larger than some on here probably think it is, but that still doesn't really justify the amount of losses that we've made. Design costs for HHP, perhaps?

Why should the club pay for the design costs of HHP when it is clearly not the sole beneficiary?

Because the club is owned by the sole beneficiary probably.

By the way, in terms of "progress", our points total for this year puts us 9th. Same number of points last season would have got us 16th.

All I want is for the club's owner to decide what we are. If we're a ruthless professional operation then be clear about it, invest in a genuine "promotion budget" next year and get the stadium sorted to produce revenue for the club. I don't think you can be that professional operation and still have the begging bowl out to fund your youth team going to the Milk Cup. Pay it yourself.

ALternatively, embrace genuine openness and fan engagement and help us understand the limitations and budget issues.

GreenSam wrote:

Well there has to be someone external who is bankrolling losses (by loaning, not gifting) and that was Brent up to a point.

It seems that he either ran out of disposable money to loan us or he decided he didn't want to throw any more of what he saw as good money after bad. Enter Wrathall.

That's my take on it anyway. Incredibly concerning that we still NEED bailing out so much though.

I think the wagebill is actually much larger than some on here probably think it is, but that still doesn't really justify the amount of losses that we've made. Design costs for HHP, perhaps?

Sam, Sam, Sam, Sam...

This is a point that quite simply never seems to be considered and yet it is astonishing in it's simplicity:

Nobody needs to bankroll anything.

There. I've said it.

What is needed is needed is sensible financial management based on good decision making because, for where we are even with historic debt taken into account, we have more than enough income if it is spent wisely to be successful.

The only rationale behind needing "somebody like Brent" to bankroll us is because "somebody like Brent" screwed it all up for us to start with. "Somebody like Brent" is the problem not the solution.

Avoid the pressure created by running up debts by not running them up in the first place.

It's as simple as that. It really is.

I said that Brent was an asset stripper when he rolled up at HP I see no reason to change that opinion. Did anybody notice how he made a nice little asset out of fook all by taking forty hotels out of admin binning the unprofitable ones then keeping four debt free well performing ones? This is what is happening at HP. Neonatism is the company I believe that is the umbrella, or is it Akkeron? Or is some of the club owned by One Direction? I also believe we have a couple of versions of PAFC in company names?
One thing is guaranteed is that we the fans will own the debt and Brent the profitable pieces or the freehold building plots. I hope we hang onto those buckets. In the meantime with no real information coming out of the club lets just assume the worst until it is PROVED otherwise.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Well there has to be someone external who is bankrolling losses (by loaning, not gifting) and that was Brent up to a point.

It seems that he either ran out of disposable money to loan us or he decided he didn't want to throw any more of what he saw as good money after bad. Enter Wrathall.

That's my take on it anyway. Incredibly concerning that we still NEED bailing out so much though.

I think the wagebill is actually much larger than some on here probably think it is, but that still doesn't really justify the amount of losses that we've made. Design costs for HHP, perhaps?

Sam, Sam, Sam, Sam...

This is a point that quite simply never seems to be considered and yet it is astonishing in it's simplicity:

Nobody needs to bankroll anything.

There. I've said it.

What is needed is needed is sensible financial management based on good decision making because, for where we are even with historic debt taken into account, we have more than enough income if it is spent wisely to be successful.

The only rationale behind needing "somebody like Brent" to bankroll us is because "somebody like Brent" screwed it all up for us to start with. "Somebody like Brent" is the problem not the solution.

Avoid the pressure created by running up debts by not running them up in the first place.

It's as simple as that. It really is.

As you say it is really quite simply. It is the 'sustainable model' that most League 1 & 2 clubs aspire to - trying to match or exceed income with expenditure. Indeed, it has been advocated by the Board as an aspirational model to pursue. The failure to do that over the last two seasons has resulted in the owner and a Director funding the shortfall with loans - the full extent of which are unknown.

To move to the sustainable model advocated requires an increase in income or a reduction in expenditure (costs) or both. Income can be increased by better commercial performance, increased attendances or by player sales. Costs can be reduced by doing less of what is done but the inevitable conclusion is that the most effective way of cost reduction is a reduction in employees (and their 13.8% employer's NI on costs). That could be having a smaller playing squad or reducing the number of staff employed (either full time or part time).

