Location Argyle

AS Lyndy says...there's more to consider than just the players.....and I'm sure most Div 1 or 2 clubs of PAFC's size wouldn't financially survive such a division of their 'work force' or 'back-room' or 'office' staffs for long....as I've already said players and families should live if possible near the club that's paying their wages.

 

I do realise that the above subject is hardly likely to happen plym. As I said at the outset it was an idea, radical it's true, that we kicked about. The rational behind it was originally the ever complaint that Argyle somehow suffer in the transfer market for players because of the location of the club. Now, I for one do not accept that we do suffer that much. With the way football has gone and the influx of foreign players there is bound to be a knock on of a surplus of players in the lower leagues who find it difficult themselves to get a contract. The standard of football in the bottom two leagues has gone up in my opinion over recent years. If a player doesn't want to come to this neck of the woods then feck him is my opinion. Cutting off nose to spite face comes to mind. But, and that is a huge but by the way, if people do realistically think that our location is a problem even now then this subject is as far as I can see the only realistic way to overcome that. Hence the chuck it in and see what others come up with. At least it's something to debate for a change.

 

When you put this all into perspective you can hardly say that the UK is a large land mass....imagine playing for a living in....Russia, USA, Canada, Australia or Brazil to name just a few (in any national sport)....now that is what you could say is a long journey....ok I realize that in the States for instance Grid Iron (there idea of Football) is more zonal...but even then their travelling is well beyond anything we could experience in the UK.....and of course they would nearly always fly....fans as well I expect.
Maybe we come back to the old question....has the West Country...in this case Plymouth got adequate transportation.....a city of over a quarter of a million and no M-way link and a fragile railway link that has been known to be washed away in extreme weather conditions....and we haven't even mentioned an airport facility for such a large area....which must limit industrial growth, plus growth and careers in many other working environments.

Maybe footballers are spoilt....for instance around London or the Midlands or Lancashire/Yorkshire areas you can move to other clubs and possibly not have to move your home or family situations.....with a local airport for instance in Plymouth it could be possible for me to get to Plymouth in an hour from Biggin Hill (6 miles away) which is now seen as a London airport...and I know that they are well into businessmen commuting on a daily basis with a well organized road commute into central London....so spoilt footballers do seem to cringe at a club like Argyle who call a local derby anything between 100/300 mile round trip.

It has been good exploring the idea... but I think it won't be happening soon...and Lyndy did bring up some valid points from an insiders point of view....even commenting on Argyle's present situation of having their ground and offices a couple of miles apart...can cause a few problems.

 

It is an interesting idea to kick around, but for what it is worth I don't think we have too much of a problem attracting decent players to the area. If we were able to pay a bit more on wages (which we probably aren't) then I don't think it would an issue at all. The problem is location coupled with an 'average' wage. If we could pay the same as, or a bit more than a comparable club in the midlands or north then I think the problem would go away.. Tin hat on but once the grandstand is complete and the new Players' facilities done, there will be plenty to attract Players to the area and the Club. Clearly we are disadvantaged in terms of loanees etc when compared with say Accrington and the number of clubs in walking distant of them but it is down to us (the club, supporters and area) to make sure the pros outweigh the cons.

 

You say on one hand that you don't think location is a problem and then say that the problem is location in the next sentence. Even if you did add the rider of wages being attatched to it. I was talking to the bloke who sits next to me regarding our recruitment at the last home game. This can't pay as much as the next club thing really bugs me. Why can't we? We have gates that most of the clubs in this league would die for. Forget the really big attendances that one or two others get but we get a pretty large gate ourselves. His take on it was that we are still paying for Administration so that eats away at our gate income. I have heard this historic debt argument for the last god knows how many years. When does it stop then because I cannot imagine we still have debt from that time now. I actually believe it's more to do with the club being run on shoe string than historic debt. It's more to do with our Ownership not being willing to spend anything of their own. I discount the referb because that is seperate to the playing staff and will eventually net the outlay a return and possibly eventually even a profit. I don't object to owners making a few quid but what I do object to is their failure to be honest about it. If most or better still all of the income generated went back into the club and pushed for improvement in league status then I think we would be competing very well with recruitment of players wages wise. Alas it is the Janner way that having ambition on the pitch comes a bit of a way down the list of must haves.

 

Is it because we're trying to stay debt free....which was always James Brent's bottom line.....some clubs are in the red in their bid to improve their squads and hope for promotion....and when they do get promoted they need to continually feed their aspirations and end up paying wages that they cannot afford.

 

I get the living within means argument and of course I would not like to see Argyle go back to the previous problems. I think if that happened then we would disappear completely this time. But, I still fail to see where all the revenue goes that we do generate. Yes I get there are all sorts of costs that occur as with any business but we have had more than a couple of windfalls cash wise since the dark days. I just cannot see it anywhere on the pitch or in negotiations with certain players. It has looked a lot like penny pinching than living within means. You know my opinion of Brent and his very long pockets so I won't go there again. I think history will eventually reveal that he has just made money from dealings with Argyle and PCC on the back of that and done little for the club in real terms. Just an opinion based on gut feeling rather than fact.

 

Believe it or not it is exactly two years ago that we got the Liverpool windfall and the replay must of cost us a packet with that temporary stand, Wembley I think was not so big a pay out as we might of expected....isn't the final money shared around somehow ?....can't quite put my finger on how it's done.

