How much dosh do you think would save us from relegation

This is a poor division, with several absolute minnows in it.
So how much would it take over and above the current playing budget to guarante our safety given our hopeless team ?
I have always thought half a million tops, maybe even 300K would make it a certainty. Will Jamsey boy allow that sort of one off money ? ... he's saved enough on the player/staff wages from what he might have spent buying the club in May or June.

I don't think a club's success or failure come to that is about how much money it spends. I think the main issue is the players they sign being the right players for the squad as a whole and that they gel into a working unit. Reasons for this thought process are the side built by Sturrock the first time around. None of them were stars and none of them cost a fortune that I remember. But as a squad they became almost unbeatable. I've also always thought that luck plays a part in the right people at the right time. This has been born out by other clubs and squads over time also. How much is Brent prepared to spend is a big big question but the bigger one is who will Fletcher want to bring in and manage to get and will they be the squad we want them to be.

Fletcher himself is a huge risk in all of this. He can hardly string a few words/ thoughts together when interviewed.

Fletcher's comments about signing Purse are a good example of what irritates me ................

" I'm glad this is another addition to the squad"

No it's not, the guy has been here on loan for weeks and weeks. That sounds to me as if we should not expect much change from this transfer window...... two players is all I forecast, if Jamesey has been listening to the CPers.

I recently read somewhere (on here or pasoti) that a figure of £200k had been allocated.

Let's hope that some more reinforcements arrive soon.

Looking at our next few fixtures, unless we can string 3 or 4 wins together, we could be well adrift come mid Feb!

As far as I'm concerned, the BSP is not an option.

[quote="Moist_Von_Lipwig"
As far as I'm concerned, the BSP is not an option.[/quote]

Well o Moist one,Argyle are very much staring at it head on.

downthetrack wrote:

[quote="Moist_Von_Lipwig"
As far as I'm concerned, the BSP is not an option.

Well o Moist one,Argyle are very much staring at it head on.[/quote]

I can see that dtt but can only live in hope that those in power can prevent it.

Think the first priorty should be an EXPERIENCED Manager, let him decide what more is needed.

Its what the manager does with the money what counts

pepsipete wrote:

Think the first priorty should be an EXPERIENCED Manager, let him decide what more is needed.

Now is the time to do it, with most of January left to get a few of his own men in.

BTW, Sent you a PM Pete.

pepsipete wrote:

Think the first priorty should be an EXPERIENCED Manager, let him decide what more is needed.

This, and i share the same sentiments as Trinny with regards to his poor communication skills, especially in front of a camera.You may well think, so what ? but in my book it alludes to a distinct lack off savvy, tactical knowledge, intelligence, discipline, and man management skills.
I said before many times and i say it again that Fletcher is not the man to get us out of this mess, back on the pitch..most definitely but not on the bench.
I think with maybe 60 grand for a few more experienced lads plus O Driscoll will get us out the mush, but it must be now..a delay of another month will only seal our fate.

I agree a manager is vital, Fletcher is a gamble that is so far losing and it's a gamble that we cannot afford to lose!

This moth will tell us all what Brent's real intentions are but I agree with Pirate, 300k should do it and it'll be worth every penny!

Trouble is these days, what do you get for £200k even in our league? Apart from when Ridsdale got rid of players for Nectar Points, the transfer market is absolutely ridiculous. Prem teams loan out their youngsters, and anyone who scores more than 10 goals a season gets a £1 million price tag straight away. Then there's the wages, and we've all seen what happens if you try to offer longer contracts on wages that are not really in keeping with your income. I know there's a wage cap in this League, or does in come into effect next season?

I would like to see a wage cap on all football, to stop the Sugar Daddies buying success, but the whole of European football is one big feeding trough for the "big clubs" and won't ever change. And the new rules about youngsters was the bigest piss take and kick in the teeth for smaller clubs, but thats another story and another chance for me to moan again.

Agree about Fletcher too, keep him as assistant by all means, ya know, but get O'Driscoll on the payroll, even if it's just until the end of the season, ya know.

The thought of stopping the sugar daddy owners is a great one greenjock but I can't ever see it being enforced or even anyone being able to enforce it. These people will find a way around any rule. The wage cap is dependent on the turnover for the club in it's entirety. If an owner wants to sponsor every player for a silly figure and the ground and the tea lady etc. then that would count as turnover and allow a club to pay greater wages than another. I agree with your sentiments but it could never work. If it was narrowed down to a percentage of the gate receipts alone then these people would probably buy up every spare ticket every home game and pretend the ground was full week on week still buying their success.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

The thought of stopping the sugar daddy owners is a great one greenjock but I can't ever see it being enforced or even anyone being able to enforce it. These people will find a way around any rule. The wage cap is dependent on the turnover for the club in it's entirety. If an owner wants to sponsor every player for a silly figure and the ground and the tea lady etc. then that would count as turnover and allow a club to pay greater wages than another. I agree with your sentiments but it could never work. If it was narrowed down to a percentage of the gate receipts alone then these people would probably buy up every spare ticket every home game and pretend the ground was full week on week still buying their success.

