Apocalypse Soon?

What if the recent Brent/PCC furore goes nuclear, Brent gets a mega-strop on and says "sod it, I'm off"?

I find it hard to believe that the club in its current asset-stripped form is very sellable and the on-going liabilities such as the PCC loan, the balloon payment, Brent's and Wrathall's loans are all problematic. The likeliest scenario might be Brent selling the club to Wrathall or AFT just to be shot of the hassle (in which case he could whistle for his loans as far as I am concerned).

I suppose he could just shut it all down but that would be a PR disaster from which his reputation would never recover so I don't think that's likely but you never know...

The idea of an AFT/PCC joint ownership seems brighter than all other options. Throw a few committed corporates into the mix and you have a sort of Swansea set up.

Can anybody remember the terms by which Brent can re-buy the freehold from PCC? That's a bit of a golden goose for him. Buy the freehold back and then sell on at huge profit or at least try to.

12 x annual rent (approx £1.8M) comes into effect after five years in 2016.

If he can couple the PAFC land with area of HHP he already owns, he could potentially sell out to a real property developer.

The bit that everyone has missed is that in October 2011 James Brent excluded the HHP land from the sale of the stadium to PCC for £1.6m. Effectively getting the HHP land for free for the benefit of the football club who then owned the land.

In April 2012 he then sold the site to a related company HahP Nominee Ltd for £465k - the market value agreed in the original deal with PCC.
As PCC had waived their right to acquire HHP for £1 as part of the October 2011 deal, actually the overall deal was over worth of PCC help to PAFC was over £2m. This was to enable JB to raise funds for the ice rink without the burden of a football club around it impacting upon lenders confidence to lend.

Recently JB persuaded PCC to secure the Football Creditor loan using the HHP Land. For the security to be agreed the land, that once belonged to the football club must have an agreed value of well over £800k, based on the enhancement of its value by PCC granting planning permission.
over it.

PCC and HHP. The gift that keeps giving.

British Land?

I can't see Brent just getting out; he'll hold out for every penny. Despite the ludicrous, head in the clouds assertions to the contrary, there was zero benevolence in his buying the club out in the first place. It was an investment, and as an aggressive capitalist Brent will squeeze every last bit of cash out of the club.

Also (sarcasm alert), surely Brent would never walk away. He bleeds green, the quivering lip, all that attending matches ("I say, the ball's the wrong shape"), bringing his kids as well ("Now children, listen very carefully. All these people you can see here are mugs who will make us all pots of cash..."). Besides, we all know that beyond the club, Brent's commitment to Plymouth is absolute...

charleymouse wrote:

Besides, we all know that beyond the club, Brent's commitment to Plymouth is absolute...

The new found concern for the West End of City will be based on potential viability of the £83M Pavillions project, which he still needs to build an Ice Rink to release, which Tudor has said can be anywhere in the City. As well as draw up some plans to get past all the friends he is making in PCC and find some funding of course.

What are the plans if any for Colin Campbell Court?

Something student related no doubt.

If Brent does foxtrot oscar, and Wrathall for example becomes chairman, Plebb's days will be numbered

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

The idea of an AFT/PCC joint ownership seems brighter than all other options. Throw a few committed corporates into the mix and you have a sort of Swansea set up.

Do either have the money o run a club? trust havent and i dont think plymouth tax payers will want their money funding a football club that most dont support.

the club needs to go on the market now before it hits the fan otherwise the club will die. No ifs or buts the club will die.

Angry wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

The idea of an AFT/PCC joint ownership seems brighter than all other options. Throw a few committed corporates into the mix and you have a sort of Swansea set up.

Do either have the money o run a club? trust havent and i dont think plymouth tax payers will want their money funding a football club that most dont support.

the club needs to go on the market now before it hits the fan otherwise the club will die. No ifs or buts the club will die.

I completely disagree.

It is thinking like this that lies at the heart of all of football's, and by extension Argyle's, problems.

