Rent arrears?

Angry 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.

are you on smack or something?

Do you ever explain your own views or do you just decide everyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

Plymouth Argyle Football Club Ltd is 95% owned by Akkeron Leisure Ltd. Akkeron Leisure Ltd is entirely owned by Natatomism Ltd, which is 100% owned by Mr James Brent & Family.
Read more at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It seems Mr Brent IS Plymouth Argyle.

Argy1e wrote:

Angry 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.

are you on smack or something?

Do you ever explain your own views or do you just decide everyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

I did and you keep talking out your hat. Either you have been sent here to stick up for the millionaire brent at all costs or you are indeed on smack which is it?

PatDunne wrote:

Plymouth Argyle Football Club Ltd is 95% owned by Akkeron Leisure Ltd.  Akkeron Leisure Ltd is entirely owned by Natatomism Ltd, which is 100% owned by Mr James Brent & Family.
Read more at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It seems Mr Brent IS Plymouth Argyle.

Owning a company does not make you the company, it makes you responsible for how the company is run.

Angry wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

Angry 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.

are you on smack or something?

Do you ever explain your own views or do you just decide everyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

I did and you keep talking out your hat. Either you have been sent here to stick up for the millionaire brent at all costs or you are indeed on smack which is it?

You haven't explained anything, you've made a few comments but you've not explained your view.

Think FOI is bit late with this story.

Officially PAFC has paid rent up to June 2014. From what was coming out of PCC at the time allegedly there were arrears to this point before story was going to break (link below) which were made good. This looks like a restructuring of payment schedules.

## 'erald link ##

Non of this explains where the £4M turnover is going in relation to new debts.

Salary cap of 50% not being fully used with 7-9th best budget in league , historical debts appearing to account for less than £1/2M/yr, the unpaid heroes of administration laid off to streamline non-playing staff and ongoing fundraising.

Almost like the "other operating costs" of WC2018 board have returned. Those "professionals" devising grand plans for Home Park don't come cheap.

Argy1e wrote:

Angry wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

Angry 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.

are you on smack or something?

Do you ever explain your own views or do you just decide everyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

I did and you keep talking out your hat. Either you have been sent here to stick up for the millionaire brent at all costs or you are indeed on smack which is it?

You haven't explained anything, you've made a few comments but you've not explained your view.

what that brent owns the club and should pay the rent and not rely on tax breaks because he can afford it. Seemed obvious to everyone else.

Angry wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

Angry wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

Angry 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.

are you on smack or something?

Do you ever explain your own views or do you just decide everyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

I did and you keep talking out your hat. Either you have been sent here to stick up for the millionaire brent at all costs or you are indeed on smack which is it?

You haven't explained anything, you've made a few comments but you've not explained your view.

what that brent owns the club and should pay the rent and not rely on tax breaks because he can afford it. Seemed obvious to everyone else.

So you'd rather the club went into more debt by the owner putting money into the club which he would be entitled to claim back? if the club isn't capable of paying the rent by itself (which would be the clear suggestion if the owner was needing to it instead) then how would it raise the money to pay him back?

Argy1e wrote:

Angry wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

Angry wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

Angry 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.

are you on smack or something?

Do you ever explain your own views or do you just decide everyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

I did and you keep talking out your hat. Either you have been sent here to stick up for the millionaire brent at all costs or you are indeed on smack which is it?

You haven't explained anything, you've made a few comments but you've not explained your view.

what that brent owns the club and should pay the rent and not rely on tax breaks because he can afford it. Seemed obvious to everyone else.

So you'd rather the club went into more debt by the owner putting money into the club which he would be entitled to claim back? if the club isn't capable of paying the rent by itself (which would be the clear suggestion if the owner was needing to it instead) then how would it raise the money to pay him back?

i would rather have a competant owner who pays his way.

Angry wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

Angry wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

Angry wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

Angry 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.

are you on smack or something?

Do you ever explain your own views or do you just decide everyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

I did and you keep talking out your hat. Either you have been sent here to stick up for the millionaire brent at all costs or you are indeed on smack which is it?

You haven't explained anything, you've made a few comments but you've not explained your view.

what that brent owns the club and should pay the rent and not rely on tax breaks because he can afford it. Seemed obvious to everyone else.

So you'd rather the club went into more debt by the owner putting money into the club which he would be entitled to claim back? if the club isn't capable of paying the rent by itself (which would be the clear suggestion if the owner was needing to it instead) then how would it raise the money to pay him back?

i would rather have a competant owner who pays his way.

