Would Sturrock Mark 1 have been able to win promotion under Brent ?

Coxside_Green wrote:

I would have to question whether a manager with Luggy's managerial credentials would even entertain managing under Brent in the present climate, let alone get us promoted.

Last season we learnt Walton signed a new contract whereby he took a reduction in salary but his overall length of contract was extended. He wasn't alone either. With the club now being shy disclosing details of certain contracts (ie length of contract), who knows what behind the scene deals are in place this season to further reduce the wage bill?.

Furthermore, I'm just guessing but it's my belief there's a newly imposed salary cap in place which is making it almost impossible to bring in players of any real calibre on a full time basis (I'd be surprised if any of our new summer signings are on over a grand a week). I doubt Luggy Mk1 would've been able to bring in the quality he did bring in under the present circumstances, thus making promotion an almost impossible task for any manager. Maybe in a few years (by which time Brent will likely be long gone) but not now.

The Walton signing wasn't your standard costcutting though. With the club still paying Fletcher, Larrieu and D Johnson players salaries (also still paying money to Reid in compensation), something had to give. If he hadn't have made that cut, we'd never have signed Purse and Wotton and probably gone down.

Now that all the aforementioned are either gone or off playing salaries, I doubt there's such a need to cut costs. Certainly I think we're in the top 7 or higher budgets for this league, I doubt it's any smaller than when Luggy first took over. I don't think the current financial or boardroom situation would disuade him at all. It'd be at least better than the situation he's currently dealing with-

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

Agree with your Walton take Sam. Agree we are probably in the top 7 seven playing budgets too. I can't agree on the last point though. I don't think Luggy could have brought in the players he did with a budget like we have now even allowing for the fact that players' salaries in this league have gone down generally in recent years.

swampy wrote:

Agree with your Walton take Sam. Agree we are probably in the top 7 seven playing budgets too. I can't agree on the last point though. I don't think Luggy could have brought in the players he did with a budget like we have now even allowing for the fact that players' salaries in this league have gone down generally in recent years.

Hmm. If we're in the 5th-7th biggest budget in the league(which we probably are), I doubt that's much smaller than under Sturrock. Obviously it all has to be taken in relativity compared to the top 4/5. I think there were probably a few teams with bigger budgets than us then too. Luton and Hull spring to mind, perhaps Swansea/Bristol Rovers. Our success then was built on great managment, great team spirit and a great eye for talent, we didn't make the biggest and most brass signings in the league. We'll never know but it wouldn't surprise me at all if Sturrock's budget wasn't equivalent to this one. It would surprise me if it was the highest or second highest budget in the league at the time, outshadowing many of the rest.

I think Peter Jones (could have been JB) have commented that this season's budget is far higher than the one Luggy had in 2001.

Luton's budget was far higher than ours - Valois and other first teamers were on several thousand a week (which contributed to their financial irregularities and demotion). Hull's budget was also far higher and they had former Prem manager Brian Little (who wouldn't have been cheap even if he was crap).

Sturrock hardly spent money in terms of transfer fees in his first term just relied on players he already knew so i think he would have won promotion.

[quote="Chemical Ali"]I think Peter Jones (could have been JB) have commented that this season's budget is far higher than the one Luggy had in 2001.

Luton's budget was far higher than ours - Valois and other first teamers were on several thousand a week (which contributed to their financial irregularities and demotion). Hull's budget was also far higher and they had former Prem manager Brian Little (who wouldn't have been cheap even if he was crap).[/quote

Was it bigger in relative terms allowing for 11 years inflation though? Luggy signed the likes of Friio, Larrieu, Keith, Hodges, Evans, Worral, Coughlan and Norris. They weren't old stagers at the end of their careers, They weren't teenage novices on low pay. They were mainly from higher leagues and established pros with plenty of league experience behind them. I am quite certain in relative terms to employ players with that background today would cost more than what we have had to spend on ageing Wotton and Purse and higher league youngsters, often teenagers this time around.

I actually think at this level, it's all about an effective manager, a club ethic and identity, and positive momentum where players want to come down here to play for a club going places. Let's not forget, when Sturrock arrived, the murk of 666 had been lifted and 'fans' had taken over, with little or no sign of self interest. The football village would have seen Argyle as a club bound to be going in the right direction. Now all we have is a property developer with a few fans plastering over the cracks for him.
Fleetwood and Crawley are the latest clubs to rise well above their roots. While this club is so divided and weighed down by debt, we are more likely to sit in the doldrums for years than do a Southampton, or Leeds, yes Leeds, as I think Warnock will now do what he does better than anyone.

It just won't happen here for years under this scenario.