Bideford game and DA Q&A- Reduced Playing Budget?

Angry wrote:

over a 1000 there finshed 3-1 jervis with a 2nd.

do we play a harder team next or another pub team?

Good crowd at Exe for a visit of a premier side.

Attendance: 2,125. 360 visiting supporters. 

Tgwu wrote:

Angry wrote:

over a 1000 there finshed 3-1 jervis with a 2nd.

do we play a harder team next or another pub team?

Good crowd at Exe for a visit of a premier side.

Attendance: 2,125. 360 visiting supporters. 

where they expecting a full crowd? dont think we would pull in much more than that for bournemouth tbf

For the numbskulls on Pasoti who say DA doesn't have the financial information to make his claim.

Argyle have to disclose their accounts to the Football League for the purposes of transparency, as do all other clubs.

When Brent said we had a 7th - 10th placed budget, no one asked questions - they accepted it.

Derek Adams knows what his wage bill is now, how much he's spent, and can see from last season how that compares to the rest of the division. In his mind, what he's spent ain't even top 10. More like 10th - 15th in his own words.

Is he saying it to calm supporters expectations? Of course. But what it reveals is a lot more disturbing about why the money is being held back and where it is going.

There is no way a club as large as Plymouth Argyle with an average crowd of 7,500 should be anywhere near the likes of AFC Wimbledon and Exeter (11th placed attendance last season) when it comes to budget, who have attendances of 4,000 or less.

If you accept that money from around 2,000 paying customers has to be set aside for previous debt commitments, it appears that the money from roughly 1,400 paying customers isn't going into DA's budget. It would be nice to know where that is going.

Angry wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Angry wrote:

over a 1000 there finshed 3-1 jervis with a 2nd.

do we play a harder team next or another pub team?

Good crowd at Exe for a visit of a premier side.

Attendance: 2,125. 360 visiting supporters. 

where they expecting a full crowd? dont think we would pull in much more than that for bournemouth tbf

Agreed. The fact that we're now three divisions below the mighty Bournemouth would probably put off more people than it would attract. Much like when we played Swansea in pre-season last year (?). We all remember playing dozens of League games against them - why watch a meaningless friendly in which we'd get thumped?

John Hawkins wrote:

Greenskin wrote:

God give me strength.

Tiger has always been a Noolite  Even sports the eyes. Can't resist it. Followed his prey from Pasoti onto here.
Usual disinformation and deflection. Has tagged onto the grisly thing in an instant. Says it all.

Oldies like me remember ''Grizzly Adams'' from a film and TV series. Is that title being used on the farm? I had no idea!
Yet, still, posters are crowing about where our budget lies in the big picture. Which of you posters can quote the budget and the budgets at other clubs? Think I could be waiting for an answer for a while. I prefer to deal with facts not conjecture - its the way I was brought up and trained.

tigertony wrote:

John Hawkins wrote:

Greenskin wrote:

God give me strength.

Tiger has always been a Noolite  Even sports the eyes. Can't resist it. Followed his prey from Pasoti onto here.
Usual disinformation and deflection. Has tagged onto the grisly thing in an instant. Says it all.

Oldies like me remember ''Grizzly Adams'' from a film and TV series. Is that title being used on the farm? I had no idea!
Yet, still, posters are crowing about where our budget lies in the big picture. Which of you posters can quote the budget and the budgets at other clubs? Think I could be waiting for an answer for a while. I prefer to deal with facts not conjecture - its the way I was brought up and trained.

you choose to ignore facts that you dont agree with that should say

tigertony wrote:

John Hawkins wrote:

Greenskin wrote:

God give me strength.

Tiger has always been a Noolite  Even sports the eyes. Can't resist it. Followed his prey from Pasoti onto here.
Usual disinformation and deflection. Has tagged onto the grisly thing in an instant. Says it all.

Oldies like me remember ''Grizzly Adams'' from a film and TV series. Is that title being used on the farm? I had no idea!
Yet, still, posters are crowing about where our budget lies in the big picture. Which of you posters can quote the budget and the budgets at other clubs? Think I could be waiting for an answer for a while. I prefer to deal with facts not conjecture - its the way I was brought up and trained.

The club is privvy to the budgetary information and statistics of the Football League.

When James Brent said last season Argyle had a 7th - 10th placed budget, why did you not question or dispute that? He knew then just as Adams has a fair idea now.

tigertony wrote:

John Hawkins wrote:

Greenskin wrote:

God give me strength.

Tiger has always been a Noolite  Even sports the eyes. Can't resist it. Followed his prey from Pasoti onto here.
Usual disinformation and deflection. Has tagged onto the grisly thing in an instant. Says it all.

