Club For Sale?

VillageGreen wrote:

They joke on PASOTI regarding the story, but if there is any grain of truth surrounding it, then they will change the tune rapidly.

they would make poor old sue rattle her buckets 24/7 to buy the club   

Punchdrunk wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Funny, I meet a well know gentlemen from Tavvy on Friday who told me the same, He said that one serving director said that Brent was willing to sell the club (not HHP) for £2.2m. Mind you this was at the Circus.

So buying the club for 2.2 while HHP remains in place !?
That's like buying a prize bull that has had it's gonads removed.

Yep and we will end up exactly how Oxford United have ended up fighting a war with Kassam to own the stadium.

Trouble is Brent can afford to sell the club for 2.2 mil knowing that he has the prize assets with planning permission in his back pocket to sell to anyone for a lovely profit.

Chances are any purchaser could then buy the stadium and evict the club straight out from under it

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

This is true. I was told last month by someone who was offered the club. But it is well known that every single club (ok maybe not man city or chelsea) is for sale at the right price. The difference being that our club is being actively touted and with all the land asset stripped out.

This back up what I heard on Friday from a businessman from Tavistock.

John Preece???

Tgwu wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

This is true. I was told last month by someone who was offered the club. But it is well known that every single club (ok maybe not man city or chelsea) is for sale at the right price. The difference being that our club is being actively touted and with all the land asset stripped out.

This back up what I heard on Friday from a businessman from Tavistock.

The same rumour has been doing the rounds for weeks. I even heard it from a former Board member although he was distinctly woolly when I pushed him on the matter. Whether it has any real validity at all who knows but there is one essentially element that has been missed out as far as the debate on here goes. The figure referred would EXCLUDE full payment of the outstanding Football Creditor debt and the secured debt to the Trust (of which James Brent has paid over half back in accordance with his obligation under his agreement with the Football League).

The Football League took a 'leap of faith' in permitting James Brent the 'golden share' and an exit of the club from administration. He now has just over two years to pay the full Football Creditor debt and other secured debt including the infamous balloon payment (by October 2016). Any purchaser of the club would have to convince the Football League that he/she had the ability to fully meet the outstanding debt and to successfully trade based on achievable budgets. They may not receive the same ability to repay over time given the reduced timescale.

The HHP land is now legally separated from the Football Club ownership but of course both companies remain under the same ultimate holding company. If the Football Club is ever sold, and the HHP land retained by a company owned by James Brent, then the ability to construct a grandstand of any size is severely constrained unless in agreement with James Brent. Whether anyone would take the club, within the existing Football Club lease on with this difficulty is open to question. The new lease (which includes the transfer of the 1.22 acres) has not been signed otherwise the constraint would be even greater.

All this means any Trust acquisition as things stand in fanciful in the least. They would also have to take on the responsibility of the existing full repairing and insuring lease which is over £140,000 per annum (it's index linked). Should the club ever be sold it would have to be to a single or group of high net worth individuals and would have to include the HHP land to avoid constraints on the expansion of the ground unless an accommodation can be reached with James Brent subject to a revamped development of the HHP land.

no to trust ownership

up to 25% ownership im ok with but not full. I like to think unlike exeter we have ambition to get out of backwaters.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Are people deliberately misinterpreting what I say just to wind me up?

Did you miss the bit about Brent not actually putting anything up any more? AFT could easily match that big fat zero.

I'd also suggest that AFT would not have set nonsensical budgets based on an unattainable average home crowd meaning that at some of the loans already "guaranteed" weren't needed in the first place.

Where is the indication that Brent can take us any further? He's seems to be out of money (or out of inclination to spend any of his own at any rate), the grandstand isn't going to happen, HHP isn't going to be built and Wrathall is bailing him out financially as far as the club's loans are concerned.

And AFT could refuse to put money in and stuff a begging bowl under Wrathall's nose, should it choose to do so, just as easily as Brent can.

Is it a fact that Brent is no longer injecting his personal reserves as loans to the club? Wrathall's arrival doesn't necessarily mean that will have stopped entirely.

Wrathall's re-emergence at the club was quite controversial, a decision even Chris Webb spat his dummy out at Brent over. A perfect example of a much needed business decision the AFT and their committees IMO wouldn't have been capable of.

