Bideford game and DA Q&A- Reduced Playing Budget?

Ah, but this way he can get his money back twice over. Take the profit, but still hold the debt.
Maybe Jimmy thinks they've never heard of Citibank and it's form up in windswept and sparse Ross County

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

ejh wrote:

For the numbskulls on Pasoti who say DA doesn't have the financial information to make his claim.

Argyle have to disclose their accounts to the Football League for the purposes of transparency, as do all other clubs.

When Brent said we had a 7th - 10th placed budget, no one asked questions - they accepted it.

Derek Adams knows what his wage bill is now, how much he's spent, and can see from last season how that compares to the rest of the division. In his mind, what he's spent ain't even top 10. More like 10th - 15th in his own words.

Is he saying it to calm supporters expectations? Of course. But what it reveals is a lot more disturbing about why the money is being held back and where it is going.

There is no way a club as large as Plymouth Argyle with an average crowd of 7,500 should be anywhere near the likes of AFC Wimbledon and Exeter (11th placed attendance last season) when it comes to budget, who have attendances of 4,000 or less.

If you accept that money from around 2,000 paying customers has to be set aside for previous debt commitments, it appears that the money from roughly 1,400 paying customers isn't going into DA's budget. It would be nice to know where that is going.

Since I posted earlier I have been thinking along very similar lines with a couple of variations on themes.

Firstly I accept that something like the first 2000 bums on seats were paying off historic debt but with the PCC loan and the take up of the early pay-off deal that must now be considerably less than it was. How much less I don't know. I'd pluck half out of thin air as a figure as likely as any other. Which makes the missing 1400 (shades of Karallon for any old rockers out there!) considerably higher...

Secondly the team budget may not have been reduced in real terms. Again plucking figures out of thin air 55% of our turnover is the maximum possible. Call that £2.5m. Obviously we aren't maxed out so call it £2m for sake of argument. If our budget was £2m last year and it ranked 7th it might just be that £2m next year ranks 10th (or worse). Is that reasonable? I wouldn't be surprised if Bristol Rovers coming up and Notts County, Orient, Yeovil on their way down don't beat our notional £2m.

It's entirely possible, likely even, that our drop from 7th to 10th (or worse) comes about as a direct result of our rivals spending more rather than us spending less.

Which still doesn't explain where the "1400" (and the rest) money is going.

Where's this 1,400 figure come from?

Czarcasm wrote:

I see Pasoti's Moderating double standards are still alive and well. ChronicGreen has the word "idiot" removed as it's an insult. Yet the Site Owner can throw accusations of mental illness (manic depression), and this is wholeheartedly agreed with by the Site Manager.

They really do shoot themselves in the foot don't they?

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

Terrible behaviour.

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

ejh wrote:

For the numbskulls on Pasoti who say DA doesn't have the financial information to make his claim.

Argyle have to disclose their accounts to the Football League for the purposes of transparency, as do all other clubs.

When Brent said we had a 7th - 10th placed budget, no one asked questions - they accepted it.

Derek Adams knows what his wage bill is now, how much he's spent, and can see from last season how that compares to the rest of the division. In his mind, what he's spent ain't even top 10. More like 10th - 15th in his own words.

Is he saying it to calm supporters expectations? Of course. But what it reveals is a lot more disturbing about why the money is being held back and where it is going.

There is no way a club as large as Plymouth Argyle with an average crowd of 7,500 should be anywhere near the likes of AFC Wimbledon and Exeter (11th placed attendance last season) when it comes to budget, who have attendances of 4,000 or less.

If you accept that money from around 2,000 paying customers has to be set aside for previous debt commitments, it appears that the money from roughly 1,400 paying customers isn't going into DA's budget. It would be nice to know where that is going.

Since I posted earlier I have been thinking along very similar lines with a couple of variations on themes.

Firstly I accept that something like the first 2000 bums on seats were paying off historic debt but with the PCC loan and the take up of the early pay-off deal that must now be considerably less than it was. How much less I don't know. I'd pluck half out of thin air as a figure as likely as any other. Which makes the missing 1400 (shades of Karallon for any old rockers out there!) considerably higher...

Secondly the team budget may not have been reduced in real terms. Again plucking figures out of thin air 55% of our turnover is the maximum possible. Call that £2.5m. Obviously we aren't maxed out so call it £2m for sake of argument. If our budget was £2m last year and it ranked 7th it might just be that £2m next year ranks 10th (or worse). Is that reasonable? I wouldn't be surprised if Bristol Rovers coming up and Notts County, Orient, Yeovil on their way down don't beat our notional £2m.

