Albion TV DATE

I hardly know rugby at all but I know plenty of people who do and who are involved in the local rugby scene and the consensus amongst them is that Albion have always had something of a superiority complex regarding the other local teams and have in various ways treated them abominably over the years.

I'm sure they are all looking forward to Albion getting even worse than they are now - and that seems to be where their business plan is taking them.

The argument you are making for them is the same one as the argument against Home Park having excess capacity that the team currently doesn't need but it results in perpetual mediocrity meaning that they'll never need it.

Just as Exeter have thrived since moving into a bigger stadium then so could Albion by following exactly the same model but it is a model that isn't, won't and can't work at Brickfields.

Frank Bullitt wrote:

I agree with SFD and I clearly know more about rugby then you Angry.

really i beg to differ.

Angry wrote:

Frank Bullitt wrote:

I agree with SFD and I clearly know more about rugby then you Angry.

really i beg to differ.

Beg all you want. You are wrong.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I hardly know rugby at all but I know plenty of people who do and who are involved in the local rugby scene and the consensus amongst them is that Albion have always had something of a superiority complex regarding the other local teams and have in various ways treated them abominably over the years.

I'm sure they are all looking forward to Albion getting even worse than they are now - and that seems to be where their business plan is taking them.

The argument you are making for them is the same one as the argument against Home Park having excess capacity that the team currently doesn't need but it results in perpetual mediocrity meaning that they'll never need it.

Just as Exeter have thrived since moving into a bigger stadium then so could Albion by following exactly the same model but it is a model that isn't, won't and can't work at Brickfields.

While i respect that you know football and have insider knowledge at argyle its the complete opposite here sadly.

I've never claimed any different.

I'm just trying to suggest something that ends Albion's cycle of failure but to do that they need to change the things they have always done - or at the very least the way those things are done.

You just want them to carry on regardless which will result in the same old same old.

If Albion and rugby people are as determined to carry on failing as you suggest then I suggest that they at least try to grab the coach franchise contract and run coaches up to Sandy Park for their home games. Got to make some income somehow because the loyal 1000 or so that go now will soon be 800, then 500 and every penny will count.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I've never claimed any different.

I'm just trying to suggest something that ends Albion's cycle of failure but to do that they need to change the things they have always done - or at the very least the way those things are done.

You just want them to carry on regardless which will result in the same old same old.

If Albion and rugby people are as determined to carry on failing as you suggest then I suggest that they at least try to grab the coach franchise contract and run coaches up to Sandy Park for their home games. Got to make some income somehow because the loyal 1000 or so that go now will soon be 800, then 500 and every penny will count.

I say its something that could work very well in future so i am not saying a ground share would never work at Home Park. its just not going to work now and to suggest that i want them to carry on regardless is far from the truth as you can be. Your idea would kill them now getting their act together before such a move will help them reach their potential for a number of reasons already said enough times before. Plus exeter chiefs is a totally different scenario as they operate their own ground built around corporate facilities which rakes in the money. Home Park hasnt got any of that yet.

And in anycase i believe its a discussion albion fans should be having not argyle ones and viewing their message forums they arent interested in this.

Frank Bullitt wrote:

Angry wrote:

Frank Bullitt wrote:

I agree with SFD and I clearly know more about rugby then you Angry.

really i beg to differ.

Beg all you want. You are wrong.

whatever sweetheart

Angry wrote:

Frank Bullitt wrote:

Angry wrote:

Frank Bullitt wrote:

I agree with SFD and I clearly know more about rugby then you Angry.

really i beg to differ.

Beg all you want. You are wrong.

whatever  sweetheart

Careful. I might have to delete this thread.

Angry wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I've never claimed any different.

I'm just trying to suggest something that ends Albion's cycle of failure but to do that they need to change the things they have always done - or at the very least the way those things are done.

You just want them to carry on regardless which will result in the same old same old.

If Albion and rugby people are as determined to carry on failing as you suggest then I suggest that they at least try to grab the coach franchise contract and run coaches up to Sandy Park for their home games. Got to make some income somehow because the loyal 1000 or so that go now will soon be 800, then 500 and every penny will count.

I say its something that could work very well in future so i am not saying a ground share would never work at Home Park. its just not going to work now and to suggest that i want them to carry on regardless is far from the truth as you can be. Your idea would kill them now getting their act together before such a move will help them reach their potential for a number of reasons already said enough times before. Plus exeter chiefs is a totally different scenario as they operate their own ground built around corporate facilities which rakes in the money. Home Park hasnt got any of that yet.

And in anycase i believe its a discussion albion fans should be having not argyle ones and viewing their message forums they arent interested in this.

"Yet" being the most important word here.