I think one of the 'extras' would have been Carey's wages.....was he going or was he staying.....two summers back and I'm sure certain other players got more than we would have normally been willing to pay....doesn't take long to disappear.....and of course attendances have dropped a little this season....the moving out of the grandstand might of dropped some season ticket holder....I expect that is an easier one to check.....Office renting at the moment has to be paid for out of some ones pot...Adams 5 year contract.... etc, etc.....I'm not looking for excuses just reasons possibly why the pot isn't so full as some would like to believe.

 

Adams contract cost £x per year and if it was a one year contract would cost £x per year. Can't see extra there. Season ticket sales are up as far as I know so Grandstand hasn't done anything there either. We get almost double the gates on average than most other clubs in this league. Even this season it is currently over 9000. If you average 4000 tickets at a profit margin of £10 per seat then that is £40k more than most clubs times 23 for the season. Almost £1m per season. Yep I can see why we are strapped for cash. I don't buy it plym as you well know.

 

You don't make anywhere near £ 10 'profit' on a ticket. By the time you factor in season tickets and concessions, I think that the average net take per ticket is something like £12.50 so very little is 'profit'. Totally ignoring the playing budget, it is eyewateringly expensive to run a football club. Travel & hotel bills are almost certainly the highest (by some distance) for us, staff wages, insurance, pitch upkeep and machinery , kit, laundry, are all relentless costs, general maintenance, water and electricity are huge bills etc etc. and on top of all that you need to assemble a squad and pay them wages. Attendances obviously do impact on the amount of money coming into the club , but no where near as significantly as one would think. The bigger the crowd, the greater the stewarding,police and staff costs are - the whole thing is a very delicate balancing act, and ( in the absence of someone who wants to pump personal fortunes into it) the way to make things better is to make the club earn money on considerably more days than the approx 30 a year it is used for kicking a ball about- hence the investment in banqueting & conferencing facilities. Insider info for sure, but the cost involved in just existing has been the single biggest surprise to me.- and there is very little that can be done to reduce costs, so the solution has to be to generate more revenue .

 

Ok profit is the wrong word. What I meant was a ticket sale generates £10 so if it is not and is £12.50 then that is £50k per home game extra to a lot of teams which equatews to over £1m per season. They eat more and they drink more etc etc so that ofsets some at least of extra stewarding costs and the Police only get paid for being in the ground not outside it. Other clubs seem to manage without the cash generated by attendance even without a benefactor. I accept there are overheads and plenty of them but I am sick and tired of Argyle always playing the "we have nothing" card. Others have less. We will obviously have more when the grandstand stuff kicks in so what will the excuse be then. The money for the grandstand is seperate to running costs or so we have been told so doesn't impact on expenditure. Lets face it it's not as if anyone publishes accounts in the lower leagues so supporters are left to swallow whatever they are being fed. Argyle are forever pleading some sort of excuse for not doing this or that and always have done.

 

Most clubs outside the PL declare accounting losses year after year. Unfortunately they don't usually publish a cash flow statement but you don't have to be a genius to work out that they are only being kept alive because somebody us shovelling cash in at the other end.

Some would like that at Argyle but I wouldn't because we know only too well where it leads.

You say you don't either Sensible but you either run a balanced budget or you don't. Good players who can demand high wages can also demand long contracts and so if the financial subsidy stops, the club can't escape.

What you are suggesting is that the club should put the noose around its own neck, climb back on the stool and hope nobody kicks it away.

Sent from my mobile phone - E&OE

 

Shame Mr. Dawson doesn't care about any of the city's sporting establishments etc. Is he a charitable man in other ways?

 

I do agree with your comment notDistant.....Financial hope for Argyle can only come from a good Cup run and of course a favourable draw and preferably away to one of the big six....with the hope of an outcome like we had against Liverpool not so long ago plus the bonus of a replay as well.

The other way would be to unearth a young gem and sell him on to the biggest bidder....isn't that what all clubs in the lower reaches who run apprenticeship schemes hope for....or find a young 20 year old who blossoms into the best thing since sliced bread who Premier clubs come calling for.

The sugar daddy route can kick start a club up the rungs of success....but he must be long term and he mustn't dare die during the process....because then snakes and ladders come to mind....and only with snakes available.

With out looking it up I would say Elton John did that for Watford, and even though he moved on after a few years they have been reasonable successful and of course he is still a fan....so I feel sure he is still helping in some way.

The only multi-millionaire I can think of in Plymouth with his 'Range' brand is not a football fan and a bit of a prat to go with it so I'm told.

Is there anyone else that you can think of...other than slightly rich types like James Brent (thanks just a little jimmy) who could fall in love with Argyle and become their passion to spend, spend, spend on.

 

Just the man I hinted at above bedoboy...great minds of course think alike......

 

I think he's expressed his complete lack of interest before.

Sent from my mobile phone - E&OE

 

You are of course supposing that by putting more cash into the playing side of things that this would automatically generate a loss. It only generates a loss if the cash didn't exist in the first place. Now out of all of the cash generated, does anyone know if the owner or more to the point previous main share holder or family didn't actually take some cash out of the club rather than leave it in and spend it on the players? I suggest the answer to that is no you don't.

 

The nice Mr James Brent wouldn't do such an underhand thing....he's been brought up proper like.

 

I never said anything of the kind plym..............just chucking alternatives out there for discussion is all.

 

That's exactly the point Sensible. The P&L accounts are governed by financial and tax rules and if they show a big loss, then it's pretty safe to assume the club is cash negative also and those losses are being covered by cash injected by their owners.

There a non-cash items to be adjusted for and the balance might be affected if a player is sold for big money, but generally continuous losses mean negative cash.

What transactions have gone on between the owner and the club would only be evident if a cash flow statement was published but private companies don't need to do that.