Investment in the club

On the surface this seems like fantastic news, but I just wonder if the new stand is not built, how much would 50% profit be? and would that be enough for the stand to be built?

The valuation would seem in order if this is the amount set by the district valuer, but this is not something I know much about, nor is the 2nd point about Richard Holliday's investment.

I'm sure somebody more business savvy can give an idiot proof assessment of the news?

OMFG.

Sounds a pile of shite to me, with my cynical hat on of course.

Brenty secures his precious land so no further worries for him. The club loses its only valuable asset at a division 4 price. No definate promise of a new stand. Great timing for the announcement, the day after the loan window closes. 50% straight into paying off Brent's debt. Nools Tools are happy clapping without any knowledge of Brent's plans for the land which could see the club end up with nothing in the future.

Cynical hat off.

We got a giant flag

This may be a tad simplistic, but at first glance, it seems to me that the company that now own the land, have bought it with an agreement to build a new stand for the football club. Should that stand have facilities attached to it, a hotel or whatever, the income generated from that will go to the company, not PAFC. Can't quite see how that fits with the financial sustainability mantra that's being preached. But, as I say, that's me speculating.

A classic trade off.

Good news for the club, and better news for Mr Brent.

I'm sounding grumpy about it, but I don't think I actually am. Beggars can't be choosers and all that.

I translate this as..

The club has finally been stripped of all its assets.
The club will own the building materials that make up "an unknown in proportion" Grandstand.
James Brent is still to fork out a penny for his excellent non investment.
The deal is financed by a Pension company, questions will be asked.

It's far from being a good deal for the club but the club is in a position that is ripe for screwing and it's not Brent's fault that he's able to cash in.

If you're a Brent fan you'll be saying "well done and thanks James", if you're an Argyle fan you will question it. Either way the future for PAFC is being built on very insecure rocky ground and all this statement says is that assets owned by the club have been sold, nothing more.

Zackly.

If the new stand that is built is cheap and tacky with little or no possibility for income generation then the deal is very much to Mr Brent's benefit. If it is built with extensive facilities then we may see a benefit from this.

I like a previous poster's comment that Mr Brent is delivering what he has promised but in all the vagaries of announcements he actually hasn't promised a lot. The detail needs putting on this before a judgement can be made. My initial - maybe prejudiced and maybe mistaken - response is that profits accruing to Mr Brent from the building of a hotel and other facilities on the bought land will be greater than that coming to the club from a new stand. The building of a new stand for nothing strikes me as similar to a developer only getting permission as long as they agree to build a new pub/social centre/shops/road improvements or similar. In the scheme of things that is simply an additional cost of minimal proportion to their substantial development profits. If the facilities in the new stand are extensive and offer substantial money-making possibilities (and are ones which otherwise could have been featured in the development that Mr Brent has taken for himself) then I will be reassured.

One of the questions I added to the Q&A thread was to the effect that I would like to know what sort of balance he expected between his investment in the club and his investemnt in developments that would provide personal profit. That question still needs answering.

I am reasonably happy with what he has done so far but I think the jury is very definitely still out!

(I posted on the other site)

As this is being trumpeted as "extra" income I hope this means that half of the £700,000 goes to the staff immediately.

Mr Brent has sold all the remaining land assets of the football club to....Mr Brent. In return Mr Brent will give either a new stand or half the profits from the land development ( I thought the Council were also on a 50% share of profits on the development) to............Mr Brent.

The result of all this will be that Mr Brent gets to develop a chunk of land in Central Park and keep all the profits (less the Council's cut) either as profit on the development or through increasing the asset value of PAFC. If he gives the club (of which he is the sole owner) a £1 million pound stand, that will increase the value of the club (of which he is the sole owner) by £1 million. If however, Mr Brent the developer gives Mr Brent the football Club owner cash, this will I assume, be used to pay off the debts of the club, which would otherwise have to be paid off by.....Mr Brent.


Not exactly a case of "Everyone's a winner"


Is there going to be a World Cup bid as well?



