Close Season Survey - the results

Thanks to all who participated in this year's Close Season Survey, conducted in partnership with the AFT and the club. Here are the results.

With a 24% increase in participation and a record 1135 respondents this year, the Close Season Survey continues to be the largest independently sourced sample of the Green Army's views on all things Argyle - and it has revealed some intriguing insights into how the club is perceived by its fans as it prepares for another campaign in English Football League Two, as well as a clear view on the future ownership of Home Park and the ongoing Grandstand development process.

As Derek Adams completely rebuilds his Argyle team, hoping to go one better than last season and win automatic promotion to League One, he will be pleased to hear that despite the playoff final heartache at Wembley, the club's supporters are very optimistic with more than half of all respondents predicting a top three finish, up from 23% last season. A further 30% predict another playoff berth for the Pilgrims next term. Taken together, that is a 5% year on year increase in those who believe that the campaign will end with a tilt at promotion.

If there was any sense of emotional hangover from that difficult May day at Wembley, it appears to have evaporated now, as more than 92% of all respondents ranked the performance of the first team management as "good" or "very good" - that's more than twice as high as the rating given to John Sheridan for the 2014-15 campaign.

The approval rating drops off slightly when the first team itself is judged, with 87% giving a "good" or "very good" mark - well up from last year's ranking of 55%. This result is a flipside of last year's results, which suggested that the Green Army thought the first team was of a better standard than the manager who led it. This year, Derek Adams and his management team are marginally ahead of the squad on this measure.

Away from the first team, the most popular topic for the Green Army to comment on was the long delayed replacement of the Grandstand, although there was a perceptible drop in how many responses mentioned this issue.

Later this year, the ownership of Home Park will come into question, as the opportunity to purchase the freehold from Plymouth City Council will arise. When asked if they prefer for the Football Club board to exercise that right, more than half (50.72%) agreed, while 30.66% prefer that the ground remains in public ownership, with the remainder split between "don't know" or "no opinion".

Off-field, there are signs of improvement in many areas, as the club marks five years since exiting administration, although some perennial problems persist as well.

On the bright side, more than a third approve of the club's marketing and 42.5% rate the communication with the fanbase as "good" or "very good" - a rise of 9% from last year and 17% up on 2014's mark. Less than 30% are unhappy with this aspect of the club's performance, down from 37% last year and 46% in 2014.

Those who use the club shop are also more than satisfied, with a 71% positive rating overall, up 5% from last year and less than 5% showing dissatisfaction with their experience - these ratings have improved every year since 2013.

A similar rating is also given to the match ticket operation, although more than one in ten have their grumbles, up 4% year on year - this may have been caused by the pressures of increased demand for the decisive games at the end of the season.

Collecting tickets and getting into the ground is also an improving area, with approval for the turnstile operation improving from 57% to nearly 75% over the last three seasons.

When it comes to the matchday programme, 60% are happy with their reading material, up from less than 50% in 2013. Just 3% are unhappy with the programme.

These positive improvements are also seen in comments on the club's official website and its social media accounts as well. 58% enjoy the OS, but just over a fifth are unhappy with it - but that is better than a third of all respondents who grumbled about it in 2013.

44% like the way the club presents itself on Facebook and Twitter, a 4% improvement, while less than 14% dislike the content provided on those platforms.

On the downside, there are some serious concerns to be noted, with a significant decline in the approval rating for the stewarding at Home Park, as well as ongoing unhappiness about getting food and drinks, as well as the PA system.

Just 29% of all respondents approve of the matchday stewarding - a record low - while a record high of nearly 40% express dissatisfaction with their contact with the hi-viz jackets. There have been some fluctuations on this question over the years, but this is the worst result seen so far and one of the most notable outcomes from this year's survey.

Getting a pint and a pasty at Home Park continues to be a source of great irritation too, with nearly 40% stating they were unhappy with the quality available and 50% who think it takes too long to get served. There is a small increase in those who are happy with the offer though, with one in four being satisfied - but only 16% think the queues are acceptable.

