Boateng

Freathy wrote:

Its got nothing to do with wether Palace would release him or not.  Its to do with brent and the useless board not funding a core squad needed to get out of this appalling division (despite one of the highest attendances) and forcing DA to depend on the unreliable loan system.  The very welcome return of this player wont help as the damage is already done.

BRENT OUT NOW

Most, if not all league 2 teams use the loan system. Including our nearest rivals. I'm calling bollocks on your argument.

Have you ever thought of the concept of degree in any human activity ?
The manager himself has clearly stated that the budget was way short of what he needed to offer full time contracts to even a small squad.
This man Brent seems to be a "zero hours" character. That might suit some people, mainly scuzzy employers, but it doesn't produce a "club", which is what Adams wants to create.
You clearly are not for turning, no matter what the employment mix is before you. Almost certainly by far THE  highest ratio of loan players to club employees there has ever been at Argyle. It is quite clearly a symptom of the difficulties Adams has had in squeezing a few potentially decent players out of Brent. Decent players command decent employment conditions, which includes knowing where their pay is coming from after the next 2 to 3 months.  
If I were to guess the reason for that budget shortfall, I would say the owner is raiding the playing budget far more than necessary to pay off the debts, thus in effect every pound squeezed is increasing his capital worth in the company, or the money is going elsewhere. He seems a bit of an Osborne, with about as much clue. What is more worrying is most business he has ever been involved with has still had it's loans called in, or racked up billions of debt, despite his austere non investing manner. And what's happening to that Romanian/Bulgarian food thing that seems to have half disappeared ? I think I read somewhere there are problems down there with farmland and property speculation, and being a proper local citizen.

nzgreen wrote:

Freathy wrote:

Its got nothing to do with wether Palace would release him or not.  Its to do with brent and the useless board not funding a core squad needed to get out of this appalling division (despite one of the highest attendances) and forcing DA to depend on the unreliable loan system.  The very welcome return of this player wont help as the damage is already done.

BRENT OUT NOW

Most, if not all league 2 teams use the loan system. Including our nearest rivals. I'm calling bollocks on your argument.

Five points clear at Crimbo and now out of the Autos makes your argument utter bollocks. We couldn't even field a full subs bench a couple of times, defend that.

nzgreen wrote:

Angry wrote:

nzgreen wrote:

Good news to have this player back.
Regarding the " too little too late" cries aimed at Brent. If this refers Boateng himself, did the club even have a choice? My understanding is Palace would not release him due to injuries in their squad.

Criticism of the club should be based on the available EVIDENCE, and in this matter it is clear they have done what they could.

And what EVIDENCE to based your facts have you seen all the way over there in new zealand?

You're funny!
Yes here in NZ's West Island we don't get internet, can't read, can't form our own opinions and we aren't praaaper faaans, cos we don't live within earshot of the dockyard siren.

Now where have I heard this train of argument before? Oh yeah. That's it. That forum which used to be really good till it got taken over by that porky fella. What's his name again?

So you go by what you read and not what you see.. got you

Angry wrote:

nzgreen wrote:

Angry wrote:

nzgreen wrote:

Good news to have this player back.
Regarding the " too little too late" cries aimed at Brent. If this refers Boateng himself, did the club even have a choice? My understanding is Palace would not release him due to injuries in their squad.

Criticism of the club should be based on the available EVIDENCE, and in this matter it is clear they have done what they could.

And what EVIDENCE to based your facts have you seen all the way over there in new zealand?

You're funny!
Yes here in NZ's West Island we don't get internet, can't read, can't form our own opinions and we aren't praaaper faaans, cos we don't live within earshot of the dockyard siren.

Now where have I heard this train of argument before? Oh yeah. That's it. That forum which used to be really good till it got taken over by that porky fella. What's his name again?

So you go by what you read and not what you see.. got you

No.
That's not what I wrote.

Amsterdamage wrote:

nzgreen wrote:

Freathy wrote:

Its got nothing to do with wether Palace would release him or not.  Its to do with brent and the useless board not funding a core squad needed to get out of this appalling division (despite one of the highest attendances) and forcing DA to depend on the unreliable loan system.  The very welcome return of this player wont help as the damage is already done.

BRENT OUT NOW

Most, if not all league 2 teams use the loan system. Including our nearest rivals. I'm calling bollocks on your argument.

Five points clear at Crimbo and now out of the Autos makes your argument utter bollocks. We couldn't even field a full subs bench a couple of times, defend that.

You again. Yappin away. Mutt.
What, you answer for freathy do you?
Let him answer himself.

HIRAM BOATENG always thought there was a chance of him returning on loan to Plymouth Argyle.

"When I was told I was still able to come back here I jumped at the opportunity, to be fair.

