James Brent highlights benefits of Plymouth Argyle owning Home Park again

Tgwu wrote:

BBC1 wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Would the  buckets brigade,GT and the auctioneer be willing to help the AFT to reach the total that they would need to rise to buy Home Park.

I don't rise to the click bait toilet paper website. You are the master of copy and paste sir. Care to help me out with this article please?

James Brent says it makes sense if Plymouth Argyle own Home Park again


JAMES BRENT believes it would make financial sense for Plymouth Argyle to become the owners of Home Park again.

But the Pilgrims' chairman has stopped short of saying whether the club will look to take up an option to acquire the stadium from Plymouth City Council in October.

A recent survey of supporters showed that around 50 per cent were in favour of a buy-back, while 30 per cent preferred public ownership.

The council paid Argyle £1.6 million for Home Park in 2011 as part of a rescue deal which kept the then financially-stricken club afloat.

Argyle now have a 30-year lease with an option every five years to purchase the stadium for 12 times the rent, which is currently £135,000 per annum.

The first chance for them to do that is in October – which will be the fifth anniversary of Brent's takeover of the club.

He told Herald Sport: "I personally think it is in the interests of Plymouth Argyle Football Club to own its stadium.

"I think that statement is justified on a number of accounts, part of which is financial.

"If we are not paying the rent – which goes up in October if we don't buy the stadium – we can spend that on the football budget.

"It drives other things in terms of your behaviour to invest.

"We, as a club, are more likely to invest in our own asset than an asset owned by a third party.

READ NEXT: Argyle name goalkeeper Luke McCormick as their new captain

"So I think the principle of owning the stadium is a very good one."

Supporters who are against Argyle buying back Home Park point to the period leading up to the club's financial collapse in 2011 and ended up in administration.

At that time, the Pilgrims' previous regime borrowed a substantial sum of money against their ownership of the stadium.

Brent does not believe that should be an area of concern.

He said: "The last time the club owned its stadium it borrowed money from a bank against it.

"I'm not enthusiastic about bank-borrowing football clubs. I think it is different if it comes from shareholders or other stakeholders."

Brent does not accept that because the club owned Home Park when it went into administration in 2011 it makes it more likely the same could happen again in the future.

Home Park was bought by Plymouth City Council from Argyle in 2011

He said: "I could run the argument that when the club went into administration it had a green pitch. It has a green pitch now.

"It doesn't mean it's likely to go into administration because it has got a green pitch.

"I have spent many hours understanding why Argyle went into the administration.

"The borrowing of money from Lombard against the stadium was not a driver of the administration. There were other reasons.

"Not withstanding that, I would not be in favour of borrowing money from a lending institution to buy back the stadium."

So, will Brent take up that option in October. "Wait and see," he replied.

"We have a legal option to repurchase that the council is clearly very familiar with.

"There is a process to exercise that option, which they are familiar with as well."

Brent added: "There are two decisions that need to be taken. The first is whether the board of Plymouth Argyle Football Club think it is a good or a bad thing for the club to own its own stadium.

"There is a second question as to whether the investors want to support Plymouth Argyle Football Club to buy back the stadium."

Those investors are Brent and three of the other club directors – Simon Hallett, Tony Wrathall and Richard Holliday.

The Argyle Fans' Trust are against Home Park being sold by the council.

Earlier this year they successfully pushed for the land and buildings at Home Park to be listed as an Asset of Community Value.

That means should the council decide to sell Home Park, either to Brent or any other party, it would have to be made public.

Then a 'community interest group' such as the AFT, would have six weeks to ask to be treated as a potential bidder.

If they did, the sale could not take place for six months and would allow the Trust, for example, the chance to come up with an alternative proposal.
At the end of this period the council would still decide whether to sell, to whom and for how much, but the Trust argue it would be a transparent process

Thanks mate.
Muchly appreciated

Czarcasm wrote:

Pafcintheplace wrote:

Fantastic, stadium back in the hands of Speckled Jim, that be nice for the Bal Sheet, a catalyst for him to sell up?

One hopes so, a silver lining perhaps.

But one suspects just a hoop to go through before the Bus Shelter stand goes up and another reluctant chase for the play offs..

That has always been the angle I've taken on it all. He's here not for PAFC, but to MAKE MONEY.

It's abundantly clear that buying the Freehold will be the only realistic way of him ultimately achieving his goal.

Once he does and f ucks off, Argyle may well be able to look to the future.

Hugh Watt wrote:

corker from that spunktrumpet Throbber on the farms thread on Brent owning the ground.

So if folk want public ownership they're gonna have to become, as I am, less needy and feet stampy about team funding than they are now and have always been

Apparently it would have been fine to start the season with 3 contracted players as long as the ground stays in public ownership.

