How is it being funded?

I don't recall seeing any speculation about how HHP2 is being funded.

However we do now know that Brent has shown a historical reluctance to put forward his own money for anything so it is probably fair to assume that he isn't putting it forward this time either.

What we do know is that HHP2 ties lots of different things together: ice rink, gym, offices, hotel, coffee shops, bars, restaurants and so on which will all be built on Brent's land and the grandstand refurb which will happen on Argyle's land.

This begs the question of why that need be the case?

The direct result is that for any of it to go ahead then all of it must. This means that the "new" grandstand can't be started until the huge office block is OKed along with all the other bits. We also know that the Highways Agency has asked for a 6 month deferment so we won't be refurbing the grandstand for at least 6 months.

Meanwhile the £4.1m mortgage agreed with Hallett is sitting there earning interest which is payable by the club as it sits on its newly acquired £4.1m so regardles of anything else Brent's development plan is already bleeding money out of the club that could be spent on players or the grandstand or whatever. But it isn't. It is being spent on interest that is being accrued on a loan we don't need (yet) and can't use.

And all for no good reason because there was no need to tie it all together. It was a policy decision and deliberate strategy on Brent's part but to what end? Why?

And all the while there is the continuing pressure to provide "continuous ice". This is both council policy and is something Brent signed up to so if the council rejects his application then he can probably say that it was them and not him who broke the clause. God knows what the ramifications of that might be.

The pressure on PCC to approve the application must be enormous and the desire of us as supporters to see the grandstand finally get sorted can only be adding to it.

None of that actually supplies funding to build though, does it? Planning consent, if granted, will see an uplift in the value of the land so Brent could borrow against that but the real stroke of genius would be to sell the Pavillions - valued at around £5.5m I believe. Brent would then also shed the obligation to provide continuous ice to whoever he sold it to, would not need to actually build or pay for the ice rink but would be sitting on land that had planning permission for an ice rink already granted giving his land at HHP another nice lift fillip in value.

If that, or something like it, was the plan it would meet all the usual requirements of Brent's normal modus operandi: get this to pay for that, get planning permission but never actually build anything, buy low and sell high (he only bought the Pavillions for £1 let's not forget) and maximise the value of any land that comes his way with a complete disregard for anything not wholly profitable to himself alone.

Obviously Argyle gets royally shafted but that doesn't really come into it as a serious consideration. The other directors might not like it, and would probably be furious to the point of realising that their positions were untenable and be planning their boardroom departures rather than be a party to it all but hey ho thems the breaks.

I'm just a simple Janner but were I he that's something like how I might try to make some wonga out of the situation.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

The other directors might not like it, and would probably be furious to the point of realising that their positions were untenable and be planning their boardroom departures rather than be a party to it all

I'm not so good at all the money stuff, but this is the bit I've been thinking about. Surely Simon Hallett can't be impressed that 'his' grandstand refurbishment is probably going to be held up by the rest of the development? Surely other directors must be a bit peed off that all this other stuff's been piggybacked onto the planning application? If so, why do people in those positions turn tail instead of staying and arguing? Better inside the tent, innit?

Or is that only a role for fans (and concerned residents and council tax payers)? I suppose these fellas don't like getting their hands dirty (let alone subjecting themselves to the kind of shit a lot of us have had to put up with from Newell, Webb and their mates over the last however many years).

But who would want to buy the Pavilions for £5.5 million?

And why did David Felwick REALLY leave?

Frank Bullitt wrote:

But who would want to buy the Pavilions for £5.5 million?

Specially with those manky, worn carpets.

It's an interesting hypothesis, SFD. Made so because it's all too plausible.

Imagining for a second that it were also accurate, who could possibly defend it? Surely even the most ardent members of the Brentral Element would realise how far the club has been shafted?

Buy land cheap, get planning permission granted for various additional things that boosts the value and then sell for profit without ever having to spend a penny more than needed.

Land with planning permission for extension is far more appealing than land that doesn't. Maybe there is the plan, get the permission for HHP and then sell on for profit?

Is community Si drawing the interest yet from his 5 mill loan? If not, coupled with the proposed 6 month delay, it's going to cost Argo a pretty penny before a brick is even laid, if one is ever laid!

A perfect storm is brewing.

P.O.I wrote:

Is community Si drawing the interest yet from his 5 mill loan? If not, coupled with the proposed 6 month delay, it's going to cost Argo a pretty penny before a brick is even laid, if one is ever laid!

A perfect storm is brewing.

Somebody told me the first repayment had been made already

Peggy wrote:

P.O.I wrote:

Is community Si drawing the interest yet from his 5 mill loan? If not, coupled with the proposed 6 month delay, it's going to cost Argo a pretty penny before a brick is even laid, if one is ever laid!

A perfect storm is brewing.

Somebody told me the first repayment had been made already

FFS. The financial implications are going to be enormous, disastrous!

£250k a year, nice.
A question I mooted earlier that no one picked up on is this, is Simon Hallet involved in the wider project or solely the football club?

You need to flesh that out a bit Franny and offer it to the two unfortunates.

Earwegoagain wrote:

You need to flesh that out a bit Franny and offer it to the two unfortunates.

