James Brent on Argyle v Swansea/Norwich

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

Like the way he doesn't use the "apathetic janners" mantra in recognising that Argyle have got things very wrong in comparison to those clubs.I can feel an organic growth v speculate to accumulate/extra investment needed argument coming on though.

Over the years we tried to emulate or brought up the examples of Ipswich and Charlton so these comparisons are flavour of the month.

Of course what needs to happen is getting more people watching Argyle and considered investment in the playing side of things be that from the current directors, new directors and/or commercial activity (although I'm still reeling from the fact that James Brent said he doesn't need the Trusts money despite taking the directors money).

Then with luck and it does take a goodly sprinkling of luck much can be achieved.

While Hotel Man's statements are all very laudable, I think he's missing a few pertinent facts out.

Norwich's finances over the last few years have been substantially boosted by the backing of the Smith family (and I believe others) on a non-sustainable basis- i.e. they've pumped in large sums of money. They have also worked hard to keep the large fan base that the club had when it was in the top flight.

Swansea, who have performed a minor miracle considering where they were a few years ago, also decided to "go for it" by injecting large sums of money into the club to improve their on field performances.


I think Hotel Man's also got it fundamentally wrong by continuing to talk about improving facilities at Home Park to "enhance the match day experience." people might chose one hotel over another because it's got, say, a better restaurant, but no one is going to walk away from Home Park after a stuffing by the likes of Barnet saying "Well the team might be shite and the centre forward couldn't hit a cows backside with a banjo, but I thought the pre match music was superb, and my half time Beef Wellington was to die for, so I'm definitely coming back for the Fleetwood game"


Mr B the clue's in the term "football fan"-get a winning team playing half decent football and we'll gladly stand in the rain with nothing more than a Ginsters pasty and a cup of Oxo as our "match day experience"

To paraphrase Bill Clinton "It's all about the football, stupid!"

Laughable quote of the day from that other site:

Fleetwood are basically a Northern version of Crawley. Rich millionaire takes over a non-league club and buys them up the leagues



Whereas PAFC have been taken over by a rich millionaire (are there any POOR millionaires?)
who's told the staff to whistle for they're wages and the manager to shop in the football equivalent of Aldi.

Grovehill wrote:

Laughable quote of the day from that other site:

Fleetwood are basically a Northern version of Crawley. Rich millionaire takes over a non-league club and buys them up the leagues



Whereas PAFC have been taken over by a rich millionaire (are there any POOR millionaires?)
who's told the staff to whistle for they're wages and the manager to shop in the football equivalent of Aldi.

Both of your last two posts have been very good Grovehill. Pasoti's loss was our gain.

Grovehill wrote:

While Hotel Man's statements are all very laudable, I think he's missing a few pertinent facts out.

Norwich's finances over the last few years have been substantially boosted by the backing of the Smith family (and I believe others) on a non-sustainable basis- i.e. they've pumped in large sums of money. They have also worked hard to keep the large fan base that the club had when it was in the top flight.

Swansea, who have performed a minor miracle considering where they were a few years ago, also decided to "go for it" by injecting large sums of money into the club to improve their on field performances.


I think Hotel Man's also got it fundamentally wrong by continuing to talk about improving facilities at Home Park to "enhance the match day experience." people might chose one hotel over another because it's got, say, a better restaurant, but no one is going to walk away from Home Park after a stuffing by the likes of Barnet saying "Well the team might be shite and the centre forward couldn't hit a cows backside with a banjo, but I thought the pre match music was superb, and my half time Beef Wellington was to die for, so I'm definitely coming back for the Fleetwood game"


Mr B the clue's in the term "football fan"-get a winning team playing half decent football and we'll gladly stand in the rain with nothing more than a Ginsters pasty and a cup of Oxo as our "match day experience"

To paraphrase Bill Clinton "It's all about the football, stupid!"

Is that true? Only the other day Swansea were used as an example of a team that had been promoted to the premier league despite having spent very little. I am confused.

How can Brent compare us to Norwich? I am not sure if he even knows how to cook? And he doesn't look that pissed! And Lady De has definitely shovelled some money at the bog snorkellers.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

While Hotel Man's statements are all very laudable, I think he's missing a few pertinent facts out.

Norwich's finances over the last few years have been substantially boosted by the backing of the Smith family (and I believe others) on a non-sustainable basis- i.e. they've pumped in large sums of money. They have also worked hard to keep the large fan base that the club had when it was in the top flight.

Swansea, who have performed a minor miracle considering where they were a few years ago, also decided to "go for it" by injecting large sums of money into the club to improve their on field performances.


I think Hotel Man's also got it fundamentally wrong by continuing to talk about improving facilities at Home Park to "enhance the match day experience." people might chose one hotel over another because it's got, say, a better restaurant, but no one is going to walk away from Home Park after a stuffing by the likes of Barnet saying "Well the team might be shite and the centre forward couldn't hit a cows backside with a banjo, but I thought the pre match music was superb, and my half time Beef Wellington was to die for, so I'm definitely coming back for the Fleetwood game"


Mr B the clue's in the term "football fan"-get a winning team playing half decent football and we'll gladly stand in the rain with nothing more than a Ginsters pasty and a cup of Oxo as our "match day experience"

To paraphrase Bill Clinton "It's all about the football, stupid!"

Is that true? Only the other day Swansea were used as an example of a team that had been promoted to the premier league despite having spent very little. I am confused.