Other parts of the "match day experience" could be improved as well, if the Green Army had its way. Only one in five is impressed by the non-football entertainment, with a third not happy with it - but 40% express no opinion at all.

When it comes to ticket prices, £15-20 is considered to be the "right price" for an Argyle match by most (47.33% in the Grandstand, 60% elsewhere), but there is still strong support for occasional ticket offers to boost attendance, with more than 78% approving of these promotions and only 6% saying that they're unhappy - this remains pretty consistent over the years. Most understand the benefit of attracting new or lapsed fans back to Home Park in this way.

When asked more subjective questions, there are some interesting results. Asked "how valued you felt" the top mark was 7/10, with an average of 6.29, slightly up on last year.

The proposition "I feel a real part of my club" saw agreement from 52% - a 9% increase on last year - with less than 18% disagreeing, but a third are neutral in this question.

83% of all respondents agree that Argyle is important for Plymouth, something very clearly demonstrated by the massive response in the city ahead of the Wembley playoff final.

A massive majority - 91.3% - agree that the "club should invest in youth", with the remainder mostly being neutral on this issue.

80% continue to agree that there should be an appropriately sized supporters bar within the ground, with 13% neutral on the idea.

On the topic of away kit choices, there is a more than 9% increase in those who are satisfied with the choice (from 26.8% to 36.1%) - perhaps Royal Lilac was more popular than we thought. But looking at it the other way, just over 44% were not happy with the away kit, down from 47.5% last season.

60% say that the kits should only change every two years, with the remainder split between once a year, or once every three years.

As in past years, the two most well-known supporters groups are the AFT and the Green Taverners, with consistently high levels of awareness and name recognition (nearly 94% for the AFT and 92% for the GT's). The regional supporters branches are known to nearly 73% of all respondents, while the Senior Greens hit 83% on this measure, as do the Argyle Community Trust, but the Vice Presidents is known only to half.

Positive opinions on each of the supporter bodies remain high, with the GT's maintaining their place as the most popular (64% approval) with the AFT close behind on 58%. However, there has been a slight rise amongst those who hold negative opinions about supporters groups, but overall, 58% of all respondents want supporters to have more involvement with the club.

Finally, in this fast moving, socially interactive, shiny and modern world, some old traditions still keep their place. Just under two thirds want Semper Fidelis to be played in full as the teams come out, with a fifth saying an edited version is acceptable and one in ten who say that it isn't important to them.

95% of respondents were male, fairly evenly spread amongst the age groups, but with lower counts in the 26-45 age range, two thirds are married or living with a partner, with just over a quarter having children at home.

The Multis must've been very busy, over 50% in favour of the club buying the stadium.....riiight

I can put that to rest straight away, Les.

The survey was set to allow one response per IP address.

There are some multiple entries, as multiple devices accessed one IP address.

There were 22 doubles.

Four of those opted for "Purchase", 15 were split between the two options or didn't express an opinion, while three opted for "Remain".

Four sets of three respondents from one IP address were evenly split between Purchase, Remain or split.

One set of four respondents from one IP address opted for Purchase.

There was no gerrymandering here.

I hope you are right John although changing your ip is very simple, a friend has taught me how to do it in less than 30 seconds so I can use my phone to tether a tablet. Either way I'm staggered at that result, nearly everyone I've spoken to on the subject would prefer the freehold to remain as far away from Brent as possible.

I'd like to think that only a very small handful of people would go to those lengths in order to skew an online poll of this type.

I am also surprised by the outcome of the freehold question, but then I was equally surprised by the EU referendum. All but one or two of my friends voted "remain" on that one too, but the result went the other way.

Perhaps this demonstrates the possibility that if you generally associate with people who agree with you on certain topics, knowingly or not, you stand the chance of being surprised by a test of opinion that goes to a wider base.

What was the vote from last year survey on the grandstand? Do not forget we are dealing with an ex banker and his piglets.

