What a team

Stolen from the farm but what a team this was:

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

If only we had half that quality right now.

Good times they were. Some great moments that era produced and that I was lucky enough to see in person:

- Sinclair's goal at Barnet
- Norris 89th minute winner at Watford. The crowd going bonkers and staying 15mins after the whistle celebrating

But hey. Lincoln away next week  

i see the court jester has had a dig at the fans again.

Best team we ever had. What a midfield! It had everything - creativity and flair in spades, skill, distribution, pace, and the ability to shoot from 35 yards! That team would have taken us to the Prem absolutely no doubt about it - but staplewallet had other ideas. And now we're bottom of L2 with superfans.

If that team had strength in depth through out the squad we would have made the premiership. Granted we wouldnt have stayed there but at least that would have been adapt for the famous saying of the sheep "look how far we've come!"

I really do think if Ollie had been backed we would've done a Blackpool with that team.

Never felt the same connection to an Argyle team since then.

And still the farm dwellers fail to grasp the fact that Argyle attendances are/were no different from other clubs with no top flight pedigree in a similar situation.Our first season in the Championship saw average attendances I believe, higher than the likes of Cardiff, Swansea and Hull enjoyed. The difference is they kept trying and in some cases the council helped to provide inspiring stadia. PCC has actively helped to terminally restrict the club's ambitions by accepting brent's ministand and clusterfuck of a development.

Somewhere along the line when the 2nd tier is achieved, either a gamble has to be taken, or outclassed owners have to market the club and give up the train set.

It's been the same story for generations and the wider potential fanbase are justifiably sceptical , as they have been at other clubs before cash backed ambition was shown.

My grandfather used to say, 'Same old Argo' and shake his head. There are only so many diehards for clubs with no history. Others will only buy in when inspired.Nool and co. just can't or won't see that those not addicted are the same the country over. We are far from unique. Had Holloway been backed, the second half of the season would have seen huge support buying in.

It now suits the farm controller and his chums' personal agendas, to settle for Argyle being potentially big fish in the lower leagues.

Nalis was the best player in that midfield. Pulis signed him.

I had to look that up as I thought he was a Holloway signing.

I'd argue that Holloway was backed. It is a cold hard fact that Argyle had been running at a "sustainable loss" for quite some time before players started either leaving or were sold (Capaldi was first to go, then Buzsaky, then the firesale).

Just how far into the red do you allow the club to go before the overspend is addressed?

I can't be arsed to go back and find the actual figures but if we were already £x million in debt and another £y million was needed to "back Holloway" and club turnover is less than £10m per annum (which it was and now it is more than halved) that £y million represents a huge punt. Obviously had we gone up the money was easily recovered but if we had not... Then what? Who is going to speculatively make a multi-million pound, shit or bust punt on Argyle? Nobody. That's who. Nobody sensible anyway. And we all know what happened when a similar all or nothing gamble was placed on the World Cup bid.

I know exactly what comeback will be: "we should have sold to PJ's consortium". It's boringly, childishly predictable.

Well we've seen what sort of mob PJ has all too readily aligned himself to this time what is there to suggest that the last lot would have been all sweetness and light other than naive optimism?

"Investment" always comes at a price. We are gradually finding out what Brent's price is and PJ's last mob never even thought it fit to tell us, or even give us a clue, what theirs was, did they? The strategy then was akin to the promise that they'd throw bags of smack at junkies doing cold turkey and the junkies couldn't grab it fast enough last time just like they (different junkies this time though) can't this. All objectivity just seemed, and still seems, to be a completely alien notion to Argyle's easily swayed smackheads.

The way forward is to build the club's turnover. That means youth programmes, scouting networks, getting more people in and extracting more money from them when the come. That in turn means more training facilities, more seats, more bars, more food outlets and more corporate boxes which all means stadium or grandstand, at least, redevelopment. PJ's mk 1 mob was zealously opposed to building anything and PJ's mob mk 2 have come up with a plan that reduces seat numbers, does not significantly add executive boxes and includes bars and restaurants that won't contribute to club income and doesn't address scouting and coaching at all.

Still I suppose it would have been exciting last time while it lasted and we could not have ended up somewhere worse than we eventually did.