A new stand is to be built at Home Park. It could have everything and more that Albion desire and it could have everything and more that Sandy Park has. For that to happen any interested parties, in this case Albion, need to get on board now because once it is built their needs will not be so readily accommodated. In fact I'd wager now that they'll say "well it hasn't got..." and "if only it had..." ... "...so it's no good for us." And then it'll be too late for it to ever happen.

Frank Bullitt wrote:

Angry wrote:

Frank Bullitt wrote:

Angry wrote:

Frank Bullitt wrote:

I agree with SFD and I clearly know more about rugby then you Angry.

really i beg to differ.

Beg all you want. You are wrong.

whatever  sweetheart

Careful. I might have to delete this thread.

and?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Angry wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I've never claimed any different.

I'm just trying to suggest something that ends Albion's cycle of failure but to do that they need to change the things they have always done - or at the very least the way those things are done.

You just want them to carry on regardless which will result in the same old same old.

If Albion and rugby people are as determined to carry on failing as you suggest then I suggest that they at least try to grab the coach franchise contract and run coaches up to Sandy Park for their home games. Got to make some income somehow because the loyal 1000 or so that go now will soon be 800, then 500 and every penny will count.

I say its something that could work very well in future so i am not saying a ground share would never work at Home Park. its just not going to work now and to suggest that i want them to carry on regardless is far from the truth as you can be. Your idea would kill them now getting their act together before such a move will help them reach their potential for a number of reasons already said enough times before. Plus exeter chiefs is a totally different scenario as they operate their own ground built around corporate facilities which rakes in the money. Home Park hasnt got any of that yet.

And in anycase i believe its a discussion albion fans should be having not argyle ones and viewing their message forums they arent interested in this.

"Yet" being the most important word here.

A new stand is to be built at Home Park. It could have everything and more that Albion desire and it could have everything and more that Sandy Park has. For that to happen any interested parties, in this case Albion, need to get on board now because once it is built their needs will not be so readily accommodated. In fact I'd wager now that they'll say "well it hasn't got..." and "if only it had..." ... "...so it's no good for us." And then it'll be too late for it to ever happen.

Let's see if the council plan to build a stand worthy of a professional football club and its fans that also could home prawn sandwich eaters and champagne charlies that makes the quoted £1m a year first i say.
The chiefs are Brents club of choice and he admires there facilities but i am sure if he had any real interest in the club he would build matching if not better facilities then them or have the council build it instead whether Albion move in or not.

Now I admit I know feck all about rugby but is there any reason why Albion, if they managed to get one of the big boys in some cup, couldn't use Home Park for that game?

mouldyoldgoat wrote:

Now I admit I know feck all about rugby but is there any reason why Albion, if they managed to get one of the big boys in some cup, couldn't use Home Park for that game?

i cant see any reason why not pending on Argyle's fixtures.

Angry wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Angry wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I've never claimed any different.

I'm just trying to suggest something that ends Albion's cycle of failure but to do that they need to change the things they have always done - or at the very least the way those things are done.

You just want them to carry on regardless which will result in the same old same old.

If Albion and rugby people are as determined to carry on failing as you suggest then I suggest that they at least try to grab the coach franchise contract and run coaches up to Sandy Park for their home games. Got to make some income somehow because the loyal 1000 or so that go now will soon be 800, then 500 and every penny will count.

I say its something that could work very well in future so i am not saying a ground share would never work at Home Park. its just not going to work now and to suggest that i want them to carry on regardless is far from the truth as you can be. Your idea would kill them now getting their act together before such a move will help them reach their potential for a number of reasons already said enough times before. Plus exeter chiefs is a totally different scenario as they operate their own ground built around corporate facilities which rakes in the money. Home Park hasnt got any of that yet.

And in anycase i believe its a discussion albion fans should be having not argyle ones and viewing their message forums they arent interested in this.

"Yet" being the most important word here.

A new stand is to be built at Home Park. It could have everything and more that Albion desire and it could have everything and more that Sandy Park has. For that to happen any interested parties, in this case Albion, need to get on board now because once it is built their needs will not be so readily accommodated. In fact I'd wager now that they'll say "well it hasn't got..." and "if only it had..." ... "...so it's no good for us." And then it'll be too late for it to ever happen.

Let's see if the council plan to build a stand worthy of a professional football club and its fans that also could home prawn sandwich eaters and champagne charlies that makes the quoted £1m a year first i say.
The chiefs are Brents club of choice and he admires there facilities but i am sure if he had any real interest in the club he would build matching if not better facilities then them or have the council build it instead whether Albion move in or not.

The original plan for the new stand was to seat 600 covers ("more than Stoke City can cater for").

Assuming that that is true then that's 600 x 23 = 13,800 covers per season.