It's entirely possible, likely even, that our drop from 7th to 10th (or worse) comes about as a direct result of our rivals spending more rather than us spending less.

Which still doesn't explain where the "1400" (and the rest) money is going.

Where's this 1,400 figure come from?

Argyle's average home attendance was 7412.

It has been suggested that the first 2000 payees at Argyle simply service existing debt giving us a notional 5412 payees to play with.

Wimbledon's average crowd was 4073.

5412 - 4071 = approx 1400.

The only quibble I'd have with the logic is that the divisional average crowd was 4679 which is a bit higher than Wimbledon's average.

Then again we're really interested in the difference between us and our rivals so we should extract our figures from the overall total and recalculate an average for the division not including us which would lower the average figure a bit because we are the 3rd highest contributor to it.

So all in all, given all the assumptions and assuming that some error cancels other error (which it probably would) 1400 as a rough estimate is fine.

(1000 would be low and 2000 would be high - that's for sure.)

Obviously this is hugely speculative and, possibly, incredibly ill-informed but these are the only figures, given the club's refusal to publish meaningful accounts, that we have to work on.

So ... what is the budget then?

tigertony wrote:

So ... what is the budget then?

Bordering on the pathetic i would say!

tigertony wrote:

So ... what is the budget then?

We lost Marvin Morgan, who negotiated his wage having led the Shrewsbury line in League One.
We lost Jason Banton, who negotiated his wage from Premier League Crystal Palace, having had a godly loan spell with us showing that he was clearly the best player here.
We lost Anthony O'Connor, who we desperately signed from Blackburn after both they and the player played hardball for terms.
We lost Lewis Alessandra who was Sheridan's first contracted signing at the club, who doubled his wage at Morecambe, and who scored as many as Reuben Reid last season from open play.

Not cheap insignificant players here.

We lost loanees like Bobby Reid, Olly Lee, Zak Ansah, Gethin Jones and Tareiq Holmes-Dennis, who we may or may not have spent big on.

Meanwhile we've signed largely a bunch of out of contract rejected Scottish league players, accustomed to playing for clubs in front of home crowds of 3,500. Harsh but true, regardless of whether they turn out to be good or not. The only one with a bit of star quality is Greg Wylde, but the St. Mirren fans were hardly sad to see him go. I just don't see these players negotiating themselves tasty contracts the way the likes of Banton, Morgan and O'Connor could have.

It doesn't take an expert to work out this team is currently on a notably inferior budget to Sheridan's. Just look at the bench as it stands, the only experience on there is Purrington with his 6 games, and Tyler Harvey. Might be worth considering that maybe Sheridan had a reason for not coming back, and that reason was discussions with Brent about what was expected this season and what was available to achieve it.

Chemical Ali wrote:

There seem to be a number (on p'bay) asking for evidence that the budget is cut- its plain to see as we are two coaches down on last season; the playing squad has also been reduced by 4 or 5- we have 15/16 pros on the books and will make up the numbers for a playing squad with 2-3 loans. Our midfield is paper thin- if we get 2-3 injuries and suspensions I think Derek and Wotton will have to play!

It looks like Brent has used Sheridan's departure to cut the budget on League 2 novice, Adams. Sheridan knew the budget cost of a league 2 promotion winning side, sadly Adams doesn't.

With the club running a profit, is Brent using this as an opportunity to get some of his loan money back?

That's the way it is from where I'm sitting.
Promotion on the cheap - the Bent way, said it before but let's hope Adams is the new Fergie.

I'm fairly sure Carey wont have been cheap. Sawyer will be on an average wage I imagine and can't see Simpson being overly cheap. Doubt Jervis will be on too much though. Got no idea on Wylde.

Irrespective, I'm adamant their combined wages will be less than that of the combined wages of the players we lost.

Why would Sherridan rather be unemployed than work for Argyle? Jimmy's Mission Impossible Budget perhaps?

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

Why would Sherridan rather be unemployed than work for Argyle? Jimmy's Mission Impossible Budget perhaps?

Could be a family thing ? Some people don't have to work but do it because they enjoy meeting people, enjoy doing a worthwhile job or to keep busy. Extra cash is always welcome but people in that category can just leave when things don't go to plan.

Lol Tiger. What planet are you on ? Are you on an early military/ANOther uniform pension ?
I can't remember any manager ever ever give Argyle the finger in such an open way.
Sturrock said when he joined Southampton, he'd never have to work again.
, yet he's still champing at the bit. Sheridan is far younger and hasn't enjoyed the managerial salaries Sturrock has had.

Chemical Ali has it spot on.