Wealthy men like to be on board alongside other respected businessmen. It is unwise to assume that a football club trust can raise investment expediently - at the end of the day they are popular representatives of the supporter base leading every day lives. I know if I had a million, I would be slightly dubious about handing it over to a business if it were controlled by a panel with a teacher, an engineer and a retired factory worker on board, for example. Or of decision making by committee devoted to consultation and representation. I would want the board room to be fellow minded businessmen who understand finances and business procedures, can make informed decisions and make a business run well to protect my investment.

Only the AFT will know if they were to step in, could they attract investment, but I have my doubts on that. What kind of credit could a trust run club receive, with no experience of business management? If Argyle were to have a bad financial year without a Wrathall under their sleeve, it could descend into annual bucket rattling just to get the tax bills covered.

Argyle as a trust run club does not sound like an attractive option to me.

Graham Clark wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

This is true. I was told last month by someone who was offered the club. But it is well known that every single club (ok maybe not man city or chelsea) is for sale at the right price. The difference being that our club is being actively touted and with all the land asset stripped out.

This back up what I heard on Friday from a businessman from Tavistock.

The same rumour has been doing the rounds for weeks. I even heard it from a former Board member although he was distinctly woolly when I pushed him on the matter. Whether it has any real validity at all who knows but there is one essentially element that has been missed out as far as the debate on here goes. The figure referred would EXCLUDE full payment of the outstanding Football Creditor debt and the secured debt to the Trust (of which James Brent has paid over half back in accordance with his obligation under his agreement with the Football League).

The Football League took a 'leap of faith' in permitting James Brent the 'golden share' and an exit of the club from administration. He now has just over two years to pay the full Football Creditor debt and other secured debt including the infamous balloon payment (by October 2016). Any purchaser of the club would have to convince the Football League that he/she had the ability to fully meet the outstanding debt and to successfully trade based on achievable budgets. They may not receive the same ability to repay over time given the reduced timescale.

The HHP land is now legally separated from the Football Club ownership but of course both companies remain under the same ultimate holding company. If the Football Club is ever sold, and the HHP land retained by a company owned by James Brent, then the ability to construct a grandstand of any size is severely constrained unless in agreement with James Brent. Whether anyone would take the club, within the existing Football Club lease on with this difficulty is open to question. The new lease (which includes the transfer of the 1.22 acres) has not been signed otherwise the constraint would be even greater.

All this means any Trust acquisition as things stand in fanciful in the least. They would also have to take on the responsibility of the existing full repairing and insuring lease which is over £140,000 per annum (it's index linked). Should the club ever be sold it would have to be to a single or group of high net worth individuals and would have to include the HHP land to avoid constraints on the expansion of the ground unless an accommodation can be reached with James Brent subject to a revamped development of the HHP land.      

What is Brent's endgame here then? Pass off the entire HHP project and PAFC to a consortium of wealthy bidders who can see the project through?

That would be preferable wouldn't it if it meant retaining the corners of the ground at least for future spectator capacity? What happens if Brent sold to other investors then without completing the stand, does he have to hand over 10 million to the new owners in lieu of building the stand?

ejh wrote:

Graham Clark wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

This is true. I was told last month by someone who was offered the club. But it is well known that every single club (ok maybe not man city or chelsea) is for sale at the right price. The difference being that our club is being actively touted and with all the land asset stripped out.

This back up what I heard on Friday from a businessman from Tavistock.

The same rumour has been doing the rounds for weeks. I even heard it from a former Board member although he was distinctly woolly when I pushed him on the matter. Whether it has any real validity at all who knows but there is one essentially element that has been missed out as far as the debate on here goes. The figure referred would EXCLUDE full payment of the outstanding Football Creditor debt and the secured debt to the Trust (of which James Brent has paid over half back in accordance with his obligation under his agreement with the Football League).

The Football League took a 'leap of faith' in permitting James Brent the 'golden share' and an exit of the club from administration. He now has just over two years to pay the full Football Creditor debt and other secured debt including the infamous balloon payment (by October 2016). Any purchaser of the club would have to convince the Football League that he/she had the ability to fully meet the outstanding debt and to successfully trade based on achievable budgets. They may not receive the same ability to repay over time given the reduced timescale.

