Moseley.

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
You know it's fabled, I know it's fabled, but there are lot out there who seem to think & behave as though it was real. Most importantly, it deludes them into thinking there are scores of rich men out there just dying to invest in such a big club. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

You are right, we ought to be able to outperform the clubs you name when the finances are sorted out. Equally of course, there are rival clubs out there who are presently being funded on an unsustainable basis, like mini-Man Cities.

You & I have been through bad times before. If we'd and the likes of us had given up the first time tough times came along, the club would have 500 loyalists not 5,000, wouldn't it?
 
We have been round and round this subject so many times. It is chicken and egg syndrone you can, sorry should, only extend the club as far as the hardcore reliable fan base anything else is gambling on sucess and we should appreciate by now where that can get you. In this league we do have one of the better fan bases, that has been inflated by the troubles but still we are pretty good, we also have the back wages to pay and have had to rebuild pretty much the entire squad from scratch either from the dole, offcasts or youth. This squad is not that strong, no matter what the mystical piece of paper says, a couple of injuries in key areas and we are paper thin and add to that no strikers. Historically we have been up and we have been down and will continue to do so unless we get a sugar daddy or very lucky. Do I like it no not particularly but pretty much new what I was letting myself in for when I first walked into the Devonport End. Bradford, Sheffields, Leeds, Nottingham, Leicester, Coventry, Soton plus a fair few more have all been at the top and fallen hard but keep stronger fan bases than us.
Is this the worse team we have had at Home Park, dunno tell you at Xmas, but I am guessing not from what I have heard. Is there a reason for the slump? Two I can possibly see:

A. We have been really unlucky and employed useless managers Sturrock, Mariner, Reid, Fletcher.

or

B. A bunch of chancers gambled on a pipe dream for a quick buck and screwed us when it fell through.

It will take one of two things to fix this either time or a shed full of money and we can't even afford a shed at the moment.
 
Under the Mc'Auley era at this level in the late 90's I believe we were struggling to get 4K a game, so really now the support's not too bad that's because the success we had in the early 2000's we managed to build a better fan base. That's why the teams you mentioned above have a far better home following than us because they were in the top flight for donkey's years.
So that's why Mr. Brent has to realise success brings success and not just hoping for some good fortunes that "may" pass by.
Probably a combination of A & B Mexijan but now Sexstone has put a word in for a long awaited chairman....who know's, maybe we will get a great Xmas gift after all? <cracker>
 
We are paying off historical debt that much is true. However even when you factor that in we still have a stronger potential budget than many other clubs. Some do have a benefactor of sorts. Not quite in the Man C/Chelsea category but comensurate with the league we are talking about. I also think that the fabled green army is partly to do with the hard support of the 5/6000 supporters rather than the numbers involved being huge. The away support is way above the normal and they are loud and travel vast distances in a season. To me that is where the tag comes from.

When we exited Admin we did so with a blank balance sheet except for the back wages we all know about. Other clubs with less than half of our turnover have managed to sign players from all over the place whilse we just re-signed the ones we had. Well pretty much anyway. This says to me that Fletcher is either very loyal to his boys or is extremely stupid. I know which one I vote for being right. For a side with supposedly so much baggage in the money department we have still managed to employ more players than any other side. How come if we are so broke? Quantity not quality seems to have been the order of the day. When we got a double promotion under Sturrock we did so on a squad of around 20 players. Why then have we now got 30?

This season has rapidly become a carbon copy of the last 4 in terms of poor performances and results. We have far less excuse for that than most of the sides in league 2. The only reason I can see is Fletcher. He has bought the players in, he trains them and they play to his orders on a matchday. Who else is to blame if not him? I can understand why Brent gave him the job initially. He needed to be cheap in case it didn't work out. But, I cannot understand how a supposed successful business man can persist with failure. The fact, whether we like it or not, is that people will only stand for failure for so long before they get itchy feet and walk. The more recent crowds are a reflection that people are walking. Even the most ardent fans are beginning to question it all which must tell Brent that his business model is in trouble. I'm not asking for him to pump in mega money and I never have. I want the club to survive long term by being sensible and not risking their existance again. But if the ship has a hole in it then you have to fix it.
 