While Derek Adams' comments suggested that it was around 10th-15th (without ruling out it was above 10th, or even below 15th), that's hard to prove, and is immaterial/semantics when it's so obvious that we're spending less on playing and coaching staff.

I think it's beyond reasonable doubt that the budget has been cut. Our squad is smaller, we've replaced high earners with probably lower earners, and the coaching staff is smaller. Brent's been eerily quiet on the size of the budget. Adams called it 'small' in the presence of a few board members on Saturday. He's no idiot. He knew what he was doing.

The question is: where's the money going? We're making a profit, we've restructured the debt, attendance has stayed steady - and it was the third-biggest average in the division last year. We should not have a mid-table budget if we had 7th-10th last year. What's the good in making a profit if it doesn't go into the club?

MannameadGreen wrote:

Chemical Ali has it spot on.

While Derek Adams' comments suggested that it was around 10th-15th (without ruling out it was above 10th, or even below 15th), that's hard to prove, and is immaterial/semantics when it's so obvious that we're spending less on playing and coaching staff.

I think it's beyond reasonable doubt that the budget has been cut. Our squad is smaller, we've replaced high earners with probably lower earners, and the coaching staff is smaller. Brent's been eerily quiet on the size of the budget. Adams called it 'small' in the presence of a few board members on Saturday. He's no idiot. He knew what he was doing.

The question is: where's the money going? We're making a profit, we've restructured the debt, attendance has stayed steady - and it was the third-biggest average in the division last year. We should not have a mid-table budget if we had 7th-10th last year. What's the good in making a profit if it doesn't go into the club?

The fact Del Bhey is ruling out any new signings after only signing 5 on 1 year deals and has a squad of 20 i think its safe to assume the budget is shite and we are in for a rude awakening if del bhey/brent think 20 will be enough this season.

Just checked Wimbledon's site and they have 20 players.

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

Wycombe have 18.

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

Pompey have 22.

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

Luton has 31!

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

Gas has 24.

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

Yeovil has 17.

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

I'd say we're about as strong as most in terms of numbers.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Just checked Wimbledon's site and they have 20 players.

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

Wycombe have 18.

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

Pompey have 22.

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

Luton has 31!

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

Gas has 24.

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

Yeovil has 17.

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

I'd say we're about as strong as most in terms of numbers.

All of which havent declared themselves to be done with signings have they. So this isnt point proving. 24 is about the right number of players for a squad especially as the emergency loan system is all but gone now.

If the three loanees that Adam's says he wants are guaranteed season long loanees and he can actually get them then fair dos, as good as having any free agent signed on for a year in effect, that'll take us up to 23 which is a fairly competitive sized squad.

John Hawkins wrote:

Lol Tiger. What planet are you on ? Are you on an early military/ANOther uniform pension ?
I can't remember any manager ever ever give Argyle the finger in such an open way.
Sturrock said when he joined Southampton, he'd never have to work again.
, yet he's still champing at the bit. Sheridan is far younger and hasn't enjoyed the managerial salaries Sturrock has had.

Luggy is working because he probably really enjoys being involved with a club but if things go pear shaped for any reason he can just walk away. Same as any person who can survive without paid employment. Anyways back to planet Zeus now.

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

If the three loanees that Adam's says he wants are guaranteed season long loanees and he can actually get them then fair dos, as good as having any free agent signed on for a year in effect, that'll take us up to 23 which is a fairly competitive sized squad.

i hope they are long term loan deals as we saw last season it distrupts the team too much to have loan players coming and going

Elias wrote:

Would have been nice to play mk dons at home park

I agree, we've 100% record against Buckinghamshire's grubby little franchise. It'll be nice to prepare them for their 2017 return to League 2 by giving them another drubbing at HP.

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

Premier Loans

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

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

Premier Loans

youth players for definate

Even though some of them premier league youth players at top end clubs are on 15 to 20k some are on even more
Cant see jimbo pick up half or even any of that unless they come free..thats without what fee the club want as well

This result shows that we are going to be struggling by christmas, never mind the end of the season run in. Wish Brent would just hurry up and disappear back to the hole he came out of before he completely screws the club out of everything. I mean the only thing Argyle own as a club now is the players isnt it lol

KelShacks wrote:

This result shows that we are going to be struggling by christmas, never mind the end of the season run in. Wish Brent would just hurry up and disappear back to the hole he came out of before he completely screws the club out of everything. I mean the only thing Argyle own as a club now is the players isnt it lol

This result shows that we're not the finished article....to say anymore than that is speculating on the future for what happened in the second half of one pre-season game......just as well go and play on the motorway.....it's obviously all down hill from here.