Reuben Signs 2 Year Deal

I would assume that SFD means that the high transfer fees paid, high wages given were in terms of Argyle's spending history (because in terms of spending compared to other Championship clubs it was quite low).

I'm sure that its previously been alleged that the person behind "Don't_Panic" has a passion for motivational speaking, union disputes, WAG hospitality etc. I've also noticed Don't_Panic is allowed to swear on a supposed "family friendly site" with little rebuke from the pbay Mods (granted the language used by Don't_Panic would be mild on here but we don't claim to be family friendly).

Correct as usual Greenskin.

Chemical Ali wrote:

I would assume that SFD means that the high transfer fees paid, high wages given were in terms of Argyle's spending history (because in terms of spending compared to other Championship clubs it was quite low).

I'm sure that its previously been alleged that the person behind "Don't_Panic" has a passion for motivational speaking, union disputes, WAG hospitality etc. I've also noticed Don't_Panic is allowed to swear on a supposed "family friendly site" with little rebuke from the pbay Mods (granted the language used by Don't_Panic would be mild on here but we don't claim to be family friendly).

Maybe his cv should read :

Great at rabble rousing Avivas. Crap at finkin and dealing wiv educted w@nkers.

Greenskin wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

It has long been my contention that justifiable, genuine, sensible "investment" needs to be made in the off-pitch areas rather than on-pitch: training facilities; coaching; youth programme; stadium. It's not sexy and won't immediately score many goals and nor will it win cup ties or move us up the league but nonetheless it is essential for the club to progress and to exploit that progress when it happens. Without it all we will ever see is a flash in the pan.

It's the primary reason I have never been one to call for massive cash to be splurged on the team either in terms of wages or transfer fees. Nor have I ever urged the club to spend beyond its means. Quite the reverse, in fact. I want to see an ethically sound club run according to principles that do not embarrass me as a supporter.

And if we get that then all the success we want will, I am certain, follow leading to the eventual recruitment of those high-profile, expensive players that we'll require to either maintain or further that progress. It won't be quick but, properly managed, it will work in the end.

That does not mean that we don't have to spend anything on the 1st XI though. Obviously we do and it is a tricky balancing act because the short term (coaching, team, now), medium (stadium, coaching) and long term (youth, coaching) goals all need to be set - and then met.

So sound financial governance is absolutely essential. Without it we end up where we are now and where we have been in the recent past: plummeting down the leagues; selling/giving away our best talent; recruiting dross; perpetually fighting relegation; knocked out of cups by teams that we should be beating; jeopardising the very future existence of the club.

The head-in-the-sanders can bleat on all they like about "get it right on the pitch and all else will follow" but they are wrong and COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG. The last time we "got it right on the pitch" we climbed two divisions, paid high transfer fees, signed expensively paid players and packed the ground out but how did that end up for us? It just isn't about on-pitch v off-pitch at all... both are equally important.

Those things, and each and every one of them was down to piss poor management at boardroom level, must never be allowed to happen again. We must never just trust those who own our club because they say so. We must never take our eye off the ball.

And that means scouring accounts, balance sheets, spreadsheets, press statements, Companies House, The London Gazette etc and querying every last thing "they" (meaning whoever owns the club - the idea that this is some personal vendetta against James Brent is pure, errant fabrication promulgated by idiots to create a smokescreen) do. And to do that today, tomorrow and every day afterwards without any respite at all.

Is it boring? Yes, you're damned right it is. Is it essential? Yes, and it has never been more so.

Isn't that much blindingly obvious?

I agree with the main points of your post but the highlighted bit is just a rather ludicrous and misleading rewrite of history.

No it is not.

During our spell in the CC we broke out transfer record several times (Easter and Fallon and Halmosi and McLean were, I think, all record breaking or record equalling transfer fees). We paid good money to players like Mpenza, Gallagher, BWP and so on.

So did we spend high compared to other teams in the division? No, probably not. We did spend high compared to the club's historical norm and compared to turnover.

Everybody (I use the word loosely) always seems to think that the rot set in much later than it actually did. Argyle was already losing money at a rate it could not sustain before Buzsaky left. Admittedly the rate of loss increased as we sunk ever lower but the underlying problems were already there.

Which is why the stadium, its size and money-generating capacity is such an important issue. Ultimately income is everything and last time around our turnover never rose above about £9m per year in any given year (mostly because it couldn't).

And turnover at that level restricts everything else. It's why that Big Money (in comparison to other teams) cannot be paid, it's why once we get there we can no longer compete, it's why the rot set in and it's why we are now where we are.

And it's why Brent's HHP plan is such a dog's breakfast.

Ahh yes, just prior to selling playing assets and making just over a million in profit.