Or better still... Ask the questions himself to Brent at a fans forum.

Earwegoagain wrote:

£250k a year, nice.
A question I mooted earlier that no one picked up on is this, is Simon Hallet involved in the wider project or solely the football club?

Solely the football club.

Rickler wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

You need to flesh that out a bit Franny and offer it to the two unfortunates.

Or better still...  Ask the questions himself to Brent at a fans forum.  

Or private eye about time he was exposed

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I don't recall seeing any speculation about how HHP2 is being funded.

However we do now know that Brent has shown a historical reluctance to put forward his own money for anything so it is probably fair to assume that he isn't putting it forward this time either.

What we do know is that HHP2 ties lots of different things together: ice rink, gym, offices, hotel, coffee shops, bars, restaurants and so on which will all be built on Brent's land and the grandstand refurb which will happen on Argyle's land.

This begs the question of why that need be the case?

The direct result is that for any of it to go ahead then all of it must. This means that the "new" grandstand can't be started until the huge office block is OKed along with all the other bits. We also know that the Highways Agency has asked for a 6 month deferment so we won't be refurbing the grandstand for at least 6 months.

Meanwhile the £4.1m mortgage agreed with Hallett is sitting there earning interest which is payable by the club as it sits on its newly acquired £4.1m so regardles of anything else Brent's development plan is already bleeding money out of the club that could be spent on players or the grandstand or whatever. But it isn't. It is being spent on interest that is being accrued on a loan we don't need (yet) and can't use.

And all for no good reason because there was no need to tie it all together. It was a policy decision and deliberate strategy on Brent's part but to what end? Why?

And all the while there is the continuing pressure to provide "continuous ice". This is both council policy and is something Brent signed up to so if the council rejects his application then he can probably say that it was them and not him who broke the clause. God knows what the ramifications of that might be.

The pressure on PCC to approve the application must be enormous and the desire of us as supporters to see the grandstand finally get sorted can only be adding to it.

None of that actually supplies funding to build though, does it? Planning consent, if granted, will see an uplift in the value of the land so Brent could borrow against that but the real stroke of genius would be to sell the Pavillions - valued at around £5.5m I believe. Brent would then also shed the obligation to provide continuous ice to whoever he sold it to, would not need to actually build or pay for the ice rink but would be sitting on land that had planning permission for an ice rink already granted giving his land at HHP another nice lift fillip in value.

If that, or something like it, was the plan it would meet all the usual requirements of Brent's normal modus operandi: get this to pay for that, get planning permission but never actually build anything, buy low and sell high (he only bought the Pavillions for £1 let's not forget) and maximise the value of any land that comes his way with a complete disregard for anything not wholly profitable to himself alone.

Obviously Argyle gets royally shafted but that doesn't really come into it as a serious consideration. The other directors might not like it, and would probably be furious to the point of realising that their positions were untenable and be planning their boardroom departures rather than be a party to it all but hey ho thems the breaks.

I'm just a simple Janner but were I he that's something like how I might try to make some wonga out of the situation.

Good post.
Brent is trying his hardest after his abject failure to deliver hhp mark 1. The consequent snub to him by PCC regarding the bus station revamp must still wrangle Brent.
With this latest play of his it looks and feels like he is going all in. He obviously has not dotted all the i's and crossed the t's because as Graham Clarke smartly pointed out The Highways Agency want a 6 month delay.

Rickler wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

You need to flesh that out a bit Franny and offer it to the two unfortunates.

Or better still...  Ask the questions himself to Brent at a fans forum.  

After how he reacted to yours would he even be allowed to attend?

This Graham Clark you speak of, does he post on Pasoti?

Angry wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

You need to flesh that out a bit Franny and offer it to the two unfortunates.

Or better still...  Ask the questions himself to Brent at a fans forum.  

After how he reacted to yours would he even be allowed to attend?

Of course he would.  Why wouldn't he?

I also don't think Brent would have dared to act the way he did if I had been there.

It would be nice to see Brent put on the spot for once by somebody who was there and willing to question Brent on his given answers that just don't make sense.  He gets a very easy time of it in my view.  I must say...  There's a lot of complaining by some on ATD who could, but don't, step up to the plate!

I just don't get Hallett's complicity in all of this. He gets his money back whatever happens, so why on earth would he have agreed - and seems to support - the planning app submitted by Brent?

Innocent Egbunike wrote:

I just don't get Hallett's complicity in all of this. He gets his money back whatever happens, so why on earth would he have agreed - and seems to support - the planning app submitted by Brent?

Brent is still the majority shareholder. If he votes yes, none of the other directors have the firepower to stop him

Doesn't make much difference if he agrees or not because Brent has 51% and wins regardless.

True dat but it suggests that Brent has just pulled the rug out from under his feet by going down this road. Don't see that.

He's got 4.1 million reasons to hold sway.....if he was overly bothered that could be withdrawn.....unless of course the 30 year bunce outweighs any serious objection.

I'm afraid I believe Hallett is in on the whole deal - he just pops up from over the pond and tells us he's got green scars, yeah as if. This looks like a clever little scam and we all know what shit hits....fans!!