Rising up he leagues doesn't matter. What a wanker!

The Sussex Sage, the wisest of the wise. He wont be feet stampy today because like me he wont be there! what a wanker!

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

corker from that spunktrumpet Throbber on the farms thread on Brent owning the ground.

So if folk want public ownership they're gonna have to become, as I am, less needy and feet stampy about team funding than they are now and have always been

Apparently it would have been fine to start the season with 3 contracted players as long as the ground stays in public ownership.

Rising up he leagues doesn't matter. What a wanker!

The Sussex Sage, the wisest of the wise. He wont be feet stampy today because like me he wont be there! what a wanker!

Me neither.
A sort of strange feeling, but a good feeling as well.
Almost liberating

brent owning the stadium would be the final nail in Argo's coffin. May be the ACV status might throw up a barrier to the purchase?

BRENT OUT

ACV gives the AFT six months to come up with the cash, so just a stalling tactic...

According to James, by owning the ground the rent thus saved can be put into the playing budget.....

Does that mean that James is looking for an 'investor' to buy the ground for him but receive no return on that 'investment'.

Wasn't an 8% return mentioned by Simon if the ground was bought? with the current rent going into the playing budget, where does that return come from?

"I'm not enthusiastic about bank-borrowing football clubs. I think it is different if it comes from shareholders or other stakeholders."

Why should a bank get all that lovely interest on the loan when it could be our Jimmy Boy trousering it, eh?

that's the point, we save on rent so we can increase our playing budget, says James, but does the club not then have interest to pay? so is he looking for an investor (of £1.6 mil) who would not expect any return......

The mortgage may be less expensive than rent. In fact it is almost certainly going to cost less because the repayment period be extended as far as necessary or the interest rate managed to ensure that this is the case. All very easily achieved when you are effectively negotiating a deal with youself.

So, as sure as eggs is eggs, this will be done and we will be sold the "saving" as meaning "more to spend on the team" as justification for so doing.

And it all might even happen pretty much pretty much exactly as promised.

The complications will come when it transpires that Brent isn't good for all of the money and so he and Wrathall and Hallet and Halliday all have to chip in. Obviously they'd set up a company to act as a vehicle for this (Jimmy Boy is vg as setting up companies to do such things) because it is "easier that way" meaning that neither the directors nor the club actually directly own the club.

That company then has a value which will be inflated by time as reflected in the land value of the stadium and will also be guaranteed the return it negotiates with itself via the interest rate. It's a  nice safe little double whammy investment-wise.

And if I was a tad cynical I'd suggest it is also a bloody good way of milking even money out of the club and into the "fridge" that holds Brent's pension pots.

And just as long as mortgage per month < rent per month I wouldn't expect there to be too many objections.

I said at the time that the 'luverley' chap from across the pond was brought in for this little bit of cash bolstering - the timing was to a tee!! These characters are just game players pushing this provincial club into a corner - we've seen this before me thinks

I think you are all very cynical people, 'e saved us you know and when Saint James walks away it wont be with a single penny profit made from his beloved Argyle.

Good post from GG on the farm

quote

Akkeron Leisure Limited are the parent company of Plymouth Argyle Football Club Limited and Natatomisam are the ultimate controlling company of both. The latter two companies are jointly owned by James Brent and his wife. Akkeron Leisure Limited are a party to the 2011 lease with PCC and the Football Club. They acted as guarantor, without which the Football Club could not sign the lease agreement.

With regard to placing land and buildings into other companies within the Natatomisam group. That has already happened when HHP Nominee Ltd purchased the HHP land from the Football Club for a sum of £465,000 (the market value as ascertained by the District Valuer). James Brent is the sole Director of HHP Nominee Limited. In its latest 2014 accounts it shows assets of £224 with £24 in cash. So where is that ownership within the group now. Who paid all the fees for the ill fated HHP project? Why is it not listed as an asset in the owning company accounts? Perhaps some of the more forensic among us could answer that?

It has been stated that the rental agreement of £135,000 per annum (subject to an RPI annual increase) was a deal that could have cut both ways. Assuming we have a turnover of £4m (we don't know as the figure has never been published in any accounts) then say the current rent of around £142,000 would represents around 3.5% - a relatively small but very manageable proportion. If the club paid £202,000 if in the Championship as suggested then it would be an even smaller proportion. In the last year of Championship football the accounts showed a turnover of £8.6m. The projected rent would be 2.3% of turnover - even more manageable and the savings on paying the rent if the freehold was purchased - not even the wages of one mediocre Championship player.