If you mean the question on the freehold purchase, this is the first year in which that has been asked.

How, exactly, was the freehold question worded?

Do you prefer that the Football Club Board should exercise its right to purchase the freehold of Home Park in October 2016 or that Home Park remains in public ownership by Plymouth City Council?

Purchase
Remain
No opinion
Don't know

44% of those who like the way the club presents itself on social media worries me!!! how can they like that childish crap lol

John_Lloyd wrote:

Do you prefer that the Football Club Board should exercise its right to purchase the freehold of Home Park in October 2016 or that Home Park remains in public ownership by Plymouth City Council?

Purchase
Remain
No opinion
Don't know

Or Would you prefer that the existence of Home Park is guaranteed by public ownership via Plymouth City Council or that the owner of the time is allowed to purchase Home Park and use it as collateral for a private loan?

Public Ownership
No Opinion
Private Ownership
Don't Know

Brent must be pissing himself laughing. I struggle to think of a more doff capping complaint population than the janners. Merely glad to be alive and that having a football club, no matter how shit, is a bonus.

"Why don't you take my wife up the big house Sir?"

As far as freehold ownership goes, I think we are all scarred by what happened last time.

I know a large % of those who voted for Brent to have the opportunity to buy the freehold will have done so because they are true Aviva'd lemmings who just think "ee saved us!"

But for me, private Freehold ownership - in the right hands, not Brent's obviously  - will be the only way Argyle will ever realistically achieve anything other than bobbing between the middle two , sorry, I'll have to adjust that under Brent to bottom two leagues.

Look how much opposition the last lot received when looking to buy the freehold - virtually none. Why? Because people could see that if things were done in the right way (they weren't, obviously) there was a real chance of attracting real proper genuine investment; the sort of investment that only seems to happen at other clubs.

I think we are all acutely aware that Brent will not sling his hook until he has done precisely what he came here to do in the first place - make money. That is why he negotiated a backup opportunity to purchase the freehold on a five yearly basis. His catastrophic  HHP Plan A failed miserably because it was laughably inept on virtually every level.

So he now moves to Plan B.

I know a lot will disagree, but for me Brent buying the freehold is a necessary evil. Why? Ownership of the club in it's current guise will never change. There is simply nothing of worth to sell. So how does Brent get his dollar? He doesn't. The result? He stays, and we continue to be run like the established 4th division club we've sadly become under his ownership.

The only way we will be (a) rid of Brent, and (b) have any chance of truly prospering, is under new owners who want Argyle to truly achieve something. For that reason, Brent buying the Freehold needs to happen so he can make his money by selling to (hopefully) people who want to grow the club and move it forward. If we are to have any chance of doing what dozens of other clubs have done - prospered under successful genuine forward thinking owners, the first step unfortunately is for the club to actually be worth selling, and that equates in the first instance to Brent buying the Freehold.

There are no guarantees of course. He could sell to a shyster. But I look at where we are now and where we were in 2011. What's the worst that could happen? If we'd gone to the wall and started again, we'd almost certainly have risen to where we are now, or very close league-wise, in the last five years. Under Brent all we've done is stagnate and as I said before, become an established 4th division club.

That is why the risk of Brent buying and selling to someone else is a risk most definitely worth taking.

Unless people are just happy to have a club,  and generally continue to be crap.

You make your point well Czar, I'm struggling to agree with all of it because of some of the fears you outline but excellent post nonetheless.

I was one of a very small number of people who objected to the previous freehold purchase.

My grounds for doing so (forgive the pun) were all to do with the future of Home Park, once it had been converted from a football ground into a monetised asset.

At the time, I trusted Paul Stapleton and his board of the time to have the best interests of Argyle at heart, as I knew them all to be proper dyed in the wool fans, like the rest of us.

But I wondered about the sort of people who might be attracted to the club if they saw it primarily as a development potential, rather than a football club.

Once it left the hands of Argyle fans and became an asset to be traded off-field, the risks of separation and disaster increased.