As an aside Blackpool were £20m in debt, since recovered from PL income, when Holloway took them up. It'd be interesting to know how much Burnley had overspent by but it was said at the time that they were in serious financial trouble before they were promoted.

I'm all for "organic growth" (old money) and "sustainablilty" (metric). I always have been. I still am.

I've never understood why training facilities and an onus on youth development doesn't ever seem to come first at professional football clubs. We have a huge catchment area of young players here - geography in this respect actually goes in our favour - but we've got no real training facilities at the club to boast and our youth set-up is under funded by £1000s.

It's because teams would rather spend money on a safe bet that can start paying off immediately partly because (some nosy) spectators want results now and nobody wants failure.

That results in the financially crazed world that sees, say, Emile Mpenza trot into town, play about 6 games and pocket a cool half million for his trouble. Somebody, not the player, loses lots of money and results improve not a jot.

Just think what half a million quid could do for the youth programme...

The trick is to put the money in and set the process in motion and the problem is the 10 years or so it takes to start paying out but that is real investment and it would place the club at the heart of local football, offer our youngsters more hope of turning pro and deliver unto the 1st XI local lads who actually cared about the club instead of mercenary dickheads wangling as much money out of the club as they could.

Just think what could be done on a national level if everybody acted similarly and all those PL billions were spent on local grassroots football instead of massive transfer fees and wages. And all it would take is for clubs to face up to their historical roots and to represent the local community.

Spain right now is by far the best footballing nation across all of the games levels, it has the most fully qualified coaches per capita in Europe and has had for some time now. It's not coincidence you know.

The English game, along with many English football fans, has completely lost the plot.

All of the arguments I ever see have the assumption that Argyle WOULD have been promoted with another wedge spent on the team. I seldom see anyone who can see it just as easily may not have happened. There is an argument with some logic in it that says we didn't push for the glory and yet still managed to nose dive anyway so what difference would a punt have made. Their way would have seen us at least die trying rather than just rolling over without a whimper. I can sort of see that but can't see the definate promotion scenario. There are too many unknowns for that.

What people don't seem to get is we are bust financially and are where we are. It is no good bemoaning what might have been because it isn't going to change. We are in a shit league with an average side. Compared to other club sides it isn't as shit as is made out to be. It's just typical for this league. Just because we fell from the Championship doesn't mean we are now bigger or should be better than others. Pompey aren't and they have fallen further than we did. We aren't bottom of this league and could just as easily go on a run like any other side and be at the top end. Look at the points and games played so far. The top side is 10 points less than the top of league one with the same number of matches played. Nobody in this league is much better or worse than anyone else as far as I can see and I doubt anyone will romp away with it.

Wasn't I making just that case when I said:

Quote :

Just how far into the red do you allow the club to go before the overspend is addressed?

I can't be arsed to go back and find the actual figures but if we were already £x million in debt and another £y million was needed to "back Holloway" and club turnover is less than £10m per annum (which it was and now it is more than halved) that £y million represents a huge punt. Obviously had we gone up the money was easily recovered but if we had not... Then what? Who is going to speculatively make a multi-million pound, shit or bust punt on Argyle? Nobody. That's who. Nobody sensible anyway.

By the way that great team had Gary Sawyer at left back and 2 players, Hayles and Nalis, who didn't have much left in the tank.

They were the three that would have needed replacing. How much money would a top level CCC striker, central midfielder and left back have cost?

Can't be bothered to go through all this shit again,suffice to say that some perceptive fans of very long standing [and with bitter experience of at least four failures of the club at second tier level to optimise promising situations] realise that without serious cash behind it should it ever reach that level again,exactly the same scenario will unfold.End of story.

Without a wealthy owner I am sure the same would happen, Stapleton was out of his depth financially he had gone as far as he could with Argyle, if he had approached the bank and asked for another five million on top of an already growing debt at the club combined with falling attendances (which I know people don't like to factor into any equation but it is a huge factor of your being able to do anything, if we were selling out every week we would have been foolish not to go for it with the money that generated but we werent) they would have told him to do one. The million dollar question, was there anybody with cash who was willing to gamble a huge chunk of their wedge on somebody else's football team? I guess not but the reality is we will never know too much mud gets thrown, the fans wish to view history from their own invented perspective. One thing I am certain of I would love a repeat of those years again, happy days.