So in the absence of timescale for the grandstand what are the actual reasons for buying the freehold. If it is bought in October this year the train will have left the station with no-one knowing its eventual destination. Some thought that in 2007 when the Football Club last bought the freehold and how right they were

It's admirable trying to coax a response from Brent regarding the Freehold and annual rent. And yes, as quoted above the rent is proportionately a very small and manageable amount. But this avenue of dialogue whereby people ask reasonable questions and then get fobbed off, has dragged on for years now. Shorely the time has come for those same reasonably minded people asking nicely, to up the ante and properly challenge Brent in a manner way more robust than previously.

The chief cheerleader is on a mission.

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

Which business man show his chauffeur the business accounts? I bet the day job chairman do not show him their account.

quote

I've seen the new set of accounts (out very soon) and I wish I could run a successful group of companies with those results I can tell you.

You honestly think Newell could analyze and interpret company financial accounts?

What possible reason would a Banker show an aging fat thug the accounts to "successful companies" the world over. The oaf lives in a complete fantasy world. Unless of course he's about to become a Director..................

Frank Bullitt wrote:

The AFT have scheduled a board meeting in November to discuss Brent's comments about possibly buying the ground in October.

Correct

Us as fans have been crying out for jimmy to show us the clubs accounts for years to no avail..then all of a sudden he shows the fatty em...yeah rite as if pig is important enough for jimmy to show his personal accounts...you couldnt make this shit up...or could you

Am still not convinced Jimmy or his disciples get it when it comes to football club finances. The objective at Argyle's level should be to avoid operating losses rather than accumulate a profit for the shareholders. How on earth can someone be proud of an £800k surplus (c25% of the annual players salary bucket) in a year where lack of investment in January led to a lack of promotion in June. What is there to be proud of?

All I can think of is that the majority of the £800k was unbudgeted income from Wembley and the Joe Mason transfer. If so, why not say so rather than spin it?

Brent stated that along with investment and debt repayment the 'surplus' was invested in the team.... if only we didn't pay wages James, think of the 'surplus' then......

I wonder what "answers" GC will get?

Graham Clark on Pasoti wrote:

Thank you, Ian for your enlightening contribution to the debate about the purchase of the freehold and I quote

Answer - “I’ve seen the new set of accounts (out very soon) and I wish I could run a successful group of companies with those results I can tell you.”

Question –“I wonder if they will borrow money to purchase Home Park next month.”
Answer – “They'd be stupid not to”.

Question - “Well, they could be actively seeking new buyers for the club.”
Answer – “Whilst they don't own the freehold?”

Your contribution to the debate raises a number of questions
1. Were the accounts you saw the accounts for the Football Club in the accounting year 2015 up until 31st December 2015 which are the accounts due to be registered at Companies House later this month. I only ask because such accounts give very little financial information on issues such as turnover and debt for example. In the accounts you saw, is the goodwill (the value of the brand etc.), identified as an intangible asset, still valued substantially in excess of the purchase price of the stadium?
2. Alternatively, have you seen the statement relating to the 2015/2016 season where turnover was reported to be £6m with a surplus of £800,000? This of course is not a set of accounts that would be registered at Companies House unless, of course, the accounting period has changed to align with other clubs in the Football League
3. You imply that the Football Club would be ‘stupid not to’ in borrowing money to buy the freehold. The Board have confirmed that they will not be borrowing to purchase the freehold. Have the plans changed?
4. The Board are on record as saying that they would listen to offers for the Football Club before they announced the unanimous decision that to purchase the freehold would be in the interests of the Football Club. Your answer would imply that with the freehold they might actively seek buyers given that the existing shareholders would personally financially benefit from such an enhanced value if they sold all or part of their shareholding.

As a general comment as Site Owner of Pasoti with direct access to the Boardroom and the Directors the comments you have posted could be regarded as ‘authoritative’. You will know that in your understandable enthusiasm to contribute to the freehold debate many looking at what you have posted could think you are speaking with ‘insider’ knowledge. Hence, the need for clarification.

As a final point the financial stewardship of the Board of Plymouth Argyle has been widely applauded and to achieve a turnover of £6m and a ‘surplus’ of £800,000 (for the 2015/2016 season) is firm evidence of that. It has been achieved without the asset of the freehold being owned by the Football Club. The debate should be about what are the benefits of owning the freehold to the Football Club and the individual shareholders. Perhaps you might like to comment on that specifically?

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

just saw GC post, the pig will be in a blind panic lol

PatDunne wrote:

just saw GC post, the pig will be in a blind panic lol

Ee'll av to aaaask an educated wanker to tell im wot to write

Are the accounts he was shown like the "magnificent two tiered stand" HHP Plans?