Rent arrears?

Hi all, on a hunch I recently (December) sent a Freedom of Information request to Plymouth City Council about some of the financial goings-on between the club and council. The most interesting response I got was this:

"PAFC have been paying a commercial rent to PCC since the Council purchased the ground in 2011. All payments have been made up to June 2014. The club and the council have been in negotiations over the summer as to how to help the club move into a ‘debt free’ position, hence place it in a stronger, more sustainable, position moving forward. Part of these negotiations have included re-profiling when the club will pay rent due to the council in line with its forecasted cash flow. The council will receive all rent due in relation to Home Park in compliance with the revised payment profile"

Make of it what you will...

yet tigertony reckons brent offered to fund o'connors deal lol

FOI wrote:

Hi all, on a hunch I recently (December) sent a Freedom of Information request to Plymouth City Council about some of the financial goings-on between the club and council. The most interesting response I got was this:

"PAFC have been paying a commercial rent to PCC since the Council purchased the ground in 2011. All payments have been made up to June 2014. The club and the council have been in negotiations over the summer as to how to help the club move into a ‘debt free’ position, hence place it in a stronger, more sustainable, position moving forward. Part of these negotiations have included re-profiling when the club will pay rent due to the council in line with its forecasted cash flow. The council will receive all rent due in relation to Home Park in compliance with the revised payment profile"

Make of it what you will...

Payments to be made on the 12th of never then.

Angry wrote:

yet tigertony reckons brent offered to fund o'connors deal lol

How does the OP suggest anything to doubt that?

Discussing the payment of rent to suit cash flow is good business and doesn't suggest in anyway that the chairman wouldn't put extra money in to sign a player.

Angry wrote:

yet tigertony reckons brent offered to fund o'connors deal lol

He doesn't 'reckon' it, it's been reported in the Herald. And there was no suggestion of Brent funding it personally- all reports state the bid has come from the football club.

FOI wrote:

Hi all, on a hunch I recently (December) sent a Freedom of Information request to Plymouth City Council about some of the financial goings-on between the club and council. The most interesting response I got was this:

"PAFC have been paying a commercial rent to PCC since the Council purchased the ground in 2011. All payments have been made up to June 2014. The club and the council have been in negotiations over the summer as to how to help the club move into a ‘debt free’ position, hence place it in a stronger, more sustainable, position moving forward. Part of these negotiations have included re-profiling when the club will pay rent due to the council in line with its forecasted cash flow. The council will receive all rent due in relation to Home Park in compliance with the revised payment profile"

Make of it what you will...

Are you sure you have read their reply correctly? It seems to be common knowledge that Argyle had a rent and rates free period after the council purchased the ground.

GreenSam wrote:

Angry wrote:

yet tigertony reckons brent offered to fund o'connors deal lol

He doesn't 'reckon' it, it's been reported in the Herald. And there was no suggestion of Brent funding it personally- all reports state the bid has come from the football club.

I'm not doubting this story about O'Connor but Sam you must have realised by now that just because something is in the Herald doesn't make it fact.

There are numerous examples of incorrect facts in the Herald these days.

GreenSam wrote:

Angry wrote:

yet tigertony reckons brent offered to fund o'connors deal lol

He doesn't 'reckon' it, it's been reported in the Herald. And there was no suggestion of Brent funding it personally- all reports state the bid has come from the football club.

oh well if brent's herald says so it must be true

Argy1e wrote:

Angry wrote:

yet tigertony reckons brent offered to fund o'connors deal lol

How does the OP suggest anything to doubt that?

Discussing the payment of debt to suit cash flow is good business and doesn't suggest in anyway that the chairman wouldn't put extra money in to sign a player.

How is that showing good business?

Take your point but there's a difference between sloppy/biased reporting of which there is plenty and Sheridan (not Brent, Sheridan) telling an outright lie about a bid being accepted.

Of course we could all be being taken for a ride but all suggestion at the moment is that O'Connor wants to keep his option open and we did make a bid. We'll see how it pans out in the rest of this window and the summer.

Anyway, rent arrears. It's my understanding that the club have had a rent holiday or holidays. In fact I was told it by Tudor Evans in our minuted meeting with him in the summer.

Richard Blight wrote:

FOI wrote:

Hi all, on a hunch I recently (December) sent a Freedom of Information request to Plymouth City Council about some of the financial goings-on between the club and council. The most interesting response I got was this:

"PAFC have been paying a commercial rent to PCC since the Council purchased the ground in 2011. All payments have been made up to June 2014. The club and the council have been in negotiations over the summer as to how to help the club move into a ‘debt free’ position, hence place it in a stronger, more sustainable, position moving forward. Part of these negotiations have included re-profiling when the club will pay rent due to the council in line with its forecasted cash flow. The council will receive all rent due in relation to Home Park in compliance with the revised payment profile"

Make of it what you will...

Are you sure you have read their reply correctly? It seems to be common knowledge that Argyle had a rent and rates free period after the council purchased the ground.

