A Subtext to the Freehold Deal

Our Guile wrote:

VillageGreen; could you take my quote any more out of context?? Buying back the freehold probably makes Argyle more vulnerable than they are now, as I made reference to in my earlier post. But no more vulnerable than any other football club who own their own ground.

James Brent, isn't being offered the opportunity to buy the freehold. It's PAFC. Some people may not see the difference, but there is a difference. PAFC has other directors and shareholders, their responsibilities include jointly making decisions for the good of the club, and upholding corporate governance standards. James Brent, despite being majority shareholder, can't do anything related to PAFC without convincing Simon Hallett et al that it's a good idea.

James Brent couldn't apply for a loan secured against the freehold. PAFC could. James Brent (alone) couldn't split the ground from the club. PAFC's directors and shareholders could decide to do that (but why would they?).

I can't change my original post wording for some unknown reason , but I would change it to "a James Brent led  PAFC".