The HHP land is now legally separated from the Football Club ownership but of course both companies remain under the same ultimate holding company. If the Football Club is ever sold, and the HHP land retained by a company owned by James Brent, then the ability to construct a grandstand of any size is severely constrained unless in agreement with James Brent. Whether anyone would take the club, within the existing Football Club lease on with this difficulty is open to question. The new lease (which includes the transfer of the 1.22 acres) has not been signed otherwise the constraint would be even greater.

All this means any Trust acquisition as things stand in fanciful in the least. They would also have to take on the responsibility of the existing full repairing and insuring lease which is over £140,000 per annum (it's index linked). Should the club ever be sold it would have to be to a single or group of high net worth individuals and would have to include the HHP land to avoid constraints on the expansion of the ground unless an accommodation can be reached with James Brent subject to a revamped development of the HHP land.      

What is Brent's endgame here then? Pass off the entire HHP project and PAFC to a consortium of wealthy bidders who can see the project through?

I think that is his business plan for his entire empire. He certainly doesn't appear to have any interest or ability to actually build anything.

has anything JB has gained Planning permission for been built? (recent years im talking so no need to go back decades lol)

Frank Bullitt wrote:

ejh wrote:

Graham Clark wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

This is true. I was told last month by someone who was offered the club. But it is well known that every single club (ok maybe not man city or chelsea) is for sale at the right price. The difference being that our club is being actively touted and with all the land asset stripped out.

This back up what I heard on Friday from a businessman from Tavistock.

The same rumour has been doing the rounds for weeks. I even heard it from a former Board member although he was distinctly woolly when I pushed him on the matter. Whether it has any real validity at all who knows but there is one essentially element that has been missed out as far as the debate on here goes. The figure referred would EXCLUDE full payment of the outstanding Football Creditor debt and the secured debt to the Trust (of which James Brent has paid over half back in accordance with his obligation under his agreement with the Football League).

The Football League took a 'leap of faith' in permitting James Brent the 'golden share' and an exit of the club from administration. He now has just over two years to pay the full Football Creditor debt and other secured debt including the infamous balloon payment (by October 2016). Any purchaser of the club would have to convince the Football League that he/she had the ability to fully meet the outstanding debt and to successfully trade based on achievable budgets. They may not receive the same ability to repay over time given the reduced timescale.

The HHP land is now legally separated from the Football Club ownership but of course both companies remain under the same ultimate holding company. If the Football Club is ever sold, and the HHP land retained by a company owned by James Brent, then the ability to construct a grandstand of any size is severely constrained unless in agreement with James Brent. Whether anyone would take the club, within the existing Football Club lease on with this difficulty is open to question. The new lease (which includes the transfer of the 1.22 acres) has not been signed otherwise the constraint would be even greater.

All this means any Trust acquisition as things stand in fanciful in the least. They would also have to take on the responsibility of the existing full repairing and insuring lease which is over £140,000 per annum (it's index linked). Should the club ever be sold it would have to be to a single or group of high net worth individuals and would have to include the HHP land to avoid constraints on the expansion of the ground unless an accommodation can be reached with James Brent subject to a revamped development of the HHP land.      

What is Brent's endgame here then? Pass off the entire HHP project and PAFC to a consortium of wealthy bidders who can see the project through?

I think that is his business plan for his entire empire. He certainly doesn't appear to have any interest or ability to actually build anything.

That would appear to be his game plan, Frank.There is plenty of evidence to back up that theory, not just at Argyle. I think the Trust could have a role to play in any buy out by wealthy fans, or anyone else for that matter. I'm no businessman but a share issue offered to fans for some sort of part ownership of the club, a seat on the board and the safeguarding of the stadium ownership ie the heritage of PAFC ? A thousand fans at a thousand pounds each, would produce a million. With shares at £100 each for a minority % of the club ownership,more fans might be attracted.
There simply has to be a way forward because the reluctant one is certainly not the way forward. That much must by now be obvious to all but the dimmest of Avivas and as for the few self serving superfans, they'll soon change like the wind once the writing is on the wall and try to curry favour with new owners and/or the Trust.

