A radical plan for Argyle / the Council

All the rumours of the Council building the grandstand, failed development projects, land squabbles etc has got me thinking - could something radical be done to give Argyle the stadium it needs and be of wider benefit to the City?

Most are agreed Brent's HHP plan sells Argyle short. If the Council do get involved with the grandstand the best that can be hoped for is a similar sized grandstand with a little room for expansion. However this will most probably come at a cost with the club burdened with a challenging rental liability. I keep reading the likes of Swansea, Reading, Brighton etc being used as examples of why HHP is so crap and of what can be achieved with some vision / ambition. It strikes me that the common factor here is that those clubs moved and built a new ground from scratch. Swansea is a prime example, a Council built ground but largely paid for by the building of a hacking great retail park next door to it.

Where could Argyle go?

I totally agree with SHH's position that the former airport site has no realistic future as a commercial airport. As freeholders PCC could concede this and allow SHH to build it's housing. student accommodation, supermarket etc, provided that there is space for the Council to use it's share from the development profits to build an all-singing all dancing stadium. Traffic problems could be mitigated by limiting stadium parking as Exeter Chiefs do to corporate / hospitality punters and designating George P&R (probably walkabkle) and Milehouse P&R via shuttle bus as football parking only on match days.

The city needs an ice-rink, at least to clear the way for regenerating the Pavilions area, Brent could be allowed to put whatever he likes on HHP to fund this, planning could even be relaxed to allow a small food-store for example. This could be subject to a % of any profits contributing to the new stadium.

As sad as it would be HP could be bulldozed and returned to parkland / a memorial park etc.

As deluded as these musings may be I just can't see any viable solution on the horizon that will get our club moving again.

Sell Brickfields to the university. Use the money to help fund the grandstand. Retain the ownership of HP and have it as a municipal stadium shared by Albion and Argyle. If they can get an ice rink built too make sure it has enough seats for a ice hockey franchise and can be adapted for use by the Raiders.

If the Brickfields is sold it will be for relative peanuts, the uni only want it as a sports base for their students. The place is riddled with community use covenants and obligations to Sports England - no chance of making serious money there.

Albion would be nuts to move to HP at the moment, they'd lose control over their function income and would never be able to cover their share of the rent on a redeveloped HP.

GreenHart wrote:

If the Brickfields is sold it will be for relative peanuts, the uni only want it as a sports base for their students. The place is riddled with community use covenants and obligations to Sports England - no chance of making serious money there.

Albion would be nuts to move to HP at the moment, they'd lose control over their function income and would never be able to cover their share of the rent on a redeveloped HP.

Which is why i encourage the Albion shareholders not to entertain any offer to move in until any deal is fair,just and worthwhile to Albion as a club and to its fans aswell as beneficial for all 50/50.

But they would be in a stadium that was fit for the premiership and European Cup rugby. It seems to work for a lot of other rugby clubs.

I disagree about the airport. In the short to medium term the view that it isn't viable may well be correct. But to kill any future hope of the City once more having an airport, purely by way of SHH cashing in on selling the land for housing shouldn't be allowed to happen. SHH aren't the slightest bit concerned in anything other than cashing in.

PCC have done the right thing and got independent consultants in who have concluded that the best interests of the city are served by keeping the site preserved for possible aviation use in the future - a stance that thankfully is fully supported by the Council.

A cynical view would be that SHH's long term plan was always to acquire the airport land with the aim of selling for housing. I don't think that view is too wide of the mark.

Frank Bullitt wrote:

But they would be in a stadium that was fit for the premiership and European Cup rugby. It seems to work for a lot of other rugby clubs.

its not a case if it would work using a football stadium and dont forget home park was Albion's home to start with all those years ago before Argyle moved in.

Brickfields isnt far off being fit for Premiership and European rugby now, all they need do is up the capactiy by 2000 and that can easliy be done there if there was any danger of them being close to reaching those heights and let me tell you we have a better change of reaching them heights before they do.

Doesn't the capacity for European knock out games have to be 15,000+? Northampton had to play some games at MK dongs because their ground wasn't big enough.

Frank Bullitt wrote:

Doesn't the capacity for European knock out games have to be 15,000+? Northampton had to play some games at MK dongs because their ground wasn't big enough.

certain games do depends on the opposition and its following and demand really. But you can play in a ground of 10,000 minimum.

For Albion to be able to afford to move into Home Park (if it was to ever happen) they would have to increase their attendance's. Last season they average 1,700, so say an average ticket price is £11 that would only produce £18,700 in ticket revenue. I have heard from several sources (nothing official from the club) that on a Saturday league game there needs to be an attendance of between 7,000 and 8,000 to break even.