What is forgotten is that just after we got promoted to the championship we promptly went out and signed a load of useless freebies from Scotland , imagine if we had by the ground running instead of just about avoiding relegation. Gradually everyone thougt here we go again same old Argo and it was only ever going to end one way.

I guess the novelty of playing the big teams wore off for some, but you also have to take into account that the cost of attending a football match was starting to become too much for some.

People were probably more willing to attend during the championship years as you were guranteed to see a decent team. Once we started falling down the leagues people stopped coming because a lot of people can't see the logic in paying £24 to watch a league one/two match when we were paying around the same to watch a Championship match.

Some people can still afford to attend and good for them but a lot of people no longer can justify spending the money on watching two poor quality teams.

If the ticket prices were reduced then the attendances would grow.

Hugh Watt wrote:

What is forgotten is that just after we got promoted to the championship we promptly went out and signed a load of useless freebies from Scotland , imagine if we had by the ground running instead of just about avoiding relegation. Gradually everyone thougt here we go again same old Argo and it was only ever going to end one way.

Blobby did sign some crap (Makel, striker who played for Dundee who was always injured, and possibly Lasley) but he also signed Doumbe and Buszaky. Crawford was a good player but couldn't settle. I've just had a look at Wiki and see Blobby was also responsible for signing Terrible West and Rufus Dogshit. I also see that Blobby was appointed as head coach of the Kenyan Champions Gor Mahia in the Summer.

Greenskin wrote:

Can't be bothered to go through all this shit again,suffice to say that some perceptive fans of very long standing [and with bitter experience of at least four failures of the club at second tier level to optimise promising situations] realise that without serious cash behind it should it ever reach that level again,exactly the same scenario will unfold.End of story.

At that level serious cash is everything. There'e no doubt about and it is especially true in the modern game in a way that it once never was. Which is exactly why the ground, scouting and coaching are so important. It is these that can and will both generate income and save money which in turn means that reliance on the hitting the PL jackpot is less important while it is, conversely, more likely!

It would also offer some sort of insurance should the big punt not pay off. Let's go back to turnover... Would you be more tempted to invest £10m in a business with a £10m turnover or a £20m turnover? I'd, if only!, go for the latter and so would everybody else.

I know it isn't sexy to suggest that ground, coaching, scouting is the way to build the club, I know it's more exciting to say "we need to sign a million pound striker", I know the "striker option" for want of a better phrase, gets all the positive emotional responses but it has never been an option for us and unless we get taken over by a money laundering organisation for a Colombian drug baron or become a vanity project for an oligarch or an oil-rich sheikh it never will be.

What is so very, very galling about the current plans for HHP is that they are so very, very nearly very, very good. What we now have is a once in a lifetime opportunity for an investor to come along and give us the ground capacity, inherent infra-structure and scope for expansion that would support future progression and put in place coaching and scouting structures for the longer term instead of which we have a dog's breakfast of a plan, youth programmes reliant on charity and goodwill and an owner seemingly not prepared to invest a penny of his own actual money in anything at all.

"If ticket prices were reduced then the attendances would grow"

Sorry but there is absolutely no evidence to support that. I'm assuming the thought process also goes that if the attendances went up then the income would follow. So if you reduced the entry price by say 25% logic says you would need an increase in supporters on the day of the same percentage and keep getting that number just to stand still income wise. When Argyle near enough gave some tickets away previously the number of takers were nowhere near that percentage. It's a myth that if it was cheaper many more would go. The only thing that increases attendance at Home Park is some form of success on the pitch. However, retaining the increased attendance is another thing altogether and historically doesn't happen.

Yea Man wrote:

I guess the novelty of playing the big teams wore off for some, but you also have to take into account that the cost of attending a football match was starting to become too much for some.

People were probably more willing to attend during the championship years as you were guranteed to see a decent team.  Once we started falling down the leagues people stopped coming because a lot of people can't see the logic in paying £24 to watch a league one/two match when we were paying around the same to watch a Championship match.

Some people can still afford to attend and good for them but a lot of people no longer can justify spending the money on watching two poor quality teams.

If the ticket prices were reduced then the attendances would grow.

I completely disagree.

If you half prices then you have to double attendances. That would have needed a 26000 seat stadium back then. Impossible. Price is not that important a factor when it comes to watching a successful team and often nothing more than a handy excuse for not watching a crap one.

