Buzsaky

As you have probably gathered I deal a lot in what is actually known rather than speculation. The one point missed in your post was that it is normal practice to discuss contracts a bit before the expiry date. The reason for this is of course as we all know. Players can walk away free once the contract expires and the club he leaves gets nothing back on their original outlay. If a player won't sign then the only option is to sell them or get nothing. We paid around £225k for him apparently so £500k or nothing seems reasonable in business terms however much people would rather he didn't leave.

The argument about wholesale disposal of players who were considered the cream of the side is a different one than this single sale even if he was the first one to go in the chain. His situation could have been different to the other sales. I believe SEB for example had a clause in his contract inadvisably allowed maybe when he signed on. I don't think we could stop him going at that point. Halmosi wanted premiership football which is another hard one to knock so it may not have been just a firesale of anything for a fast buck. I don't know the details of any discussions anymore than anyone else not directly involved. Same applies to Gosling and the premiership. There is hardly a club that can stop players leaving if they have opted for that despite the contracts they are on.

What you and others are arguing is that in your opinion Argyle's Board should have pitched everything on a tilt at promotion in Holloway's era. They chose not to as have other Owners/Boards previously which is the gripe about the ambitions. My stance has always been the same. It is very very easy for supporters to urge others to put their money where the supporters ambition is when it is not their money at risk. There is a one in eight chance of promotion given 3 go up. Would you put your entire wealth on an 8/1 shot coming in. When you don't have wealth the answer is easily yes but truely if you have the money would it be that. I don't criticise anyone for not risking a punt when I have nothing to lose. I live within my means in my own life so it would be hypocritical to expect somebody else not to. That is only my stance on things and accept others see it vastly differently.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

As you have probably gathered I deal a lot in what is actually known rather than speculation. The one point missed in your post was that it is normal practice to discuss contracts a bit before the expiry date. The reason for this is of course as we all know. Players can walk away free once the contract expires and the club he leaves gets nothing back on their original outlay. If a player won't sign then the only option is to sell them or get nothing. We paid around £225k for him apparently so £500k or nothing seems reasonable in business terms however much people would rather he didn't leave.

The argument about wholesale disposal of players who were considered the cream of the side is a different one than this single sale even if he was the first one to go in the chain. His situation could have been different to the other sales. I believe SEB for example had a clause in his contract inadvisably allowed maybe when he signed on. I don't think we could stop him going at that point. Halmosi wanted premiership football which is another hard one to knock so it may not have been just a firesale of anything for a fast buck. I don't know the details of any discussions anymore than anyone else not directly involved. Same applies to Gosling and the premiership. There is hardly a club that can stop players leaving if they have opted for that despite the contracts they are on.

What you and others are arguing is that in your opinion Argyle's Board should have pitched everything on a tilt at promotion in Holloway's era. They chose not to as have other Owners/Boards previously which is the gripe about the ambitions. My stance has always been the same. It is very very easy for supporters to urge others to put their money where the supporters ambition is when it is not their money at risk. There is a one in eight chance of promotion given 3 go up. Would you put your entire wealth on an 8/1 shot coming in. When you don't have wealth the answer is easily yes but truely if you have the money would it be that. I don't criticise anyone for not risking a punt when I have nothing to lose. I live within my means in my own life so it would be hypocritical to expect somebody else not to. That is only my stance on things and accept others see it vastly differently.

I'm not going to argue any further.If you are happy with permanent mediocrity,thats your lookout,not my bag i'm afraid.And if you really still believe that the sale of those players was purely for the good of Argyle,all i can say is ask Freathy and Tring about some very interesting e mails that they received at the time.

Who said I was happy with mediocraty? Not me. What I said was I do not ask others to shell out their cash when I have nothing to lose which is totally different from hoping somebody will. I didn't say selling the players was good for the club either so please read the post again. I said it is not always easy to keep them if they want to go and you are not going to pay them the money others will. It wasn't even an argument as far as I was aware but an exchange of views. Sell your house and bet on any horse priced 8/1 tomorrow in the Grand National. If you win you could buy a much better one and bank a shed load. If you lose you can say at least you had a go. Not a serious suggestion but would you/will you do it? No need to answer that as we already know you wouldn't. Whilst I understand people wanting others to take a punt on their behalf I just feel it is wrong to expect it when they would not take equal risk themselves. I don't see where that is an unreasonable stance to take.

It's the perception that the missing 10,000 fans have of the club that makes the difference.

