Argyle debts

Dougie wrote:

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?

tis the plymouth mentality

Elias wrote:

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 .......................

Answers on a postcard and sent direct to James Brent.

Argyle will probably scrape through to that final payment date (i hope), but it could be a tight one.

Dougie wrote:

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?

I agree with much of that but I can't see how PCC is doing anything wrong here. As I've said earlier councils always have money sloshing about and always invest it. They'd be negligent not to. And in this case they are investing in a local business well within their jurisdiction and they have safe-guarded against default too. It looks copper-bottomed in terms of safety and is exactly what I'd like to see them do in terms of both my local team and, indeed, any other local business.

If I was one of those owed there's no way I'd settle for half of what was still due so there's no way it'll wipe out the problem.

The worry, for me, is the interest only nature of the deal. It just kicks the can down the road and we'll be here again on 5 years wondering where £800k is going to come from.

If only a sensible plan had been in place from the start... If only we'd not budgeted for crowds which were never going to turn up... If only PAFC hadn't, which reading between the lines it has, been burdened with the costs for an HHP development that was never going to float...

How much has James Brent or Akkerron already loaned the club?  Why is he/they no longer prepared to lend the club the same amount of money that the Council now are?

If I was the owner of another debt laden failing Plymouth business would I be able to get Tudor to get his cheque book out?

What would any other lender want to see before it handed over any money?  A solid business plan?  A solid balance sheet? A solid bank account?  Has the council made those types of intrusions into James Brents finances.  

The domestic lending market has become much tighter recently.  I have recently re-mortgaged and was being asked how often I had my hair cut and other bits of minutiae.  Does the same apply to the commercial landscape?  

I always thought this season was boom or bust - it looks like bust it is then.

Looks like central command have decided how to respond to comments about using local people's council tax this way - a similar comment's appeared on the Erole website this afternoon (coincidence, I'm sure ...):

wrote:

can he tell us how much PCC is going to GIVE to the Theatre Royal over the next few years? I think that's a similar example of what Argyle is to Plymouth.

Wrong on so many levels, though. For starters, the theatre's a charity while the football club - whether we like it or not - is a privately owned business. Second, there are statutory duties on local authorities to promote education, so it's perfectly appropriate for the council to help out with the costs of things like TR2, cheap entry to performances for schools, and the like.

Above all, though, it might not be such a good idea to pursue this argument given the way another place of culture, the Pavilions, was handed over for £1, along with the £2 million (was it?) to help with running costs. We don't really want to be drawing attention to that right now, do we?

sorry i thought argyle WAS a charity ?

Peggy wrote:

Looks like central command have decided how to respond to comments about using local people's council tax this way - a similar comment's appeared on the Erole website this afternoon (coincidence, I'm sure ...):

[quote defaultattr=""]can he tell us how much PCC is going to GIVE to the Theatre Royal over the next few years? I think that's a similar example of what Argyle is to Plymouth.

Wrong on so many levels, though. For starters, the theatre's a charity while the football club - whether we like it or not - is a privately owned business. Second, there are statutory duties on local authorities to promote education, so it's perfectly appropriate for the council to help out with the costs of things like TR2, cheap entry to performances for schools, and the like.

Above all, though, it might not be such a good idea to pursue this argument given the way another place of culture, the Pavilions, was handed over for £1, along with the £2 million (was it?) to help with running costs. We don't really want to be drawing attention to that right now, do we?[/quote]

We should collate all of Porkies musings into a book, comedy gold, his straw clutching is getting more and more desperate in defence of his mait the lip trembler. What was his objection to having a full sized grandstand? Was it that it couldn't be as high as the life centre or was it the view of the sea from his old dears place, so many lies, hard to choose one.

I think the comments by Porkie, Webb and the halfwit OllieArgyle show how desperate the Brent fan club have become. Its quite funny really - surely they realise that Brent is putting his exit strategy into place and its only a matter of time before he goes.

And correct me if I am wrong, but I take it that the council loan is secured against the HHP land?

So if Brent defaults then the council will own the ground and HHP again, the football debt will be paid off and Brent will look to recoup the money he has put into the club when he sells it.

Simple really.

Interesting to see that Portsmouth are now DEBT FREE eighteen months after the Supporters Trust took over.

they had parachute payment still due ?

How did he pass the fit and proper persons test.
Or did he never actually take it.

How fecked is the club to need to go cap in hand Down civic centre ?

Peggy wrote:

Looks like central command have decided how to respond to comments about using local people's council tax this way - a similar comment's appeared on the Erole website this afternoon (coincidence, I'm sure ...):

Quote :

can he tell us how much PCC is going to GIVE to the Theatre Royal over the next few years? I think that's a similar example of what Argyle is to Plymouth.

Wrong on so many levels, though. For starters, the theatre's a charity while the football club - whether we like it or not - is a privately owned business. Second, there are statutory duties on local authorities to promote education, so it's perfectly appropriate for the council to help out with the costs of things like TR2, cheap entry to performances for schools, and the like.