Profit, income, wages etc graphed here:

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

(scroll down a bit)

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Greenskin wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

It has long been my contention that justifiable, genuine, sensible "investment" needs to be made in the off-pitch areas rather than on-pitch: training facilities; coaching; youth programme; stadium. It's not sexy and won't immediately score many goals and nor will it win cup ties or move us up the league but nonetheless it is essential for the club to progress and to exploit that progress when it happens. Without it all we will ever see is a flash in the pan.

It's the primary reason I have never been one to call for massive cash to be splurged on the team either in terms of wages or transfer fees. Nor have I ever urged the club to spend beyond its means. Quite the reverse, in fact. I want to see an ethically sound club run according to principles that do not embarrass me as a supporter.

And if we get that then all the success we want will, I am certain, follow leading to the eventual recruitment of those high-profile, expensive players that we'll require to either maintain or further that progress. It won't be quick but, properly managed, it will work in the end.

That does not mean that we don't have to spend anything on the 1st XI though. Obviously we do and it is a tricky balancing act because the short term (coaching, team, now), medium (stadium, coaching) and long term (youth, coaching) goals all need to be set - and then met.

So sound financial governance is absolutely essential. Without it we end up where we are now and where we have been in the recent past: plummeting down the leagues; selling/giving away our best talent; recruiting dross; perpetually fighting relegation; knocked out of cups by teams that we should be beating; jeopardising the very future existence of the club.

The head-in-the-sanders can bleat on all they like about "get it right on the pitch and all else will follow" but they are wrong and COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG. The last time we "got it right on the pitch" we climbed two divisions, paid high transfer fees, signed expensively paid players and packed the ground out but how did that end up for us? It just isn't about on-pitch v off-pitch at all... both are equally important.

Those things, and each and every one of them was down to piss poor management at boardroom level, must never be allowed to happen again. We must never just trust those who own our club because they say so. We must never take our eye off the ball.

And that means scouring accounts, balance sheets, spreadsheets, press statements, Companies House, The London Gazette etc and querying every last thing "they" (meaning whoever owns the club - the idea that this is some personal vendetta against James Brent is pure, errant fabrication promulgated by idiots to create a smokescreen) do. And to do that today, tomorrow and every day afterwards without any respite at all.

Is it boring? Yes, you're damned right it is. Is it essential? Yes, and it has never been more so.

Isn't that much blindingly obvious?

I agree with the main points of your post but the highlighted bit is just a rather ludicrous and misleading rewrite of history.

No it is not.

During our spell in the CC we broke out transfer record several times (Easter and Fallon and Halmosi and McLean were, I think, all record breaking or record equalling transfer fees). We paid good money to players like Mpenza, Gallagher, BWP and so on.

So did we spend high compared to other teams in the division? No, probably not. We did spend high compared to the club's historical norm and compared to turnover.

Everybody (I use the word loosely) always seems to think that the rot set in much later than it actually did. Argyle was already losing money at a rate it could not sustain before Buzsaky left. Admittedly the rate of loss increased as we sunk ever lower but the underlying problems were already there.

Which is why the stadium, its size and money-generating capacity is such an important issue. Ultimately income is everything and last time around our turnover never rose above about £9m per year in any given year (mostly because it couldn't).

And turnover at that level restricts everything else. It's why that Big Money (in comparison to other teams) cannot be paid, it's why once we get there we can no longer compete, it's why the rot set in and it's why we are now where we are.

And it's why Brent's HHP plan is such a dog's breakfast.

I see where you're coming from SFD. To have any realistic, longer term chance of competing at that level and kicking on, clubs of course need the infrastructure you mention but of course we didn't have it. Ally that to an undeveloped fanbase [remember stapes blaming stay away janners ?   ] and they had few choices. Either really try to find better equipped owners both financially and commercially or go for the shit or bust by backing Holloway's team to get promotion. A post Xmas promotion push would have seen HP packed out and thousands locked out. They did neither. They brought in big time charlies and conned the Japs for personal profit and the outcome was almost inevitable.

Whatever happened to Greenish Hugh?

Awesome.

Did'nt see that one coming - really was thinking he was off, but anyway nice one Ruben and a testament to Sheridan for his man management skills.
Bit of positive news for next season.  

Say what you like about non match day income, which is important I won't lie, but at the centre of a football club needs to be a successful football team. Ridsdale said when he "dropped into Plymouth" that "Argyle had forgotten they were a football team" (or words to that effect) and he was right. As soon as the WC hove into view this club has been plagued by would be property developers none of which could organise a piss up in a brewery. Call me cynical but I think now that HHP is and has gone tits up the owner wants a successful team that he can sell on to get his money back, does he finally "get football?" about feckin time.