They think the club (at various times) lacks ambition because when they get to a certain level, they start selling players (from Mariner to Mackie) so the 10,000 stay away, the board says the gates aren't good enough and the downward spiral starts again.

I appreciate that it is the perception of a lot of people Grovehill and can understand that people want to join the race for the promised land. It's the old "in it to win it" cleche. What you have is the club saying "Not enough people come so we can't afford to go for it" and the fans saying "The club never go for it so I won't go". Chicken and egg really and both believe they are right. I just won't criticise others for not doing what I can't or would not do myself is all. It's easy to say what you would do yourself when you will never have to do it but if you put hand on heart and were totally honest would you risk your fortune on a punt. I am not saying they are right not to just saying it is their money and therefore their choice not mine however much I'd love a zillionaire to throw their fortune at it.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

What you and others are arguing is that in your opinion Argyle's Board should have pitched everything on a tilt at promotion in Holloway's era. They chose not to as have other Owners/Boards previously which is the gripe about the ambitions. My stance has always been the same. It is very very easy for supporters to urge others to put their money where the supporters ambition is when it is not their money at risk. There is a one in eight chance of promotion given 3 go up. Would you put your entire wealth on an 8/1 shot coming in. When you don't have wealth the answer is easily yes but truely if you have the money would it be that. I don't criticise anyone for not risking a punt when I have nothing to lose. I live within my means in my own life so it would be hypocritical to expect somebody else not to. That is only my stance on things and accept others see it vastly differently.

I'm pretty sure you've either heard or seen it written that should James Brent lead us back to the 2nd tier, he wont be able to take us any further and will be willing to pass the baton on to someone who can. This is where the board led by Stapes failed, they couldn't take us any further and rather than passing on the baton to people who could, they done their utmost to keep control for themselves.

It was well known there was a consortium ready to fund Ollie and his team to a play-off/promotion challenge, Stapes and his board refused to enter dialogue with them stating 'other plans in place'. Had the consortium been given the chance, there would've been no need for any player sales and Ollie wouldn't have fecked off at the 1st opportunity. The rest as they say is now history, enjoy the ride.

Greenskin wrote:

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

As you have probably gathered I deal a lot in what is actually known rather than speculation. The one point missed in your post was that it is normal practice to discuss contracts a bit before the expiry date. The reason for this is of course as we all know. Players can walk away free once the contract expires and the club he leaves gets nothing back on their original outlay. If a player won't sign then the only option is to sell them or get nothing. We paid around £225k for him apparently so £500k or nothing seems reasonable in business terms however much people would rather he didn't leave.

The argument about wholesale disposal of players who were considered the cream of the side is a different one than this single sale even if he was the first one to go in the chain. His situation could have been different to the other sales. I believe SEB for example had a clause in his contract inadvisably allowed maybe when he signed on. I don't think we could stop him going at that point. Halmosi wanted premiership football which is another hard one to knock so it may not have been just a firesale of anything for a fast buck. I don't know the details of any discussions anymore than anyone else not directly involved. Same applies to Gosling and the premiership. There is hardly a club that can stop players leaving if they have opted for that despite the contracts they are on.

What you and others are arguing is that in your opinion Argyle's Board should have pitched everything on a tilt at promotion in Holloway's era. They chose not to as have other Owners/Boards previously which is the gripe about the ambitions. My stance has always been the same. It is very very easy for supporters to urge others to put their money where the supporters ambition is when it is not their money at risk. There is a one in eight chance of promotion given 3 go up. Would you put your entire wealth on an 8/1 shot coming in. When you don't have wealth the answer is easily yes but truely if you have the money would it be that. I don't criticise anyone for not risking a punt when I have nothing to lose. I live within my means in my own life so it would be hypocritical to expect somebody else not to. That is only my stance on things and accept others see it vastly differently.

I'm not going to argue any further.If you are happy with permanent mediocrity,thats your lookout,not my bag i'm afraid.And if you really still believe that the sale of those players was purely for the good of Argyle,all i can say is ask Freathy and Tring about some very interesting e mails that they received at the time.

Absolutely. I was asking on pasoti about where the money had gone from the Ollie team sale and I had a PM from PJ basically saying that the money had been used to increase the value of the company and to increase the value of shares that could be sold. This is before the Japs came in. The good players we had back then - Buz, Norris, SEB et al - were nothing more than assetts to be sold to make a fast buck.