We all know what happened next.

Move forward nearly ten years since the last time the freehold ownership came up for discussion and the environment and history all look very different indeed, but the concerns about the future transfer of the ground ownership will remain very much the same.

I admit to great surprise at the outcome of the freehold question in this year's survey.

I would have expected more fans to have recalled that the path to administration began with the freehold purchase and the introduction of non-Argyle fans onto the board, attracted by the asset now in their hands to manipulate without oversight.

That a majority of the fanbase believes that this path should be taken again is perhaps a replication of the concept that it is better to own than to rent your own house, transferred to your football club.

It is also perhaps a sign that most fans are less interested in the off-field issues and the general stability of the last few years has earned their trust - despite the lack of progress in the league - to the extent that they are willing to roll the dice again.

In the final analysis, James Brent is the only person whose opinion that matters now. He has the right to exercise the option to purchase the freehold and PCC will be obliged to sell it if he asks.

Here we go again...

Can I recall the AFT had a vote on the purchase of the ground and the majority wants to keep it in PCC hands, That why they put a ACV on the ground.

The purchase of the freehold, the one regret from my short time on the Board. The positives of club ownership are well documented. The results of what happens when it goes wrong similarly documented. (And John Lloyd did warn us at the time - he was right, we were wrong).

There is a bigger worry now than then. Right now the land around the ground (HHP) is owned not by the football club, it is owned by one of JBs companies - HHP Nominees Ltd. The football club pays rent for use of the club offices and the club shop (soon to be added to for the supporters bar?)

Now when October comes and the ground is purchased, exactly who will purchase it? Will it be the club, therefore mortgage paid instead of rent and with the club actually owning the asset, or will it be another of JBs companies with the football club then at the mercy of a private landlord, and not necessarily a friendly one in the future?

Public ownership of a City's football stadium is not necessarily an impediment to its development, expansion or improvement in facilities. In the Premiership the Etihad, the KCOM and Liberty Stadium are all examples of public ownership stadiums (although Swansea City Council may now sell to new owners). Closer to home Exeter City Council own St James Park. The Secretary of State has just given them clearance to go ahead with their replacement grandstand and enabling development. Some may also recall that the ill fated HHP proposal was dependent on only part of the Home Park stadium land being transferred to the HHP Nominee Company. The main bulk of the proposed new grandstand and the rest of the stadium was to remain in public ownership with an enhanced rent to pay.

So why would the freehold be purchased? The existing 2011 lease allows for a grandstand to be built upwards of 3,800 in capacity. HHP Nominee Limited already own the adjoining HHP land for which they paid the Football Club £465,000. It now has the benefit of a commercial planning permission for the first time which even though unviable has enhanced the value of the land as it is the first time a commercial planning permission has been granted on the land. The value must have been enhanced enough to enable the £800,000 PCC loan for the Football Creditor debt to be used as security. Interestingly, the HHP Nominee Ltd accounts show a sub £250.00 figure in them for the last two returns which must mean the HHP planning application costs were not paid for by HHP Nominee Limited.

Simon Hallett whilst non-committal on the freehold purchase did say, if I recall correctly, that it would create an immediate 8% return (based on the acquisition cost v the rent paid). If the freehold is purchased then it will be for around £1.7m. Add this to James Brent's purchase of HHP for £465,000 then he will have paid £2.165m for the combined sites. I would anticipate a fairly swift revaluation, as was done with the Pavilions, and I suspect it will be significantly higher than for what he has paid for it, even in a poor commercial climate. Some may remember Paul Stapleton securing a very much larger figure when the stadium was revalued post acquisition from PCC and that was before it had a proven commercial development value on the accompanying HHP land. If the combined sites are revalued higher then shareholder value will increase with it as does the potential to use such a revaluation as security for loans (and we all know where that lead us last time).

