Sleeping Giant

I still believe it but with the clusterfuck and the Aviva mentality prevailing, it's looking less likely than ever.

We could have emulated the rise of Ipswich, Norwich and Southampton back in the 60's and on a few other occasions notably with Tony Waiters.

We could have emulated Hull, Cardiff and Swansea in recent years. We were no worse supported than any of them, like for like.

Anyone who is a long standing fan, with a modicum of vision and understanding of the club and of English football, knows it to be true.

Brent's self promoting jamboys still blame stay away janners when the other clubs mentioned were no different in the same position. These ever present but parochial fans, have settled for a lower league future, in return for positions within the club.

Most others will just settle for the recent modest improvement on the pitch but the bigger picture remains devastating for anyone with vision.

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

That's my boy Tring, straight back on the war front line. Feeling the need?

War front ? Statement of fact , dear boy.

I agree with most of your post Tring. ANY improvement on the pitch is something to celebrate but not to except it as permanent.

The crap we have had over the last few seasons needs to be consigned to the bin as quickly as possible.

Hey. Leave our sleeping giants out of it. They don't do footy :-

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

Tringreen wrote:

War front ? Statement of fact , dear boy.

Nah Tringy,the big crowds we used to get were due to the number of battleships and cruisers in the dockyard at any given time.I looked last Saturday,there weren't any-thats why the crowd was so crap.Can't you understand these things?

as well as a sleeping giant, us lucky plymouthians are going to have two giants carved into the slopes of the citadel....that'll bring the crowds back

1934 was 80 years ago. Great find Tring but it has absolutely no relevance at all to our club in 2014.

Most Premier League attendances aren't close to that kind of figure.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Only six club grounds could house 44,500 people.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If the club is a sleeping giant it needs to do something about its adverse age demographic. The Trusts survey always shows a missing young age group and an ageing season ticket owning supporter group.

No faux happy clappy handed down from high presidential sponsored (latterly disowned) Foza Verde is going to fix that. No laugh a minute password swapping fan fest is going to fix that.

Not sure that the phrase 'sleeping giant' is relevant in today's football world. With the riches available for the top few, the gap between the haves and have nots grows every season.

30 odd years ago perhaps, but the world has passed us by I'm afraid, and with the property development ambitions of that nice Mr Brent (he saved us don't you know), the sleeping giant will remain comatose for ever.

The crying shame is that most people within the club and the hangers on will be satisfied with that.

PlymptonPilgrim wrote:

Not sure that the phrase 'sleeping giant' is relevant in today's football world. With the riches available for the top few, the gap between the haves and have nots grows every season.

30 odd years ago perhaps, but the world has passed us by I'm afraid, and with the property development ambitions of that nice Mr Brent (he saved us don't you know), the sleeping giant will remain comatose for ever.

The crying shame is that most people within the club and the hangers on will be satisfied with that.

  

Plymouth is a "sleeping giant" of a city full stop not just its sports teams. The city has been badly let down over the years by different councils who choose to back fruitless schemes rather than work to maximize plymouth's potential and what it can offer.

Labelling it an ocean city is simply silly.

With this thread in mind, can anyone tell me why Exeter Chiefs are now the fast establishing Everton or Tottenham of Rugby Union, the Penzance/Newlyn Pirates are the attractive Nottingham Forest, and why Russia are no good at cricket ?

Crap at cricket maybe but you can't fault their swimming potential

Winter Green wrote:

With this thread in mind, can anyone tell me why Exeter Chiefs are now the fast establishing Everton or Tottenham of Rugby Union, the Penzance/Newlyn Pirates are the attractive Nottingham Forest, and why Russia are no good at cricket ?

How can the Pirates field a pretty decent team in spite of being so far west of Plymouth? Albion seem to be stuck in a rut of second tier mediocrity,a scenario not unfamiliar to the football team,far outstripped by the Pirates in the west and Exeter in the east.Why should that be and are the reasons of any relevance to the underachievement of the football club over the years? The Pirates and Chiefs success would seem on the face of it to contradict the oft quoted location factor as far as west country sporting failure [especially in relation to Argyle] is concerned.Would that be an accurate assessment or are there any variables in rugby which would explain the situation?

Not sure about the Russian bit,even if they are crap at cricket they'd still probably give England a run for their money at the moment.   

Simplistically,

Footballers probably come from working class inner city backgrounds and therefore tend to look for that when joining a club.

Rugger boys probably come from middle class and maybe more rural backgrounds and are therefore prepared to live in the sticks.

Well, I've stood in crowds ranging from 38 down to 28k - Santos, Everton, Man City, Derby and Blackburn so you are correct Tringy!!

Bandwagon wrote:

Well, I've stood in crowds ranging from 38 down to 28k - Santos, Everton, Man City, Derby and Blackburn so you are correct Tringy!!

Twenty eight thousand against blackburn! "build it speccy and they will come" if the teams good enough. yeap went to all of those bandy! 

Stood being the operative word. We have to have an all seater stadium in the current present day rules and regulations. A 35k+ all seater stadium needs to be massive and costs £30m+. The Emirates cost almost £1/2 billion. Pride Park, in 97 cost £28m and seats just under 34,000.

Jack Sheppard wrote:

Simplistically,

Footballers probably come from working class inner city backgrounds and therefore tend to look for that when joining a club.

Rugger boys probably come from middle class and maybe more rural backgrounds and are therefore prepared to live in the sticks.

I get your point but they could live in the sticks and still play for Albion.That's what i was trying to get at-why can't Albion,with theoretically a better geographical position than the Pirates,attract decent players? Beats me,Tring would say it's something in the water.

If the Blackburn game was the 92 game under Shilton, it was just under 18,000.

hairy j wrote:

If the Blackburn game was the 92 game under Shilton, it was just under 18,000.

74 hairy!!

I know somebody behind the scenes at Albion and they're unable to attract decent players because they're completely skint and desperate for investment, i should imagine the Chiefs are pretty wealthy and i don't know the financial situation of the Pirates.

Bandwagon wrote:

hairy j wrote:

If the Blackburn game was the 92 game under Shilton, it was just under 18,000.

74 hairy!!

Like Tring's point, that's irrelevant - that's 40 years ago in a mainly non-seated stadium with much cheaper ticket prices - things have changed.