Argyle debts

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

Peggy wrote:

Meanwhile, people on very, very low incomes are being dragged through the courts for not paying 20% of their council tax (it was 25% last year) - and then getting a fine added to the amount they owe.

You really couldn't make it up.

No doubt PCC are cutting services to the elderly and the disabled, while at the same time lending money to a millionaire and his football club. I'm staggered this is allowed to happen! if Brent cant fund the football club, he should sell it to someone who can.

When is Tudor's seat up for election next?

tigertony wrote:

GreenHart wrote:

Sorry for an 'i'm in the know' type post, but just back from a beer with someone, who on good authority, has said that the PCC loan was made on the basis that the FL were in agreement with the principle of the offer and that the PFA had recommended to their affected members that they accept that offer.

If true this is fantastic news for the club. It means PAFC has two more installments of £200K to pay and 800K plus interest over 5 years to clear the remaining 1.9m of old debt, possibly saving the club close to 700K. Of course, it's more than likely that some of the creditors will hold out but you'd expect with a PFA recommendation that many will settle.

As always the statements / reports etc, and reaction to it, doesn't make for clear reading but really struggling to understand the negativity around this. And lets be clear the PCC money is not being taken from the budget or given to Argyle rather than a needier cause. Council's will always have large revenue balances, quite often down to the timings of when they receive money and when expenditure falls due. SFD is spot on this is just an example of the many investments a Council will make.

Do people really think Argyle will struggle to pay 800K over 5 years??

This for me. Argyle have paid all the monies due so far so I can't see this being a problem. As for JB - I think he would sell to a bidder who could provide the finances but thus far it appears there isn't one. Whats the jackpot tonight? As for ''fit and proper''. Well we know full well that to fail that test is nigh on impossible.

I can understand Peggy's stance on Council Tax (having just received a tax underpayment notice for £300 when large companies are avoiding millions) but everyone has their views on what councils should and should not cover. I think councils should stop running libraries, reduce allowances for members (over £1 million last year) and stop trying to make some roundabouts resemble a tropical rain forest (grass is good).

The figure of £800K is about 0.25% of total income.

Well thankfully you're not making any decisions in my vicinity. There's a big enough problem with illiteracy without denying people access to a service which costs pennies to run. And how do you think people who can't afford a computer get to do things like apply for jobs?

Anyway, this isn't anything to do with whether it's good business for the club, good business for the council, or good business for anybody. It's purely about hypocrisy and - as seems to be the norm in Plymouth politics of any colour - putting all our eggs in the basket of whichever rich bloke's currently flavour of the month with little or no regard for principle or the needs of the people who actually provide the money in the first place.

Angry - the election's in May.

The same problem that's affecting the whole country Peggy, the proles are just cash cows now.

Richard Blight wrote:

After reading all the comments on both forums it is blatantly apparent that this announcement is as clear as mud. The implications for PAFC, it's creditors, the city council and supporters are certainly not clear at all. Some commentators may know exactly what is going on but there are probably many more giving their versions of what they think is happening. This is only going to create speculation that will only serve to confuse both the fans of PAFC and taxpayers of PCC. Instead of being an informing announcement that leaves nobody with any doubt of what exactly is going on, it is doing the exact opposite.

Whether that is PAFC, PCC or the Heralds fault doesn't matter. It needs clarifying as soon as possible using some plain English that everybody can understand.

I suggest the Trust speaks to both the club and PCC as soon as possible.

This for me. Contrary to popular belief I don't give unswerving support for the club on all things, I make a balanced judgement on a case by case basis. But as Richard says, you can't here, it's all too confusing.

I'm with Graiser's assessment with a touch of Rickler's "if". 'IF' it means a reduction of the overall debt then it would represent a good bit of business, who could possibly begrudge £700k more for the team that would otherwise be the case? Trouble is I can't see the FC/FL agreeing which makes it all rather academic.

Surprise development, potentially positive but more detail required, it asks more questions than it answers presently.

The BBC report is much shorter, but also clearer - especially the last sentence click here

Quote :

Plymouth Argyle Football Club has taken out an £800,000 loan from the city council to help pay off some of its debts, including wages owed to players.

...

Plymouth Argyle Football Club Limited has been paying off the debts in instalments, but £1.5m remains outstanding.

The loan is secured with collateral provided by club shareholders. The remaining money owed to the creditors has to be paid by 2016.

tigertony wrote:

The figure of £800K is about 0.25% of total income.

Over how long?

If £800,000 = 0.25%
then £80,000,000 = 25%
so £320,000,000 = 100%

Assuming income of £4m per annum that amounts to around 80 years of total income (at current levels).