13800 @ £50 = £690,000.

That's at current rates, I think, and doesn't include bar receipts.

To get to £1m each of those 13800 would have to spend a further 310,000/13800 = £22.50.

That's obviously all income not profit.

So that £1m looks ambitious, especially since it assumes hospitality for every game is sold out, unless they sell more matchday covers (impossible unless there's lots of cup-ties), do plenty of non-matchday functions (possible) or up prices (unlikely to happen).

None of which is any reason, if 600 could be catered for, for Albion to turn away.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Angry wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Angry wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I've never claimed any different.

I'm just trying to suggest something that ends Albion's cycle of failure but to do that they need to change the things they have always done - or at the very least the way those things are done.

You just want them to carry on regardless which will result in the same old same old.

If Albion and rugby people are as determined to carry on failing as you suggest then I suggest that they at least try to grab the coach franchise contract and run coaches up to Sandy Park for their home games. Got to make some income somehow because the loyal 1000 or so that go now will soon be 800, then 500 and every penny will count.

I say its something that could work very well in future so i am not saying a ground share would never work at Home Park. its just not going to work now and to suggest that i want them to carry on regardless is far from the truth as you can be. Your idea would kill them now getting their act together before such a move will help them reach their potential for a number of reasons already said enough times before. Plus exeter chiefs is a totally different scenario as they operate their own ground built around corporate facilities which rakes in the money. Home Park hasnt got any of that yet.

And in anycase i believe its a discussion albion fans should be having not argyle ones and viewing their message forums they arent interested in this.

"Yet" being the most important word here.

A new stand is to be built at Home Park. It could have everything and more that Albion desire and it could have everything and more that Sandy Park has. For that to happen any interested parties, in this case Albion, need to get on board now because once it is built their needs will not be so readily accommodated. In fact I'd wager now that they'll say "well it hasn't got..." and "if only it had..." ... "...so it's no good for us." And then it'll be too late for it to ever happen.

Let's see if the council plan to build a stand worthy of a professional football club and its fans that also could home prawn sandwich eaters and champagne charlies that makes the quoted £1m a year first i say.
The chiefs are Brents club of choice and he admires there facilities but i am sure if he had any real interest in the club he would build matching if not better facilities then them or have the council build it instead whether Albion move in or not.

The original plan for the new stand was to seat 600 covers ("more than Stoke City can cater for").

Assuming that that is true then that's 600 x 23 = 13,800 covers per season.

13800 @ £50 = £690,000.

That's at current rates, I think, and doesn't include bar receipts.

To get to £1m each of those 13800 would have to spend a further 310,000/13800 = £22.50.

That's obviously all income not profit.

So that £1m looks ambitious, especially since it assumes hospitality for every game is sold out, unless they sell more matchday covers (impossible unless there's lots of cup-ties), do plenty of non-matchday functions (possible) or up prices (unlikely to happen).

None of which is any reason, if 600 could be catered for, for Albion to turn away.

And if Argyle moved into old trafford now they could cater to the 6000 that go to games but it isnt going to mean that they will grow or be any better than they are now will it? i think the owner of darlington had your way of thinking too and look what happend to them!

"Look at Darlo," they say, "they've been bankrupted by having a stadium that is too big for them." This is pretty much true. What is not true is that the same would happen to us. Apart from being similarly distant from London I can think of few similarities between Darlo and Argyle as teams or Darlington and Plymouth as towns/cities. There's about 250,000 people living in Plymouth and loads more within travelling distance who could, potentially, be considered our supporters. Darlington has a population of about 100,000 and anybody living nearby who wanted to travel to a game would be just as likely to go to Newcastle, Sunderland or Middlesbrough. Our potential support level is almost unlimited because we have no viable alternative; Darlington's is very clearly very limited. That "ground too big for them" label is a damning one. Again it is true. With all the will I can muster I can only see Darlo attracting crowds of around 10,000 at the very best and so their stadium should be sized accordingly. They did not need and could not ever justify a 25,000 stadium. "We've got more fans than you" we mockingly sang at them back in '96 on that sunny day at Wembley. It was just as true then as it is now. On that day they mustered around 9,000 supporters and we about 30,000. If your support won't turn out for a Wembley play-off final then when will it?