I have heard anecdotally that James Brent charges the Football Club rent for the use of the temporary buildings on the HHP land. This is not shown in the HHP Nominee accounts and so such claims and allegations should be treated with the utmost caution. I have no idea if this correct but is certainly a question to ask and perhaps the AFT can seek clarification. If true then these buildings, including the GT Marquee do not have the benefit of even a planning permission and we have been waiting since April for the full details of the new temporary accommodation arrangements, including a new 'Far Post Club' to be submitted to the Council for validation and registration of the planning application. If, and it remains a big if to be confirmed, the Football Club is charged rent for its use of the HHP land then of course it would set a precedent for the same outcome on the stadium.

I have worked in property in Plymouth for over 30 years and I get the economic case for the freehold of the stadium. It makes perfect sense if you have the clear funds resources to make such a purchase. if you have to borrow to make the acquisition then that is another charge on the property and we are back to the Lombard situation. My only interest is the future well being of the football club. A new grandstand remains a distant prospect as the commercial market for any enabling development will not generate anywhere near enough funds in profit to build even a minimum requirement. In our current circumstances I would much rather any funds be invested in a significant upgrade in the corporate and food / drink facilities at Home park and some general refurbishment of the grandstand. Th case for safe standing on the Mayflower could also be pursued as a medium term option pending the outcome of its success at Celtic.

I sincerely hope that the Board engage in a serious debate and seek views from supporters before they formally consider a purchase of the freehold. The Close Season Survey is not, in itself, a green light to go ahead. The Board must set out the reasons and benefits of going ahead with the freehold purchase. The failure to do so will be seen as self interest being put before the interest of the Football Club and its supporters.

Following the results of the survey being published, I'm aware that the AFT will be posting a response on this issue, inviting all fans to join in a discussion on the way ahead.

The AFT will surely welcome all those who have a concern or an interest in shaping that discussion, to make sure that the facts of the matter are well understood.

The question of the freehold ownership lies in one man's hands. But we can all have our say, hopefully learning from experience and our history.

So James managed to 'save us' without spending a single penny of his own money?

We can all have our say, yes. Well, we can on ATD and on the Argyle Free chat Facebook site.

Let's be honest though. James Brent buying the Freehold is as much a certainty as the sun rising in the east tomorrow, regardless of what anyone else says or does.

What that will do hopefully though, is open the eyes of the Aviva'd masses who still think JB acts primarily in the interests of PAFC.

Dick Trickle wrote:

Brent must be pissing himself laughing. I struggle to think of a more doff capping complaint population than the janners. Merely glad to be alive and that having a football club, no matter how shit, is a bonus.

"Why don't you take my wife up the big house Sir?"

So true. Very sad indeed.

Dick Trickle wrote:

Brent must be pissing himself laughing. I struggle to think of a more doff capping complaint population than the janners. Merely glad to be alive and that having a football club, no matter how shit, is a bonus.

"Why don't you take my wife up the big house Sir?"

Quality, Dick!! No matter how shit things get under the Brentmare, the Toadies will keep on Toading!

Dick Trickle wrote:

Brent must be pissing himself laughing. I struggle to think of a more doff capping complaint population than the janners. Merely glad to be alive and that having a football club, no matter how shit, is a bonus.

"Why don't you take my wife up the big house Sir?"

Exactly. Some of the results of this survey are absolutely extraordinary. I am honestly stunned to read some of this. And to think that people pay hundreds of pounds a year yet are overall satisfied with the club and the quality of service it provides. No wonder some of us turn to the idea of multis or some form of manipulation of the results - in many ways that would be preferable to the reality of so many being satisfied with shit. Utter shit.

I feel sorry for those who take a realistic view of the club and actually expect something half decent in return for their hard-earned cash. But it looks like many Argyle fans are getting precisely the pile of shite they deserve.

Graham Clark wrote:

Interestingly, the HHP Nominee Ltd accounts show a sub £250.00 figure in them for the last two returns which must mean the HHP planning application costs were not paid for by HHP Nominee Limited.

So who did pay the planning application costs - and how much might they have been?