Above all, though, it might not be such a good idea to pursue this argument given the way another place of culture, the Pavilions, was handed over for £1, along with the £2 million (was it?) to help with running costs. We don't really want to be drawing attention to that right now, do we?

I seem to recall that the Theatre Royal have the highest attendences of any theatre outside of London.  So it's THE leading regional hub for the arts and a leader in the UK as a whole with shows hitting Plymouth before they move to the West End.  The rehearsal space is a marvel to behold and is againa leader in arts education - how about this for a ringing endorsement for the place.  
"When Pete Townshend of The Who was launching the hit show Quadrophenia at Plymouth’s Theatre Royal in 2009, he was full of praise for the facility, saying “TR2 is a very large rehearsal stage with natural light, a view of the water that does not distract (unless you want it to), supported by workshops and expert technicians of all kinds, an incredible wardrobe department, excellent and very fattening catering, easy parking and access and two smaller stages of equal style, with lovely level dancing floors. All the time I have been working there recently I have had the pleasure of seeing young people rolling in and out on educational programmes, all of them glancing sideways at what is going on in TR2 where actors only a few years older than they are singing and dancing like young gods. The whole building vibrates with hope and excitement.”

Can Argyle claim anything remotely like this? No good comparing eggs and parsnips is it.

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

Tringreen wrote:

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

Truly cringey innit.

I saw Dave Banana the other day, driving a battered old Volvo. It was quite reassuring to know that brand of 'entertainment' obviously doesn't pay well.

Czarcasm wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

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

Truly cringey innit.

I saw Dave Banana the other day, driving a battered old Volvo. It was quite reassuring to know that brand of 'entertainment' obviously doesn't pay well.

3 years on and they still have the same exact show for every game...

zyph wrote:

Interesting to see that Portsmouth are now DEBT FREE eighteen months after the Supporters Trust took over.

If we were owned by a supporters trust we would have Mr Cheerleader Superfan trying to run the club and the trust.

Czarcasm wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

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

Truly cringey innit.

I saw Dave Banana the other day, driving a battered old Volvo. It was quite reassuring
to know that brand of 'entertainment' obviously doesn't pay well.

Haha. The Volvo estate is the car Dave uses to carry all the kit around in. His other car is a Jag XKR so maybe it pays a bit better than you thought.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

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

Truly cringey innit.

I saw Dave Banana the other day, driving a battered old Volvo. It was quite reassuring
to know that brand of 'entertainment' obviously doesn't pay well.

Haha. The Volvo estate is the car Dave uses to carry all the kit around in. His other car is a Jag XKR so maybe it pays a bit better than you thought.

Oh FFS Damon.    

Have you seen the jag? Or does he have a sticker in the Volvo saying...

'MY OTHER CAR IS A JAG XKR'

The sticker is on the Jag - it says 'my other car is a battered Volvo'

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

The sticker is on the Jag - it says 'my other car is a battered Volvo'

Where there's muck there's money

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

Obviously whoever keeps an eye on this site and reports back hasn't been doing their job properly today.

Cheerleader wrote:

Whilst we're into comparisons I've been doing some more digging.

Over the five years of repayments to PCC for them lending us the £850,000, the council will have GIVEN the Theatre Royal £3,000,000 (that's Three Million) in grants and aid.

I wonder how many theatre goers will complain about that?

Perhaps though, the ex theatre goers, the ones that don't attend any more will complain about it, that'll be about right.

I'm not sure of the attendances of the Theatre Royal is, but I would have thought it would be less than or comparable with PAFC, are they more worthy than us then? Are they all volunteers then? Strange comparison perhaps in one way, but quite an eye opener in another.

We GIVE Theatre Royal £3 million, and lend PAFC £850,000 with interest added on.

I've repeated it as we all know, if you keep on and on doing it, people will take more notice.

Well I'm taking notice, and it's a poor comparison which only gets worse when you look at the FACTS.

We GIVE Theatre Royal £3 million over five years (that's just £600,000 a year, less than the loan) to support the invaluable educational work they do and thus SAVE money in our schools. We GAVE Brent the Pavilions for £1, PLUS some £2 million to keep running it, PLUS rent and rates rebates on HP worth at least £250,000 (and I think that might only be the rates bit), making a total of at least £2.25 million, PLUS any profits made from the Pavilions since the takeover. ADD the £800,000 loan, which can be covered by handing back a piece of land bought for half of that, and we're well over £3 million of taxpayers' money GIVEN to one group of commercial operations in three years.

Transparency, innit.

You forgot the £1.6m for buying Home Park.

I don't actually have a problem with either Argyle being loaned the money or the Theatre Royal being given it. Each, in their own different way, contributes hugely to the city's culture and attracts thousands of visitors to the city. In turn each stimulates the local hotel, pub and restaurant trade not to mention shopping, taxis and who knows what else.

I'm glad the council assists both because both promote the city.

I can't think why dear old Nooly would have a downer on theatre goers. Too many educated wankers amongst 'em for his liking, I expect.

All that fockin musicells innit. Ooo sings when you can tell em to their fess like fockin janners have done always from faather to son and maid.

Don't get me on that Shakespeare. Didn't like him or his fockin sister.