Oldies like me remember ''Grizzly Adams'' from a film and TV series. Is that title being used on the farm? I had no idea!
Yet, still, posters are crowing about where our budget lies in the big picture. Which of you posters can quote the budget and the budgets at other clubs? Think I could be waiting for an answer for a while. I prefer to deal with facts not conjecture - its the way I was brought up and trained.

So why the hell did Adams make the comment-are the people such as Greensam,ND Green and others on PASOTI who clearly stated that he said those words lying ? Does your training allow you to answer that question? We had this last year when Brent clearly stated at a supporters meeting in Bodmin that the budget was the 7-9th biggest in the division. Some people simply would not accept it and said that there was no way that Brent would know such detail,in exactly the same way as you are now. Ever heard of the Financial Fair Play system whereby clubs can only spend 55% of their turnover on salaries? How could anyone possibly know if clubs are abusing the system without a projected turnover comparison which is accessible to all relevant parties? When Gary Johnson got sacked at Yeovil last year, their chairman clearly stated in the press that he was given the push because Yeovil were under achieving on the 14th biggest budget in the division;

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Very precise,the 14th biggest budget in the division.Why on earth would he have been so explicit without exact information on which to base his comments? Looks like your idea of conjecture could be a good bit more factual than you seem willing to realise.

ejh wrote:

For the numbskulls on Pasoti who say DA doesn't have the financial information to make his claim.

Argyle have to disclose their accounts to the Football League for the purposes of transparency, as do all other clubs.

When Brent said we had a 7th - 10th placed budget, no one asked questions - they accepted it.

Derek Adams knows what his wage bill is now, how much he's spent, and can see from last season how that compares to the rest of the division. In his mind, what he's spent ain't even top 10. More like 10th - 15th in his own words.

Is he saying it to calm supporters expectations? Of course. But what it reveals is a lot more disturbing about why the money is being held back and where it is going.

There is no way a club as large as Plymouth Argyle with an average crowd of 7,500 should be anywhere near the likes of AFC Wimbledon and Exeter (11th placed attendance last season) when it comes to budget, who have attendances of 4,000 or less.

If you accept that money from around 2,000 paying customers has to be set aside for previous debt commitments, it appears that the money from roughly 1,400 paying customers isn't going into DA's budget. It would be nice to know where that is going.

Since I posted earlier I have been thinking along very similar lines with a couple of variations on themes.

Firstly I accept that something like the first 2000 bums on seats were paying off historic debt but with the PCC loan and the take up of the early pay-off deal that must now be considerably less than it was. How much less I don't know. I'd pluck half out of thin air as a figure as likely as any other. Which makes the missing 1400 (shades of Karallon for any old rockers out there!) considerably higher...

Secondly the team budget may not have been reduced in real terms. Again plucking figures out of thin air 55% of our turnover is the maximum possible. Call that £2.5m. Obviously we aren't maxed out so call it £2m for sake of argument. If our budget was £2m last year and it ranked 7th it might just be that £2m next year ranks 10th (or worse). Is that reasonable? I wouldn't be surprised if Bristol Rovers coming up and Notts County, Orient, Yeovil on their way down don't beat our notional £2m.

It's entirely possible, likely even, that our drop from 7th to 10th (or worse) comes about as a direct result of our rivals spending more rather than us spending less.

Which still doesn't explain where the "1400" (and the rest) money is going.

To cut a long story short, Brents budget is shockingly poor for a club of Argyles size, we know Brent has no ambition whatsoever for Argyle, yet a small number of Gratefuls still wont admit in public anyway that this is the case.

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

To cut a long story short, Brents budget is shockingly poor for a club of Argyles size, we know Brent has no ambition whatsoever for Argyle, yet a small number of Gratefuls still wont admit in public anyway that this is the case.

Its hard to understand why he remains owner when he isnt interested and his sole purpose for buying the club has gone with hhp being dead in the water.

Angry wrote:

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

To cut a long story short, Brents budget is shockingly poor for a club of Argyles size, we know Brent has no ambition whatsoever for Argyle, yet a small number of Gratefuls still wont admit in public anyway that this is the case.

Its hard to understand why he remains owner when he isnt interested and his sole purpose for buying the club has gone with hhp being dead in the water.

Probably hoping the Land value will keep rising so it makes sense to hold on to his asset while at the same time making sure the football club is run on a shoe string costing him no money.

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

Angry wrote:

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

To cut a long story short, Brents budget is shockingly poor for a club of Argyles size, we know Brent has no ambition whatsoever for Argyle, yet a small number of Gratefuls still wont admit in public anyway that this is the case.