From where we are nobody needs "the money to run the club" because there is no reason whatsoever why the club cannot be both successful and self-sufficient so, it goes without saying, that AFT could easily run the club.

And if it did then that would not be the source of a problem just as long as it budgeted properly and budgeting properly would be essential because, as you allude, it would have no money to cover going into debt.

The question of who was going to pay for a new grandstand (or how it could be paid for if AFT was to somehow do it) remains a conundrum but it is a conundrum that so far McCauley, Stapleton, Gardner, Ridsdale, Guilfoyle and Brent have so far also failed to solve so what's the difference? We wouldn't be losing anything would we?

As far as I am concerned there's no shame in living within our means and going as far as we are able but there's bucket-loads of disgrace in asset-stripping the club for personal gain or leaving a trail of unpaid creditors in our wake.

The incessant demands for a sugar daddy to invest piles of cash into an unsustainable model, which seems to be the only thing many yearn for, is not the solution but the problem writ large.

Argyle won't ever die. Not completely. There's not a chance in a million that that'll happen. The company may fold, just like the last one did, but there'll be another to take its place and even if it had to start God knows where down the pyramid it would and it'd be back one day just like Newport or Wimbledon or whoever.

Do I want to see that happen? Not particularly but if that is what it takes to reject the lunacy that is soccernomics and to put a permanent stop to the club being used by extremely wealthy people as a vehicle to become ever more wealthy then I say bring it on and bring it on now!

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Angry wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

The idea of an AFT/PCC joint ownership seems brighter than all other options. Throw a few committed corporates into the mix and you have a sort of Swansea set up.

Do either have the money o run a club? trust havent and i dont think plymouth tax payers will want their money funding a football club that most dont support.

the club needs to go on the market now before it hits the fan otherwise the club will die. No ifs or buts the club will die.

I completely disagree.

It is thinking like this that lies at the heart of all of football's, and by extension Argyle's, problems.

From where we are nobody needs "the money to run the club" because there is no reason whatsoever why the club cannot be both successful and self-sufficient so, it goes without saying, that AFT could easily run the club.

And if it did then that would not be the source of a problem just as long as it budgeted properly and budgeting properly would be essential because, as you allude, it would have no money to cover going into debt.

The question of who was going to pay for a new grandstand (or how it could be paid for if AFT was to somehow do it) remains a conundrum but it is a conundrum that so far McCauley, Stapleton, Gardner, Ridsdale, Guilfoyle and Brent have so far also failed to solve so what's the difference? We wouldn't be losing anything would we?

As far as I am concerned there's no shame in living within our means and going as far as we are able but there's bucket-loads of disgrace in asset-stripping the club for personal gain or leaving a trail of unpaid creditors in our wake.

The incessant demands for a sugar daddy to invest piles of cash into an unsustainable model, which seems to be the only thing many yearn for, is not the solution but the problem writ large.

Argyle won't ever die. Not completely. There's not a chance in a million that that'll happen. The company may fold, just like the last one did, but there'll be another to take its place and even if it had to start God knows where down the pyramid it would and it'd be back one day just like Newport or Wimbledon or whoever.

Do I want to see that happen? Not particularly but if that is what it takes to reject the lunacy that is soccernomics and to put a permanent stop to the club being used by extremely wealthy people as a vehicle to become ever more wealthy then I say bring it on and bring it on now!

i disagree with you

I disagree with both of them

Angry wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Angry wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

The idea of an AFT/PCC joint ownership seems brighter than all other options. Throw a few committed corporates into the mix and you have a sort of Swansea set up.

Do either have the money o run a club? trust havent and i dont think plymouth tax payers will want their money funding a football club that most dont support.

the club needs to go on the market now before it hits the fan otherwise the club will die. No ifs or buts the club will die.

I completely disagree.

It is thinking like this that lies at the heart of all of football's, and by extension Argyle's, problems.

