Club Statement: Freehold Purchase

Brent is up for a bit of purchasing.....

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

thanks Flatty

I am in shock. I didn't see this coming.

Must have finally got round to thinking about it.

about time.

Anyone fancy translating this for me?
Q2: How would the buy-back of Home Park be funded?
A2: It would be funded through the issue of new ordinary shares to existing shareholders. These shares would be irredeemable, i.e. never repayable, and the shareholders do not expect to receive any dividends on them.

Later in says (A8): Aside from that, your Board would not borrow money to acquire the stadium freehold.

So where is the £1.7M coming from? Presumably some or all of the board are ponying up the money for these new shares. How does that work from their perspective, are they presuming that the ground will be valued at greater than £1.7m and thus the paper value of the club will increased by more than the money they put in? Assuming they don't have this sort of money under their beds, are they borrowing it, and thus expecting/needing a significant return over and above £1.7M?

Flat_Track_Bully wrote:

Anyone fancy translating this for me?
Q2: How would the buy-back of Home Park be funded?
A2: It would be funded through the issue of new ordinary shares to existing shareholders. These shares would be irredeemable, i.e. never repayable, and the shareholders do not expect to receive any dividends on them.

Later in says (A8): Aside from that, your Board would not borrow money to acquire the stadium freehold.

So where is the £1.7M coming from? Presumably some or all of the board are ponying up the money for these new shares. How does that work from their perspective, are they presuming that the ground will be valued at greater than £1.7m and thus the paper value of the club will increased by more than the money they put in? Assuming they don't have this sort of money under their beds, are they borrowing it, and thus expecting/needing a significant return over and above £1.7M?

Put it this way - can you imagine a scenario whereby Brent would pay for anything that was overvalued? The last time the freehold was sold by PCC, for around £1.5m as I recall, it was revalued within around 18 months to something approaching £10m. Coupled with cashing in on the mass sale of the club's top players, this enabled the directors at the time to artificially bloat the balance sheet and then sell all or part of their shareholding for huge capital gains. The same will happen this time around with the freehold. Brent simply wouldn't sanction it otherwise. As the boardroom decision is unanimous it paints Peter Jones as a revolting hypocrite and someone who should never be trusted.

Jimmy has a cunning plan, it involves making lots of money from owning the Homepark Freehold fear not Jimmy watched Argyle at Accrington he can be trusted.

Glad the board have released this statement. A little late, but it shows that us fans have power. It certainly puts a few of my concerns to bed. However I don't believe for one second that they havnt already decided to do this.

The shares are irredeemable until we sell up..........

The most important fact is that statement would never have seen the light of day if the 'social media' wave hadn't questioned the situation - we should lock this document away for future reference, these people have the best legal wordsmiths at hand to paint the rosiest picture. Let's hope the best minds within the fan base can clarify their options.

All very plausible but of course they have only released that effort because of the Social Media outcry which at least they acknowledged. Well worded but asks more questions than answers provided.
Politburo will lap it up no question...

Quote :

 Q4: Could PAFC transfer the option to buy the freehold to another party?
A4: PAFC is not interested in transferring the option and therefore has not looked into this possibility. If the option to but he freehold is exercised, it will be exercised by PAFC

This concerns me. The question is very straightforward - the answer is pure politician speak, avoiding answering the question completely. PAFC may not be interested, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't do it.

I suppose this whole statement comes down to how much you trust Brent to be honest about his intentions.

It also demonstrates that when a group of fans with a history of working for supporters' best interests club together to put some pressure on the Board, it is possible to get a response from the club. A lesson for the AFT perhaps?

I can't believe they would release this statement just before a big game!

One thread I will not read.

Homeslice wrote:

Quote :

 Q4: Could PAFC transfer the option to buy the freehold to another party?
A4: PAFC is not interested in transferring the option and therefore has not looked into this possibility. If the option to but he freehold is exercised, it will be exercised by PAFC

This concerns me. The question is very straightforward - the answer is pure politician speak, avoiding answering the question completely. PAFC may not be interested, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't do it.

I suppose this whole statement comes down to how much you trust Brent to be honest about his intentions.

It also demonstrates that when a group of fans with a history of working for supporters' best interests club together to put some pressure on the Board, it is possible to get a response from the club. A lesson for the AFT perhaps?

Was gonna make the same point.

The answer to the question is quite simply yes or no.

Even then after 'PAFC' buy the Freehold, I doubt very much if there is anything to stop them transferring to a third party at a later date.

A welcome statement, but it does not communicate what the plan is after the freehold is purchased in terms of construction of a new grandstand.
Though sadly the 4.8k capacity boxed in mini-stand will continue to be the limit to their ambitions. In which case I'd rather there was a refurb or no new stand.

As part of the issue of new share capital, Brent's shareholding could be diluted further, and maybe the board will hold good to their word that the stadium will not be separated from the club?

No doubt Home Park will be purchased. If it's the precursor to a new bus shelter being constructed in place of the Mayflower Stand, that will be a self imposed ceiling to the club's future progress, and cement PAFC's/Plymouth's view that it see's itself very much in the same bracket as a Northampton or Gillingham; an above average lower league club > that would be typically Plymouth.

Money has to be found to build a new stand........... Lots of it.........even a limiting little one. The new owners won't pay for it. Might have to get some bigger buckets and super pisspotty auctions, like a night out with Mike Bickle's jockstrap. Should only take a generation.

Ee saved us and now Ee's sitting on us ! Nice little earner and the janners are daft enough to volunteer their time and money to the suit.

All janners are equal but some janners are more equal than others .

