Swansea

Interesting way of doing things for a club with an element of fans trust involvement;

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

They incurred a loss of £8m in their promotion season.Now,thats what you call "going for it"and making a real attempt to maintain momentum and get to the top flight,in spite of having gates smaller that ours in their first season back in the second tier.A couple of questions arise;

a.I wonder if the fans trust element [20% of the shareholding,i believe] had access to or influence on the decision making process which sanctioned an £8m overspend in pushing the boat out

b.If access was allowed to such decision making to any future Argyle fans trust element,would they give support to such a policy?

I don't know the answer to part a but i think i probably know the answer to part b.

I'm assuming you think the answer to b. would be a huge no Greenskin. I think that perhaps if the Swansea Trust had a say then their answer would have been dependant on the size of the Boards wallet. With us we have already been burnt by mis-management financially so a big no might not be that surprising. If we had a billionaire or thereabouts then it probably would be a yes. Good job it's a hypathetical question rather than one anyone here is likely to face.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

I'm assuming you think the answer to b. would be a huge no Greenskin. I think that perhaps if the Swansea Trust had a say then their answer would have been dependant on the size of the Boards wallet. With us we have already been burnt by mis-management financially so a big no might not be that surprising. If we had a billionaire or thereabouts then it probably would be a yes. Good job it's a hypathetical question rather than one anyone here is likely to face.

As far as i'm aware,Swansea have done it without the assistance of a billionaire.In fact,one of the main planks of the "organic growth" argument is that Swansea financed their rise to the top by having the right off the field facilities [conferencing,banquetting,etc] in place,a point of view which i always had severe doubts about in the absence of any forecast or comparisons in respect of how much money the said facilities would bring in at Argyle.That argument would appear to have been punctured rather badly by this news and it seems that you do need major finance [either through bankrolling or loans] after all in order to make progress.I accept that Argyle have been financially mismanaged but IMHO much of that fiasco was caused by the loss of momentum originally and then the almost complete concentration on a pie in the sky world cup bid and the prospect of noses in the trough time should it have succeeded,rather than any real interest in the football side of things,which is a polar opposite to the attitude of the Swansea directorate.Swansea are now thinking about increasing their capacity,a situation which would have been needed at HP should we have reached the premier league and probably to an even greater extent.I hope it isn't a hypothetical situation-i'm still hopeful that progress can be made to the second tier in the not too distant future [although not too hopeful,in all truth ] and hard decisions will be needed to be made quickly-just hoping that another half hearted cop out isn't the outcome once again,causing a loss of momentum and eventual stagnation and reverse fortunes.

Why are we always right at the back of the queue when it comes to directors? A complete lack of interest in the football side by the current owner and the directors will make any such emulation of the Swansea model impossible. The only type of fan involvement brent is interested in involves paying off the club's debts with our own money and painting the ground for free. No, we're L2 (at best) to stay under brent.

Freathy has hit the nail on the head with Brent, he adores fan involvement as long as it involves jesters hats. Once it involves the fans trust and real fans with opinions of their own then he isn't,t so keen.

Swansea are in a better location than Plymouth and have more footballing pedigree ffs.

Stop your moaning, see you at Fleetwood.

Freathy wrote:

Why are we always right at the back of the queue when it comes to directors? A complete lack of interest in the football side by the current owner and the directors will make any such emulation of the Swansea model impossible. The only type of fan involvement brent is interested in involves paying off the club's debts with our own money and painting the ground for free. No, we're L2 (at best) to stay under brent.

I think there's a couple of reasons Freathy.

We have no real competition for 110 miles, it's been far to easy to have one of the largest crowds in the division without any effort to get them through the turnstiles.

For a number of years we've had land that has been more attractive than the club.

Once Brent completes his asset strip there will only be two reasons to own PAFC, it'll be either owned by a publicity freak or owned by someone that has a genuine interest and ambition for the club. Either way I can't see much success in our lifetimes.

To be honest I don't really follow the fortunes of other clubs much and so assumed it was a bankrolling job rather than anything else. If Swansea did it with little real money and a bit of good fortune then good on them for taking the stab.

I don't agree with Freathy's comment "why are we always at the back of the queue.......lack of interest in football....." I don't think the Stapleton board lacked interest in the football side at all. They were pretty much all supporters themselves. They got hassled to get more money in to afford a push on perhaps and did it all wrong. They got the wrong people and then got greedy was the mistakes made. We all know however that Brent is never going to go gungho at anything because he has said so too often already. However, we have to get back to where we were first otherwise the question will never arise anyway.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

To be honest I don't really follow the fortunes of other clubs much and so assumed it was a bankrolling job rather than anything else. If Swansea did it with little real money and a bit of good fortune then good on them for taking the stab.

I don't agree with Freathy's comment "why are we always at the back of the queue.......lack of interest in football....." I don't think the Stapleton board lacked interest in the football side at all. They were pretty much all supporters themselves. They got hassled to get more money in to afford a push on perhaps and did it all wrong. They got the wrong people and then got greedy was the mistakes made. We all know however that Brent is never going to go gungho at anything because he has said so too often already. However, we have to get back to where we were first otherwise the question will never arise anyway.

