Guy Madjo sings

Freathy wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Guess Griffiths won't be fit for today

Or any other day. The bloke is injury prone and not fit enough for professional football.

Ever since the cloud of Sturrock 2 descended over Home Park, we have somehow serially fallen for the sicknote protestations of player agents and desperate clubs across the land, as if we have a death wish. Some put it down to lack of money, lack of understanding, lack of a real scouting policy, lack of desire, the administration process. It may be a mixture of all those things, but I bet the footballing village has wised up to what is going down at isolated 'Plymouth'. No up and coming fit young player with confidence wants to go to a club that is still so obviously contracted into it's shell and shows no sign whatsoever of shaking off the financial constraints agreed by the former banker when buying his Central Park development. And I bet there's just a little irritation as to how players were treated down here with their wages deferred onto the 'never never'.

Andy...but we are getting some of the best crowds in this division,where's all that money going?

oddball wrote:

Andy...but we are getting some of the best crowds in this division,where's all that money going?

I would guess previous responsibilities and agreements made at the time of the purchase ... and that is backed up by Brent stating the club will run at a loss this season.
In effect, the extra gate money will be going to pay back the money of previous owners and creditors.... that was Ridsdale's job, to effect such an outcome... it will have been geared in such a way for several years I would imagine.... a few employees like LarryO and Jonah on handsome 'final salary' new contracts, and the newcomers on .....well, not a lot.

Andy_Symons wrote:

Renegade wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

Freathy wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

Freathy wrote:

Agree with Grovehill. It's a shocking state of affairs that we are reduced to loaning a 2nd string player from a L2 club which gets a fraction of the home gate we do. Brent is taking the piss out of us.

Is it just the piss he's taking?

It's about time someone asked where all the (gate) money's going!!

It's a very pertinent question. One that brent or his goons won't be answering anytime soon.

It's almost as bad as getting in a couple of trialists from French second division teams that no-one had heard of. Or signing a centre-forward from Newport County.

Historians live in the past

Well at least you understood my reference point, if not the actual point I was making - which is that if we write off a player because he's come from a supposedly 'lesser' club, then we'd never have signed Friio, Larrieu or Tynan. Liverpool would have never signed Aldridge. Or Keegan. Or Clemence. Do I need to go on?

The bloke's come from Aldershot on a month's loan, and Shots fans aren't happy about it, which suggests it's a reasonable bit of business. As do his goalscoring stats.

Who would you expect us to be signing?

18 months ago this club was a bigger financial basket-case than George Osbourne's Treasury. Ok, we have a new owner, but he's made it plain that he won't be throwing money at the carcass. And it's not even a case of living within our means; it's a case of finding players who are willing to come to Plymouth, put down roots (however transient) and play for a club that is still viewed as a bad risk. Whose fault is that? Fletcher's? No. Brent's? No. The blame for the last couple of years has to lay at the feet of Stapleton et al. And anyone who seriously expects that having a new owner means we have some sort of divine right to sign great players and embark on a cavalry-charge up the leagues is misguided at best, and punchdrunk at worst.

Do we actually need him though? We have 8 strikers at the club in Chadwick, Feeney, MacDonald, Cowan-Hall, Sims, LeCointe, Griffths and now him. Seeing as the manager is only play 1 up front at the moment it seems strange that he would sign an emergency loan striker!

oddball wrote:

Andy...but we are getting some of the best crowds in this division,where's all that money going?

How many players in the squad, Al? How much is owed (at Championship wages, don't forget) to the likes of Seip, Fallon, Maclean et al? What signing on fees have been paid? What percentage of wages are we paying for Gorman, Macdonald, etc? What are the fixed costs at Argyle, bearing in mind that we have a bigger ground than most in L2? Do I really need to go on?

The way you, and some others, portray it suggests that the Boardroom is wallpapered in £50 notes and every game ends with the Brent family rolling around on a nest of Fivers. It ain't so.