Boateng said: "There was always a chance I was going to come back here. It was just a case of Crystal Palace being ready to let me go.



(Source a H B  interview )

nzgreen wrote:

Amsterdamage wrote:

nzgreen wrote:

Freathy wrote:

Its got nothing to do with wether Palace would release him or not.  Its to do with brent and the useless board not funding a core squad needed to get out of this appalling division (despite one of the highest attendances) and forcing DA to depend on the unreliable loan system.  The very welcome return of this player wont help as the damage is already done.

BRENT OUT NOW

Most, if not all league 2 teams use the loan system. Including our nearest rivals. I'm calling bollocks on your argument.

Five points clear at Crimbo and now out of the Autos makes your argument utter bollocks. We couldn't even field a full subs bench a couple of times, defend that.

You again. Yappin away. Mutt.
What, you answer for freathy do you?
Let him answer himself.

There's nothing to add to Lord Biro's answer.

DA has said the budget is inadequate. Is he talking "utter bollocks" too

BRENT OUT

Massively peed off about this. From what little I've seen of him could be the difference next week and the rest of the season. We're massively vulnerable to his kind of player.

Excellent post by Lord Biro by the way.

nzgreen wrote:

Freathy wrote:

Its got nothing to do with wether Palace would release him or not.  Its to do with brent and the useless board not funding a core squad needed to get out of this appalling division (despite one of the highest attendances) and forcing DA to depend on the unreliable loan system.  The very welcome return of this player wont help as the damage is already done.

BRENT OUT NOW

Most, if not all league 2 teams use the loan system. Including our nearest rivals...

Not to the extent you do. BR have six loanees , but one has signed permanently. Northampton & Portsmouth have five and Oxford have three. We have a mahoosive one player on loan. However in most cases the loanees have hardly played and were answers to short-term problems or else were recently signed to aid a promotion push. For example Rovers, Pompey and Northampton's loanees have in each case made around 40 appearances between them. Oxford's have only made around fifteen.

A lot of this is just jiggery pokery to get around the transfer window restrictions. In essence there is little difference between a season-long loan and a 12 month contract or a three month loan and a short term contract.

The big clubs at the top, and somewhat unbelievably Palace seem to have edged into this category, now have so much cash flooding in that they are more than able to afford huge squads of players and are desperate to find competitive games for their reserves and youngsters to play in.

It's all a bit daft when it comes down to it but it is Adams's job to put the best team he can on the pitch and if the team can be improved by a Boateng or whoever and there's a chance to sign him then he'd be bonkers not to because if we don't then someone else we're competing against will.

The days of long contracts for teams like us are long gone and with good reason. I'm not sure what the life expectancy of a manager is these days but it can't be any more than 2 years, and is probably less, so why would he be looking 2 years into the future to build a team/squad/club ethos? All that matters to him, really, are the results in the next 6 games because if he loses them all the problems of loan deals and player contracts will be someone else's so a one month loan will do very nicely thank you very much.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

A lot of this is just jiggery pokery to get around the transfer window restrictions. In essence there is little difference between a season-long loan and a 12 month contract or a three month loan and a short term contract.

The risk would lie in the possibility of a recall at a crucial moment.

Quote :

I'm not sure what the life expectancy of a manager is these days but it can't be any more than 2 years, and is probably less, so why would he be looking 2 years into the future to build a team/squad/club ethos? All that matters to him, really, are the results in the next 6 games because if he loses them all the problems of loan deals and player contracts will be someone else's so a one month loan will do very nicely thank you very much.

You're almost correct - the life expectancy in the Football League is 2.2 years, although I believe it is slightly less in the PL.

Your conclusion is absolutely correct though, which is why fans baying for managers' heads at every setback are so stupid.

I'm surprised it is as long as 2.2 years. Get rid of Tisdale and Wenger and it'd be less than 2! (maybe)

But yeah... 2.2 or 2 or 1.8 years changes little. It's the next 6 games that count.

This is one thing Argyle haven't been too bad at under Brent. Neither Fletcher nor Sheridan could claim that they were given anything other than a fair crack of the whip.

It was the manner of Fletcher's departure that was horribly bungled and grated - especially after all that "remarkable individual" (or whatever it was) stuff; he deserved far better.

As I suppose did Sheridan because that Twitter account was utterly disgraceful. Funnily I don't recall if Sheridan left us (and who could blame him if he did?) or whether we got shot of him.

I don't see why a change of manager has to see wholesale changes in the playing staff.  Frank, you sound like New Labour, you don't like the situation, but you embrace it.
Time for a change. If players are up to a standard, then they can be moulded into a successful unit by different managers with only the odd change in personnel. No one is suggesting a Walton 4 year deal. Two years would do, and cover your average lifetime of a manager.
Racking and stacking is of course the problem, contract wise, but I have long thought there are many many players good enough outside of that rack. Paul Mariner was 19, and Tony Book was 104.