Attendances have increased in the last year (by over 3% I believe) but the number of full price admissions or full price season tickets is less than 50% of all sales. Commercial income may improve with increased shirt sales but the hospitality facilities at Home Park are limited to enable further growth in this area. We do have some talented players that may attract a fee on the transfer market but their has been no evidence of that since we emerged from administration. We might get lucky (like Exeter City did twice or more) and get an attractive money spinning cup draw but our performance in the Cups is not reliable. It may be that only marginal growth is possible in these areas to increase income, unless of course we build a squad for next year that genuinely challenges for promotion on a sustained basis. Only then will we see increased unbudgeted income. We have to remember also that 50% of all unbudgeted income goes to reducing the Football Creditor debt and the size of the balloon payment due in October 2016.

So, if a sustainable model is to be achieved it may be that some at least will, have to come from cost reduction. That has consequences and it may explain why over the last two seasons it has not been explored or implemented on a wide scale basis. Instead there has been a reliance on loans to fund the difference. We are up to date with all our financial obligations as monitored by the Football League, we have no overdraft, so our debt is a combination of the Director loans and the future Football Creditor balloon payment (including repayment of the accelerated payments made by the GTs.) We have no knowledge of if or when, or the terms that the debts to the two Directors and the GTs require payment. It is not unknown at other football clubs for such debts to be written off or converted into something like increased share equity. That would significantly improve the pathway to sustainability and enable the football club to concentrate on increasing unbudgeted income levels to continue to reduce the Football Creditor debt. The only alterative is cost reduction.

The new stand will earn an extra 1-2 million a year though! so there.    

There's nothing in Graham's post above that I take exception to but it misses the point somewhat.

Firstly "costs" reduction. When we entered administration Guilfoyle axed all but the essential personnel as he saw it at the time. Subsequently Brent "restructured" the club and more redundancies followed. This implies that we are already running on as few administrative personnel as is possible. We can only either reduce numbers or cut their pay. The numbers appear to be irreducible and paying them less, after all the sacrifices they have made, is inconceivable. So whatever the combined cost of these people we simply have to live with it and budget for it.

Much the same goes for the stadium overheads. Whatever they are is whatever they are and they have to be paid.

Happily both of these are completely predictable and failing to account for them would be unbelievably either negligent or incompetent.

Predicting income is much more difficult. However we have historic data to help us. Income from transfer sales or cup runs should not be budgeted for in any way because there may never be any but if we sold 2000 shirts, 20000 programmes and attracted 150000 paying customers for league games last year then expecting similar income from the same next year is not unreasonable. Add in the predictables such as guaranteed TV income and you have your starting point.

The difference between the two, with perhaps 10% set aside as a safety net, (once historical debt is taken into account) leaves the playing budget. It is then Sheridan's job (it is, isn't it? he is "manager" and not "coach" after all) to manage that budget.

I don't see how any of this is difficult.

Unless of course you make it difficult for yourself by sticking rigidly to income projections from attendances that any bloody fool could have told you were unrealistic and then using the cash shortfall from our own inadequate financial planning to big yourself up by lending the club money it should never have needed to borrow in the first place and which, combined with a head-in-the-sand approach to the final balloon payment, creates a looming crisis that need never have loomed at all.

Luckily, I suppose, the 5 year buy-back deal from the council means that an under-valued asset can be bought and then hocked to something like its true value and the difference used to settle the balloon payment.

Which is pretty much where we were when Brent came in.

Dick Trickle wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Well there has to be someone external who is bankrolling losses (by loaning, not gifting) and that was Brent up to a point.

It seems that he either ran out of disposable money to loan us or he decided he didn't want to throw any more of what he saw as good money after bad. Enter Wrathall.

That's my take on it anyway. Incredibly concerning that we still NEED bailing out so much though.

I think the wagebill is actually much larger than some on here probably think it is, but that still doesn't really justify the amount of losses that we've made. Design costs for HHP, perhaps?

Why should the club pay for the design costs of HHP when it is clearly not the sole beneficiary?

They shouldn't but that might not stop it from happening.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Well there has to be someone external who is bankrolling losses (by loaning, not gifting) and that was Brent up to a point.

It seems that he either ran out of disposable money to loan us or he decided he didn't want to throw any more of what he saw as good money after bad. Enter Wrathall.

That's my take on it anyway. Incredibly concerning that we still NEED bailing out so much though.

I think the wagebill is actually much larger than some on here probably think it is, but that still doesn't really justify the amount of losses that we've made. Design costs for HHP, perhaps?

Sam, Sam, Sam, Sam...

This is a point that quite simply never seems to be considered and yet it is astonishing in it's simplicity:

Nobody needs to bankroll anything.

There. I've said it.