Yeah you're right. And we've got one of our own now anyway He's going to surprise everyone and unveil 2 big signings soon. Oh that's right he already has. Purse and Chadwick But seriously, it's a step in the right direction I suppose, and maybe O'Driscoll will be able to point out a couple of players we can get cheaply, or are we still waiting for Ridsdale to weave his magic this transfer window?

Unless there is a payout for Ridsdale you won't here diddly squat from that direction ever again greenjock despite his offer to "help" (he missed out the word "himself" in that).

I still think we will see one or perhaps two signing after these two. But like all things this is either vain hope or wishful thinking on our part and we will just have to wait and see. Brent the Benefactor is more likely to be the name of the next Pope rather than something we see at Argyle.

I've heard the Pope's job has already been promised to Eggs Benedict

Hi sensible...........don't underestimate Peter Ridsdale.........I'm sure before he left that he had already pencilled in a few names..........and will help the green behind the ears Fletcher during the month.........have more faith.

Princerock wrote:

Hi sensible...........don't underestimate Peter Ridsdale.........I'm sure before he left that he had already pencilled in a few names..........and will help the green behind the ears Fletcher during the month.........have more faith.

Probably Preston's rejects

There was an interesting thread by a poster called 'Mole' (on pasoti rumours) where he highlighted a number of non league players,who he thought would do well in league football. Some would be relatively cheap and would at least have some experience of non-league football (if that's where we are headed). He seemed to be some sort of scout.

Chemical Ali wrote:

Princerock wrote:

Hi sensible...........don't underestimate Peter Ridsdale.........I'm sure before he left that he had already pencilled in a few names..........and will help the green behind the ears Fletcher during the month.........have more faith.

Probably Preston's rejects

There was an interesting thread by a poster called 'Mole' (on pasoti rumours) where he highlighted a number of non league players,who he thought would do well in league football. Some would be relatively cheap and would at least have some experience of non-league football (if that's where we are headed). He seemed to be some sort of scout.

I remember that, and I think I recall he was ridiculed and shot to pieces by a load of "experts"

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

I don't think a club's success or failure come to that is about how much money it spends. I think the main issue is the players they sign being the right players for the squad as a whole and that they gel into a working unit. Reasons for this thought process are the side built by Sturrock the first time around. None of them were stars and none of them cost a fortune that I remember. But as a squad they became almost unbeatable. I've also always thought that luck plays a part in the right people at the right time. This has been born out by other clubs and squads over time also. How much is Brent prepared to spend is a big big question but the bigger one is who will Fletcher want to bring in and manage to get and will they be the squad we want them to be.

There was a study by economist Stefan Szymanski and antropologist Simon Kuper I remember reading recently which suggested that league position roughly corresponded with salary level.

Sturrock it should be pointed out was very lucky with a number of things, he was effectively starting from ground zero and the club was on a level football financially, no injuries or loss of form and the collapse of ITV digital only really affected clubs who had already spent the money, our share was going towards what was phase 2 and probably wasn't that significant in the first place. Still it was great whilst it lasted.

I agree that Fletcher is utterly incompetent but there appears to be little apetite to change from whoever decides these things.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

I don't think a club's success or failure come to that is about how much money it spends. I think the main issue is the players they sign being the right players for the squad as a whole and that they gel into a working unit. Reasons for this thought process are the side built by Sturrock the first time around. None of them were stars and none of them cost a fortune that I remember. But as a squad they became almost unbeatable. I've also always thought that luck plays a part in the right people at the right time. This has been born out by other clubs and squads over time also. How much is Brent prepared to spend is a big big question but the bigger one is who will Fletcher want to bring in and manage to get and will they be the squad we want them to be.

Sturrock's squad didn't cost millions,true enough.But it would have taken a decent budget,certainly by fourth tier standards,to bring people like Coughlin,Evans,Worrell,Keith,Hodges,McGlinchey,Lowndes etc,all of whom were playing at a considerably higher standard at the time.You could also say the same about the Warnock promotion winning team,although that was partially funded by the sale of some very good players still on the books from the Shilton era.Who bankrolled the Sturrock team i don't really know,i believe that Nic Warren put a fair amount of his own cash,whether any other board members were as forthcoming i'm not sure.There has certainly been a tipping point for Argyle over the years though,when it comes to making progress beyond the second tier without real money being provided.Local businessmen and professionals simply haven't been able to cope with financing the club and it certainly hasn't always been due to below par crowds.There was a thread on PASOTI awhile back with a screenshot from GOS detailing an Argyle season in the 1930's.Our gates were miles bigger than clubs such as Leeds,Southampton,Stoke etc and if you analyse our history right up to the 1960's and 1970's,you'll find the same pattern.Good players sold and not built around,resulting in inevitable decline.This would suggest strongly to me that finance or lack of it has indeed played a big part in Argyle's lack of achievement over the years and is why Tringreen,myself and others have been banging on for years that the club needs to look elsewhere for its money,notwithstanding the Kagami/New world fiasco,which was an overcomplicated and unworkable lash up from the word go.