Not really, Lord B.

I'd like to see some sort of ethos established that was recognisable as the "Argyle Way". This would be a club structure stretching from top to bottom and be completely non-negotiable to any in-coming manager. I suppose the closest we have in this country to that is Swansea where they established how they wanted the team to play and the club to run and then, with considerable success, went from there.

Stability is everything but that doesn't have to rely on any single individual staying put in perpetuity. Besides even when the right man fills the right slot, like Sturrock once did, you can't stop him from upping and going, like Sturrock once did, should he want to.

But that all needs vision, investment and commitment from owner and fans alike and we all know how lacking both are. In all three departments we go right back to the next 6 games again and always will.

It was a sad day when the McCauley/Warnock/Stapleton vision for PAYD/PAST & DT's link to the club was broken by Holloway because it could all have stemmed from there: start with the u-10s and have the entire system set up to deploy the same tactics all the way through basically copying the Ajax, Barcelona or, I hate to say it, Exeter model with the club at the heart of the city's football community.

So that's what I would like to see. I'm not holding my breath though.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Not really, Lord B.

I'd like to see some sort of ethos established that was recognisable as the "Argyle Way". This would be a club structure stretching from top to bottom and be completely non-negotiable to any in-coming manager. I suppose the closest we have in this country to that is Swansea where they established how they wanted the team to play and the club to run and then, with considerable success, went from there.

I wholeheartedly agree with that. I understand managers are the most important employee at the club, but yes, they must fit in with the argyle ongoing ethos. There is no other way for a football corner shop to succeed. And Swansea have shown the way.

Freathy wrote:

nzgreen wrote:

Amsterdamage wrote:

nzgreen wrote:

Freathy wrote:

Its got nothing to do with wether Palace would release him or not.  Its to do with brent and the useless board not funding a core squad needed to get out of this appalling division (despite one of the highest attendances) and forcing DA to depend on the unreliable loan system.  The very welcome return of this player wont help as the damage is already done.

BRENT OUT NOW

Most, if not all league 2 teams use the loan system. Including our nearest rivals. I'm calling bollocks on your argument.

Five points clear at Crimbo and now out of the Autos makes your argument utter bollocks. We couldn't even field a full subs bench a couple of times, defend that.

You again. Yappin away. Mutt.
What, you answer for freathy do you?
Let him answer himself.

There's nothing to add to Lord Biro's answer.

DA has said the budget is inadequate.  Is he talking "utter bollocks" too

BRENT OUT

I don't believe Adams ever said he had an inadequate budget, he's no different than most other lower league managers who would want more finance, he knew the financial constraints from the outset and he's having to work within those limits, as to whether those limits are enough, well if we knew what those limits were then perhaps we all could comment accordingly.

Graiser wrote:

Freathy wrote:

nzgreen wrote:

Amsterdamage wrote:

nzgreen wrote:

Freathy wrote:

Its got nothing to do with wether Palace would release him or not.  Its to do with brent and the useless board not funding a core squad needed to get out of this appalling division (despite one of the highest attendances) and forcing DA to depend on the unreliable loan system.  The very welcome return of this player wont help as the damage is already done.

BRENT OUT NOW

Most, if not all league 2 teams use the loan system. Including our nearest rivals. I'm calling bollocks on your argument.

Five points clear at Crimbo and now out of the Autos makes your argument utter bollocks. We couldn't even field a full subs bench a couple of times, defend that.

You again. Yappin away. Mutt.
What, you answer for freathy do you?
Let him answer himself.

There's nothing to add to Lord Biro's answer.

DA has said the budget is inadequate.  Is he talking "utter bollocks" too

BRENT OUT

I don't believe Adams ever said he had an inadequate budget, he's no different than most other lower league managers who would want more finance, he knew the financial constraints from the outset and he's having to work within those limits, as to whether those limits are enough, well if we knew what those limits were then perhaps we all could comment accordingly.

Steady on Graiser beh! You can't write common sense on this site or else others will shoot you down with a salvo of ''Brent out''. I find some arguments are based on selective facts and only contain the bits that support that person's view. So we have big gates in comparison to others but we are still paying debts which, funny old thing, is not mentioned. We could have bucket collections to get rid of the debts quicker? Maybe Freathy, Angry and Hamsterdamage could walk round the pitch tomorrow and collect?
Budgets? I'd be surprised if DA was not told of the budget and constraints when he took the job.
As for other clubs and numbers of loanees. Well that's obvious really in that most loan players didn't want to sign for tinpot clubs like Pompeii, Oxford and Northampton but were holding out for a call from Argyle. Personally I don't give a flying fig at present about politics, pensions or who is filtering what to where. My focus is on 8 games of footy and then, if required, we can think of the bigger picture.
Oh and if our 3 bucket rattlers above need buckets then I think Trago is open tomorrow.