I cannot see 1,000 Argyle fans giving £1,000 for this idea. There are already squabbles about the Trust leadership and what value ithey provide for a £20 membership, let alone £1,000!

The figure of £1, 000, 000 is not a lot in football finances. If the club is not run absolutely watertight it could fritter away very easily - as Brent's own bank account has!

ejh wrote:

I cannot see 1,000 Argyle fans giving £1,000 for this idea. There are already squabbles about the Trust leadership and what value ithey provide for a £20 membership, let alone £1,000!

The figure of £1, 000, 000 is not a lot in football finances. If the club is not run absolutely watertight it could fritter away very easily - as Brent's own bank account has!

You're probably correct but if the Trust were to be more dynamic and challenging of brent and the council, clearly demonstrating its passion for the future of the club, it might just carry a few along on emotion alone.
Actually owning a piece of the club and helping to safeguard its future could get people to buy in. The individuals would own their shares but collectively would be represented by the Trust. Some might seek more shares than others. As I said, I don't really know how these things work.

I got talking to random fella on a train a few weeks ago who knew Brent and his extended family pretty well (either that or he span a pretty convincing yarn). Apparently Mrs Brent and her side of the family are fairly well minted in their own right. Big big farming interests in New Zealand by all accounts.

Either way, I wish they'd all just phuck off.

Czarcasm wrote:

I got talking to random fella on a train a few weeks ago who knew Brent and his extended family pretty well (either that or he span a pretty convincing yarn). Apparently Mrs Brent and her side of the family are fairly well minted in their own right. Big big farming interests in New Zealand by all accounts.

Either way, I wish they'd all just phuck off.

If you look on Akkeron website, farming is what they do. I wished they'd feck off too

Been a while (several months) since I've looked on here (nothing to do with ATD, just sheer disillusionment with freebie Accrington Stanley rejects playing for an owner that has no interest in football)

Some things haven't changed-despite £200k from Barnsley, I see no way that Brent will pay off the FC debts when they fall due, so if he doesn't find a buyer for the Club, I think it'll be Administration again. As I said before, I can't actually see what value (if any) the Football Club has- there are no property assets, the only assets being the players, and I'm sure that it's been a case of "no reasonable offer refused" there for quite a while. The only hope for JB to sell the Club, is to find another group of "more money than sense" supporters like Dan McCauley did.


What has changed is that as the economy comes out of recession, JB seems to have run out of money. I find this very worrying and fear that, irrespective of the above, Administration may well be forced on the Club and parts of the JB empire, anyway.



PS Are their any rich people in Tavistock? It's always full of farmers (most of whom are my relatives) and pensioners when I go there.

Get the buckets out..........soon

The never-ending nightmare

Three years of non investment = Fourth Division dross.

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

Three years of non investment = Fourth Division dross.

It will never change whilst the Tapeworm is in charge.
Meanwhile where is the pressure from the AFT?

It is such a shame as Argyle can be a self sufficient club. It is previous debts ran up by totally different individuals that look set to drag the club back into the quicksand again.

My train of thought is getting hazy with time - is it still the case that unless this bloody ice rink is built at HP, none of the other 'Plymouth' based property options can be started? If the case is this guy playing some sort of war of attrition with the football fans, Janner public and the council - waiting to be bailed out at profit? The Kassam analogy is looking like the mud that sticks - this guy is bad news all round!!

Bandwagon wrote:

My train of thought is getting hazy with time - is it still the case that unless this bloody ice rink is built at HP, none of the other 'Plymouth' based property options can be started? If the case is this guy playing some sort of war of attrition with the football fans, Janner public and the council - waiting to be bailed out at profit? The Kassam analogy is looking like the mud that sticks - this guy is bad news all round!!

The Pavillions development is dependant upon the Ice Rink there being replaced elsewhere in the city.

The Civic Centre development isn't linked.

Oh dear, I think you need to look into His eyes, and watch His lip quiver, you heretic! One look at the man is enough to see that he positively screams dull, penny pinching accountant charisma and passion for rugby soccer football!

So when is the open fans' meeting where we have the opportunity to put questions to the club board going to take place?