The HHP hotel

All these figures need challenging, let me have a go,
If we used the WG model of the bigger stand then Argyle would drive non match day profits up to nearly £6m per annum, meaning that we could recruit players from the premiership.
If I say it enough times some people will believe it.

Dougie wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Not sure if it is all rubbish TGWU - we now have it confirmed that our playing budget will not exceed £1million this season.

Quote :

He said the forecast £1million the grandstand could raise each year is equivalent to the average League 2 salary bill

So we have gone from having one of the biggest budgets last year to nominally average this year. Here's hoping that Sheridan can weave some magic out of the funds he's been given. A small squad seems the best bet.

I posted on another thread that Oxford's plan this year is to have a smaller squad. They've ditched anyone with a history of being injury prone or where they have enough cover. Luke would have stayed as he was highly thought of but they have two other goalkeepers and a goalkeeping coach who could turn out, so Luke was a drain on resources.

The theory is to have a squad on a maximum of 22 but a "first 15" squad. They work out that based on this they can afford to pay to attract talent.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Not sure if it is all rubbish TGWU - we now have it confirmed that our playing budget will not exceed £1million this season.

thats me kept away for another season, look at the intent... we are going nowhere for decades.

feck off brent

Dougie, just to add one more quote as Pyongyang seem to think I am the one misleading them!

THE forecasted £1million annual income a new grandstand at Plymouth Argyle is predicted to generate would be enough on its own to pay the players' wages

Pokesdown wrote:

Dougie wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Not sure if it is all rubbish TGWU - we now have it confirmed that our playing budget will not exceed £1million this season.

Quote :

He said the forecast £1million the grandstand could raise each year is equivalent to the average League 2 salary bill

So we have gone from having one of the biggest budgets last year to nominally average this year. Here's hoping that Sheridan can weave some magic out of the funds he's been given. A small squad seems the best bet.

I posted on another thread that Oxford's plan this year is to have a smaller squad. They've ditched anyone with a history of being injury prone or where they have enough cover. Luke would have stayed as he was highly thought of but they have two other goalkeepers and a goalkeeping coach who could turn out, so Luke was a drain on resources.

The theory is to have a squad on a maximum of 22 but a "first 15" squad. They work out that based on this they can afford to pay to attract talent.

Interesting. It looks like we havea squad of 20 at the moment (including those who have been offered new contracts but not signed them yet).

Without having the need or desire to pick apart Brent's words to distort what he is quoted as saying, to me it is plainly obvious that the budget has been considerably reduced.

GOB wrote:

Without having the need or desire to pick apart Brent's words to distort what he is quoted as saying, to me it is plainly obvious that the budget has been considerably reduced.

And that is no surprise GOB. JB always stated that he would subsidise the losses (albeit via Loans) this season (2012-13) but that there would be no financial support going forward. Best guestimate is that he has needed to loan the football club in the region of £1.25 - £1.5 million for 2012 - 13 and that the forthcoming season was always going to have a lesser playing budget. Having said that £1million will be 'average' for the League - Pompey's has been set at £1.1 million.

Even with a cut in the playing budget expect to see more 'cost savings'. Apparently everything has to be justified at the moment - even the Sky Subscription - imagine all those fancy corporate hospitality suites with only a Freeview Box!!!

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

GOB wrote:

Without having the need or desire to pick apart Brent's words to distort what he is quoted as saying, to me it is plainly obvious that the budget has been considerably reduced.

And that is no surprise GOB. JB always stated that he would subsidise the losses (albeit via Loans) this season (2012-13) but that there would be no financial support going forward. Best guestimate is that he has needed to loan the football club in the region of £1.25 - £1.5 million for 2012 - 13 and that the forthcoming season was always going to have a lesser playing budget. Having said that £1million will be 'average' for the League - Pompey's has been set at £1.1 million.

Even with a cut in the playing budget expect to see more 'cost savings'. Apparently everything has to be justified at the moment - even the Sky Subscription - imagine all those fancy corporate hospitality suites with only a Freeview Box!!!

Yehhhh .............. but you get free beer, thrown at you, if you complain

Carl Fletcher and the board right royally cocked up last year didn't they. What a waste of money and opportunity.

As said on another thread, the board choose the Manager, give him a budget and he selects his players. The Cock-up was not relieving Fletch of his duties after Dorchester. That was quite long enough for JB to know it wasn't right. Yes he was a novice, but had been employing Fletch for over a year by that time. I am sure JB isn't that slow in learning about other business interests he may have.

GOB wrote:

YOU HAVE AN OPINION BECAUSE THE LAW STATES THAT YOU CAN HAVE AN OPINION, IAN NEWELL DOESN'T WRITE THE LAW IN THIS COUNTRY, THANK GOD!

Please don't put thoughts into his head, Gob!

Oops - I probably shouldn't have said that. Neither of my parents were from Plymouth, and I had the audacity to live away for something like twenty years.