McCAULEY OUT

Common sense he says.

tigertony wrote:

Graiser wrote:

Freathy wrote:

nzgreen wrote:

Amsterdamage wrote:

nzgreen wrote:

Freathy wrote:

Its got nothing to do with wether Palace would release him or not.  Its to do with brent and the useless board not funding a core squad needed to get out of this appalling division (despite one of the highest attendances) and forcing DA to depend on the unreliable loan system.  The very welcome return of this player wont help as the damage is already done.

BRENT OUT NOW

Most, if not all league 2 teams use the loan system. Including our nearest rivals. I'm calling bollocks on your argument.

Five points clear at Crimbo and now out of the Autos makes your argument utter bollocks. We couldn't even field a full subs bench a couple of times, defend that.

You again. Yappin away. Mutt.
What, you answer for freathy do you?
Let him answer himself.

There's nothing to add to Lord Biro's answer.

DA has said the budget is inadequate.  Is he talking "utter bollocks" too

BRENT OUT

I don't believe Adams ever said he had an inadequate budget, he's no different than most other lower league managers who would want more finance, he knew the financial constraints from the outset and he's having to work within those limits, as to whether those limits are enough, well if we knew what those limits were then perhaps we all could comment accordingly.

Steady on Graiser beh! You can't write common sense on this site or else others will shoot you down with a salvo of ''Brent out''. I find some arguments are based on selective facts and only contain the bits that support that person's view. So we have big gates in comparison to others but we are still paying debts which, funny old thing, is not mentioned. We could have bucket collections to get rid of the debts quicker? Maybe Freathy, Angry and Hamsterdamage could walk round the pitch tomorrow and collect?
Budgets? I'd be surprised if DA was not told of the budget and constraints when he took the job.  
As for other clubs and numbers of loanees. Well that's obvious really in that most loan players didn't want to sign for tinpot clubs like Pompeii, Oxford and Northampton but were holding out for a call from Argyle. Personally I don't give a flying fig at present about politics, pensions or who is filtering what to where. My focus is on 8 games of footy and then, if required, we can think of the bigger picture.
Oh and if our 3 bucket rattlers above need buckets then I think Trago is open tomorrow.

McCAULEY OUT

Classic thicko see no evil, hear no evil. No surprise there though.

The precise same attitude and 'not worrying about club politics' that enabled the old regime to take the club to the brink of oblivion.

"Just get behind them bheys, innit".

The most disturbing aspect about some of the above posts is that absolutely zero thought seems to have been given about the longer term prospects of the club under the current board.For sure,on the field matters have improved vastly compared to the dark Fletcher days-the appointment of two managers who knew what they were doing certainly helped and their hiring is to the board's credit.But can anyone honestly say that the longer term prospects are any brighter now than when Mr Brent took over? IMHO,it certainly isn't impossible for Argyle to "do a Swansea,Bournemouth,Hull" if the infrastructure and finance are right.But plainly [one look at the ground and training facilities is confirmation] that is not the case and a massive opportunity is being wasted to put things right-we are no better off [probably worse off in fact] than in 2002 when the clubs rise up the leagues was not backed up sufficiently off the field with the inevitable crash and burn scenario.I thought it was an extraordinary statement from Mr Brent awhile back that the club are not looking for extra investment,especially when the success of the clubs mentioned earlier and now possibly Bristol Rovers,would indicate that is a prime requisite for real progress.Why would that be? It will certainly be needed on field next season with the cessation of the emergency loan system,let alone for the more long term issues.Nobody was more delighted than me when Argyle won on Friday-the sooner the club is out of this division the better-but to let it cloud discussion about future prospects is not the way to go and clearly there have been issues even this season with the allocated budget,which has been constantly referred to by DA in his press releases and conferences.If Argyle fail to go up,then that period from Christmas onwards when injuries and suspensions really kicked in will have been crucial,surely food for thought for even the most die hard loyalist.

Maybe the administration debt is more important at present to clear...after the failure of the Grandstand replacement (what ever size) plans went wrong....a proper Grandstand development without the none football add ons is surely the correct way ahead....including al the associated football additions with it.......club shop....new offices etc......and a green army bar and restuarant....much missed at the moment a source of income much missed.

Give me strength...

Les Miserable wrote:

Give me strength...

Other opinions to take on board Les.....this isn't a closed shop...like some would prefer.

Just giving my opinion zyph.

The remaining debts are now relatively small(apart from the millions we owe Brent) and have been used as a lame excuse for underinvestment in the team and infrastructure for far too long.