Czarcasm wrote:

Homeslice wrote:

Quote :

 Q4: Could PAFC transfer the option to buy the freehold to another party?
A4: PAFC is not interested in transferring the option and therefore has not looked into this possibility. If the option to but he freehold is exercised, it will be exercised by PAFC

This concerns me. The question is very straightforward - the answer is pure politician speak, avoiding answering the question completely. PAFC may not be interested, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't do it.

I suppose this whole statement comes down to how much you trust Brent to be honest about his intentions.

It also demonstrates that when a group of fans with a history of working for supporters' best interests club together to put some pressure on the Board, it is possible to get a response from the club. A lesson for the AFT perhaps?

Was gonna make the same point.

The answer to the question is quite simply yes or no.  

Even then after 'PAFC' buy the Freehold, I doubt very much if there is anything to stop them transferring to a third party at a later date.  

theres nothing stopping em selling to a 3rd party..but it depends how much you trust the slimey cnut

The way I read it is; there's nothing to stop them transferring / selling the freehold to a third party, but if they did, that third party would be bound by the perpetual covenant that's in place. So the ground will always be a sports stadium unless both the owner (PAFC, or any third party to whom it's subsequently transferred / sold) and PCC explicitly agree otherwise, AND planning permission is approved for a change of use.

Clearly there remains some scope for the ownership of the ground to be separated from the club in the future. But, given the above, I think it seems pretty unlikely. For example, there could be a scenario where the club sells the ground to someone else, and then the club pays them rent to continue using it (because it has to remain a sports stadium, so the buyer couldn't really do much else with it). But I can't really see any commercial benefit, to either party, if that happened. And even if that did happen, it would be PAFC's decision (not James Brent's) to sell their asset, and any money made from the sale would go to PAFC (not James Brent).

It also leaves open the possibility that, with everyone's (PAFC's and PCC's) agreement, the club could theoretically sell the ground to a third party who could then seek to revoke the covenant and develop it for something else (retail, residential), leaving PAFC with the cash from the sale to fund the development of a new ground elsewhere in the city. I am not sure that's ever likely to happen, but it would theoretically be possible, I think.

Even if you believe there's no difference between JB and PAFC in terms of decision making and/or who benefits financially, it seems to me that there is an additional layer of protection in place via the covenant and PCC. So it's not just a case of whether or not you trust James Brent.

As a footnote; I am sure my post will (rightly) be treated with suspicion by some posters because it's the first post I have made for a long time. I've been a member of this forum for many years (since 2012, I think) and I have been a regular reader throughout that time. I am also a member of (although not a regular poster on) pasoti. I think the subject of the freehold purchase is interesting because it has really polarised opinion, with this forum being almost entirely against the purchase, while the majority of the people supporting the purchase seem to be on pasoti.

I was initially against the purchase, for the reasons put forward in Graham Clark's 'Never Again' statement. The club's statement yesterday has changed my mind. I am now (cautiously) supportive of the proposal to buy-back the freehold. I'd be interested to know if yesterday's statement changed anyone else's mind? And that's a genuine question; I am not trolling or agitating. I would really like to know if the club have managed to change people's opinion on this - especially posters on this forum who were (are?) almost unanimously against the freehold purchase.

I am very concerned, the statement says the board are minded to buy the ground for the club, no rent, no loan repayments, ever (non redeemable) a free gift from the board to the club..... Why isn't James being Knighted for his kindness? and since the board do not wish for any money I am sure that they wouldn't mind transferring ownership to the people of Plymouth.

Putting a couple of points together raises a familiar question

Quote :

The club’s turnover in 2015-16 was £6m. This represents an increase of 15.6% per annum over the last four years.

Quote :

and £135,000 x 10 is more than the total football budget of most of our competitors

If we had a turnover of over £5M in each of last four seasons and PAFC reported £2.4M and £1.6M losses, where is the rest of the money going if our football budget has been middling for the division? The total post admin debt doesn't come near to accounting for it all.

Our Guile wrote:

Even if you believe there's no difference between JB and PAFC in terms of decision making and/or who benefits financially, it seems to me that there is an additional layer of protection in place via the covenant and PCC. So it's not just a case of whether or not you trust James Brent.

The real danger isn't the stadium being sold to a third party. It's the current (or future) owners of PAFC borrowing against the value of the stadium (which is in real terms probably a lot more than £1.7m) and then falling into debt because they can't service those payments. That's pretty much what happened last time we owned the ground.

A lot of Akkeron businesses have recently folded, and Brent's other 'development' projects seem to be stuck for one reason or another. That doesn't signal to many fans that Akkeron are necessarily a safe owner of the stadium. Even if they were, should Akkeron decide to sell the club (and therefore the stadium with it) then who know why might get their hands on it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. When an ex-banker who has no interest whatsoever in football and has never been to a football match gets his hands on a football club on the cheap, it isn't for the love of the club or that he has a burning ambition to take PAFC into the Premier League.

He is in it for profit, nothing more nothing less. A less philanthropic gentlemen than James Brent, you would not find anywhere outside a financial institution.

The club statement is full of warm words and ambiguity. Do not trust James Brent or this current board. I do not believe they have the best interests of PAFC at heart.

PlymptonPilgrim wrote:

I've said it before and I'll say it again. When an ex-banker who has no interest whatsoever in football and has never been to a football match gets his hands on a football club on the cheap, it isn't for the love of the club or that he has a burning ambition to take PAFC into the Premier League.

He is in it for profit, nothing more nothing less. A less philanthropic gentlemen than James Brent, you would not find anywhere outside a financial institution.

The club statement is full of warm words and ambiguity. Do not trust James Brent or this current board. I do not believe they have the best interests of PAFC at heart.

Great post pp, Brent is not an Argyle fan he's a fan of money the same with Hallet, if they get hold of the freehold to Homepark Argyle will soon be back into Administration unable to pay the rent on the ground.