I'd be quite worried if this is the case.

If PCC build a ten million pound stand, over thirty odd years whats that in rent? £300,000 per year? does that leave more or less for the playing side, the Brent mini stand was 'free'

I've always said JB wouldn't pay the FC debts.

It looks to me as f he has gone cap in hand (has the man no pride or conscience) to the Council pleading poverty and using the same threat/promise as was used to get the FC creditors to do what he wanted in the first place-i.e. if you don't do what I want, it'll be your fault if the club closes.

The Council have fallen for it, but have realised that they can't get away with just lending him the money without security, so between them they have concocted the idea that the gullible public will accept that a small parcel of land is worth at least twice what it actually is. What is more, with all the statements from the Council about "having" to keep a football club in the City, JB doesn't even have to worry about paying it back does he? "If I pay you, the football club will fold"

The King's got no clothes on, buy no one is saying anything.



The history of Home Park over the last few years is a story in itself:

Council sells HP to Football Club at a discount, Football Club uses it as security to borrow loads of cash, Football Club runs out of money, goes bust, property developer buys Home Park from Administrator (gets a football team as well, but he's not really interested in that) property developer sells most of Home Park back to Council (to fund his purchase of it in the first place) Property developer finds that he's also running out of cash as no one wants to build on the land he kept, so property developer borrows money off Council on the basis that the land he kept and no one wants to build on has doubled in value.

The only thing that puzzles me is this: Several women in Somerset were recently sent to prison for running a pyramid scheme (ie a business that has no substance, but relies on gullible people continuing to invest in it) so, where these women ever invited onto the Board at Home Park, or did they just follow the JB business model?

Grovehill wrote:

I've always said JB wouldn't pay the FC debts.

It looks to me as f he has gone cap in hand (has the man no pride or conscience) to the Council pleading poverty and using the same threat/promise as was used to get the FC creditors to do what he wanted in the first place-i.e. if you don't do what I want, it'll be your fault if the club closes.

The Council have fallen for it, but have realised that they can't get away with just lending him the money without security, so between them they have concocted the idea that the gullible public will accept that a small parcel of land is worth at least twice what it actually is. What is more, with all the statements from the Council about "having" to keep a football club in the City, JB doesn't even have to worry about paying it back does he?  "If I pay you, the football club will fold"

The King's got no clothes on, buy no one is saying anything.



The history of Home Park over the last few years is a story in itself:

Council sells HP to Football Club at a discount, Football Club uses it as security to borrow loads of cash, Football Club runs out of money, goes bust, property developer buys Home Park from Administrator (gets a football team as well, but he's not really interested in that) property developer sells most of Home Park back to Council (to fund his purchase of it in the first place) Property developer finds that he's also running out of cash as no one wants to build on the land he kept, so property developer borrows money off Council on the basis that the land he kept and no one wants to build  on has doubled in value.

The only thing that puzzles me is this: Several women in Somerset were recently sent to prison for running a pyramid scheme (ie a business that has no substance, but relies on gullible people continuing to invest in it) so, where these women ever invited onto the Board at Home Park, or did they just follow the JB business model?

In essence, are you saying he will have paid fcuk all for this club? The yanks have a name for people like this - Carpetbagger, I've got another!!!!

People like Jimmy never use their own dough, d'ya fink eee's fick.

Interesting comment on the Erole site - can somebody who knows how to do this kind of maths confirm the interest rate?

Love_Plymouth on the Erole site wrote:

Someone is pulling a fast one here..... a 4.8% apr on a loan of £800k over 5 years would result in interest payments of £101k making the total payback £901k.... a payback of £38k in interest implies an interest rate of approx 1.85%... no bank would give that interest rate so that is not a commercial rate.... sound like a very dodgy deal for me... I feel like a FOI request coming on

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

Have a play around with this - very interesting.

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

Oops, I'm not as clever as I thought. Anyway, just google it - there are several options under 'loan repayment calculator'.

Mortgage calculations are fiendishly complicated. Tricky stuff. Very tricky stuff.

Luckily, as Dingle suggests, there's loads of on-line ones.

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

To repay 800,000 over 5 years at 4.8% results in a monthly repayment of £15313.28.

£15313.28 x 12 = £183,759.26 per year.

£183,759.26 x 5 = £918,796.80 in total.

Compounding of interest is a powerful force. If you have a mortgage and pay even only a tiny sum extra each month, like £1, over 25 years it will shorten the term of the mortgage significantly.

