Xthrobber on top throbbing form over Pompey Cash.....

Interesting stuff at fratton park......

http://www.pasoti.co.uk/talk/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=99693

harvetheslayer wrote:

Interesting stuff at fratton park......

http://www.pasoti.co.uk/talk/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=99693

Top Throbbing from Sussexs finest, not a happy throbber about Pompey fans wanting a loaded investor yet perfectly happy to stand shoulder to shoulder in the argo trenches with our non investing joke owner.

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

Interesting stuff at fratton park......

http://www.pasoti.co.uk/talk/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=99693

Top Throbbing from Sussexs finest, not a happy throbber about Pompey fans wanting a loaded investor yet perfectly happy to stand shoulder to shoulder in the argo trenches with our non investing joke owner.

DONT SLANDER SS68!!! Xthrobber doesnt go to games

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

Interesting stuff at fratton park......

http://www.pasoti.co.uk/talk/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=99693

Top Throbbing from Sussexs finest, not a happy throbber about Pompey fans wanting a loaded investor yet perfectly happy to stand shoulder to shoulder in the argo trenches with our non investing joke owner.

Why is he so angry about it? Its got feck all to do with him who owns Portmouth FC.

Hugh Watt wrote:

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

Interesting stuff at fratton park......

http://www.pasoti.co.uk/talk/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=99693

Top Throbbing from Sussexs finest, not a happy throbber about Pompey fans wanting a loaded investor yet perfectly happy to stand shoulder to shoulder in the argo trenches with our non investing joke owner.

Why is he so angry about it? Its got feck all to do with him who owns Portmouth FC.

Taken from a later Throbber post really bizarre.....perhaps Sussex's finest could apply the same principle to Brents abortion

"If they're struggling to fund parts of their ground then they must close, simple as"

Hugh Watt wrote:

BaffinsPompey on the Farm wrote:

I note all the aggressive messages, "hope it all goes wrong" etc, and I understand your anger to some degree. But ultimately football is about hope and dreams. yes we could trundle along in league 1 for the next 15 years just one fan income, we could even possible jump up another league just on fan income.. but heck you only live once. Are you honestly saying Plymouth would turn down a credible billionaire investing in your club in a sustainable way with long term plans?

The Farm wrote:

Yes, we like being crap.

I think it is far more nuanced than that.

We need to go to the core of what a football club is for and none of them were established to be the play thing of the global elite.

Originally they served two purposes: 1) something to keep the masses entertained on Saturday afternoons; 2) as an outlet for an area's local sportsmen to pit themselves against the next lot.

Effectively clubs were for, of and all about the local community and as such were owned by local businessmen (and in some cases actually formed to represent local businesses).

The Trust-owned model sits very happily in and is loyal to that context so the decision by a Trust to jettison the approach that actually saved their club from oblivion and to embrace the very same model that very nearly saw their demise is a worrying one and amounts to being a betrayal of the community that saved the day for them. Still they chose to sell up so it is their look out.

The clamour for wealthy investors is understandable but unsustainable. What if every one of the 92 attracted such a figure? They can't all win so the majority of them will fail, the man who puts the money in will protect his investment in some way, eventually give up and in all likelihood want his money back. Then what?

Rather randomly I have become reasonably friendly with a fella named Tony, the chair of the AFC Bournemouth Trust. Bournemouth's fans are as happy as Larry; things have never been better for them; they've not even been anywhere near being his good ever. They have only got there by running at a massive loss though. Should their mysterious Russian financer back out they will be saddled with a mountain of debt that they can never hope to cover so the Bournemouth Trust exists to tick over quietly and be ready to pick up the pieces when the wheels fall off.

I'm not sure that I would unreservedly welcome a seriously minted owner either. I'd prefer the club to represent me, my friends, the local community and the city I've lived in for most of my life than some filthy rich foreigner.

Besides it strikes me as being something of a displacement mindset. We are where we are because that is where we deserve to be not because some mythical benefactor is yet to emerge.

The first football clubs were actually founded in Victorian England by Churches and factories purely as a means of keeping people out of the pubs. The masses came later.

Regardless throughout all of the era's of football Argyle have been either mediocre or at some stage bottled being decent in order to return to the comfort of mediocrity and there is a large online section of support who determined to turn this into a race to the bottom.

"Yeah but look what happened to Portsmouth? They won an FA Cup and played in the premier league".

Like Tyhee Slim used to say "Its never us" and that in no small part to us never wanting it be us.

They basically cheated to win the FA Cup by continuing down the road to a financial oblivion that was unavoidable as a result of their policy. It was insane, predictable and should have been completely illegal.

(Admittedly Cardiff who they beat in the final were just as bad but that's neither here nor there.)

I suppose if that did happen to us I'd celebrate it long and hard along with everybody else but I'd know, deep down inside, that it was a hollow sham and that not only had we cheated the opposition but we'd also cheated ourselves by allowing it to happen.

By the way we were the only team to score a goal against Pompey in the FA Cup that year.

So people would rather have a broke benefactor like Brent than a rich one?

No wonder Argyle are crap.

I just don't want Argyle to be run as a vanity project with our future hanging on a thread attached to the whim of a capricious owner.

I'm all for investment in the sense that somebody speculates to accumulate. No problem with that at all but what tends to happen is money gets thrown in willy nilly, debt builds up, liabiities end up accumulating into the future and the money just haemorrhages into the bank accounts of players and agents and we end up with nothing to show for it.

I'd rather not have a benefactor at all; I'd prefer us to be Trust owned.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

They basically cheated to win the FA Cup by continuing down the road to a financial oblivion that was unavoidable as a result of their policy. It was insane, predictable and should have been completely illegal.