Exact quote from yours truly was;

"Swansea and Blackpool have shown that it can be done wiithout actually spending that much".

And the quote was in response to another poster stating that Argyle needed the oft mooted saudi billionaire who seems to exist in the Jungian collective unconscious of many people.

Greenskin wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

While Hotel Man's statements are all very laudable, I think he's missing a few pertinent facts out.

Norwich's finances over the last few years have been substantially boosted by the backing of the Smith family (and I believe others) on a non-sustainable basis- i.e. they've pumped in large sums of money. They have also worked hard to keep the large fan base that the club had when it was in the top flight.

Swansea, who have performed a minor miracle considering where they were a few years ago, also decided to "go for it" by injecting large sums of money into the club to improve their on field performances.


I think Hotel Man's also got it fundamentally wrong by continuing to talk about improving facilities at Home Park to "enhance the match day experience." people might chose one hotel over another because it's got, say, a better restaurant, but no one is going to walk away from Home Park after a stuffing by the likes of Barnet saying "Well the team might be shite and the centre forward couldn't hit a cows backside with a banjo, but I thought the pre match music was superb, and my half time Beef Wellington was to die for, so I'm definitely coming back for the Fleetwood game"


Mr B the clue's in the term "football fan"-get a winning team playing half decent football and we'll gladly stand in the rain with nothing more than a Ginsters pasty and a cup of Oxo as our "match day experience"

To paraphrase Bill Clinton "It's all about the football, stupid!"

Is that true? Only the other day Swansea were used as an example of a team that had been promoted to the premier league despite having spent very little. I am confused.

Exact quote from yours truly was;

"Swansea and Blackpool have shown that it can be done wiithout actually spending that much".

And the quote was in response to another poster stating that Argyle needed the oft mooted saudi billionaire who seems to exist in the Jungian collective unconscious of many people.

Jungian ? You educated peasant with a camper van !

It all comes down to what we've talked about before doesn't it?

Argyle get into the second tier and reach as stage (as they did under Allison,Smith Holloway etc.) where a relatively small injection of cash is needed to either sign the extra couple of players needed or merely to be able to resist overtures from "bigger" clubs to sign our best players.

In the past, every PAFC board has ducked out of the challenge/opportunity, fans see the lack of ambition and the "same old Argyle"/falling attendances/fans not backing the club cycle starts all over again.

I don't believe (and would like to see the evidence) any club has risen to the Premiership purely on Hotel Man's "organic growth/sustainability" model. That extra injection of funds at the right time (to sign Charlie Adams or be able to reject an offer for Mariner) will always be needed.

Talking about "evidence" I'd also like to see some evidence that bunging non-football related "income streams" like conference facilities and hotels has funded football clubs to greater success. This whole "other income streams" argument was advanced by Stapes and co as the reason for getting Kagami involved.

No one at that time was able to demonstrate that having a conference centre etc. had profited a football club to any great degree --did Swansea get to the Premiership because they had great Conference facilities? Shareholders may benefit from property development but there's no evidence that football teams do.

Brents model for off field conference facilities helping a club is Exeter Chiefs Sandy Park if I remember correctly. No idea how much it makes for the Chiefs. Guess he knows.

Dougie wrote:

Brents model for off field conference facilities helping a club is Exeter Chiefs Sandy Park if I remember correctly. No idea how much it makes for the Chiefs. Guess he knows.

Lots.

I've been told that the bar take alone on match days is in excess of £100,000. Mind you, that's a Rugby crowd. 18 pints of Guinness, 2 curries and a cow pie is all in a day's work for your average rugby enthusiast.

Andy_Symons wrote:

Dougie wrote:

Brents model for off field conference facilities helping a club is Exeter Chiefs Sandy Park if I remember correctly. No idea how much it makes for the Chiefs. Guess he knows.

Lots.

I've been told that the bar take alone on match days is in excess of £100,000. Mind you, that's a Rugby crowd. 18 pints of Guinness, 2 curries and a cow pie is all in a day's work for your average rugby enthusiast.

And all the lighters they sell for the players to light their farts after the game, before indulging in some other rugby classics like drinking yer own piss and last one to dump in a pint glass has to eat all the others.

The cost of running a rugby club are a fraction of those for a "proper" football club-no multi million pound transfer fees or salaries for a start.

On the other hand, I can see the logic of getting pissed before watching Argyle play!

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

So turnover for the Chiefs was £8 mill a couple of years ago. No breakdown of figures though and no figure for profit.

Grovehill wrote:

The cost of running a rugby club are a fraction of those for a "proper" football club-no multi million pound transfer fees or salaries for a start.

On the other hand, I can see the logic of getting pissed before watching Argyle play!

I would hazard a guess that the salary costs for a Premiership rugby club are higher than for a League two football club. Individual salaries will be similar, but squad sizes in Rugby are that much bigger.

Andy_Symons wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

The cost of running a rugby club are a fraction of those for a "proper" football club-no multi million pound transfer fees or salaries for a start.

On the other hand, I can see the logic of getting pissed before watching Argyle play!

I would hazard a guess that the salary costs for a Premiership rugby club are higher than for a League two football club. Individual salaries will be similar, but squad sizes in Rugby are that much bigger.

The Rugby Preniership does have a salary of 4.5 million. Not sure how that compares or for how many players.

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