Brent gave an estimated turnover of approximately £4.5million, and said that he'd budgeted for a loss this season. He also said that some of the money in the wage budget was (quite sensibly, in my opinion) being held onto for emergency use, should a key player get a long term injury, or new players be needed in January. And as anyone with responsibility for a budget at work will tell you, you don't spend all your dough in one hit at the start of the year, as you'll end up begging for scraps at the end of the year.

Hope that helps, Al, but I'm not Brent's accountant, so don't take my answers as being in any way an official response. Contrary to what some of the more demented ATD posters claim, I'm not part of some inner circle, and never will be.

Renegade wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

Renegade wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

Freathy wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

Freathy wrote:

Agree with Grovehill. It's a shocking state of affairs that we are reduced to loaning a 2nd string player from a L2 club which gets a fraction of the home gate we do. Brent is taking the piss out of us.

Is it just the piss he's taking?

It's about time someone asked where all the (gate) money's going!!

It's a very pertinent question. One that brent or his goons won't be answering anytime soon.

It's almost as bad as getting in a couple of trialists from French second division teams that no-one had heard of. Or signing a centre-forward from Newport County.

Historians live in the past

Well at least you understood my reference point, if not the actual point I was making - which is that if we write off a player because he's come from a supposedly 'lesser' club, then we'd never have signed Friio, Larrieu or Tynan. Liverpool would have never signed Aldridge. Or Keegan. Or Clemence. Do I need to go on?

The bloke's come from Aldershot on a month's loan, and Shots fans aren't happy about it, which suggests it's a reasonable bit of business. As do his goalscoring stats.

Who would you expect us to be signing?

18 months ago this club was a bigger financial basket-case than George Osbourne's Treasury. Ok, we have a new owner, but he's made it plain that he won't be throwing money at the carcass. And it's not even a case of living within our means; it's a case of finding players who are willing to come to Plymouth, put down roots (however transient) and play for a club that is still viewed as a bad risk. Whose fault is that? Fletcher's? No. Brent's? No. The blame for the last couple of years has to lay at the feet of Stapleton et al. And anyone who seriously expects that having a new owner means we have some sort of divine right to sign great players and embark on a cavalry-charge up the leagues is misguided at best, and punchdrunk at worst.

Do we actually need him though? We have 8 strikers at the club in Chadwick, Feeney, MacDonald, Cowan-Hall, Sims, LeCointe, Griffths and now him. Seeing as the manager is only play 1 up front at the moment it seems strange that he would sign an emergency loan striker!

MacDonald and Cowan-Hall are used as wingers instead of strikers. Sims isn't ready for first team football. So Chadwick, Feeney, LeCointe and Griffths are the only strikers i can see playing.

And Griffiths is injured, and Lecointe is just a pup. Which leaves us with Argyles answer to Shearer and Sutton. I'm surprised he only got the one forward in on loan.

Andy ...never thought of you of as inner circle and you're right you never will be....however when James Brent took over/bought the club one would have thought that his investment company whatever they called themselves (Pilgrim?..)would have taken over some of the liabilities on their balance sheet as a price to pay for owning the club,however it seems that these costs are being taken over out of future income of PAFC and that James Brent is not paying one single penny.

Andy_Symons wrote:

And Griffiths is injured, and Lecointe is just a pup. Which leaves us with Argyles answer to Shearer and Sutton. I'm surprised he only got the one forward in on loan.

Then why did he give Chadwick the contract he did, and why re-sign Feeney?

I know you are one of the more sensible posters Andy but Fletcher decided to use the vast majority of the budget retaining the crap we had last season when a mass cull should have taken place.

And as for the new loan signing, is his scoring record really that good? The majority of his goals have come in non-league or foreign leagues that me and you could probably get a game in. We have taken a chance on Griffiths which is fair enough, but I don't see this new guy as any great shakes in the scoring department.

The squad should have been stripped bare in the summer and completely re-built, but alas we just keep signing totally average at best players in the hope that if you have 30 average players maybe you can make a half decent 11 out of it. Which we can't.

oxfordgreen wrote:

Renegade wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

Renegade wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

Freathy wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

Freathy wrote:

Agree with Grovehill. It's a shocking state of affairs that we are reduced to loaning a 2nd string player from a L2 club which gets a fraction of the home gate we do. Brent is taking the piss out of us.