Bottom line is Albion just couldn't afford to play at HP. If the Council build to Brent's spec and it costs 8 to 10 million than I would estimate that the stadium rent would rise to approx £500K a year. Even if Albion only wear a 30% share of that it comes to £150K. That's got to be higher than what they pay at Brickfields.

There's all sorts of ways Argyle and Albion could groundshare and there's no reason why each should pay an equal amount to the other. And what does "equal" mean anyway?

e.g. Why couldn't PCC set rent as a percentage of income rather than at a flat rate?

I'm not sure of the figures here but say Argyle pays rent at £200k p.a. and has turnover over of £4m (I'm making these figures up). That would mean we are currently paying 5% of our income in rent. Reduce that a bit to, say, 4% and charge Albion 4% of their income too. We save some money, Albion's 4% would replace the "lost" 1% and more probably. We pay less, Albion get better facilities and make even more money and PCC gets more in total. Everybody wins.

The beauty of this is that the more successful each becomes the more rent PCC gets and if neither is successful they would not be crippled by paying rent at a price they could ill afford.

I'm not sure that Albion would lose out on hospitality revenue either. Why should that be the case when they have full access to everything taken on their matchdays?

And the case for an intrininsic supporters' bar, or two or three, would be all the stronger.

Where's the downside here?

tagz wrote:

For Albion to be able to afford to move into Home Park (if it was to ever happen) they would have to increase their attendance's. Last season they average 1,700, so say an average ticket price is £11 that would only produce £18,700 in ticket revenue. I have heard from several sources (nothing official from the club) that on a Saturday league game there needs to be an attendance of between 7,000 and 8,000 to break even.

But that's Argyle covering 100% of the cost. In a groundshare we wouldn't need to. That would reduce our break even crowd or make more money available for team strengthening if it stayed the same.

For Albion they could get radical with pricing. Let everybody in for free even and make money on sales of beer etc (them rugby boys like a pint or two, y'know). They could easily recoup £11 per punter, they could double their crowds, or more, right off...

To be able to invest in HP as the landlord the Council will be legally obliged to charge an open-market rent (state aid rules) but at the very least it will have to charge a rent that will recover it's capital outlay (say 8 to 10 million) within a normal commercial timeframe (25 to 35 years) Even if stretched to 35 years that's going to be a significant amount of rent and my estimate of £500K per year could well be understated dependent on the interest rate the Council can borrow at and the impact of periodical rent reviews.

It's a nice notion to think that the rent can be managed around turnover etc but reality there is little the Council can do to make the arrangement more affordable.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

There's all sorts of ways Argyle and Albion could groundshare and there's no reason why each should pay an equal amount to the other. And what does "equal" mean anyway?

e.g. Why couldn't PCC set rent as a percentage of income rather than at a flat rate?

I'm not sure of the figures here but say Argyle pays rent at £200k p.a. and has turnover over of £4m (I'm making these figures up). That would mean we are currently paying 5% of our income in rent. Reduce that a bit to, say, 4% and charge Albion 4% of their income too. We save some money, Albion's 4% would replace the "lost" 1% and more probably. We pay less, Albion get better facilities and make even more money and PCC gets more in total. Everybody wins.

The beauty of this is that the more successful each becomes the more rent PCC gets and if neither is successful they would not be crippled by paying rent at a price they could ill afford.

I'm not sure that Albion would lose out on hospitality revenue either. Why should that be the case when they have full access to everything taken on their matchdays?

And the case for an intrininsic supporters' bar, or two or three, would be all the stronger.

Where's the downside here?

i answered the downsides on the last thread on this subject. its not going to be a gravy train for both clubs no matter how much spin is put on it. Albion at the moment will bring in a loss to home park with its revenue for match days. Its only staying afloat at the moment due to its many sponsors and coroporate facilities. Until Albion can bring in 4-5k gates again and be nearer the top of the championship it will be pointless moving into one of the biggest stadiums in pro rugby with over 18000 with only 1000 turning up

I come in here,  Brickfields was given to PCC by the Navy for the benefit of the people of Plymouth more to Devonport then Plymouth, if the PCC try to disposal the of the Brickfield away from the people of Plymouth/Devonport there we be up roar (war) so Mr Evans will have to watch out, it do not belong to Albion, but to the People which use it to it full compacity.