Peggy * wrote:

GOB wrote:

YOU HAVE AN OPINION BECAUSE THE LAW STATES THAT YOU CAN HAVE AN OPINION, IAN NEWELL DOESN'T WRITE THE LAW IN THIS COUNTRY, THANK GOD!

Please don't put thoughts into his head, Gob!

Oops - I probably shouldn't have said that. Neither of my parents were from Plymouth, and I had the audacity to live away for something like twenty years.

Burn the partial Janner Witch

Its one part of his development not mention is the medical centre, which is in the plans and where it going.

I find this exile bashing really interesting. Our much vaunted away support is based almost entirely (or atleast the great majority) on exiles.

Take any normal non Nikkkkk sponsored away game. A couple of coaches (1 travel club 1 GT) might rock up from Plymouth together with those travelling under there own steam. Whats that 150 hardy souls. Admirable and still more than seem to make the trip to Home Park following visiting teams but hardly anything to get moist over.

Ah but Dougie putting money into others Clubs Box Office receipts doesn't count as support any more.

And of course Nikkkkkkkk is an exile too isn't he? So Newell won't be taking any notice of his opinions. That would just be pathological hypocrisy wouldn't it?

Damon, as I posted on Pasoti I believe you are mistaken on the 'no budget over £1m thing' for the following reason:

As you know, I'm as unhappy about this stand and its format as the next man but I am primarily interested in the facts and to indicate that this development limits us to a budget of £1 million for the foreseeable future is inaccurate.

1) JB was quoted as saying that it would fulfill the average League Two budget, he didn't reveal any plans for our own budget.
2) Whatever impact the grandstand does have on our budget, it certainly won't be next season due to the basic fact that the grandstand won't be in place next season.
3) If we get promoted next season, then our budget would be considerably more than £1 mil and if we get relegated it would be considerably less. There's no way that we could plan what the budget would be for the next X years without knowing how much ticket and otherwise revenue and expenditure we'd have in that time.

Primarily however, the main issue is that the '£1 million that could pay an average set of League 2 wages' quote bears absolutely no relevance on this seasons budget because the million pound making facilities will quite simply not be there yet. Now of course our budget COULD be £1 million anyway but we don't know that either way. So all talk on this thread that 'we'll have a tiny budget to deal with unless Chadwick and Gilmartin go' is ill advised and in danger of becoming a pasoti fact.


I think if anyone has twisted this it's the paper with their clumsy interpretation of the comments made.

GreenSam wrote:

Damon, as I posted on Pasoti I believe you are mistaken on the 'no budget over £1m thing' for the following reason:

As you know, I'm as unhappy about this stand and its format as the next man but I am primarily interested in the facts and to indicate that this development limits us to a budget of £1 million for the foreseeable future is inaccurate.

1) JB was quoted as saying that it would fulfill the average League Two budget, he didn't reveal any plans for our own budget.
2) Whatever impact the grandstand does have on our budget, it certainly won't be next season due to the basic fact that the grandstand won't be in place next season.
3) If we get promoted next season, then our budget would be considerably more than £1 mil and if we get relegated it would be considerably less. There's no way that we could plan what the budget would be for the next X years without knowing how much ticket and otherwise revenue and expenditure we'd have in that time.
Primarily however, the main issue is that the '£1 million that could pay an average set of League 2 wages' quote bears absolutely no relevance on this seasons budget because the million pound making facilities will quite simply not be there yet. Now of course our budget COULD be £1 million anyway but we don't know that either way. So all talk on this thread that 'we'll have a tiny budget to deal with unless Chadwick and Gilmartin go' is ill advised and in danger of becoming a pasoti fact.


I think if anyone has twisted this it's the paper with their clumsy interpretation of the comments made.

so, his reason for saying it was....?

Presumably to give perspective on how much the facilities could affect the club in relation to expenditure.

It's evident though that the facilities can't have any bearing this season quite simply because they won't be built and won't be functioning.

I imagine the £1million being able to pay an average League Two wage bill is simply to demonstrate the idea he's trying to put across that 'these facilities will be good for the club'. Which is actually open to a lot of scepticism as (as has been uncovered on pasoti) the £1million is revenue not profit and also subtracts the income that Argyle already gets from parties in the lounge.

So in reality, the additional profit that Argyle will get from the grandstand facilities is probably more like £600k-£800k. The £1 million/wages quote was probably a carefully worded, well spun figure in order to put out a bit of good PR to show how good the stand will be for us. Evidently though it's had the entirely wrong affect. I don't think for a second though that any conclusions about THIS season's budget can be drawn from it. And even if our budget for this season was £1 million, this is League Two. It's only £100k less than Pompey's.

Playing budgets are set according to the league salary cap which is something like 55% of turnover so whatever anybody might like the wage bill to be there is an effective limit. Does £1m equate to 55% of turnover? I suspect not because that would make the club's annual income lower than £2m. Which may be the case but as I said I suspect not.