Its hard to understand why he remains owner when he isnt interested and his sole purpose for buying the club has gone with hhp being dead in the water.

Probably hoping the Land value will keep rising so it makes sense to hold on to his asset while at the same time making sure the football club is run on a shoe string costing him no money.

From an outsiders point of view, 68 you are 100% on the money IMO.

Foxy wrote:

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

Angry wrote:

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

To cut a long story short, Brents budget is shockingly poor for a club of Argyles size, we know Brent has no ambition whatsoever for Argyle, yet a small number of Gratefuls still wont admit in public anyway that this is the case.

Its hard to understand why he remains owner when he isnt interested and his sole purpose for buying the club has gone with hhp being dead in the water.

Probably hoping the Land value will keep rising so it makes sense to hold on to his asset while at the same time making sure the football club is run on a shoe string costing him no money.

From an outsiders point of view, 68 you are 100% on the money IMO.

he is right but its not as of he can build on that land what he wants not that he could in anycase so its land going up in value that he cant do anything with unless he builds a stand and ice rink and it fits the nature of central park..

oh well

Hey, Tiger, check out pieandbovril, where grizzly Derek Adams goes head to head with Andre the giant.
While I was there I came across the following fact during a Scot debate over Mr Adams ... When Chuck Norris and Mr T met for a fight, the earth shat itself and created England'
Facts are funny things and quite disconcerting for some, apart from those who are trained to react to a whistle, I guess.

If the owner and Manager do not know the exact details of the fooking budget then who the fook does?

I see Pasoti's Moderating double standards are still alive and well. ChronicGreen has the word "idiot" removed as it's an insult. Yet the Site Owner can throw accusations of mental illness (manic depression), and this is wholeheartedly agreed with by the Site Manager.

They really do shoot themselves in the foot don't they?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Czarcasm wrote:

I see Pasoti's Moderating double standards are still alive and well. ChronicGreen has the word "idiot" removed as it's an insult. Yet the Site Owner can throw accusations of mental illness (manic depression), and this is wholeheartedly agreed with by the Site Manager.

They really do shoot themselves in the foot don't they?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I see drummer boy has eluded to having filmed that Q & A so it might make on the site soon.. I wonder if it will be unedited and uncut?

Czarcasm wrote:

I see Pasoti's Moderating double standards are still alive and well. ChronicGreen has the word "idiot" removed as it's an insult. Yet the Site Owner can throw accusations of mental illness (manic depression), and this is wholeheartedly agreed with by the Site Manager.

They really do shoot themselves in the foot don't they?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Yep noticed that too and Grumpy receiving another personal attack rather than the site owner counter debate his point.

Angry wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

I see Pasoti's Moderating double standards are still alive and well. ChronicGreen has the word "idiot" removed as it's an insult. Yet the Site Owner can throw accusations of mental illness (manic depression), and this is wholeheartedly agreed with by the Site Manager.

They really do shoot themselves in the foot don't they?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I see drummer boy has eluded to having filmed that Q & A so it might make on the site soon.. I wonder if it will be unedited and uncut?

Indeed. Previous Q&A's have been shown in their entirety. If Adams' comments regarding the budget are edited out that will be pretty damning.

Czarcasm wrote:

I see Pasoti's Moderating double standards are still alive and well. ChronicGreen has the word "idiot" removed as it's an insult. Yet the Site Owner can throw accusations of mental illness (manic depression), and this is wholeheartedly agreed with by the Site Manager.

They really do shoot themselves in the foot don't they?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The hypocrisy of the chosen few is visible to all but the blinkered.

There seem to be a number (on p'bay) asking for evidence that the budget is cut- its plain to see as we are two coaches down on last season; the playing squad has also been reduced by 4 or 5- we have 15/16 pros on the books and will make up the numbers for a playing squad with 2-3 loans. Our midfield is paper thin- if we get 2-3 injuries and suspensions I think Derek and Wotton will have to play!

It looks like Brent has used Sheridan's departure to cut the budget on League 2 novice, Adams. Sheridan knew the budget cost of a league 2 promotion winning side, sadly Adams doesn't.

With the club running a profit, is Brent using this as an opportunity to get some of his loan money back?

Brent is intent on getting his money back whether there is profit or not.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Brent is intent on getting his money back whether there is profit or not.

And we will never be shot of him till he gets every penny back nor will we see the club prosper on or off the field as a result.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Brent is intent on getting his money back whether there is profit or not.

And we will never be shot of him till he gets every penny back nor will we see the club prosper on or off the field as a result.