Tgwu wrote:

I come in here,  Brickfields was given to PCC by the Navy for the benefit of the people of Plymouth more to Devonport then Plymouth, if the PCC try to disposal the of the Brickfield away from the people of Plymouth/Devonport there we be up roar (war) so Mr Evan will have to watch out, it do not belong to Albion, but to the People which use it to it full compacity.

did it stop him giving brent the reign to build on central park that was on the green belt? i support what your saying but he isnt going to give to shits about the navy if he can make money selling the pitch t the uni or housing folk.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

tagz wrote:

For Albion to be able to afford to move into Home Park (if it was to ever happen) they would have to increase their attendance's. Last season they average 1,700, so say an average ticket price is £11 that would only produce £18,700 in ticket revenue. I have heard from several sources (nothing official from the club) that on a Saturday league game there needs to be an attendance of between 7,000 and 8,000 to break even.

But that's Argyle covering 100% of the cost. In a groundshare we wouldn't need to. That would reduce our break even crowd or make more money available for team strengthening if it stayed the same.

For Albion they could get radical with pricing. Let everybody in for free even and make money on sales of beer etc (them rugby boys like a pint or two, y'know). They could easily recoup £11 per punter, they could double their crowds, or more, right off...

Argyle current break even £11 (guess at average ticket price) x 7,000 (break even point)= £77,000
Current breakeven= £77,000
Say Albion's average ticket price is the same and with their average attppendance (last season) at 1,500 they would produce £16,500 in revenue on match day.

Based on these figures (just based on tickets sold) Albion would only be able to raise 21% of the £77,000.

Any thought of using the airfield by PCC for anything other than an airfield would condemn Plymouth to the backwaters of growth and expansion.

For a city of a quarter of a million that is already cut off from the rest of the country by it's location, surely that would stop for ever real investment money ever coming to a area that would continue to stagnate....just like it's football team.

zyph wrote:

Any thought of using the airfield by PCC for anything other than an airfield would condemn Plymouth to the backwaters of growth and expansion.

For a city of a quarter of a million that is already cut off from the rest of the country by it's location, surely that would stop for ever real investment money ever coming to a area that would continue to stagnate....just like it's football team.

i agree with you the city being sold short and nothing is being done about it sadly.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

There's all sorts of ways Argyle and Albion could groundshare and there's no reason why each should pay an equal amount to the other. And what does "equal" mean anyway?

e.g. Why couldn't PCC set rent as a percentage of income rather than at a flat rate?

I'm not sure of the figures here but say Argyle pays rent at £200k p.a. and has turnover over of £4m (I'm making these figures up). That would mean we are currently paying 5% of our income in rent. Reduce that a bit to, say, 4% and charge Albion 4% of their income too. We save some money, Albion's 4% would replace the "lost" 1% and more probably. We pay less, Albion get better facilities and make even more money and PCC gets more in total. Everybody wins.

The beauty of this is that the more successful each becomes the more rent PCC gets and if neither is successful they would not be crippled by paying rent at a price they could ill afford.

I'm not sure that Albion would lose out on hospitality revenue either. Why should that be the case when they have full access to everything taken on their matchdays?

And the case for an intrininsic supporters' bar, or two or three, would be all the stronger.

Where's the downside here?

With you all the way on this issue SFD - makes total sense for the sake of sport in Plymouth as a city. There is also the possiblity that the system would enticed new type of entrepreneur(s) that could own both clubs and really make a go of it - with the meteoric rise of Cheifs showing their off field acumen 'alone', a vision for a city twice the size could be outa the box thinking!! Obviuosly not sure if that somenone can own 2 codes?

You're always better having your destiny in your own hands. I wouldn't want Albion anywhere near Argyle.

Rickler wrote:

You're always better having your destiny in your own hands.  I wouldn't want Albion anywhere near Argyle.

Each to his own Rick - problem is in my 45ish years of following this club, apart from a couple of years that showed any real profit (Sturrocktime) nothing has worked. The city in general needs to think out side the box to create a new wave of ideas. Ok I'm dreaming I know as we have always slipped back to mediocrity - at the very least, we get a chance to explore idea over here as apposed to the dystopic pisspot!!

Rickler wrote:

You're always better having your destiny in your own hands.  I wouldn't want Albion anywhere near Argyle.

Then fully merge the two.

This is common enough. There's Barcelona football and basketball teams both representing the same club. I'm sure there's lots of others. Why not Argyle and Albion, too?

In most industries diversification is a positive strategy. Why not in sport too?

Wonder if we could find room for the cricket club as well?