They've clearly phrased it very carefully, but in essence it says they haven't paid their rent since June. And the phrase "re-profiling when the club will pay rent due to the council in line with its forecasted cash flow" basically means "they'll give us the money they owe us whenever they have any".

Part of the rest of the request related to the relief on business rates. Apparently they're no longer receiving relief, at least specifically they're not getting it for the 14/15 fiscal year.

Angry wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

Angry wrote:

yet tigertony reckons brent offered to fund o'connors deal lol

How does the OP suggest anything to doubt that?

Discussing the payment of rent to suit cash flow is good business and doesn't suggest in anyway that the chairman wouldn't put extra money in to sign a player.

How is that showing good business?

How isn't it? When the cash flow is good and money is coming in it can be paid off quite easily but if it isn't coming in you there's a good chance you wont be able to pay everything you owe to people at a certain time and so will be in debt, by renegotiating when it's paid you're avoiding the likelihood of struggling financially in months with a poor cash flow, surely that's good business sense?

FOI wrote:

Richard Blight wrote:

FOI wrote:

Hi all, on a hunch I recently (December) sent a Freedom of Information request to Plymouth City Council about some of the financial goings-on between the club and council. The most interesting response I got was this:

"PAFC have been paying a commercial rent to PCC since the Council purchased the ground in 2011. All payments have been made up to June 2014. The club and the council have been in negotiations over the summer as to how to help the club move into a ‘debt free’ position, hence place it in a stronger, more sustainable, position moving forward. Part of these negotiations have included re-profiling when the club will pay rent due to the council in line with its forecasted cash flow. The council will receive all rent due in relation to Home Park in compliance with the revised payment profile"

Make of it what you will...

Are you sure you have read their reply correctly? It seems to be common knowledge that Argyle had a rent and rates free period after the council purchased the ground.

They've clearly phrased it very carefully, but in essence it says they haven't paid their rent since June. And the phrase "re-profiling when the club will pay rent due to the council in line with its forecasted cash flow" basically means "they'll give us the money they owe us whenever they have any".

Part of the rest of the request related to the relief on business rates. Apparently they're no longer receiving relief, at least specifically they're not getting it for the 14/15 fiscal year.

It's the first line of their reply I'm querying because the leader of the council has told others differently.

Argy1e wrote:

Angry wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

Angry wrote:

yet tigertony reckons brent offered to fund o'connors deal lol

How does the OP suggest anything to doubt that?

Discussing the payment of rent to suit cash flow is good business and doesn't suggest in anyway that the chairman wouldn't put extra money in to sign a player.

How is that showing good business?

How isn't it? When the cash flow is good and money is coming in it can be paid off quite easily but if it isn't coming in you there's a good chance you wont be able to pay everything you owe to people at a certain time and so will be in debt, by renegotiating when it's paid you're avoiding the likelihood of struggling financially in months with a poor cash flow, surely that's good business sense?

so tax payers have to paid the rent for a millionaire? I know this awful chancellor gideon osbourne has given his sort tax cuts but this is taking the piss.

Argy1e wrote:

Angry wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

Angry wrote:

yet tigertony reckons brent offered to fund o'connors deal lol

How does the OP suggest anything to doubt that?

Discussing the payment of rent to suit cash flow is good business and doesn't suggest in anyway that the chairman wouldn't put extra money in to sign a player.

How is that showing good business?

How isn't it? When the cash flow is good and money is coming in it can be paid off quite easily but if it isn't coming in you there's a good chance you wont be able to pay everything you owe to people at a certain time and so will be in debt, by renegotiating when it's paid you're avoiding the likelihood of struggling financially in months with a poor cash flow, surely that's good business sense?

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

MORE than 15,000 Plymouth people were summoned to court in the space of nine months last year for failing to pay their council tax.

Finance chiefs say it is more important than ever that everyone pays their bills with increasing pressure on council budgets.

Between April and December 2014, the council issued 15,381 summons – down from 18,262 in the same period in 2013 – 10,518 of which resulted in court hearings.

Councillor Mark Lowry, cabinet member for finance, said: “We appreciate everyone is feeling the pinch, but we are under huge pressure to do much more for less and need to keep collecting this money.

“When the bill comes through, remember this is not just about the obvious services such as picking up bins, but over half our budget – 55 per cent –

is spent looking after the city’s most vulnerable children and adults.

“With Government cuts already having an impact on everything we do and more on the way, it is vital that we continue collecting.”

A council spokeswoman said the council is committed to helping people pay their bills by promoting exemptions, reliefs, discounts and benefits.

“Where people experience genuine difficulty meeting their payments, we encourage them to contact the council as soon as they receive a notice to discuss any additional financial support or repayment arrangements that may be available, including help through the council tax support scheme,” she said.

“Where further recovery action is required, the council will always consider the most appropriate manner of further recovery for individuals and give careful consideration to the more vulnerable.”

