Welcome Simon Hallett.

The new stadium is the obvious bit what the new stadium produced was the belief that the club could and would go forward. Argyles belief is on ice (shed) at the moment.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Reading's crowds picked up when the Mad Stad was built which was before they hit the PL.

At Elm Park they used to get about 6000 on a good day and the stadium was about 10K max.

You could say much the same for Hull and Swansea. The rise of both was propelled by a new stadium being built for them.

Either its nothing to do with ingrained support and more to do to with someone showing a bit of vision and investing in decent facilities which then led to on field success.

Bournemouth got promoted to the Prem after spending something like £39m over budget and receiving a slap on the wrist from the FA, can't ever see that happening at Argyle. We missed out badly not backing Holloway when the nucleus of a decent team was already in place. Stapes' plan was to wait for the big boys to tumble one after another as clubs like Leicester and Southampton went belly up for a couple of seasons lol.

Completely agree with Ears and Hugh above.

The new stadium was an announcement of intent that couldn't be quibbled with. The changes from Elm Park to the Mad Stad and from The Vetch to the Liberty Stadium (is that what it is called?) demanded a team that would grace it/them.

For all our talk over the years of "going for it" or "we're aiming to be a sustainable CCC club" or whatever the actual actions have never amounted to much more than a loan signing (usually only to replace a departee). It has all been a bit empty. Just words.

Even saying that the Horseshoe, when new, gave us a fillip. Compared to what was there before it was a massive improvement no matter how attached you were (and I was) to the old stadium.

This is why the refurb is so disappointing. It is a huge opportunity that we seem hell bent on not accepting. It's going to result in fewer seats (many with a restricted view), a terrace in front which still gets a soaking when it rains and we're going to be in debt for 30 years for the privilege of seeing it built.

Couple that with the "there will be no change in wider policy" and we're left with a plan that does not blow apart our own ingrained expectations let alone those of anybody who may be less committed than us. It says "steady as she goes", "more of the same" and while that may see us rise to CCC level on the odd occasion it won't be anything like enough to make it sustainable (if such a thing is even possible which I very much doubt) and nor will it enable the next push that will be required to get us higher.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Pompey have a history of success going waaaaaay back to well before the formation of the PL.

So have Preston North End and Blackpool. What point are you trying to make?

I don't think it is as simple as recent success.

Supporting Pompey is deeply ingrained. Much as it is at Burnley, though I hate to say it.

Not true.Pompey's gates were no bigger than Argyle's in the 1980's prior to Ball taking over and building a team which kicked it's way into the first division and they dropped to about 8000 odd in the late 1990's when they had a crap team which almost got relegated to the third division,smaller in fact than Argyle's gates were in the CCC. Burnley must have wondered whether the "ingrained support" was somewhat mystical when they were averaging 3200 in their bleak years of almost going out the league and their gates weren't too tearing in the CCC either-it was only when they reached the PL that the 20000 average started to be a regularity.Really does seem to be a problem for some to grasp that success on the field is the catalyst for these things to happen.

Greenskin wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Pompey have a history of success going waaaaaay back to well before the formation of the PL.

So have Preston North End and Blackpool. What point are you trying to make?

I don't think it is as simple as recent success.

Supporting Pompey is deeply ingrained. Much as it is at Burnley, though I hate to say it.

Not true.Pompey's gates were no bigger than Argyle's in the 1980's prior to Ball taking over and building a team which kicked it's way into the first division and they dropped to about 8000 odd in the late 1990's when they had a crap team which almost got relegated to the third division,smaller in fact than Argyle's gates were in the CCC. Burnley must have wondered whether the "ingrained support" was somewhat mystical when they were averaging 3200 in their bleak years of almost going out the league and their gates weren't too tearing in the CCC either-it was only when they reached the PL that the 20000 average started to be a regularity.Really does seem to be a problem for some to grasp that success on the field is the catalyst for these things to happen.

No it's grasped Skinny I've been banging on about it for years, we should be only a football club and should obviously try and put the most competitive team we can together. However decent facilities would go cap in hand with the decent team which would then create the buzz. I don't think anyone here is advocating concentrating on the property other than get the FOOKIN thing built so we can go back to being a football.
Out of interest are there any clubs in recent memory that have made it to the prem with shithouse grounds?

Earwegoagain wrote:

Greenskin wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Pompey have a history of success going waaaaaay back to well before the formation of the PL.

So have Preston North End and Blackpool. What point are you trying to make?

I don't think it is as simple as recent success.

Supporting Pompey is deeply ingrained. Much as it is at Burnley, though I hate to say it.

Not true.Pompey's gates were no bigger than Argyle's in the 1980's prior to Ball taking over and building a team which kicked it's way into the first division and they dropped to about 8000 odd in the late 1990's when they had a crap team which almost got relegated to the third division,smaller in fact than Argyle's gates were in the CCC. Burnley must have wondered whether the "ingrained support" was somewhat mystical when they were averaging 3200 in their bleak years of almost going out the league and their gates weren't too tearing in the CCC either-it was only when they reached the PL that the 20000 average started to be a regularity.Really does seem to be a problem for some to grasp that success on the field is the catalyst for these things to happen.

No it's grasped Skinny I've been banging on about it for years, we should be only a football club and should obviously try and put the most competitive team we can together. However decent facilities would go cap in hand with the decent team which would then create the buzz. I don't think anyone here is advocating concentrating on the property other than get the FOOKIN thing built so we can go back to being a football.
Out of interest are there any clubs in recent memory that have made it to the prem with shithouse grounds?

QPR, Watford, Bournemuff, Portsmuff, Paliss

Burnley is a poxy town with a population (73,021 apparently) much smaller than Plymouth (234,982) and oodles of other teams nearby competing for the support of the local population.

Crowds of 3200 there are quite remarkable under those extreme circumstances and the 20,000 or so they pull in these days even more so.

And I can recall similarly small crowds at Home Park under Hodges and Moncur. Even Kemp's team struggled to get many more in the real 2nd division when we were there.

I don't even remember crowds being that impressive for the best part of Shilton's reign when we saw, arguably, the best football we have ever played.

Hugh Watt wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Reading's crowds picked up when the Mad Stad was built which was before they hit the PL.

At Elm Park they used to get about 6000 on a good day and the stadium was about 10K max.

You could say much the same for Hull and Swansea. The rise of both was propelled by a new stadium being built for them.

Either its nothing to do with ingrained support and more to do to with someone showing a bit of vision and investing in decent facilities which then led to on field success.

Too many argo fans happy to be shit on and off the field, dont see it changing under Comedy Dave and Comunity Si.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Burnley is a poxy town with a population (73,021 apparently) much smaller than Plymouth (234,982) and oodles of other teams nearby competing for the support of the local population.

Crowds of 3200 there are quite remarkable under those extreme circumstances and the 20,000 or so they pull in these days even more so.

And I can recall similarly small crowds at Home Park under Hodges and Moncur. Even Kemp's team struggled to get many more in the real 2nd division when we were there.

I don't even remember crowds being that impressive for the best part of Shilton's reign when we saw, arguably, the best football we have ever played.

Attendances during Dave Smith's year in the 2nd tier were pretty decent compared to many of our rivals. The then board wouldn't back him so down we went (after several years of struggle). Same with Waiters a decade before.