The lack of interest in the footballing side comment was actually about brent and his useless 'board'. I agree that staplewallet (spit) was probably interested in the footballing side at the start of his tenure but then he got greedy. Selling off your manager's best players from right under his nose at a crucial time in the season and using the much of the funds for non-footballing purposes doesn't really sound like interest in the footballing side.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

To be honest I don't really follow the fortunes of other clubs much and so assumed it was a bankrolling job rather than anything else. If Swansea did it with little real money and a bit of good fortune then good on them for taking the stab.

I don't agree with Freathy's comment "why are we always at the back of the queue.......lack of interest in football....." I don't think the Stapleton board lacked interest in the football side at all. They were pretty much all supporters themselves. They got hassled to get more money in to afford a push on perhaps and did it all wrong. They got the wrong people and then got greedy was the mistakes made. We all know however that Brent is never going to go gungho at anything because he has said so too often already. However, we have to get back to where we were first otherwise the question will never arise anyway.

Nice to know that it was a bit of good fortune that led to Swansea's rise through the leagues,not good planning,adequate financing and a willingness to maintain momentum at the right time.Looking at what other clubs of a basically similar stature to Argyle can achieve can be quite informative i'd have thought but maybe we should not follow that path and rely on luck,just as we seem to have for the past 90 odd years-see how far it's got us.

Stapleton and co didn't "get hassled" to bring more money in-if that was the case,they certainly didn't seem in a flustered hurry to accommodate the London consortium.Messrs Foot,Warren and Jones saw which way the wind was blowing and how deep some of the alleged football interest of some of the directors ran,hence their untimely resignations.They got the "wrong people" in through their own choice and deserve no sympathy for the outcome and probably don't seek any.The huge pay out that Phil Gill [and ergo the other directors] received from the Japanese for his shares would seem to be ample compensation for any hurt feelings and would contradict your argument that they got greedy after getting the wrong people in.It remains to be seen how far Mr Brent's football aspirations for the club go in comparison to his ambition for the property side of things-hopefully they'll match his words quoted in my signature.

Greenskin wrote:

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

To be honest I don't really follow the fortunes of other clubs much and so assumed it was a bankrolling job rather than anything else. If Swansea did it with little real money and a bit of good fortune then good on them for taking the stab.

I don't agree with Freathy's comment "why are we always at the back of the queue.......lack of interest in football....." I don't think the Stapleton board lacked interest in the football side at all. They were pretty much all supporters themselves. They got hassled to get more money in to afford a push on perhaps and did it all wrong. They got the wrong people and then got greedy was the mistakes made. We all know however that Brent is never going to go gungho at anything because he has said so too often already. However, we have to get back to where we were first otherwise the question will never arise anyway.

Nice to know that it was a bit of good fortune that led to Swansea's rise through the leagues,not good planning,adequate financing and a willingness to maintain momentum at the right time.Looking at what other clubs of a basically similar stature to Argyle can achieve can be quite informative i'd have thought but maybe we should not follow that path and rely on luck,just as we seem to have for the past 90 odd years-see how far it's got us.

Stapleton and co didn't "get hassled" to bring more money in-if that was the case,they certainly didn't seem in a flustered hurry to accommodate the London consortium.Messrs Foot,Warren and Jones saw which way the wind was blowing and how deep some of the alleged football interest of some of the directors ran,hence their untimely resignations.They got the "wrong people" in through their own choice and deserve no sympathy for the outcome and probably don't seek any.The huge pay out that Phil Gill [and ergo the other directors] received from the Japanese for his shares would seem to be ample compensation for any hurt feelings and would contradict your argument that they got greedy after getting the wrong people in.It remains to be seen how far Mr Brent's football aspirations for the club go in comparison to his ambition for the property side of things-hopefully they'll match his words quoted in my signature.

Good old Greenskin ! Still trying to explain the bloody obvious for those too blind to see.

An oasis of wisdom, in a desert of dimwits.

There was a cry from the supporters to do something more and to deny that is misrepresenting things. Perhaps "hassle" was the wrong word but there certainly was a call for it. I don't recall offering the making of wrong choices as being any kind of excuse. Of course it was their choice and they spectacularly got it wrong as history now records. I actually think they knew how bad things were going before the end and watched it burn as they had already made money. Absolutely no sympathy from me at all.

I have always believed there is an element of luck in promotion chasing from the depths. Money is not everything but the right blend of players at the right time are. Money helps but so does getting the right people. I always refer to the first promotion from this league Argyle got. I have never believed there were any stars in that side although they were decent players. They gelled on and off the pitch and went on to get a record points tally. Good management and planning also play a part of course it does and I don't put it all down to being lucky. I'll ignore the intellectual input from Cyprus.

Not only do we live in the age of subsidising privatised profits while nationalising the losses, but now it seems we have to put up with the Thought Police enforcers linking the 'shop floor' or fans desire, to any old board of directors having an irresponsible flutter on a long shot that would have netted them a nice little pension fund each.
Fans asking for 2 or 3 quality half season loans ( a la Dull City ) to bolster an excellent league position is not in the same ballpark as having a squad of 37 on long term over the top contracts. I also note there is rarely a mention of the still publicly unexplained £10m of other expenes within the £17m debts of the period.
The demise of the club was NOTHING to do with it's customers.