Greenskin wrote:

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

I don't think a club's success or failure come to that is about how much money it spends. I think the main issue is the players they sign being the right players for the squad as a whole and that they gel into a working unit. Reasons for this thought process are the side built by Sturrock the first time around. None of them were stars and none of them cost a fortune that I remember. But as a squad they became almost unbeatable. I've also always thought that luck plays a part in the right people at the right time. This has been born out by other clubs and squads over time also. How much is Brent prepared to spend is a big big question but the bigger one is who will Fletcher want to bring in and manage to get and will they be the squad we want them to be.

Sturrock's squad didn't cost millions,true enough.But it would have taken a decent budget,certainly by fourth tier standards,to bring people like Coughlin,Evans,Worrell,Keith,Hodges,McGlinchey,Lowndes etc,all of whom were playing at a considerably higher standard at the time.You could also say the same about the Warnock promotion winning team,although that was partially funded by the sale of some very good players still on the books from the Shilton era.Who bankrolled the Sturrock team i don't really know,i believe that Nic Warren put a fair amount of his own cash,whether any other board members were as forthcoming i'm not sure.There has certainly been a tipping point for Argyle over the years though,when it comes to making progress beyond the second tier without real money being provided.Local businessmen and professionals simply haven't been able to cope with financing the club and it certainly hasn't always been due to below par crowds.There was a thread on PASOTI awhile back with a screenshot from GOS detailing an Argyle season in the 1930's.Our gates were miles bigger than clubs such as Leeds,Southampton,Stoke etc and if you analyse our history right up to the 1960's and 1970's,you'll find the same pattern.Good players sold and not built around,resulting in inevitable decline.This would suggest strongly to me that finance or lack of it has indeed played a big part in Argyle's lack of achievement over the years and is why Tringreen,myself and others have been banging on for years that the club needs to look elsewhere for its money,notwithstanding the Kagami/New world fiasco,which was an overcomplicated and unworkable lash up from the word go.

Think I might just have mentioned it once or twice

I think salary levels in the Premiership is more relevant that it is in the lower leagues unless you are talking genuine million pound players and the salaries needed to bring them in and keep them. Lower down I have always maintained that a large element of luck is needed in finding the right people at the right time who become a force as a collective. We have had expensive flops and cheap stars like a number of teams have over time. In this league there is a wage ceiling so I cannot see how teams can pay exhorbitant wages if their income does not match it. Therefore more luck is required in getting it right. The collective Argyle squad with 2 promotions in 3 years was clearly getting it right.

I'm not sure you can go back to the middle ages and use it as an example of crowds and buying or selling players in this age now. I remember the days when 25000 was an average crowd but times have changed dramatically since then. It is true that Argyle have pretty much been a selling club rather than a club pushing the boundaries over the years. It is also true that there are no real local trillionaires who were brought up on a diet of Argyle either so the chances of somebody from elsewhere coming in with an open cheque book is less than slim. Fact is that the West Country is not a hotbed of football or football history unlike a lot of others who have multiple clubs in the locality. Midlands, London, Lancashire, Yorkshire and North East all have a bunch of clubs whereas we have now 4 none of which have ever climbed the football mountain. It is harder in this part of the Country to whip up the interest due mainly to the clubs lack of previous success. To buy your way up the leagues you would undoubtedly need a very rich person to fund it and somebody who would be prepared to cover fairly massive losses because of lesser local interest. James Brent is not that man so the best I think we could hope for is to stabalise the club in the football league and with luck a very slow climb back up to a reasonable level.

So it was luck and zero finance that helped Blackpool,Hull,Swansea and Cardiff up through the leagues and into positions where they are very unlikely to visit the lower leagues much in future? Don't think so,mate.It was good decision making and having adequate [not the same as sugar dadddies or trillionaires] finance to back their respective managers at the right time.And i don't think that 2004/5 is that far back in the middle ages-in that season,we averaged 16000 odd,which was actually more than any of those clubs managed [with the exception of Hull] on their return to the CCC.I think you missed the point about me drawing attention to Argyle's historical crowds.Essentially,even in those days,the board of directors were inadequate to cut the mustard,just as they were in our last spell in the CCC and probably always will be.You make the point about the SW not being a hotbed of football,which is true as far as it goes.But then,were Ipswich,Southampton,Reading,Swansea etc based in areas which could be described as hot beds of football before their successes of recent and not so recent vintage? Not to my knowledge.Those clubs had the courage and ambition [and in one case admittedly,a major financal backer] to seize their moments and push on to become big players,something which Argyle have never had.

On the subject of the salary cap.Hypothetical case-Mr Brent decides to back the club to the extent of £1m of his own money.Would that not be classified as income when deciding the level of the wage bill?