Annual Appraisal

Let's see. What would the targets have been?

Mininum objective (league): Play-offs. Achieved.

Minimum objective (cups): some success. Achieved.

Minimum objective (financial): achieve break even point. Achieved

Minimum objective (stadium): new stand being built. Failed.



Not great is it? Even by setting the lowest targets imaginable we have had to squeak past achieving any of them. At no time whatsoever has this genuinely felt like we were good enough to be promoted - and in the end we weren't.

Score for the season: 5/10.

I should have given up on this feckin mediocrity years ago but I haven't and I won't. I simply refuse to accept that this is as good as it is going to get. One day it will get better. It will. Only gross incompetence, negligence or design could keep things this bad forever.

3 years in this feckin division.

3.

Count 'em.

3.

feckin 3.

With a 4th to come.

4.

feckin hell.

what successes have we had in cups? knocked out in round 1 league cup. round 2 fa cup and i cant even remember how we did in jpt but we werent in that very long. The only cip we have done well in was the reserve teams devon bowl

I'd say reaching the play-offs given the financial restraints was par but nothing special.  The next couple of months should be interesting, who stays, who joins etc

The rest is just Brent and typically Argyle, not worthy of getting 'emotional'. Enjoy the summer.

Mr. President Angry wrote:

what successes have we had in cups? knocked out in round 1 league cup. round 2 fa cup and i cant even remember how we did in jpt but we werent in that very long. The only cip we have done well in was the reserve teams devon bowl

I said I set the target low, didn't I?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

3 years in this feckin division.

3.

Count 'em.

3.

feckin 3.

With a 4th to come.

4.

feckin hell.

I make next season our 5th (2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16).

We had six seasons in the Championship.

This doesn't feel like a blip any more.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Mr. President Angry wrote:

what successes have we had in cups? knocked out in round 1 league cup. round 2 fa cup and i cant even remember how we did in jpt but we werent in that very long. The only cip we have done well in was the reserve teams devon bowl

I said I set the target low, didn't I?

still how is that classed as success because your own standards are low?

Mr. President Angry wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Mr. President Angry wrote:

what successes have we had in cups? knocked out in round 1 league cup. round 2 fa cup and i cant even remember how we did in jpt but we werent in that very long. The only cip we have done well in was the reserve teams devon bowl

I said I set the target low, didn't I?

still how is that classed as success because your own standards are low?

Oh FFS Angry, give it a rest just for one thread please.

Iggy wrote:

Mr. President Angry wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Mr. President Angry wrote:

what successes have we had in cups? knocked out in round 1 league cup. round 2 fa cup and i cant even remember how we did in jpt but we werent in that very long. The only cip we have done well in was the reserve teams devon bowl

I said I set the target low, didn't I?

still how is that classed as success because your own standards are low?

Oh FFS Angry, give it a rest just for one thread please.

how about wind yer neck in

Angry = hairy's reincarnation?  

Person Of Interest wrote:

Angry = hairy's reincarnation?  

you still reading my posts lol always nice to have a fan who cant bring themselves to press the block button

At no point has it felt like it's been a great season has it? 4/10 for me.

Sack Shezza, get someone in that's going to live down here and remotely cares about Argyle.

Don't build a team on loanees.

GreenWhiteBlack wrote:

At no point has it felt like it's been a great season has it? 4/10 for me.

Sack Shezza, get someone in that's going to live down here and remotely cares about Argyle.

Don't build a team on loanees.

If you think that the next manager, whoever it may be, isn't going to have to build a team based to a large extent on loanees, then i'm afraid that you're in for a rude and maybe eye opening surprise.

So at the end of this play off season well start next year with only a few first team players? Back to square one with whoever is in charge.

Greenskin wrote:

If you think that the next manager, whoever it may be, isn't going to have to build a team based to a large extent on loanees, then i'm afraid that you're in for a rude and maybe eye opening surprise.

Since Greenskin usually makes good valid points, I am presuming he is going to be right about the 'loanee' situation.