If you miss a council tax payment, the council can take action to recover the money owed.

If you ignore a reminder or a final notice the council will send you a summons and charge you costs.

A summons will tell you how much money you owe and will explain that the council is taking the matter to the magistrates’ court.

In court the council will apply for a liability order and charge you further costs. You do not have to attend court.

A liability order gives the council legal powers to recover the money you owe, which include making deductions from income or benefits or a visit from bailiffs.

No, tax payers don't have to pay rent for millionaires, but James Brent is not Plymouth Argyle. Plymouth Argyle should be able to generate enough income to be self sufficient, why should Brent have to stump up the cash?

As for AstiSpumante's post, the rent is still going to be paid so i don't really see the relevance of that.

Argy1e wrote:

Angry wrote:

yet tigertony reckons brent offered to fund o'connors deal lol

How does the OP suggest anything to doubt that?

Discussing the payment of rent to suit cash flow is good business and doesn't suggest in anyway that the chairman wouldn't put extra money in to sign a player.

Lesson 1 - you cannot and must not, on this site, say anything positive about Argyle or any part of Argyle. You will be ridiculed by people who know much more than you and who have contacts all over the club. If JB offered to pay £100million for Messi while Ronaldo was available for £105 million he would be ridiculed and sent to hell by most posters on this site.
So, 'Argyle' - behave.

Angry wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Angry wrote:

yet tigertony reckons brent offered to fund o'connors deal lol

He doesn't 'reckon' it, it's been reported in the Herald. And there was no suggestion of Brent funding it personally- all reports state the bid has come from the football club.

oh well if brent's herald says so it must be true

PL2 3DQ
Post subject: Re: Plymouth Albion set to go into administrationPostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:21 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 8:19 pm
jerryatricjanner wrote:
Is someone missing the opportunity to jump on another tub thumping/self promoting bandwagon or will it be the basis of the next article of drivel in the Herald I wonder?


Why the need to be spiteful, Jerry?





A big clue as to where postey works????
No wonder the cleaning of comments.

Argy1e wrote:

No, tax payers don't have to pay rent for millionaires, but James Brent is not Plymouth Argyle. Plymouth Argyle should be able to generate enough income to be self sufficient, why should Brent have to stump up the cash?

As for AstiSpumante's post, the rent is still going to be paid so i don't really see the relevance of that.

Has James Brent recieved a summons to attend court for failure to pay ?

AstiSpumante wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

No, tax payers don't have to pay rent for millionaires, but James Brent is not Plymouth Argyle. Plymouth Argyle should be able to generate enough income to be self sufficient, why should Brent have to stump up the cash?

As for AstiSpumante's post, the rent is still going to be paid so i don't really see the relevance of that.

Has James Brent recieved a summons to attend court for failure to pay ?

Not as far as i know but again i'm struggling to see how that's relevant?

I desire, want, hope, dream that we go up - positive enough?

I don't believe the council taxpayers should pay Brent to achieve that.

Argy1e wrote:

AstiSpumante wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

No, tax payers don't have to pay rent for millionaires, but James Brent is not Plymouth Argyle. Plymouth Argyle should be able to generate enough income to be self sufficient, why should Brent have to stump up the cash?

As for AstiSpumante's post, the rent is still going to be paid so i don't really see the relevance of that.

Has James Brent recieved a summons to attend court for failure to pay ?

Not as far as i know but again i'm struggling to see how that's relevant?

Well, he didn't pay business rates for two years, try not paying your rates (now called council tax)

PatDunne wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

AstiSpumante wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

No, tax payers don't have to pay rent for millionaires, but James Brent is not Plymouth Argyle. Plymouth Argyle should be able to generate enough income to be self sufficient, why should Brent have to stump up the cash?

As for AstiSpumante's post, the rent is still going to be paid so i don't really see the relevance of that.

Has James Brent recieved a summons to attend court for failure to pay ?

Not as far as i know but again i'm struggling to see how that's relevant?

Well, he didn't pay business rates for two years, try not paying your rates (now called council tax)

He didn't or Plymouth Argyle didn't? as said above, James Brent is not Plymouth Argyle.

Argy1e wrote:

AstiSpumante wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

No, tax payers don't have to pay rent for millionaires, but James Brent is not Plymouth Argyle. Plymouth Argyle should be able to generate enough income to be self sufficient, why should Brent have to stump up the cash?

As for AstiSpumante's post, the rent is still going to be paid so i don't really see the relevance of that.

Has James Brent recieved a summons to attend court for failure to pay ?

Not as far as i know but again i'm struggling to see how that's relevant?

Don't beat yourself up about it.

Argy1e wrote:

No, tax payers don't have to pay rent for millionaires, but James Brent is not Plymouth Argyle. Plymouth Argyle should be able to generate enough income to be self sufficient, why should Brent have to stump up the cash?

As for AstiSpumante's post, the rent is still going to be paid so i don't really see the relevance of that.

are you on smack or something?