Is it just the piss he's taking?

It's about time someone asked where all the (gate) money's going!!

It's a very pertinent question. One that brent or his goons won't be answering anytime soon.

It's almost as bad as getting in a couple of trialists from French second division teams that no-one had heard of. Or signing a centre-forward from Newport County.

Historians live in the past

Well at least you understood my reference point, if not the actual point I was making - which is that if we write off a player because he's come from a supposedly 'lesser' club, then we'd never have signed Friio, Larrieu or Tynan. Liverpool would have never signed Aldridge. Or Keegan. Or Clemence. Do I need to go on?

The bloke's come from Aldershot on a month's loan, and Shots fans aren't happy about it, which suggests it's a reasonable bit of business. As do his goalscoring stats.

Who would you expect us to be signing?

18 months ago this club was a bigger financial basket-case than George Osbourne's Treasury. Ok, we have a new owner, but he's made it plain that he won't be throwing money at the carcass. And it's not even a case of living within our means; it's a case of finding players who are willing to come to Plymouth, put down roots (however transient) and play for a club that is still viewed as a bad risk. Whose fault is that? Fletcher's? No. Brent's? No. The blame for the last couple of years has to lay at the feet of Stapleton et al. And anyone who seriously expects that having a new owner means we have some sort of divine right to sign great players and embark on a cavalry-charge up the leagues is misguided at best, and punchdrunk at worst.

Do we actually need him though? We have 8 strikers at the club in Chadwick, Feeney, MacDonald, Cowan-Hall, Sims, LeCointe, Griffths and now him. Seeing as the manager is only play 1 up front at the moment it seems strange that he would sign an emergency loan striker!

MacDonald and Cowan-Hall are used as wingers instead of strikers. Sims isn't ready for first team football. So Chadwick, Feeney, LeCointe and Griffths are the only strikers i can see playing.

They are strikers by trade its not their fault the club wont play them in their preferred positions.

Andy_Symons wrote:

And Griffiths is injured, and Lecointe is just a pup. Which leaves us with Argyles answer to Shearer and Sutton. I'm surprised he only got the one forward in on loan.

Are you on drugs?

Greenjock wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

And Griffiths is injured, and Lecointe is just a pup. Which leaves us with Argyles answer to Shearer and Sutton. I'm surprised he only got the one forward in on loan.

Then why did he give Chadwick the contract he did, and why re-sign Feeney?

I know you are one of the more sensible posters Andy but Fletcher decided to use the vast majority of the budget retaining the crap we had last season when a mass cull should have taken place.

And as for the new loan signing, is his scoring record really that good? The majority of his goals have come in non-league or foreign leagues that me and you could probably get a game in. We have taken a chance on Griffiths which is fair enough, but I don't see this new guy as any great shakes in the scoring department.

The squad should have been stripped bare in the summer and completely re-built, but alas we just keep signing totally average at best players in the hope that if you have 30 average players maybe you can make a half decent 11 out of it. Which we can't.

Absolutely. Fletcher aint no Pulis, that's for sure.

As for the new loan signing, it looks like fletcher's eye for a dud has not failed him again. The general concensus of opinion from those who were there appears to be he was utter shit today.

Get rid of this clueless buffoon NOW!!!!

I dont know if this is a good signing or bad as i haven't seen much of him but im questioning why we signed him when again we are spoilt for numbers.

Greenjock wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

And Griffiths is injured, and Lecointe is just a pup. Which leaves us with Argyles answer to Shearer and Sutton. I'm surprised he only got the one forward in on loan.

Then why did he give Chadwick the contract he did, and why re-sign Feeney?

I know you are one of the more sensible posters Andy but Fletcher decided to use the vast majority of the budget retaining the crap we had last season when a mass cull should have taken place.