My question is...
Is there a way around having to use loanee's? Do other clubs in our division manage it? And if so, how?
Why has the use of loanee's increased so much? etc etc...

Loans are the lazy way. There are hundreds of players without clubs at the end of the season, don't tell me you can't get a squad of players from these, all free and willing to give everything to resurrect their careers.

well come next season whatever squad we have come the end of the first transfer window thats it! no emergency loans at all which i agree with as too many clubs like ours used the term emergency too loosely.

steveinspain wrote:

Loans are the lazy way. There are hundreds of players without clubs at the end of the season, don't tell me you can't get a squad of players from these, all free and willing to give everything to resurrect their careers.

Argyle were operating this season on a budget between the 7th-9th largest in the division as outlined by James Brent himself at a meeting with supporters at Bodmin in September. Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the allocation, that budget would make Argyle a possibility in the promotion stakes rather than being a probability-the fact that Argyle averaged the third biggest crowds in the division is an irrelevance [a truth which many do indeed seemingly find difficult to grasp],it would only come into importance if the size of the gates was reflected in the size of the budget, which is patently not the case. Awhile back Mr Starnes said in the local press that Argyle were bang on target to break even this season-again leaving aside as to whether that is a good benchmark or not, that means that Argyle must be paying wages in line with the funds that were given to the manager at the start of the season. There is no doubt that one of the reasons why the budget has been adhered to is that for a large part of the season, the squad has consisted partially of loan players from clubs higher up the scale who are prepared to pay a hefty whack of the players salary while he is at Argyle. Unless there is a U-turn on budgetary policy next season, that will remain the case no matter who is manager. The only way that could possibly be different would be to retain or sign a core of experienced,proven players on relatively expensive contracts and rely on cheap signings and youth products to supplement them, which could lead to a very interesting situation-possibly Fletcheresque you could say. Of course there will be hundreds of players available at the end of the season-where did Hartley, McHugh, Mellor, Blizzard, Reid etc come from, no doubt there will be more of a similar type to follow this year depending partially on the complement of staff who are actually staying but also very much on the funding allocation.There was a Q and A with Sheridan in the programme for the last home game of the season in which a supporter asked if the was going to sign more players permanently next season rather than loans and his response was as follows;

"I'd love to sign players permanently but it is difficult. If you are going for experience, it is hard to attract experienced players because they have to uproot their families, find schools and get a length of contract. It's part and parcel of a club like us. A lot of teams do well with loan players but personally I would 100% rather have permanent players"

For sure the question will be asked about experienced, quality players in the past who have joined Argyle and it is a reasonable point. But things at HP are not the same as they used to be-you can be sure that those players did not join the club for peanuts on a one year contract. Truth is that Argyle are operating as a middling fourth division outfit relying on hand me downs and help outs from above and that will not change unless a considerable change in policy is implemented, no matter who is in charge. Could the club find a manager who could juggle the balls better? Maybe. But then again, maybe not.

Rickler wrote:

Greenskin wrote:

If you think that the next manager, whoever it may be, isn't going to have to build a team based to a large extent on loanees, then i'm afraid that you're in for a rude and maybe eye opening surprise.

Since Greenskin usually makes good valid points, I am presuming he is going to be right about the 'loanee' situation.

My question is...
Is there a way around having to use loanee's?  Do other clubs in our division manage it?  And if so, how?
Why has the use of loanee's increased so much?  etc etc...

Ricks, there was a very interesting table posted on PASOTI about a month ago [by someone called Fat belly green or something like that] which detailed the loan signings made by each club in League 2 this season-Argyle were approximately mid table, i think the highest made by any club was 17,can't remember who it was. I guess there are a lot of reasons why loans seem to be in vogue-maybe the increase in squad sizes, the lack of opportunity for young players in higher divisions resulting in clubs farming them out and paying some of their salaries [win-win I think they call it].One factor for Argyle in particular which doesn't seem to have been taken into consideration much is that most of the best youth products have already been creamed off by other clubs-Walton, Stephens and Gallagher would certainly have been first team regulars by now but unfortunately [partly due to Argyle's circumstances it must be said] we didn't see much of them and judging by the increasingly prevalent policy of bigger clubs taking the best of talent from their lower bretheren, that isn't going to change any time soon. Depressing innit.