From where we are nobody needs "the money to run the club" because there is no reason whatsoever why the club cannot be both successful and self-sufficient so, it goes without saying, that AFT could easily run the club.

And if it did then that would not be the source of a problem just as long as it budgeted properly and budgeting properly would be essential because, as you allude, it would have no money to cover going into debt.

The question of who was going to pay for a new grandstand (or how it could be paid for if AFT was to somehow do it) remains a conundrum but it is a conundrum that so far McCauley, Stapleton, Gardner, Ridsdale, Guilfoyle and Brent have so far also failed to solve so what's the difference? We wouldn't be losing anything would we?

As far as I am concerned there's no shame in living within our means and going as far as we are able but there's bucket-loads of disgrace in asset-stripping the club for personal gain or leaving a trail of unpaid creditors in our wake.

The incessant demands for a sugar daddy to invest piles of cash into an unsustainable model, which seems to be the only thing many yearn for, is not the solution but the problem writ large.

Argyle won't ever die. Not completely. There's not a chance in a million that that'll happen. The company may fold, just like the last one did, but there'll be another to take its place and even if it had to start God knows where down the pyramid it would and it'd be back one day just like Newport or Wimbledon or whoever.

Do I want to see that happen? Not particularly but if that is what it takes to reject the lunacy that is soccernomics and to put a permanent stop to the club being used by extremely wealthy people as a vehicle to become ever more wealthy then I say bring it on and bring it on now!

i disagree with you

I said it first!

Angry wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

The idea of an AFT/PCC joint ownership seems brighter than all other options. Throw a few committed corporates into the mix and you have a sort of Swansea set up.

Do either have the money o run a club? trust havent and i dont think plymouth tax payers will want their money funding a football club that most dont support.

the club needs to go on the market now before it hits the fan otherwise the club will die. No ifs or buts the club will die.

Brent has had the Club on the market for the past 9 months. I have spoken to someone who was offered the Club for £2.25 million back in May. £2.25 million with all the asset stripped out and in Akerron hands. Our Chairman isn't just a dreamer when it comes to developing.

£2.25 surely !

That sounds rather like what McCauley was saying when he was looking to sell: "I've put £2m in and want it back." Or similar.

Well if he wants his £2m back then, at the very least, the club wants its land back.

BTW if he sold the club what would happen to the £800k loan? Is that lent to him personally or Argyle?

Because if it is lent to Argyle and a new owner defaulted on payments then PCC would take that land back, wouldn't it?

£2.25 Seems about right.....

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Angry wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

The idea of an AFT/PCC joint ownership seems brighter than all other options. Throw a few committed corporates into the mix and you have a sort of Swansea set up.

Do either have the money o run a club? trust havent and i dont think plymouth tax payers will want their money funding a football club that most dont support.

the club needs to go on the market now before it hits the fan otherwise the club will die. No ifs or buts the club will die.

Brent has had the Club on the market for the past 9 months. I have spoken to someone who was offered the Club for £2.25 million back in May. £2.25 million with all the asset stripped out and in Akerron hands. Our Chairman isn't just a dreamer when it comes to developing.

I take it he included his land grabs in that over inflated price?

No. All the land grabs stay witrh Brent. The stadium stays with the Council. He wants £2.25 million for the football club, basically 'the brand', the value of the player contracts and the lease (with ability to buy the freehold from the Council).

That sure sounds like a civic-minded reluctant savior to me!

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

No. All the land grabs stay witrh Brent. The stadium stays with the Council. He wants £2.25 million for the football club, basically 'the brand', the value of the player contracts and the lease (with ability to buy the freehold from the Council).

and this guy was a banker!!! jesus wept no wonder no one has come forward.

How can anyone arrive a positive valuation for an assetless, debt-ridden, loss-making, technically insolvent football business? The gestation period will be considerably longer than 9 months before delivery of that particular baby!

I hope PCC have now woken up to the mugging they've had and are still experiencing.