TIME IS RIGHT TO FINISH HOME PARK

I admire your energy in still bothering GS. It took me nigh on 40 years to buy a ST, we'd started on ground reconstruction and had produced a Championship (4th Division!) winning side for the first time in my supporting life. There were signs of good things to come and I felt the club had earned my comittment. But now we've reverted to type I really am too tired to bother living in hope anymore.

What will be will be.

Charlie Wood wrote:

I admire your energy in still bothering GS. It took me nigh on 40 years to buy a ST, we'd started on ground reconstruction and had produced a Championship (4th Division!) winning side for the first time in my supporting life. There were signs of good things to come and I felt the club had earned my comittment. But now we've reverted to type I really am too tired to bother living in hope anymore.

What will be will be.

'Tis a bit like it Charlie,i must admit.

punchdrunk wrote:

hairy j wrote:

punchdrunk wrote:

I can remember when we played Everton in the FA Cup 1989, only 3rd round, 28,000 packed inside HP...no spare tickets that day, what an atmosphere, drew 1-1 Sean McCarthy scoring for us before Burrows hand balled for the penalty equaliser.

A one-off.

You cannot rewrite history and fact. We've never been supported like the other giants of the game so we are not a sleeping giant.

Thats because we have never had sustained success at the top -level driven by financial investment at boardroom level.
Norwich, Southampton to name a few used to get smaller crowds then us, sustained time and investment at the top level transformed them into clubs that can regularly get attendances like the ones we get once every decade

Norwich once paid £3.5m for Robert Earnshaw and Southampton's record signing is Jay Rodriguez at £7m. Both clubs have played in European cup competitions. Just because the cities are similar in size to Plymouth doesn't mean they're comparable at all.

There are a host of other football clubs who haven't had "sustained success at the top -level driven by financial investment at boardroom level". I have no idea what your point is or where this thread has gone but I don't think you will be disappointed for what is planned at Home Park - it's far better than what we have at the moment and it'll improve the stadium and the local area. 20K is an ample sized stadium. In addition, it can be expanded if necessary. The difference in cost of a 20k stadium and a 30k stadium is absolutely massive and totally pointless.

hairy j wrote:

punchdrunk wrote:

hairy j wrote:

punchdrunk wrote:

I can remember when we played Everton in the FA Cup 1989, only 3rd round, 28,000 packed inside HP...no spare tickets that day, what an atmosphere, drew 1-1 Sean McCarthy scoring for us before Burrows hand balled for the penalty equaliser.

A one-off.

You cannot rewrite history and fact. We've never been supported like the other giants of the game so we are not a sleeping giant.

Thats because we have never had sustained success at the top -level driven by financial investment at boardroom level.
Norwich, Southampton to name a few used to get smaller crowds then us, sustained time and investment at the top level transformed them into clubs that can regularly get attendances like the ones we get once every decade

Norwich once paid £3.5m for Robert Earnshaw and Southampton's record signing is Jay Rodriguez at £7m. Both clubs have played in European cup competitions. Just because the cities are similar in size to Plymouth doesn't mean they're comparable at all.

There are a host of other football clubs who haven't had "sustained success at the top -level driven by financial investment at boardroom level". I have no idea what your point is or where this thread has gone but I don't think you will be disappointed for what is planned at Home Park - it's far better than what we have at the moment and it'll improve the stadium and the local area. 20K is an ample sized stadium. In addition, it can be expanded if necessary. The difference in cost of a 20k stadium and a 30k stadium is absolutely massive and totally pointless.

Clueless.Utterly fecking clueless.

also norwich have people to lend them £10m when required, when we needed it we had no one to lend us 300k !!!!!

It's clueless expecting us to get a chairman who will put in £5m a year, every single year, without fail, to subsidise a football team. That's how much you're talking here to get a squad of Championship standard players who can compete at that level at Plymouth Argyle Football Club.

I'll work it out for you - average wage of £4k a week with a squad of 24 players = £4,992,000 a year.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
And this story is almost 1 year old - I cannot find a reliable link but it's risen to nearer £5k now so that's £6.2m a year just on player wages.

Are you genuinely expecting someone to come into this club, build a ground and then pump £5m into the club every year.

If you do have 20,000 season ticket holders, you will generate a large income however not all of that is pure cash in the bank as there are overheads to be taken away from that. That £4.992m on players also doesn't include all the other staff from the manager down to those selling you a shirt in the club shop.

Fact is though, our highest average in the modern era was 16,500. Who's clueless?

This ambition thing is built on assumption and theory. It is assumed that if you get promotion to the next league up then there will be a sustained increase in patronage. Step up again and that will go up accordingly. It is based on an assumption that somebody is going to come here and fund it. The promotion is based on a theory that if you pay players enough and get a better quality then that will automatically follow.