Quite right Hp I have stood in HP with sub 4K crowds and watched some pretty dire Argyle sides in the past and those assembled without the financial constraints we now have. You hit the nail on the head when you have success and a decent run in top flight then big Jan takes little Jan to Argyle to watch the Manchester, Liverpool and London clubs and he becomes a fan when times are hard he stays we have never had that.
4 years Sensible and several managers so what is constant not the manager.... pointless battering this back and forth coz we both have very differing opinions on this and won´t change them. That said I think it maybe time for a change not that I believe that Fletcher is a bad manager and he made no contacts in his years of top level football, never picked up any tactical awareness despite playing under some good managers, played at international level as well, but sometimes it just isn´t working and the cheapest change is the manager. Although what we get might not please some I feel <coughWOTTONcough> I actually think the Director of football is a fairly good idea but thats just my humble opinion.
 
Bedoboy

No, they're in the top flight because they have a better home following [and therefore a fatter wallet] than we do!
 
Top flight clubs depend on Sky and it's bottomless wallet.... not just the size of the crowd.........when you are paying out those astronomical wages the size of the support is not enough.
 
......and that final push to try and achieve that land of plenty is where PAFC came off the rails......and the rest is history......I thought someone was writing a book about Argyle's demise and the administration fight.....does anyone know if that is happening yet ?
 
It's a myth that teams at the top have more supporters therefore that is how they got to the top. They have more supporters because they ARE at the top. Plenty of clubs didn't have until they achieved it. It's TV money as plym says not the actual gate receipts which are only a small part of their income. They could probably carry on with nobody in the ground by paying players only slightly less. The very top teams are rich people's toys who could also carry on without supporters. To compare them with the lower leagues is pointless because the whole set up is completely different.
 
So before TV money, before the Premier League, where were Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man U, Newcastle and Tottenham then? It's nothing to do with TV money that's a relatively recent thing that's just magnified the difference between the have & the have nots.

There are plenty of cases of clubs who've got to the Premier League and had the Skygeld but it hasn't kept them anywhere near there, so it isn't as significant as all that.

The root cause is how many attend home games - in our case 5k in bad times and 15k in the good. The 15k gets us nowhere near the top half of the Championship, let alone higher and the 5k... well, where we spend most of our time, League 1 or League 2.
 
Blackpool. Hull. Wigan. QPR. Swansea. 15000 plus? Don't think they had that before they got there. May not be there now but still managed it previously. The other teams you quote got there long before the crowds dwindled elsewhere. Argyle used to get 25000 once upon a time long ago. To dismiss the TV money now is ludicrous.
 
Before Sky.......players at the top level were paid well...........since Sky top players get paid obscene money that bares no relationship to anything.........some get paid in a week what the Prime Minister gets paid in a year........bums on seats will mean nothing to these clubs.
 
Of those Sensible only Wigan could claim to have established themselves up there and they have the best football chairman in the country by an extremely long distance - ex pro player & very successful business man.

Exactly Plymborn, the TV money passes through the clubs to the players: they were fighting at the very top of the league before and they still are, no change at all, except the artillery is bigger. What has happened is there's a bigger gap between them & the rest but their ranking hasn't changed.
 
In most cases they also had Directors who a) Had a large wad of cash and b) Prepared to invest a large wad of cash.

Interesting that 2 of those clubs mentioned were managed by an ex-Argyle manager add Pullis into that equation and we have had 3 managers capable of getting a club into the Premiership what we have not had is the backing to achieve this. Even with 20K+ crowds that is not enough to book your place in the Prem look at Leeds, Forest,the Sheffields, Middlesborough and probably a fair few I have missed, strong established hard core but been out of top flight for a long time now. Cardiff have a strong following and yet they are being heavily supported by their Asian investors without success to date. The problem with that is if success doesn´t come and these people get fed up with their toy and walk away then you are in the preverbial big time.
 
My point was that clubs are capable of at least getting there on gates less than 15000 even if they don't stay there. When you reach the top league most clubs establish more supporters and when they go back down hang on to some of them so that their base figure is more than they started with. The success breeds the interest. We have never been there like so many others so have never had a chance of getting 20000 and keeping them like Norwich for example. I don't think it is the size of the City that matters it is more a taste of the big time for whatever town/city the club hails from. Historically we increase our support for every league we climb. Better than most in league two, if in league one then again better than most and in the Championship equal to or better than at least half. Even a tilt at promotion more often than not produces much better crowds where other clubs don't have that in this league.
 
It's a statistical fact that there will always be short-term blips - Blackpool in the Premier League being the perfect example and Manchester City in League 1 in 98/99.

However, it's the long run we're talking about and there, fans = money = points on the board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back