And as for the new loan signing, is his scoring record really that good? The majority of his goals have come in non-league or foreign leagues that me and you could probably get a game in. We have taken a chance on Griffiths which is fair enough, but I don't see this new guy as any great shakes in the scoring department.

The squad should have been stripped bare in the summer and completely re-built, but alas we just keep signing totally average at best players in the hope that if you have 30 average players maybe you can make a half decent 11 out of it. Which we can't.

Inexperience.

Fletch may well turn out to be a decent lower-league Manager - no Dario Gradi, perhaps, but good enough to build a career at it - but for now he's a rookie. It's my view that he looked at the squad, particularly the out of contract players, and his first reaction was something along the lines of 'Feck me, if I let them all go I'll be starting from scratch.'

Whereas someone like Luggy would have said to himself 'Ah'm sayin' that the squad needs overhauling. There's a few wee nuggets oot there. Ah'm gonna be thankin' the laddies for the job they did keepin' us up, but if this football club is to progress, ah need to change things.'

And that's the difference between an experienced gaffer and a rookie.

I agree with you Jock - the squad's heavy on numbers and light on quality. One of the things Luggy did (and I'm sorry to keep bringing his name up, but he was rather successful for us at this level) was set an absolute on the number in the squad - 24. And he had the knowledge to unearth those nuggets. His first proper squad had players I'd never really heard of - Worrell, Coughlan, Keith, etc. but Luggy knew them and knew they'd be good enough, not just for League 2, but for League 1 and beyond. And because they travelled down from Scotland, even though they'd been playing in the SPL, the wages we could offer made it worth their while. And because Luggy didn't go above a squad of 24, he knew exactly how much he could offer, and what he ahd in reserve.

An opportunity has been missed this summer, and it's been missed, I believe, because of Fletcher's inexperience. He's stuck with who he knows, and as a result we're trundling along with a squad that's lacking any players who I can look at and say - he'll take us on to a higher level. When we had Trigger, Cocko, Wotts Mark 1, Norris etc, we just knew they wer going to take Argyle upwards. Now? Like I said, opportunity missed.

Andy_Symons wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

And Griffiths is injured, and Lecointe is just a pup. Which leaves us with Argyles answer to Shearer and Sutton. I'm surprised he only got the one forward in on loan.

Then why did he give Chadwick the contract he did, and why re-sign Feeney?

I know you are one of the more sensible posters Andy but Fletcher decided to use the vast majority of the budget retaining the crap we had last season when a mass cull should have taken place.

And as for the new loan signing, is his scoring record really that good? The majority of his goals have come in non-league or foreign leagues that me and you could probably get a game in. We have taken a chance on Griffiths which is fair enough, but I don't see this new guy as any great shakes in the scoring department.

The squad should have been stripped bare in the summer and completely re-built, but alas we just keep signing totally average at best players in the hope that if you have 30 average players maybe you can make a half decent 11 out of it. Which we can't.

Inexperience.

Fletch may well turn out to be a decent lower-league Manager - no Dario Gradi, perhaps, but good enough to build a career at it - but for now he's a rookie. It's my view that he looked at the squad, particularly the out of contract players, and his first reaction was something along the lines of 'Feck me, if I let them all go I'll be starting from scratch.'

Whereas someone like Luggy would have said to himself 'Ah'm sayin' that the squad needs overhauling. There's a few wee nuggets oot there. Ah'm gonna be thankin' the laddies for the job they did keepin' us up, but if this football club is to progress, ah need to change things.'

And that's the difference between an experienced gaffer and a rookie.

I agree with you Jock - the squad's heavy on numbers and light on quality. One of the things Luggy did (and I'm sorry to keep bringing his name up, but he was rather successful for us at this level) was set an absolute on the number in the squad - 24. And he had the knowledge to unearth those nuggets. His first proper squad had players I'd never really heard of - Worrell, Coughlan, Keith, etc. but Luggy knew them and knew they'd be good enough, not just for League 2, but for League 1 and beyond. And because they travelled down from Scotland, even though they'd been playing in the SPL, the wages we could offer made it worth their while. And because Luggy didn't go above a squad of 24, he knew exactly how much he could offer, and what he ahd in reserve.