The reality is this City has never ever had a benefactor who will pump money into the football club. This City has never had a sustained fanbase above a certain level. Just because some other clubs have done well in comparison does not automatically mean that Argyle would follow suit. According to those that complain about the lack of whatever, all of the above things are a given when blatantly it isn't is it. The best you could state is that it could happen which is a long way from it will happen. What we need is somebody with enough financial clout who is prepared to give it a shot. Historically we have not had one so far so why should we expect to get one anytime soon. Simply it isn't that simple as some believe it should be.

And so it goes on.

You are very good at this clueless thing Greenskin when all you are offering is an assumption. Somebody doesn't agree with you therefore they know nothing. You have a theory and that is all it is. If this happened then that would happen and so on. In your world if 2 kids were born on the same day and trained with top trainers both would win an Olympic gold and go on to greatness. That is not likely in reality but should happen in theory and never mind the rest of the imponderables that go to make up the outcome. Why is your opinion more likely to happen than somebody else's. Personally I would love somebody to come in and give it a go at least. It would no longer be theory then and a real outcome would be the end result but it doesn't look like happening anytime soon unfortunately.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

You are very good at this clueless thing Greenskin when all you are offering is an assumption. Somebody doesn't agree with you therefore they know nothing. You have a theory and that is all it is. If this happened then that would happen and so on. In your world if 2 kids were born on the same day and trained with top trainers both would win an Olympic gold and go on to greatness. That is not likely in reality but should happen in theory and never mind the rest of the imponderables that go to make up the outcome. Why is your opinion more likely to happen than somebody else's. Personally I would love somebody to come in and give it a go at least. It would no longer be theory then and a real outcome would be the end result but it doesn't look like happening anytime soon unfortunately.

Sorry mate,i can't be arsed to argue anymore.If you're really that keen to have a look at what i thought were some reasoned,factual and balanced arguments put forward by myself,then i suggest you have a look back through my posts both on here and PASOTI over how many years it's been now. Just can't be bothered to go though the same old cycle again,it gets a bit wearing after x number of years.

Look, I get your theory I really do. I get the argument about lack of investment or even taking a punt on a happy ending. I have always got it whoever makes the argument. My issue with these theories is that it is presented as a done deal if these things happen thats all. It blatantly isn't and there is more to it than just buying players and chucking a lot of dosh at the problem. Some clubs have done both and still not made it. I have said previously that I would love to see the thing tested for us and to have the sort of owner as other clubs have had who want to give it a real go. They may well make it which is to my benefit and for once we could lose the Biggest City tag and have a blast as other sets of supporters have. I just can't see anyone doing it here in the near future and my time is running out. It just doesn't make somebody clueless for having the oposite theory.

Greenskin wrote:

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

You are very good at this clueless thing Greenskin when all you are offering is an assumption. Somebody doesn't agree with you therefore they know nothing. You have a theory and that is all it is. If this happened then that would happen and so on. In your world if 2 kids were born on the same day and trained with top trainers both would win an Olympic gold and go on to greatness. That is not likely in reality but should happen in theory and never mind the rest of the imponderables that go to make up the outcome. Why is your opinion more likely to happen than somebody else's. Personally I would love somebody to come in and give it a go at least. It would no longer be theory then and a real outcome would be the end result but it doesn't look like happening anytime soon unfortunately.

Sorry mate,i can't be arsed to argue anymore.If you're really that keen to have a look at what i thought were some reasoned,factual and balanced arguments put forward by myself,then i suggest you have a look back through my posts both on here and PASOTI over how many years it's been now. Just can't be bothered to go though the same old cycle again,it gets a bit wearing after x number of years.

Greenskin, my dear old thing. I feel your frustration but I have decided it is pointless trying to lead certain horses to water. Instead I have come up with a theory, that there is a certain type of fan, for whom the bigger picture is a bridge too far.

As with Newell and co on Pasoti, there would appear to be a total block on logical thinking within a certain grouping when it comes to Argyle. There must be a troublesome gene or something that binds these birds of a feather together.
No matter how obvious the history presented to them, they simply prefer to bleat on and on about apathetic janners and no available sugar daddies as the reason why Plymouth has always failed to capitalise on opportunities to reach the top flight of English football.

The Brent Sahiib fed, Newell/Webb 'vision' of sustainable growth, is further evidence of the mindset of these people. They really do think that there are countless thousands of would be Argyle fans out there, who can't wait to buy into new membership initiatives, local pasties and salsa crappy.
The vast majority of potential customers just want to watch decent football and above all else have pride and belief in their club. I think Nick Wall remarked earlier about the Saints fans who remained positive in the dark days because they 'believed' that the good times would return. They had been there and got the T shirt as have fans of Norwich and Ipswich etc.That is the essential difference.
When Argyle were above and beating Saints and Norwich a few seasons ago, how the visionless ones crowed ! Some of us knew what was coming next without appropriate investment in the playing side, which in turn would have led to increased attendances.
Somewhere along the line, the mould has to be broken if Plymouth is to step out of its parochial mindset. Sadly, the next few years offer nothing but utter mediocrity with those of appalling judgement and vision, now leading the way.

