The Mankover all action Thread.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

If I own my house I pay for the new roof.

What happens if you don't have the money?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

If I own my house I pay for the new roof.

Similarly if I own the football club, the ground and the land around it then I pay for the £5m.

In reality were I chairman of the club I would expect the shareholders to make the £5m up on a pro-rata basis because it is they who will see the value of their holding rise (just as mine does).

If you were chairman and attempted to fund a new grandstand in that way,then it wouldn't be unrealistic to say that your good self may well be in for a very long wait indeed for both its funding and subsequent construction.

IMHO of course.

Rickler wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

If I own my house I pay for the new roof.

What happens if you don't have the money?

I was under the impression Hallett does have the money necessary. And the largest shareholder by a country mile.

It's like pulling teeth...

So maybe your "impression" is wrong, and he (or whoever, including SFD paying for his roof) doesn't have the money - what then?

Greenskin wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

If I own my house I pay for the new roof.

Similarly if I own the football club, the ground and the land around it then I pay for the £5m.

In reality were I chairman of the club I would expect the shareholders to make the £5m up on a pro-rata basis because it is they who will see the value of their holding rise (just as mine does).

If you were chairman and attempted to fund a new grandstand in that way,then it wouldn't be unrealistic to say that your good self may well be in for a very long wait indeed for both its funding and subsequent construction.

IMHO of course.

The club could do what many other clubs have done in the past and found a long term sponsor for the stand and boost funding that way. Not that piss take sponsorship deal that nikkkkkk did fr the devonportend a real money spinner one. Would mean the stand would have a corporate name but you know what? if it meant we had a decent stand that looked good fit for purpose allowed for future development if needed and allowed the corners to be fill in with stands and not crap then they could call it the tampax stand for all i care.

Rickler wrote:

It's like pulling teeth...

So maybe your "impression" is wrong, and he (or whoever, including SFD paying for his roof) doesn't have the money - what then?

Sell up and move on before the roof falls in.

Let the next guy fix it.

Greenskin wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

If I own my house I pay for the new roof.

Similarly if I own the football club, the ground and the land around it then I pay for the £5m.

In reality were I chairman of the club I would expect the shareholders to make the £5m up on a pro-rata basis because it is they who will see the value of their holding rise (just as mine does).

If you were chairman and attempted to fund a new grandstand in that way,then it wouldn't be unrealistic to say that your good self may well be in for a very long wait indeed for both its funding and subsequent construction.

IMHO of course.

In which case I'd be expecting the recalcitrant shareholders to sell up and move on.

Why should somebody with, say, a 30% stake in the club see that 30% rocket in value on the back of my investment if they are unwilling to contribute?

They are supposed to directors not freeloaders.

Am I correct in saying that SH and the saviour have very similar business backgrounds ? ie managing other peoples' investments ?

In the case of a westcountry football club, the faithful pay, the managers are the shareholders and make all the decisions.  One manager is already in profit, with more to come.

Tringreen wrote:

Am I correct in saying that SH and the saviour have very similar business backgrounds ? ie managing other peoples' investments ?

In the case of a westcountry football club, the faithful pay, the managers are the shareholders and make all the decisions.  One manager is already in profit, with more to come.

The first question is a nagging one and I've often wondered when these two actually met, did they have financial paths that crossed? I seem to remember Brent had East Coast yank connections with the toxic bank. I did mention in jest a while back that the club is at its most vulnerable now that the building site is irreversible - if Hallett is the saviour he needs to mount that white charger and gallop in soon and perhaps tell us plebs what's a going on!! That rusting hulk is spooking a few of us.

Exactly Bandy. I also remind people the two have been close neighbours for some time when residing in this country. There's a nagging feeling about this that won't go away. Leaving the the whole place in high profile uproar was always a possibility with these sort of business people, to extract change of use concessions, or even tax payer money to subsidise what is now a private enterprise for private profit. Just a case of how to present it all as credible.
The silence is disturbing.

We did nickname Hallett, Silent Si for a reason.

Silent Si and Transparent Jim. The good cop, bad cop double act. We're getting there.

Guys give the geezer a chance. He's only been in situ 1 week

He's not going to rub the outgoing shysters nose in it from day 1

He's been here 2 years and has been fully involved in the decision making process. How to proceed under his chair  will have been decided months ago. I suspect Felwick has also given him a report.

beesrus wrote:

He's been here 2 years and has been fully involved in the decision making process. How to proceed under his chair  will have been decided months ago. I suspect Felwick has also given him a report.