Why do you think that Building Societies have been so successful for so long? (It was only when they decided to become quasi-banks that they started to come a cropper.)

However only paying the mortgage as it accrues and leaving the £800,000 untouched (rather like an endowment mortgage) results in a much simpler calculation,

4.8% of £800,000 = £38,400 (payable annually or in monthly installments of £3,200).

While I am at it...

A loan at 7% will double over about 10 years.

So if you borrow say £1000 in 10 years you'll owe £2000, 20 years £4000, 30 years £8000 and so on.

This is how many equity release schemes work. Be careful. You can end up owing loads more than you might think.

its safe to say James Brent is no Lannister #lannisteralwaspayshisdebts

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

However only paying the mortgage as it accrues and leaving the £800,000 untouched (rather like an endowment mortgage) results in a much simpler calculation,

4.8% of £800,000 = £38,400 (payable annually or in monthly installments of £3,200).

Interesting! Thank God for Educated Wankers!

He should have went to his mate Nikkkkk for the loan

Dick Trickle wrote:

Win/win. Stop the winging the club president thinks it's a great deal for Argyle and the city.

webb, mr plymouth who lives in cheltenham !

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

tigertony wrote:

The figure of £800K is about 0.25% of total income.

Over how long?

If £800,000 = 0.25%
then £80,000,000 = 25%
so £320,000,000 = 100%

Assuming income of £4m per annum that amounts to around 80 years of total income (at current levels).

I'd be quite worried if this is the case.

Apologies - my wording ! I was saying that £800K is about 0.25% of PCC annual income from all sources. So not a massive investment really.

Elias wrote:

Dick Trickle wrote:

Win/win. Stop the winging the club president thinks it's a great deal for Argyle and the city.

webb, mr plymouth who lives in cheltenham !

the socialist who acts like a capitalist

Peggy wrote:

The BBC report is much shorter, but also clearer - especially the last sentence click here

Quote :

Plymouth Argyle Football Club has taken out an £800,000 loan from the city council to help pay off some of its debts, including wages owed to players.

...

Plymouth Argyle Football Club Limited has been paying off the debts in instalments, but £1.5m remains outstanding.

The loan is secured with collateral provided by club shareholders. The remaining money owed to the creditors has to be paid by 2016.

2016 ? will argyle get there .......................

Why would the PFA recommend to its members to take 50p in the £. Have they perceived a risk or threat that it would best to take something now rather than nothing later. If you've waited 3 years for the money I'm guessing there is no urgency to get the money right now.

What union worth it's salt be willing to tell it's members to write off half the money it's members are due.

Which trade unionist worth his salt would recommend that his comrades roll over and have its tummy tickled by a multi millionaire boss?

What kind of board of a privately owned company containing experts in sports financing, high street retailing, community engagement and lead by loaded ex city boy goes unashamedly cap in hand to the
burghers of a city having already been given every assistance to survive and thrive?

What kind of Labour council whose very thinking and existence should be entwined with the disenfranchised, financially challenged and those most in need in society be prepared to underwrite a loss making private enterprise which is hardly the lifeblood of the city and with more pressing depends for its cash knocking on its door?

Grovehill wrote:

I've always said JB wouldn't pay the FC debts.

It looks to me as f he has gone cap in hand (has the man no pride or conscience) to the Council pleading poverty and using the same threat/promise as was used to get the FC creditors to do what he wanted in the first place-i.e. if you don't do what I want, it'll be your fault if the club closes.

The Council have fallen for it, but have realised that they can't get away with just lending him the money without security, so between them they have concocted the idea that the gullible public will accept that a small parcel of land is worth at least twice what it actually is. What is more, with all the statements from the Council about "having" to keep a football club in the City, JB doesn't even have to worry about paying it back does he?  "If I pay you, the football club will fold"

The King's got no clothes on, buy no one is saying anything.



The history of Home Park over the last few years is a story in itself:

Council sells HP to Football Club at a discount, Football Club uses it as security to borrow loads of cash, Football Club runs out of money, goes bust, property developer buys Home Park from Administrator (gets a football team as well, but he's not really interested in that) property developer sells most of Home Park back to Council (to fund his purchase of it in the first place) Property developer finds that he's also running out of cash as no one wants to build on the land he kept, so property developer borrows money off Council on the basis that the land he kept and no one wants to build  on has doubled in value.

The only thing that puzzles me is this: Several women in Somerset were recently sent to prison for running a pyramid scheme (ie a business that has no substance, but relies on gullible people continuing to invest in it) so, where these women ever invited onto the Board at Home Park, or did they just follow the JB business model?

Property developer?