More didn't come because or a variety of reasons not the least of which is that they couldn't because Home Park was too feckin small to get them in on the big occasions that came along.

Consider the 3000 seats set aside for away fans; were they full every week? No. Then factor in ticketing arrangements. The vast majority of our seats were occupied by season ticket holders who had nabbed the prime locations: covered seats near the halfway line and behind the goal. What remained were mostly at the front (in the rain), on the Mayflower (in the rain) or scattered hither and thither (and often in the rain). If you weren't a committed fan and you turned up to be separated from your friends, get soaked in the rain and then had to watch a Godawful boring but functional 0-0 performance by Pulis's binary hoof merchants while it all happened would you go back? Many didn't and the scars left by the Pulis Approach, even if it was successful after a fashion, run very deep.

The problem is that we all see the experience through our own eyes and it is all evaluated by in the light of own personal experiences. The quality judgements made by us as long-term Argyle fans are hugely different to those made by the casual attendee who largely expects to be sat with friends and family, be entertained and stay dry and comfortable while it happens. And if you don't supply that they find somewhere else, the cinema or theatre or something, to go.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

"If ticket prices were reduced then the attendances would grow"

Sorry but there is absolutely no evidence to support that.    I'm assuming the thought process also goes that if the attendances went up then the income would follow.     So if you reduced the entry price by say 25% logic says you would need an increase in supporters on the day of the same percentage and keep getting that number just to stand still income wise.    When Argyle near enough gave some tickets away previously the number of takers were nowhere near that percentage.     It's a myth that if it was cheaper many more would go.    The only thing that increases attendance at Home Park is some form of success on the pitch.    However, retaining the increased attendance is another thing altogether and historically doesn't happen.

Can't agree with any of that, if tickets were say a tenner I would go a lot more than I do now as would a lot of people I know, I always spend money at the ground so overall with twice as many fans for half the money it would increase turnover because of the extra spend in the ground. It would also get people into the habit of going again. The main reason that I don't go as often as I did is that I don't have unlimited money and I would rather spend the money I have traveling than support JB in his FOOKIN Argyle over. The floaters as they are known will only be lured back by success or clear ambition by an owner, JB is only interested in the property hence the apathy from him filters down to the fanbase. The bottom line is that twenty quid is too much to watch shit football.

Only clubs with a few seasons top flight exposure have cemented fanbases. Clubs similar to us 40/50 yrs ago like Norwich ,Southampton,even Ipswich maintain attendances in the lower leagues because the city and region believes in them. That is not the case for Argyle. Even the more recent 'risers' like Cardiff, Swansea and Hull were no better supported than us in the championship pre improved ground and sustained performance on the pitch. As Greenskin says, Argyle were a car crash waiting to happen with Stapes, just as with Waiters' team and others.

I agree over the youth set up and Southampton in particular continue to 'produce' . Unless there is real cash backed ambition they will move on quickly but at least we'd get some money, or in the present case, brent would.

For clubs with no top flight history, the only things that will attract greater interest and support is an improved stadium with potential to expand and/or cash backed ambition. I don't believe the club has ever been well marketed and its geography makes it totally necessary to do a selling job. A struggling first championship season and 16k plus should interest investors IF marketed properly. The trouble was Stapes and co didn't want to let go and attendances will drop off unless the potential fans are inspired.

Reducing ticket prices, improving the matchday experience, fanfests etc etc etc will only encourage the already addicted to HP.It's all about feelgood factors and Argyle have never offered any to attract those on the edges of the fanbase.We've lost 10k of them from the first championship season and 7k from Pulis/Holloway times. They are still out there and more but they need a sign. The future now looks even worse, so don't expect them to come.They won't.

Nool calls them apathetic janners but all the clubs previously mentioned were the same before they had something real to believe in.

The real apathetic janners are those with their noses in the trough, calling others apathetic and settling for second or third best for their club.

I agree it's expensive for little in return Iggy but I still don't see where you would get all these extra people to go for less cost to get in. Are you seriously telling me that another 6000 people would go if it was £10? There is absolutely no evidence to suggest they would in this league. The only time we have ever gotten those sorts of numbers were when the club was on a run and looking like being promoted. Any other time and numbers have often been less than now. People turn out for very important matches and then don't for the next one and that's the sort of support history we have.