Argyle Finances

alannotivvy wrote:

nice avatar Seadog

I blame the artist.

This is all about 'pass the parcel' accounting - our football club is approaching the same issue as 3 years ago, the strange thing is that virtually every club, including many premiership clubs - BUST!! Unfortunately the country is next!!

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

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

Not sure if i'm splitting hairs or not but the text says that "they waived their right to ......unsecured claims".

Meanwhile on the farm.

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



Jesus wept

Oh dear, then again GA1984 is Mr Everything in the Argo garden is rosy, prolly a plant by speccy or pigface to deflect from "its a good day to bury bad news".

Punchdrunk wrote:

Meanwhile on the farm.

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



Jesus wept

Good luck to them Punch if they can divorce themselves from the politics and just enjoy the football then good luck to them, no on second thoughts I'm with you, Jesus wept.

Iggy wrote:

Punchdrunk wrote:

Meanwhile on the farm.

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



Jesus wept

Good luck to them Punch if they can divorce themselves from the politics and just enjoy the football then good luck to them, no on second thoughts I'm with you, Jesus wept.

The club is in financial melt down and they talking about not having stripes next season after teh campaign to get them this season. Jesus would be emo reading that site with the tears.

Haven't seen the accounts. To put things in perspective what was the turnover that the £1(.5)m loss was made against? I thought it was down around £4M now.

There must be enough dribs and drabs of information to piece together historical debt outgoings that the losses are brushed aside with.
How many of these are due to finish this year for the club to be confident of no losses this year? The £200K / annum football creditors' payments debt will be replaced with repayments to PCC.

Vital Link concludes

Quote :

"However, there is still a large amount of debt owed to Mastpoint in the form of an unsecured loan of just over £3 million; it is not certain if the football club is liable for this debt. There is also an agreement that Argyle's possible future success will bring financial reward to the Mastpoint members

So there may not be any present outgoings to one of biggest historical creditors.

Also, the club now has to find £100K/annum business rates now PCC deal has run out

'erald link

Didn't have to look too hard

## twounfortunates link ## from April 2012 includes details of the historical debts and summarises JB's outgoings on PAFC which I've added my understanding of affect on PAFC trading.

Quote :

Unpaid Wages: £3,300,000; ## £200K/annum stage payments plus GT's work
CVA: £100,000; ## One off prior to this loss
Lombard: £700,000; ## One off payment before Apr 2012##
PAST&DT: £330,000; ## Stage payments ~ £66K in period ##
Admin Fees: £388,010; ## £100K payment on 31st Oct 2012
Land Purchase: £700,000; ## JB & co. purchase NOT PAFC
Football Creditor Debt: £388,289;
Totalling: £5,906,299

It is worth remembering that this cost is offset by the money received for the sale of Home Park to the council for £1.6m.

.

It is difficult to see how any more than half at worst of the £1M loss can be put down to historical debt.

a great bit of writing on the link..what a sorry state of affairs

Some info from someone close to the HHP project. Take it as you will, but I consider this source 100% legit:

"PCC and James Brent no longer share the same objectives."

"PCC want a football club that isn't reliant upon [James Brent], which is why the council lent the club the money"

[Me: "will the new stand be hemmed in by a ****ing ice rink"] "No"

If following this club has taught me anything, it's to not get excited about anything. Ever. But I thought I'd share this, as objective fans who take our chairman for what he is (a property-developing charlatan who'd sooner see this club turn to rubble before his pension pot was jeopardised) deserve some kind of cheer, even if it's from an anonymous first-time poster with an anonymous source that right-minded fans will naturally struggle to take at face value.

Interesting.

SJimmy wrote:

Some info from someone close to the HHP project. Take it as you will, but I consider this source 100% legit:

"PCC and James Brent no longer share the same objectives."

"PCC want a football club that isn't reliant upon [James Brent], which is why the council lent the club the money"

[Me: "will the new stand be hemmed in by a ****ing ice rink"] "No"

If following this club has taught me anything, it's to not get excited about anything. Ever. But I thought I'd share this, as objective fans who take our chairman for what he is (a property-developing charlatan who'd sooner see this club turn to rubble before his pension pot was jeopardised) deserve some kind of cheer, even if it's from an anonymous first-time poster with an anonymous source that right-minded fans will naturally struggle to take at face value.

But I heard that the new stand would be a joint venture between Brent and PCC.

I only know what I was told in a brief conversation that probably got nowhere near the real intricacies of the relationship between PCC and Brent. But what I did glean from the conversation is that PCC and other parties involved in the project don't look upon our chairman with the slavish deference that I feared they did.

Thank god for the trolling dump thread, obviously the "legal mod" has been hard at work again, very lucky for them as well, If this had been posted on the front page the whole mod team would be doing time now.

The Grumpy Loyal
Post subject: Re: Club AccountsPostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2014 10:24 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 6:07 pm
Chancellor wrote:
The OP really shouldnt be allowed to comment on a set of accounts when he quite clearly doesnt know how to read them.

I checked because I was horrified about a £4m loss and of course it isnt, that is the cumulative loss on the balance sheet. The "loss" for the year was the movement of profits in the balance sheet ie £4.0m - £2.4m. Still not good but there has been some creativity behind the scenes I am sure.

Have nt got time to analyse in detail now but will later, but please ignore the OP, not sure if it is agenda driven or just naivety.


I think it was an attempt to paint St James as some sort of philanthropist, particularly the last sentence. When in truth, it looks as if all he has been doing is loaning and indeed loading more debt onto the club.