(Admittedly Cardiff who they beat in the final were just as bad but that's neither here nor there.)

I suppose if that did happen to us I'd celebrate it long and hard along with everybody else but I'd know, deep down inside, that it was a hollow sham and that not only had we cheated the opposition but we'd also cheated ourselves by allowing it to happen.

By the way we were the only team to score a goal against Pompey in the FA Cup that year.

And guess what? They survived and rather than have memories of a season of Paul Sturrock Mk2 playing one upfront at home with 5 shit midfielders in behind and still ending up in financial distress. They won an FA Cup and ended up in financial distress.

I'd like the club to achieve something that will be remembered one day because for 100 years of playing professional football Argyle have absolutely jack shit to show for it. I don't really care how its acheived, I'm just fed up of mediocrity manifesting itself by jizzing over how many we are going to take to Morecambe.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I'd rather not have a benefactor at all; I'd prefer us to be Trust owned.

...and the successful English league 'Trust' owned clubs are?

Rickler wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I'd rather not have a benefactor at all; I'd prefer us to be Trust owned.

...and the successful English league 'Trust' owned clubs are?

Who needs success when we can take 1500 to Crawley

Rickler wrote:

So people would rather have a broke benefactor like Brent than a rich one?

No wonder Argyle are crap.

Very true Ricks, who needs a spanking brand new Grandstand, when you can have an embarressing Yokelover Rooflless picnic seating Janner Job, provided by the smalltime plastic poncho gang.

Brent ISN'T a benefactor, fake, broke or otherwise. Where do people get this tosh ? Vichy pasoti ?
He's an underwriter, not a benefactor. He's in the business of taking value elsewhere, not putting money in.
Too right I would rather have a Trust than the present scenario, but I'm not surprised fans on here spout the same old money man routine. Portsmouth Trust did well, far better than our situation. Exeter aren't doing too badly either given the size of the club. It's the model to follow in the lower divisions. After that, maybe mill owner investment is the way forward, who knows, but it has to be money in, not money out. Brent is no mill owner.

Ok Beezy.. Turn benefactor into owner.

WOW! Portsmouth and Exeter cited for being a success? I think your definition of the word is different than mine.

Fan owned little Exeter probably getting promoted along with Portsmouth and Argyle, along with a new stand not charged to the club must be seen as a success, shorely. Goes against your economic principles I suppose.
Not all success stories in life are privately owned/sponsored/manipulated, in fact I would say history points to community underwriting and control is the most successful of all. Even in the cauldron of mill owner ego centered footy, European football has some very good examples of fan control succeeding over Brent style at the highest level. There are many ways to succeed, some more palatable than others.

Exeter being in the third division and (only now) getting a stand is just about where they should be anyway.. Regarding "normal" as a success only underscores my point.

For over 100 years we've been privately owned and got nowhere. I'm sure if we were Trust owned we could at least match that.

And we'd have a level of integrity that has been sadly absent too.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

For over 100 years we've been privately owned and got nowhere. I'm sure if we were Trust owned we could at least match that.

And we'd have a level of integrity that has been sadly absent too.

Yes indeedy, we have been privately owned and got nowhere relatively speaking. Ever considered the idea that it may have been private owners who simply were not up to the task of progressing Argyle beyond a certain level who were the real problem rather than the concept itself?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

For over 100 years we've been privately owned and got nowhere. I'm sure if we were Trust owned we could at least match that.

And we'd have a level of integrity that has been sadly absent too.

I guess it depends what your definition of "got nowhere" is. We've never been Trust owned and I'm pretty sure we've still spent more years at tier 2 level than at any other. Being Trust run would make spending more than 12 months at a time at tier 2 a major miracle.

A Trust run Club - and just stop and think for a minute at some of the clowns we've had overseeing our Trust - would go a huge way to Keeping Argyle Shit.

Dear oh dear. Tring was right, the biggest village in the country. A population desperate to welcome the latest squire.
So, what clowns would these be Czarky ? Any worse than Dan of Drakes Island or the 50 billion dollar brain Brent ?
South coast doffing to a tee. Pure dogma. ATD ain't that far from Vichy pasoti.

Greenskin wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

For over 100 years we've been privately owned and got nowhere. I'm sure if we were Trust owned we could at least match that.

And we'd have a level of integrity that has been sadly absent too.

Yes indeedy, we have been privately owned and got nowhere relatively speaking. Ever considered the idea that it may have been private owners who simply were not up to the task of progressing Argyle beyond a certain level who were the real problem rather than the concept itself?

Well there's been lots of owners who have had a go but you could level the same logic at success and the Trust owned clubs. Perhaps they've been owned by Trusts that weren't up to it rather than the concept itself?

I hardly need to point out that Barcelona and Bayern Munich are effectively supporter owned and they seem to manage as well as any. They're not English, admittedly, but the Trust model is still very new here.

Czarcasm wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

For over 100 years we've been privately owned and got nowhere. I'm sure if we were Trust owned we could at least match that.

And we'd have a level of integrity that has been sadly absent too.

I guess it depends what your definition of "got nowhere" is. We've never been Trust owned and I'm pretty sure we've still spent more years at tier 2 level than at any other. Being Trust run would make spending more than 12 months at a time at tier 2 a major miracle.

A Trust run Club - and just stop and think for a minute at some of the clowns we've had overseeing our Trust - would go a huge way to Keeping Argyle Shit.

So the pinnacle of your ambition is Tier 2?

Like I have already said I'm sure a Trust owned club could match that.

As for The Clowns... I agree. The Trust would be a very different animal if it owned even one share in the club. If it was in control it would be very different again.