GreenWhiteBlack wrote:

At no point has it felt like it's been a great season has it? 4/10 for me.

Sack Shezza, get someone in that's going to live down here and remotely cares about Argyle.

Don't build a team on loanees.

We watched the game in a pub with a Pompey fan and he said their new manager Paul Cook is moving lock, stock & barrel to Portsmouth from the north - this is an absolute must in the search for a new manager!! I have no faith in our leader that he will do anything other than half measures as per normal - only when he moves on will we stand a chance at moving on!!

This where-the-manager-lives thing just isn't an issue - not until it becomes an issue anyway (similarly the body-langauage thing aka the he-just-stands-there-with-his-arms-folded thing). The interesting thing here is why that should be.

In Sheridan's case there's two reasons.

The team has been perceived to be maddeningly inconsistent. Except it hasn't. Not really. "Inconsistent" is just a euphemism for "not very good". Good sides are not inconsistent. They might not perform attractively all the time but, by and large, they find a way to get it done - especially when they need to. Wycombe got it done; we didn't; ergo they're a better team than us. Performances showed it, results proved it and league position under-lined it.

For the best part supporters aren't daft and know a Good Thing when they see it. They know when their team is a promotion candidate and crowds pick up as momentum builds. At no point this season did crowds pick up (in fact they remained remarkably consistent) and at no point did we have that momentum (in fact we consistently had no momentum). We had the most consistently inconsistent season we have had in years.

The second thing is PR/spin. Sheridan just isn't popular. He came to the club with baggage with the Friio Affair being just about the only linkage between him and us. No link at all would have been better. Not a great start but not insurmountable but from there he has made no attempt whatsoever to connect with the fans. He's what he is which is a stereotypically grim northener and that may play well in the stereotypically grim north but it butters few parsnips down here. From there on it is all about the team's style and results - which have both been "inconsistent" (see above). There's just no connect: he don't much care for us and we don't much care for him.

Given that there has been no tsunami of good stuff to swamp the simmering discontent imbued by years of mediocrity the blame game starts. There must be a reason. Someone must be at fault. Something must be wrong. It can't be us as fans because we are perfect, aren't we? You only have to look at the numbers who turn out home and away to see it. Woody The drum. Don't worry 'bout a ting. #StripesAreBack and all that. Can't be us. It's not the pitch - best in the div innit! (it's nice to be best at something even if the last board did effectively steal it.) Nor is it the stadium despite it's (easily if not permanently) rectifiable faults. It can't possibly be our beatified owner. Cor blimey, no. Not 'im. So what's left? Sheridan. It has to be his fault. But how? He's signed pretty decent players, brought in decent loanees and built something much better than we have seen for years and which is very nearly, as indicated by league position and performances, a decent side. Not quite good enough but decent - and on a limited budget. 7th best in the division and we finished 7th: what is there to criticise? Nothing really - once the disappointment at our play-off defeat has been parked.

So something is found. In this case it is the location of his house or his body language or both. Both of them easy accusations to make and both of them there for all to see but do they matter? Y'know really matter? No. Pulis, for instance, has always lived in Bournemeouth but he's done OK everywhere he's been - and few of his clubs have been in commuting distance. It's just not an issue at all until it is made into one like it has been here. Likewise leaping about like a dickhead on the touchline. It probably does influence referees a bit but does it make a team get more decisions or does the ref just get stubborn and give a team fewer decisons? Who knows. I can see why fans like it but I'm unconvinced that it matters.

But we are where we are.

If we're all going to be sniping at Sheridan it might be worth taking a few moments before we set off a volley of shots as to consider whether or not he is the right target.

I'm still calling bullshit on the seventh best budget, a figment of porkies imagination in my mind, is there a secret budget table that gets passed around all managers and chairmen at the start of the season? It's just a good buzz to put about but based upon fabrication more than figures.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

This where-the-manager-lives thing just isn't an issue - not until it becomes an issue anyway (similarly the body-langauage thing aka the he-just-stands-there-with-his-arms-folded thing). The interesting thing here is why that should be.