PS. The title of this thread should be altered as there is no separate entity of "the club" as "the club" is wholly owned by Mr Brent. Therefore to be accurate the thread should be "Investment in Mr Brent"

I find this all quite amusing in a strange sort of way. PASOTI does what it does best and declares the greatest thing since sliced bread has happened at Argyle. ATD does what it does best and pours cold water on it all and declares it a disaster or near enough.

There isn't a lot of bones on the thing yet to be sure it is either. As usual a great deal of assumption is being made on both sides but nothing new there. I think I will wait and see rather than raise the flags or load the shotgun just yet.

I don't have a huge problem with Brent pocketing profits as long as long as he puts some of the money back into the club. I don't reckon a failing football team is in anyone's interests.

He certainly plays a good game, can't see his mates pitching in if there's not a buck to be made. I fear he's much too smart for us straw chewing yokels.

Perhaps he's seen the photos of the "new" stand that was erected over the Devonport back along. A few girders and a bit of corrugated iron...they can have it for free.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

I find this all quite amusing in a strange sort of way. PASOTI does what it does best and declares the greatest thing since sliced bread has happened at Argyle. ATD does what it does best and pours cold water on it all and declares it a disaster or near enough.

And you do what you do best... Remind us every chance you get.

Bogsider wrote:

I don't have a huge problem with Brent pocketing profits as long as long as he puts some of the money back into the club. I don't reckon a failing football team is in anyone's interests.

This.

There's not enough information to draw a picture yet. On the face of it though, it looks like heads Brent wins and tails Brent wins, but after all that's what he's in this for - profit and I've yet to see a committed football chairman make money from English soccer yet.

I trust James Brent, is as simple as that. I know what the club means to him, and that'll do for me.

No doubt I will be accused of blind faith, guilty as charged.

JB would do nothing to harm PAFC, and I have a building feeling that we will have something special within just a few years.



Quote from you-know-who on that other site.


File it with "Sir Roy doesn't do failure" "I met Mr Todd in the Brit, he bought me a pint, he's a really genuine guy" & "The funds from Japan will be here soon"

Grovehill wrote:

I trust James Brent, is as simple as that. I know what the club means to him, and that'll do for me.

No doubt I will be accused of blind faith, guilty as charged.

JB would do nothing to harm PAFC, and I have a building feeling that we will have something special within just a few years.



Quote from you-know-who on that other site.


File it with "Sir Roy doesn't do failure" "I met Mr Todd in the Brit, he bought me a pint, he's a really genuine guy" & "The funds from Japan will be here soon"

"I won't hear a bad word said about that man"

The problem is nobody is allowed to disagree or face ridicule.

Every sport needs a referee Rickler including baiting. So you or somebody can tell me the exact details of what this actually means and who will make what for sure out of it can you? No speculation, no guess work, no assumptions just some absolute hard facts in cash terms and buildings. If you can do that then I won't sit in the middle as there won't need to be one.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

Every sport needs a referee Rickler including baiting

The best referees are the ones nobody notices.

Then exercise your democratic right and ignore me Rickler. Sorry I am not singing the party song just yet but I guess that's just the kind of guy I am. Isn't that what both of these sites are accused of and if you put what you think and it's not singing the song then it's wrong? I notice you missed out the rest of the previous post. Was that because like me you actually don't know the answers?

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

I find this all quite amusing in a strange sort of way. PASOTI does what it does best and declares the greatest thing since sliced bread has happened at Argyle. ATD does what it does best and pours cold water on it all and declares it a disaster or near enough.

There isn't a lot of bones on the thing yet to be sure it is either. As usual a great deal of assumption is being made on both sides but nothing new there. I think I will wait and see rather than raise the flags or load the shotgun just yet.

I don't think the comments on here have been that negative really Sensible. A bit of a mixture really, same as Pasoti earlier when i looked at the thread on there. On Pasoti there were quite a few people claiming that Mr Brent was avoiding tax by doing this, and this hasn't been mentioned at all on ATD. I was half expecting lots of barbed comments on here about Chris Webb as the big union man going along with a tax avoidance scheme, but as I say, I don't think anything too bad has been posted on here.