An opportunity has been missed this summer, and it's been missed, I believe, because of Fletcher's inexperience. He's stuck with who he knows, and as a result we're trundling along with a squad that's lacking any players who I can look at and say - he'll take us on to a higher level. When we had Trigger, Cocko, Wotts Mark 1, Norris etc, we just knew they wer going to take Argyle upwards. Now? Like I said, opportunity missed.

That sounds about right Andy.

It goes back to the old criticism that we have a rookie owner and board, apart from Peter Jones, and a rookie manager with a small backroom team who aren't experienced.

Fletcher was appointed by Ridsdale out of desperation when we had a squad nailed on for relegation, probably to save money, and somebody somewhere should have advised James Brent that we needed a firefighting manager to keep us up and then review the situation at the end of the season.

Fletcher did keep us up, and I reserve judgement on who was responsible for that, but for me at best he should have been given an assistants or a coaching role.

It smacks of lack of ambition on JB's part and I wonder how badly we would have to perform this season for him to be removed?

It looks like there are too many people still just thankful for having a club to support who will consider mid-table in Division 4 enough progress to be happy, while Brent Leisure Park continues to grow and grow all around Home Park.

Torquay have a squad of free signings and youth players, all of whom will be on lesser wages than their Argyle counterparts, with attendances much lower than ours, and they have a much better chance of promotion than us.

How can James Brent not see this? Or Peter Jones for that matter? Unfortunately I don't believe he's too bothered about it.

oddball wrote:

Andy ...never thought of you of as inner circle and you're right you never will be....however when James Brent took over/bought the club one would have thought that his investment company whatever they called themselves (Pilgrim?..)would have taken over some of the liabilities on their balance sheet as a price to pay for owning the club,however it seems that these costs are being taken over out of future income of PAFC and that James Brent is not paying one single penny.

Ah! The penny (that's about how much JB intends to spend on the football club BTW) has finally dropped!


The fans pay for the "privilege" of having a millionaire own the football club.

Andy_Symons wrote:

oddball wrote:

Andy...but we are getting some of the best crowds in this division,where's all that money going?

How many players in the squad, Al? How much is owed (at Championship wages, don't forget) to the likes of Seip, Fallon, Maclean et al? What signing on fees have been paid? What percentage of wages are we paying for Gorman, Macdonald, etc? What are the fixed costs at Argyle, bearing in mind that we have a bigger ground than most in L2? Do I really need to go on?

The way you, and some others, portray it suggests that the Boardroom is wallpapered in £50 notes and every game ends with the Brent family rolling around on a nest of Fivers. It ain't so.

Brent gave an estimated turnover of approximately £4.5million, and said that he'd budgeted for a loss this season. He also said that some of the money in the wage budget was (quite sensibly, in my opinion) being held onto for emergency use, should a key player get a long term injury, or new players be needed in January. And as anyone with responsibility for a budget at work will tell you, you don't spend all your dough in one hit at the start of the year, as you'll end up begging for scraps at the end of the year.

Hope that helps, Al, but I'm not Brent's accountant, so don't take my answers as being in any way an official response. Contrary to what some of the more demented ATD posters claim, I'm not part of some inner circle, and never will be.

I don't disagree with the general thrust of your argument. It is very much the conventional, orthodox and sensible approach but it is not the only approach. Crawley did the exact opposite last year and spent lots of money recruiting players at the outset and then as the budget started to conflict with league rules near the end of the season they had to get shot of players sharpish. As they did their results nosedived but they hung in there and were promoted in the end. They took a huge risk and it paid off but the same tactic would be less risky for us because Crawley's ground is tiny and has very little excess capacity. In comparison our ground is very big and has plenty of spare capacity and so the possibility is there that attendances could to some extent bankroll that plan at Argyle. The question is if we did take that approach and it didn't work then how could we get ourselves out of the muck without hitting administration again?

Good news for lovers of Argyle Nil.