Nobody but those already blindly addicted will buy in.

Tringreen wrote:

Greenskin wrote:

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

You are very good at this clueless thing Greenskin when all you are offering is an assumption. Somebody doesn't agree with you therefore they know nothing. You have a theory and that is all it is. If this happened then that would happen and so on. In your world if 2 kids were born on the same day and trained with top trainers both would win an Olympic gold and go on to greatness. That is not likely in reality but should happen in theory and never mind the rest of the imponderables that go to make up the outcome. Why is your opinion more likely to happen than somebody else's. Personally I would love somebody to come in and give it a go at least. It would no longer be theory then and a real outcome would be the end result but it doesn't look like happening anytime soon unfortunately.

Sorry mate,i can't be arsed to argue anymore.If you're really that keen to have a look at what i thought were some reasoned,factual and balanced arguments put forward by myself,then i suggest you have a look back through my posts both on here and PASOTI over how many years it's been now. Just can't be bothered to go though the same old cycle again,it gets a bit wearing after x number of years.

Greenskin, my dear old thing. I feel your frustration but I have decided it is pointless trying to lead certain horses to water. Instead I have come up with a theory, that there is a certain type of fan, for whom the bigger picture is a bridge too far.

As with Newell and co on Pasoti, there would appear to be a total block on logical thinking within a certain grouping when it comes to Argyle. There must be a troublesome gene or something that binds these birds of a feather together.
No matter how obvious the history presented to them, they simply prefer to bleat on and on about apathetic janners and no available sugar daddies as the reason why Plymouth has always failed to capitalise on opportunities to reach the top flight of English football.

The Brent Sahiib fed, Newell/Webb 'vision' of sustainable growth, is further evidence of the mindset of these people. They really do think that there are countless thousands of would be Argyle fans out there, who can't wait to buy into new membership initiatives, local pasties and salsa crappy.
The vast majority of potential customers just want to watch decent football and above all else have pride and belief in their club. I think Nick Wall remarked earlier about the Saints fans who remained positive in the dark days because they 'believed' that the good times would return. They had been there and got the T shirt as have fans of Norwich and Ipswich etc.That is the essential difference.
When Argyle were above and beating Saints and Norwich a few seasons ago, how the visionless ones crowed ! Some of us knew what was coming next without appropriate investment in the playing side, which in turn would have led to increased attendances.
Somewhere along the line, the mould has to be broken if Plymouth is to step out of its parochial mindset. Sadly, the next few years offer nothing but utter mediocrity with those of appalling judgement and vision, now leading the way.

Nobody but those already blindly addicted will buy in.

Wow, can't knock that analogy much. Incredibly, the fans that get slaughterd by the 'beleivers' are the very ones the club will need to fill those empty seats! It's all a Janner thing, best stay away Tringy.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

there is more to it than just buying players and chucking a lot of dosh at the problem

I doubt Tringy, Freathy, Greenskin et al would dispute this much at all. Nobody has ever asked the club to 'chuck' dosh at anything. All we've asked is to build on whatever we've already had. We had a great opportunity to do so when Ollie was manager, Stapleton said no and the rest is history. Maybe the next time somebody or a consortium come along when we're in a similar position, the owner will at least enter dialogue and put the team & fans before himself.

Absolutely it was an opportunity missed Coxside and I don't dispute that. That Board at that time could not afford to push on and regrettably those thought able to do so proved the wrong choice. Pity that the then Board could not have funded it themselves as I think they may have had a stab but we will never know will we.

My argument is that we need an owner who can sustain the achieved and the clout to push on if the opportunity arises. Hence the sugar daddy figure. Without one then we would only ever get to a certain point before the wheels came off again. It costs to push for the top division whatever people might think. I doubt it is Brent. He has made his position quite clear that he only wants self sufficiency which can get you so far only. The business world is littered with companies who have overstretched and collapsed. The football league is beginning to see this happen also. Clubs will fail and somebody sometime soon will crash and burn out of existance. Without the money men and their love of toys then I still don't see how a club like Plymouth would compete.

Just because some have a different opinion to others does not make either side the oracle on the subject. For every person who saw it coming and what they thought the powers did wrong there is another at least who has a differing opinion on it with a differing set of reasons. Isn't that what debate is meant to be about?

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

Absolutely it was an opportunity missed Coxside and I don't dispute that. That Board at that time could not afford to push on and regrettably those thought able to do so proved the wrong choice. Pity that the then Board could not have funded it themselves as I think they may have had a stab but we will never know will we.

