Perhaps you should take that up with the court appointed administrator who has decided that it is in the creditors interests to keep the business as a going concern - to ensure funds available for creditors - rather than liquidation in which case after PKF & Portpin are paid there will be NO money available for all other creditors. Bloody hell I'd expect a comment like that from the DuckShunter but you always seemed less bitter.
It's the administrators top priority to look after the creditors. Trevor Birch will obviously be signing off on any transfers (or wages in this case) to make sure the club doesn't go into any further debt - and obviously there must be a small pot to cover ongoing wages. However, he also needs to ensure that the club is kept going to maximise the best return for these same creditors. You could make a case for us not having any bums on seats at the weekend (without wishing to start a conversation about the loyalty or otherwise of our fans), therefore no revenue coming in and less money for the creditors. Who knows, the FL may have insisted today that we sign up some players to ensure we're competitive. However, I'm very surprised that we're signing as many players as this so can only assume the wages aren't particularly excessive (perhaps we've done some more "deals"...). And don't worry, I'm sure you'll be able to enjoy some more pain our part yet. There's some stories doing the rounds that the receipt of parachute payments might actually hasten our demise as (a portion of) these are being used as working capital. Therefore, creditors might push for liquidation sooner before this money dries up so they can get their hands on some cash. The fun never stops...
Did we hell as like - a goalkeeper who has been playing part time for the last year or so. 2 players who got a taste of first team experience at the end of last season, straight from the academy. A coach - who was there just to assist the 16 year olds. And a 15 year old on the bench. They played with gusto - but they are not fit to play yet - and as employers PFC have a duty of care not to ruin them before they even finish their academy training.
I'll look out for you at the next game so you can give me an ongoing commentary of our level of competitveness. 2 of the 3 subs came on. The 3rd who didn't make his debut was 15 years old. He wasn't on the bench because he's some sort of wunderkind (unless I've missed this somewhere). Sure they gave an excellent account of themselves and no doubt the occassion played a big part in that. I'd expect a home game against a local rival on Saturday would hopefully mean they wouldn't take a beating. But another game on the following Tuesday away against a physical Colchester team...? As I said, I'm very surpised we've "signed" this many and fully expected we'd have to continue fielding the youth team perhaps bolstered by 3 or 4 short term contracted players.
We're getting off the point now, as it was speculation on my part (more than likely incorrect) that the FL insisted on some signings to make us competitive. But just trying to suggest that 11 players and some subs makes a competitive team is laughable. Perhaps we'll send on the under 5's. As long as there's at least 11 of them, we'll still be competitive...
It makes a team - it does not make it a competitive team. I'm pretty sure the FL has some rules in place on competitiveness.
I am sure, now we are starting on 0 points, we can finish a respectable low mid-table. Appleton's been top-notch in finding excellent, free agents, and bringing them into the club
Just interested in your plight as an Argyle follower.......we last year were in administration at this time last year and we had to play our apprentices as well.....but Brendan Guilfoyle the administrator brought in would not allow any players to be brought into the club until administration was complete......how are you allowed to bring players in at such a time.
If the squad is made up of 10 senior players and 10 development players then I would suggest that is a fair and reasonable balance. If we end up with 15 or more senior players then Pieking's comment is more valid. It depends on what we are paying them though. Let's say the player's salaries will total about £2.5M (which just under the figure in the PST's offer) that's an average of £125,000 per annum, or £2,400 per week. Still a lot, and half of them are youngsters on much less. So the £4M budget that MA was supposedly working doesn't stack up with me. Even £2.5M is high for our current position. Assuming the split of 7,000 seaon tickets sold so far is 4,000 adults, 1,500 seniors and 1,500 juniors that's still only about £1.5M, so we need gates of 11,000 to balance the books. It brings the ludicrous salaries of four years ago into focus, though, doesn't it?
I think you will find it is BULLSH*T, coming from the comments on our site this evening, from some supporters of the "village team" situated in the west side of Hampshire
LeadingFish - a good breakdown re the salaries etc and a fair summation - I hoped we'd end up with a squad of 24 circa - 12-14 "senior" players and the rest youngsters - League 1 will be physicall and the games come thick and fast - have my doubts that anything less than 22 will see us "competitive".