In Sheridan's case there's two reasons.

The team has been perceived to be maddeningly inconsistent. Except it hasn't. Not really. "Inconsistent" is just a euphemism for "not very good". Good sides are not inconsistent. They might not perform attractively all the time but, by and large, they find a way to get it done - especially when they need to. Wycombe got it done; we didn't; ergo they're a better team than us. Performances showed it, results proved it and league position under-lined it.

For the best part supporters aren't daft and know a Good Thing when they see it. They know when their team is a promotion candidate and crowds pick up as momentum builds. At no point this season did crowds pick up (in fact they remained remarkably consistent) and at no point did we have that momentum (in fact we consistently had no momentum). We had the most consistently inconsistent season we have had in years.

The second thing is PR/spin. Sheridan just isn't popular. He came to the club with baggage with the Friio Affair being just about the only linkage between him and us. No link at all would have been better. Not a great start but not insurmountable but from there he has made no attempt whatsoever to connect with the fans. He's what he is which is a stereotypically grim northener and that may play well in the stereotypically grim north but it butters few parsnips down here. From there on it is all about the team's style and results - which have both been "inconsistent" (see above). There's just no connect: he don't much care for us and we don't much care for him.

Given that there has been no tsunami of good stuff to swamp the simmering discontent imbued by years of mediocrity the blame game starts. There must be a reason. Someone must be at fault. Something must be wrong. It can't be us as fans because we are perfect, aren't we? You only have to look at the numbers who turn out home and away to see it. Woody The drum. Don't worry 'bout a ting. #StripesAreBack and all that. Can't be us. It's not the pitch - best in the div innit! (it's nice to be best at something even if the last board did effectively steal it.) Nor is it the stadium despite it's (easily if not permanently) rectifiable faults. It can't possibly be our beatified owner. Cor blimey, no. Not 'im. So what's left? Sheridan. It has to be his fault. But how? He's signed pretty decent players, brought in decent loanees and built something much better than we have seen for years and which is very nearly, as indicated by league position and performances, a decent side. Not quite good enough but decent - and on a limited budget. 7th best in the division and we finished 7th: what is there to criticise? Nothing really - once the disappointment at our play-off defeat has been parked.

So something is found. In this case it is the location of his house or his body language or both. Both of them easy accusations to make and both of them there for all to see but do they matter? Y'know really matter? No. Pulis, for instance, has always lived in Bournemeouth but he's done OK everywhere he's been - and few of his clubs have been in commuting distance. It's just not an issue at all until it is made into one like it has been here. Likewise leaping about like a dickhead on the touchline. It probably does influence referees a bit but does it make a team get more decisions or does the ref just get stubborn and give a team fewer decisons? Who knows. I can see why fans like it but I'm unconvinced that it matters.

But we are where we are.

If we're all going to be sniping at Sheridan it might be worth taking a few moments before we set off a volley of shots as to consider whether or not he is the right target.

Each to his own - I doubt if whatever any of us fans think will realistically change them at the helm.

Iggy wrote:

I'm still calling bullshit on the seventh best budget, a figment of porkies imagination in my mind, is there a secret budget table that gets passed around all managers and chairmen at the start of the season? It's just a good buzz to put about but based upon fabrication more than figures.

Probably something to do with the Financial Fair Play regulations. Just after Gary Johnson was given the boot at Yeovil, the chairman was in the press saying that he was sacked because he had been given the 14th best budget [he was very precise about the figure]in the division and results were not matching the budget given to him. I think there must be some sort of table published Iggers, can't see why chairman/owners would be that exact otherwise.

Salary cap management protocol, innit.

As suggested the figure each club spends is circulated between the clubs so that they can police each other.

At least that is what I was told when I asked about it ages ago.

The thing about this that amazes me is that nobody anywhere has ever leaked the table of figures so that exactly what is what becomes clear.