The questions we should be asking, not that they will be answered, are what is the anticipated turnover for next season and is the payment of historic debt deducted from this 55% or from the remaining 45%?

And as Damon has pointed out we will be liable for a £2m payout soon to settle all the unpaid football debt. What provision is being made to cover this sum?

And let's not forget that the money raised by the GTs has been lent to the club. That will, presumably, need to be paid back one day too.

And, I have made this point before, the extra £1m income will be hugely significant as a component of turnover in League 2 but as we rise through the divisions it will pale into near insignificance, even if it doubles, compared to the TV revenue everybody will enjoy and be a spit in the ocean compared to the parachute payments available to the clubs relegated from the PL.

If anything the projected income from the new stand completely backs the argument that it is just too small to forge the link between a successful team and a financially successful club.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Playing budgets are set according to the league salary cap which is something like 55% of turnover so whatever anybody might like the wage bill to be there is an effective limit. Does £1m equate to 55% of turnover? I suspect not because that would make the club's annual income lower than £2m. Which may be the case but as I said I suspect not.

The questions we should be asking, not that they will be answered, are what is the anticipated turnover for next season and is the payment of historic debt deducted from this 55% or from the remaining 45%?

And as Damon has pointed out we will be liable for a £2m payout soon to settle all the unpaid football debt. What provision is being made to cover this sum?

And let's not forget that the money raised by the GTs has been lent to the club. That will, presumably, need to be paid back one day too.

And, I have made this point before, the extra £1m income will be hugely significant as a component of turnover in League 2 but as we rise through the divisions it will pale into near insignificance, even if it doubles, compared to the TV revenue everybody will enjoy and be a spit in the ocean compared to the parachute payments available to the clubs relegated from the PL.

If anything the projected income from the new stand completely backs the argument that it is just too small to forge the link between a successful team and a financially successful club.

The historic debt, as I understand it, just gets deducted from the 100% full stop. Now obviously a consequence of this is that it may mean that we self impose on ourselves a lower limit than 55% but that's another matter.

Bit in bold: abso-bloody-lutely.

I think it was estimated that the revenue from the first 2000 paying spectators would be entirely swallowed by the payment of historic debt.

This is always worth remembering because it puts huge pressure on the money available from everybody else.

Which is why running with the 8000 average attendance figure for so long was such an unmitigated disaster. If that has caused Brent to lend the club £1.5m he should have no expectation at all of getting that money back partly because it was his and nobody else's balls up and partly because it will impact so vastly on turnover of around £2m (remember 55% = £1m) that there's going to be sod all left for players.

These are the things that PASB should be enquirinq about. That's what Brent said it was for.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Playing budgets are set according to the league salary cap which is something like 55% of turnover so whatever anybody might like the wage bill to be there is an effective limit. Does £1m equate to 55% of turnover? I suspect not because that would make the club's annual income lower than £2m. Which may be the case but as I said I suspect not.

The questions we should be asking, not that they will be answered, are what is the anticipated turnover for next season and is the payment of historic debt deducted from this 55% or from the remaining 45%?

And as Damon has pointed out we will be liable for a £2m payout soon to settle all the unpaid football debt. What provision is being made to cover this sum?

And let's not forget that the money raised by the GTs has been lent to the club. That will, presumably, need to be paid back one day too.

And, I have made this point before, the extra £1m income will be hugely significant as a component of turnover in League 2 but as we rise through the divisions it will pale into near insignificance, even if it doubles, compared to the TV revenue everybody will enjoy and be a spit in the ocean compared to the parachute payments available to the clubs relegated from the PL.

If anything the projected income from the new stand completely backs the argument that it is just too small to forge the link between a successful team and a financially successful club.

I have said it before and I will say it again, I think that the staff debt will end in another administration, we need to get out of this league and fast to have any chance of escaping it. We must be heading towards or beyond £5m in debt by the time the unpaid football debt goes out.

Does anyone else thing the £1m extra is pie in the sky - did that business lounge effort twice in the last 3 years, wouldn't dig deep for that again and never know who you're gonna bump into!!

Bandwagon wrote:

Does anyone else thing the £1m extra is pie in the sky - did that business lounge effort twice in the last 3 years, wouldn't dig deep for that again and never know who you're gonna bump into!!

Yep, the £1m figure quoted by Brent ( last week it was £1-2m) is made up of a few contributory factors.

The overwhelming majority of that 1m figure will be based on Brent's projection of extra fans through the turnstiles. To an extent he is right, there is always a bump in attendance on completion of new stand/ground projects. What the devious fucker would have you believe though, is it is the "magnificent" facilities that will generate the income. Which is total and utter bollocks. If all the retail outlets were going to the club, or if there was some grandios sports bar catering for many hundreds, then yeah, I could live with it.

But it's not. The only long term beneficiaries are Mr and Mrs Brent. Oh, and The Pig who gets to sty it up in the Directors Box for as long as that lovely man James sticks around.