Bees cmon you know what I mean. He's been in the hot seat for a week
Give the fella a chance here am totally bemused with so many declaring hostility on the chap at this point in time

Lets give the guy until November 2019. If sod all has changed by then I agree with a have a shyster mark 2

Hallett could have put his stamp on it last week and announced how and what he would now do to progress the build at the very least. If he is happy to allow Brent and Bungo to muddle around in the same fashion that we are used to it rings great big alarm bells for me. Saying Brent would run the mankover also rang alarm bells for me. Maybe Hallett is a mate of Brent's from way back and only here to take the pressure off him as he knew he was losing support of fans?
Until we actually know what is going on conspiracy theories wil fill the news vacuum. Time to spill yer beans bhey.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

It isn't absolutely essential that anybody gets lumbered with a mortgage at all.

Just consider your own house. In tolerable order it is worth one price, if the roof is shot it is worth less and if it is newly replaced then it is worth more.

Now apply that to Argyle.

[The following figures are all indicative and are plucked out of thin air. They are not important. The model suggested is the focus here.]

Let's assume that Argyle is worth £10m normally. "Not with that grandstand!!" I hear you cry - and quite right too. So we're down to £5m.

Spend £5m on a new grandstand and the club is now worth £15m so the money spent sees an increase in the asset value. It isn't lost. When the club is sold and the enhanced value of the asset realised the £5m and then some is recovered.

On top of that Argyle needs to function as business. Bunging that £5m onto the club as debt means it can't invest that £5m in players as it is repaid and it is a decent team, with players recruited to supply it, that will fill the grandstand's seats, corporate functions and sell the advertising spaces as we storm the ramparts of the PL.

The idea that the £5m simply must and only can come from club revenue in the form of a mortgage or debt of some kind is very James Brent. It is all take take take with no speculate to accumulate at all. Totally safe and lucrative for him but there is nothing in it for us except even more years of under-funded mediocrity imposed by the strict adherence to austerity that the model demands.

The very fact that Czarcasm has so routinely reinforced the model in such a flatly matter-of-fact and accepting way just goes to show how far and how effectively the expectations of the fan base have been managed in the last 7 years.

It might be like that but it doesn't have to be.

Two points Franny.

It isn't so much reinforcing the model, as looking in a realistic manner - with the current Boardroom make up - as to where the means to pay back would come from. Apart from the Chairman every other incumbent is a total non-starter, aren't they?

And secondly it's hardly reinforcing the model to point out that a huge means of payment is unearthed (£7m of tv money) with even just a one-season foray into the Championship! That's pretty much the complete opposite to reinforcing the mortgage model!

The problem Hallett faces is that Brent still owns 30% and has made it quite clear he's not putting an extra penny into the club.I don't know whether it is of his making ie Brent refused to compeltely sell up or Hallett didn't have the funds to completely buy him out, either way no one is going to whack a load of money in when its not going to proportionally matched by someone who will ultimately benefit in the logn run

Hugh Watt wrote:

The problem Hallett faces is that Brent still owns 30% and has made it quite clear he's not putting an extra penny into the club.I don't know whether it is of his making ie Brent refused to compeltely sell up or Hallett didn't have the funds to completely buy him out, either way no one is going to whack a load of money in when its not going to proportionally matched by someone who will ultimately benefit in the logn run

Agreed.

As I read it regarding Felwick he agreed to return as chairman thinking that Brent was off. Brent's retention of the 30% made him think again and he thought better of it.

I have no real or imaginary handle on why or how the 30% was arrived at as opposed to 25% or 35% or anything else. Just a nice round number, I guess.

In company law, once you get up to a certain shareholding, 75% I seem to remember ... it was a long time ago I did that sort of work, you get the ability to pass important company special resolutions that nobody can stop. Brent will want the minimum holding to at least have some structural say re things like shareholding levels and windings up etc.. His interest would be a hostage to fortune if Hallett and others held 75% or more

The odds of HP being a three sided ground for the forseable future look to me to be getting shorter by the day, the costs of reparing the outdated pile of crap must be getting ridiculous now.

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

The odds of HP being a three sided ground for the forseable future look to me to be getting shorter by the day, the costs of reparing the outdated pile of crap must be getting ridiculous now.

I'm confident we will see a state-of-the-art facility withing Nools stated time-frame. Bungo Bak's latest installment of utter bollox has reassured me no end.

P.O.I wrote:

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

The odds of HP being a three sided ground for the forseable future look to me to be getting shorter by the day, the costs of reparing the outdated pile of crap must be getting ridiculous now.

I'm confident we will see a state-of-the-art facility withing Nools stated time-frame. Bungo Bak's latest installment of utter bollox has reassured me no end.

With Bungo in command what could possibly go wrong?

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

The odds of HP being a three sided ground for the forseable future look to me to be getting shorter by the day, the costs of reparing the outdated pile of crap must be getting ridiculous now.

But did they not signed a contact with a development company

Tgwu wrote:

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

The odds of HP being a three sided ground for the forseable future look to me to be getting shorter by the day, the costs of reparing the outdated pile of crap must be getting ridiculous now.

But did they not signed a contact with a development company

Extras bhey, every builder loves an extra, all the shit they uncover is probably not in the price lets hope uncle Si's got deep pockets.