I could be cheeky and suggest that you have your Victor Meldrew hat on and you wouldn't mind a little on-line spat to liven up your Friday night, but you know I wouldn't dare make such an assumption

As an astute businessman, I'm sure that James Brent will do very nicely out of this, and I guess it just remains to be seen if it has damaged the club or benefitted it.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

Every sport needs a referee Rickler including baiting. So you or somebody can tell me the exact details of what this actually means and who will make what for sure out of it can you? No speculation, no guess work, no assumptions just some absolute hard facts in cash terms and buildings. If you can do that then I won't sit in the middle as there won't need to be one.

I don't think that even Brent could supply the exact details and it seems he is yet to even have considered the Grandstand, considering there’s been little mention of its size, estimated turnover etc. which raises the question, how can he calculate his figures?

Looking at it positively you can conclude that no news is good news and that Brent is a true fan and his only interest is the club so he will be building a 25,000 capacity Grandstand with state of the art facilities to raise income for the club.

Looking at things cynically and you can conclude that the reason no announcement has been made with regards to the Grandstand is that there's little intention to build it or that it will be a token gesture rather then what the club will need in order to pacify the fans and to assist planning permissions for his developments.

Looking at things logically and you have to ask if any businessman that is out to make a decent profit will give a hoot about PAFC, as well as comparing our past history of being fleeced at every opportunity. I think most will for now understandably, be cynical.

I'll reserve judgement and eye things cynically until things are proved otherwise.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

Then exercise your democratic right and ignore me Rickler. Sorry I am not singing the party song just yet but I guess that's just the kind of guy I am. Isn't that what both of these sites are accused of and if you put what you think and it's not singing the song then it's wrong? I notice you missed out the rest of the previous post. Was that because like me you actually don't know the answers?

But you are singing a party song. It's your one man 'Sensible' party song that get sung every day with a couple of changes in lyrics, that 'stereotypes' ATD, and to a degree Pasoti.

And the rest of your post has nothing to do with the point I am making -which is why I didn't comment on it. But since you ask.... Of course.... We know bugger all of the details, so it's a bit pointless discussing it apart from that aspect of it.

There will be a football club after James Brent has gone. But due to recent deals, they won't have any real assets. Which I think will be a good thing as it will mean that the cost of buying the club will be far less and may mean that in the future it will again be owned by a group of " moderately well to do fans" (I'm thinking Robert Daniel, Peter Bloom type people) with no thought other than to help the club.



I'm just concerned about where the club will be when it gets to that stage.

I have just ploughed through 8 pages of posts "over there", and find quite a few of the posts/posters have their doubts on how much PAFC will get out of it all in the end.

Grovehill has support. I liked the one about him selling his land to Grovehill(Pensions)!!!
"The truth is, I've just pulled of rather a good "deal" myself. I've sold my back garden for £25,000!!
It's been bought by Grovehill (Pensions) Ltd which is wholly owned by me!! What a coup, not only have I sold a spare bit of ground that I was only parking my car on, I've managed to secure a piece of land with long term development potential!!
Result or what?"

Followed by some clever repartee with OllieArgyle.

I don't think Mr. Brent is doing it out of the goodness of his heart, hopefully we (Argyle) will win in the end. Like tomorrow!!??
Will the extra cash help pay the staff debt? Morally that should happen. Also pay some back to local companies to build bridges. That's probably why some "apathetic Janners" are the way they are.

Merv Plummer

Who me greenjock?

I stereotype because that is the gist of both sites. Most ATD members stereotype PASOTI as the clap hand gang who cheer at every utterance of either Webb or Brent. They then look at the dark side of everything or pretty much. That maybe isn't surprising given our experiences with recent Boards but there is generally an assumption that if Brent makes a profit or looks like making one then it must be bad. Not everybody but a fair percentage. Sorry but it's the impression I get from the many posts I read.

People are commenting and giving opinion on what exactly at the moment? Bugger all as you say because that is pretty much what we know. When the detail comes out, then is the time to either praise of condemn surely.