Yes, because they were queuing around the blocks to buy us weren't they, i'd rather have an owner that was willing to plough a lot of money into the club and would see us not having to be self sufficient (although i'd still want us to be) but why would they want to?

Argy1e wrote:

Angry wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

Angry wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

Angry wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

Angry 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.

are you on smack or something?

Do you ever explain your own views or do you just decide everyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

I did and you keep talking out your hat. Either you have been sent here to stick up for the millionaire brent at all costs or you are indeed on smack which is it?

You haven't explained anything, you've made a few comments but you've not explained your view.

what that brent owns the club and should pay the rent and not rely on tax breaks because he can afford it. Seemed obvious to everyone else.

So you'd rather the club went into more debt by the owner putting money into the club which he would be entitled to claim back? if the club isn't capable of paying the rent by itself (which would be the clear suggestion if the owner was needing to it instead) then how would it raise the money to pay him back?

i would rather have a competant owner who pays his way.

Yes, because they were queuing around the blocks to buy us weren't they, i'd rather have an owner that was willing to plough a lot of money into the club and would see us not having to be self sufficient (although i'd still want us to be) but why would they want to?

Brent got rejected from day one by the administrators trying desperately to sell. they obviously saw he wasnt a good choice then and boy where they right. There were others interested and there will be others who would be if brent does the decent thing and goes. hhp aint happening so his whole agenda of buying the club has gone now.

But basically to sum up what you've been saying on this thread, you want us to be reliant on an owner ploughing money in despite the fact if the money runs out or he loses interest we're going to be back where we were a few years ago.

But also if there were other people available who would have been willing to put money into the club why didnt they when they had the option to buy the club?

Argy1e wrote:

But basically to sum up what you've been saying on this thread, you want us to be reliant on an owner ploughing money in despite the fact if the money runs out or he loses interest we're going to be back where we were a few years ago.

But also if there were other people available who would have been willing to put money into the club why didnt they when they had the option to buy the club?

the club wont be self reling while relying on handouts. only good buisness and actual income will do that. Brent is incapable of that.

as for the last bit because the mob like mentality of chris webbs trust and kjn pasoti who did there best to run off any other party interested and put off others looking to the club because they made it clear they wanted brent. Even though his bid asnt the best on the table and he was no different to heaneys lot.

The handouts were to pay-off the creditors surely? It was always going to be difficult to pay that off whilst a League 2 club, the paying off rent with good cash flow will help us get back to breaking even quicker which will help us to push on further financially from there.

Not too sure about the bottom bit but looking back i suppose it is plausible. Heaney was never going to be able to buy the club though due to him owning Truro, and as Heaney was declared bankrupt not long after bidding for us i don't think Brent's lot is as bad.

Angry wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

Angry wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

Angry wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

Angry 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.

are you on smack or something?

Do you ever explain your own views or do you just decide everyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

I did and you keep talking out your hat. Either you have been sent here to stick up for the millionaire brent at all costs or you are indeed on smack which is it?

You haven't explained anything, you've made a few comments but you've not explained your view.

what that brent owns the club and should pay the rent and not rely on tax breaks because he can afford it. Seemed obvious to everyone else.

So you'd rather the club went into more debt by the owner putting money into the club which he would be entitled to claim back? if the club isn't capable of paying the rent by itself (which would be the clear suggestion if the owner was needing to it instead) then how would it raise the money to pay him back?

i would rather have a competant owner who pays his way.

Which he clearly hasn't been. Any idea when he's paying the GT's back?

Why didn't he need to pay rent or tax??? Why did his whole takeover bin won selling the ground to the council. You talk shite man

tigertony 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.

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.

Forgot why I had you on ignore. Thanks for the reminder.

Apologies if this has been addressed earlier in this thread, but if Brent has been having a Rent Holiday, then I presume that at some point in the future those missing payments will have to be made up, yeah? Can anyone confirm?

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

They got that right, Xilse and his mates givin it large although he'll deny he was there.

Surely waiting til 'cashflow' allows is just increasing debt? In the meantime the place is falling apart [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

So how have we won awards for something that hasn't opened yet? It does worry me that the club struggles to open a couple of porta cabins these days, what hope do they have in the long run?

i thought the zoo corner was the family area and all the stuff with it?

Argy1e wrote:

Angry 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.

are you on smack or something?

Do you ever explain your own views or do you just decide everyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

It's nothing personal, he does that to everyone.

Cornish Chris wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

Angry 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.

are you on smack or something?

Do you ever explain your own views or do you just decide everyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

It's nothing personal, he does that to everyone.

w

not everyone just the idiots.