What is needed is needed is sensible financial management based on good decision making because, for where we are even with historic debt taken into account, we have more than enough income if it is spent wisely to be successful.

The only rationale behind needing "somebody like Brent" to bankroll us is because "somebody like Brent" screwed it all up for us to start with. "Somebody like Brent" is the problem not the solution.

Avoid the pressure created by running up debts by not running them up in the first place.

It's as simple as that. It really is.

What I meant by 'someone has to bankroll losses' should better have been worded as 'in the current culture of making losses every year, it's a neccesity for someone to cover those losses or else we'd go bust'.

Of course you're right that in a different culture where the club wasn't being run at a loss then we wouldn't need someone to bankroll us. I just meant that someone HAS had to bankroll us ever since we've come out of administration because for a multitude of reasons, we haven't been self-sustainable.

I disagree.

We have been sustainable.

Or could have been if properly managed.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I disagree.

We have been sustainable.

Or could have been if properly managed.

I agree with the bold text too. This is probably more of a semantics disagreement than anything.

If we were better managed, we wouldn't be haemorrhaging money and thus wouldn't require anyone external to prevent the club from going pop.

But we aren't- so we do.

I'm certainly not arguing that we inherently need external investment into the team/club to do well in this league. In fact I think I'm in a minority on ATD who agrees with you on that.

Graham Clark wrote:

As you say it is really quite simply. It is the 'sustainable model' that most League 1 & 2 clubs aspire to - trying to match or exceed income with expenditure. Indeed, it has been advocated by the Board as an aspirational model to pursue. The failure to do that over the last two seasons has resulted in the owner and a Director funding the shortfall with loans - the full extent of which are unknown.

To move to the sustainable model advocated requires an increase in income or a reduction in expenditure (costs) or both. Income can be increased by better commercial performance, increased attendances or by player sales. Costs can be reduced by doing less of what is done but the inevitable conclusion is that the most effective way of cost reduction is a reduction in employees (and their 13.8% employer's NI on costs). That could be having a smaller playing squad or reducing the number of staff employed (either full time or part time).

Attendances have increased in the last year (by over 3% I believe) but the number of full price admissions or full price season tickets is less than 50% of all sales. Commercial income may improve with increased shirt sales but the hospitality facilities at Home Park are limited to enable further growth in this area. We do have some talented players that may attract a fee on the transfer market but their has been no evidence of that since we emerged from administration. We might get lucky (like Exeter City did twice or more) and get an attractive money spinning cup draw but our performance in the Cups is not reliable. It may be that only marginal growth is possible in these areas to increase income, unless of course we build a squad for next year that genuinely challenges for promotion on a sustained basis. Only then will we see increased unbudgeted income. We have to remember also that 50% of all unbudgeted income goes to reducing the Football Creditor debt and the size of the balloon payment due in October 2016.

So, if a sustainable model is to be achieved it may be that some at least will, have to come from cost reduction. That has consequences and it may explain why over the last two seasons it has not been explored or implemented on a wide scale basis. Instead there has been a reliance on loans to fund the difference. We are up to date with all our financial obligations as monitored by the Football League, we have no overdraft, so our debt is a combination of the Director loans and the future Football Creditor balloon payment (including repayment of the accelerated payments made by the GTs.) We have no knowledge of if or when, or the terms that the debts to the two Directors and the GTs require payment. It is not unknown at other football clubs for such debts to be written off or converted into something like increased share equity. That would significantly improve the pathway to sustainability and enable the football club to concentrate on increasing unbudgeted income levels to continue to reduce the Football Creditor debt. The only alterative is cost reduction.

I suspect you know only too well that cost reduction is very much on the agenda. It's bail out time.

Author

Message



Sir Francis Drake



Posts: 2051
Join date: 2011-12-03
Age: 22
Location: Nr Panama






Subject: How much will it cost to move James Brent on? (And how can we raise it?) Yesterday at 10:49 pm






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------






Brent's plan has been dead in the water for some time now and he has no interest in Argyle as a football club whatsoever.

He must be desperate now for an exit that allows him to carry on plundering Plymouth City Council (and Torbay CC) for all he can without the high profile that his activities attract as a football club owner.

It's in his interests to leave, accepting the plaudits for having saved Argyle as he does, and it's in our interests for him to leave so that his plan for HHP can be buried once and for all alongside the rest.

So 1) how much hard cash would it take to get rid of him? and 2) let's get bucket rattling to raise it!


Still waiting for Brent to come out publicly and state his owners intent to push for promotion!
Despite his teams manager, the players and the Herald all saying we are definitely going for a promotion push this coming season.