My argument is that we need an owner who can sustain the achieved and the clout to push on if the opportunity arises. Hence the sugar daddy figure. Without one then we would only ever get to a certain point before the wheels came off again. It costs to push for the top division whatever people might think. I doubt it is Brent. He has made his position quite clear that he only wants self sufficiency which can get you so far only. The business world is littered with companies who have overstretched and collapsed. The football league is beginning to see this happen also. Clubs will fail and somebody sometime soon will crash and burn out of existance. Without the money men and their love of toys then I still don't see how a club like Plymouth would compete.

Just because some have a different opinion to others does not make either side the oracle on the subject. For every person who saw it coming and what they thought the powers did wrong there is another at least who has a differing opinion on it with a differing set of reasons. Isn't that what debate is meant to be about?

No he hasn't.The club made a trading loss last season and there is a funded loss built into the budget for this season.

Wasn't that an inevitability given the circumstances Greenskin? I think Brent has said repeatedly that he wants the club to be self financing and that has even been reported on here. If we got back to the Championship where we would like to be wouldn't everyone be wanting the club to push on this time. Brent isn't going to do that if his words are to be believed. Anyone coming in would need to have financing to cover a push wouldn't they?

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

Wasn't that an inevitability given the circumstances Greenskin? I think Brent has said repeatedly that he wants the club to be self financing and that has even been reported on here. If we got back to the Championship where we would like to be wouldn't everyone be wanting the club to push on this time. Brent isn't going to do that if his words are to be believed. Anyone coming in would need to have financing to cover a push wouldn't they?

Of course they would.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

I think Brent has said repeatedly that he wants the club to be self financing and that has even been reported on here. If we got back to the Championship where we would like to be wouldn't everyone be wanting the club to push on this time. Brent isn't going to do that if his words are to be believed. Anyone coming in would need to have financing to cover a push wouldn't they?

Brent has cryptically said that if Argyle get to the Championship again, and have a chance at the Prem, he is up for talking about selling as he is not the man for the job! He knows he doesn't have enough money for the big leagues and is smart enough to cash out...

The real question is...

If someone saw potential tomorrow.... Would he be willing to take in their cash injection and share the spoils?

Ask that at the next ATD Q&A!

Ooops sorry... There won't be another one....

For me, the crucial issue in bringing finance to the club is timing. For example, we don't need £10m now, We should be able to get out of this league and the next one without the need to spend millions. Having said that, we do need a proper manager as I don't think Fletcher's capable of putting together a promotion winning side.

Should we ever get back to the Championship, let's have a season or two to get established, using the increased gate revenue to slowly push up wages, and then look at investing. Sound familiar?

Anyway, never going to happen. Brent's aim of a self financing football club sounds the death knell of ambition for PAFC. Fine if we want to mess about in League two (cue, at least we'll have a club to support), but in terms or reaching anything higher, absolutely no chance. This is where he shows a lack of knowledge of football and how it works. How many Premier League or Championship clubs are self financing? Not many, if any at all.

PAFC isn't a hotel business. It's a football club that will need investment if success is wanted. Not throwing money at it so we end up in court again, but structured, well timed investment that means we can compete with other clubs, whatever division we happen to be in.

Show the ambition, and people will come to watch. Don't and they won't. Not apathetic janners, just supporters who will not be taken in by warm words and ambiguity.

PlymptonPilgrim wrote:

For me, the crucial issue in bringing finance to the club is timing. For example, we don't need £10m now, We should be able to get out of this league and the next one without the need to spend millions. Having said that, we do need a proper manager as I don't think Fletcher's capable of putting together a promotion winning side.

Should we ever get back to the Championship, let's have a season or two to get established, using the increased gate revenue to slowly push up wages, and then look at investing. Sound familiar?

Anyway, never going to happen. Brent's aim of a self financing football club sounds the death knell of ambition for PAFC. Fine if we want to mess about in League two (cue, at least we'll have a club to support), but in terms or reaching anything higher, absolutely no chance. This is where he shows a lack of knowledge of football and how it works. How many Premier League or Championship clubs are self financing? Not many, if any at all.

PAFC isn't a hotel business. It's a football club that will need investment if success is wanted. Not throwing money at it so we end up in court again, but structured, well timed investment that means we can compete with other clubs, whatever division we happen to be in.

Show the ambition, and people will come to watch. Don't and they won't. Not apathetic janners, just supporters who will not be taken in by warm words and ambiguity.

No comment on James Brent at all but, isn't this exactly what's terribly wrong about football? Isn't it terrible that to succeed in the game we all love (I think we can agree on that), that a team has to make a loss year on year to achieve any kind of success and even then, success isn't guaranteed? Even the minor success stories like Swansea and Norwich will no doubt, very soon, need to be making big losses to stay in that Premier League.