These are the figures that need to be borne in mind when our and their relative potentials are considered. Think back to that QPR Winner Takes All game. The attendance that day was 19,535 ~ lower, not by much but lower nevertheless, than capacity at the time, please note. Just how many tickets could we have sold for that match? I have no doubt that 30,000 tickets could easily have been sold. Maybe even 40,000. Maybe more. If we wait until we need that extra capacity then it will be too late to build it. At that point we are likely to be riding the crest of our next wave of success; we are likely to be a division or two higher up the league pyramid than we are now; we are likely to have a team of heroes who have inspired and united the support. We are also likely to find ourselves unable to compete financially; unable to afford to recruit players of the standard we need to progress; unable to retain our best players who will either be poached by teams with stronger finances (and, naturally, bigger stadia) or leave dismayed at our lack of ambition; momentum will be lost and a position of strength built on club unity and careful financial management will once again with depressing familiarity be squandered. Just as last time we were hamstrung by a stadium capacity of 20,000 Mr Brent's plan would hamstring us again except more so and the decline would kick in even earlier.

So please don't quote Darlington at me again. Might as well compare pigs and ducks. The Darlington comparison is entirely specious.

mouldyoldgoat wrote:

Now I admit I know feck all about rugby but is there any reason why Albion, if they managed to get one of the big boys in some cup, couldn't use Home Park for that game?

I remember Devon playing a county championship final against Lancashire at Home Park. The pitch had queer markings for weeks afterwards.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

"Look at Darlo," they say, "they've been bankrupted by having a stadium that is too big for them." This is pretty much true. What is not true is that the same would happen to us. Apart from being similarly distant from London I can think of few similarities between Darlo and Argyle as teams or Darlington and Plymouth as towns/cities. There's about 250,000 people living in Plymouth and loads more within travelling distance who could, potentially, be considered our supporters. Darlington has a population of about 100,000 and anybody living nearby who wanted to travel to a game would be just as likely to go to Newcastle, Sunderland or Middlesbrough. Our potential support level is almost unlimited because we have no viable alternative; Darlington's is very clearly very limited. That "ground too big for them" label is a damning one. Again it is true. With all the will I can muster I can only see Darlo attracting crowds of around 10,000 at the very best and so their stadium should be sized accordingly. They did not need and could not ever justify a 25,000 stadium. "We've got more fans than you" we mockingly sang at them back in '96 on that sunny day at Wembley. It was just as true then as it is now. On that day they mustered around 9,000 supporters and we about 30,000. If your support won't turn out for a Wembley play-off final then when will it?

These are the figures that need to be borne in mind when our and their relative potentials are considered. Think back to that QPR Winner Takes All game. The attendance that day was 19,535 ~ lower, not by much but lower nevertheless, than capacity at the time, please note. Just how many tickets could we have sold for that match? I have no doubt that 30,000 tickets could easily have been sold. Maybe even 40,000. Maybe more. If we wait until we need that extra capacity then it will be too late to build it. At that point we are likely to be riding the crest of our next wave of success; we are likely to be a division or two higher up the league pyramid than we are now; we are likely to have a team of heroes who have inspired and united the support. We are also likely to find ourselves unable to compete financially; unable to afford to recruit players of the standard we need to progress; unable to retain our best players who will either be poached by teams with stronger finances (and, naturally, bigger stadia) or leave dismayed at our lack of ambition; momentum will be lost and a position of strength built on club unity and careful financial management will once again with depressing familiarity be squandered. Just as last time we were hamstrung by a stadium capacity of 20,000 Mr Brent's plan would hamstring us again except more so and the decline would kick in even earlier.

So please don't quote Darlington at me again. Might as well compare pigs and ducks. The Darlington comparison is entirely specious.

I will when you stop quoting exeter chiefs in all your responses like they are meant to win me round as for everytime you mention a bigger stadium and flashy mod cons will bring success i could name you others where it did the opposite.
The Chiefs Unlike Argyle are a well run club that doesnt need the rent of a small rugby club or in their case a very small football club that's in chaos on and off the field just to make ends meet and pay its rent and make a council leader and banker happy in the process. They get by just fine doing what works for them. Argyle get by on fanfests and council payers.

Albion moving in now will cause more harm and cost more money than it would if they were more settled off the pitch and successful on it. Moving to a bigger ground will not bring success alone and its not wise to try and suggest it will only good ownership and a good team will do that. Once they have turned a corner then maybe its a subject to broche with them then and see if they would want in then on a 50/50 long term deal. But honestly it stinks of desperation that will have convince ourselves that argyle's future relies on a low tier championship rugby club moving in because its own owner wont invest his own money.

i'm agreeing to disagree and moving on before this becomes to bogged down with repetition in views

The ground drinking law would have to be change

Albion are heading for relegation at present......thrashed 64-16 by London Scottish yesterday......rooted to the bottom of the Championship without a win, losing 5 out of 5.

Any proposals for ground sharing would be difficult for them in their present situation, and dwindling support if they do go down would be more of a financial concern than the cost of sharing a bigger stadium.

I don't think the original debate was anything to do with Albion moving in now. I thought we were talking about Albion sharing the ground when the Council have built the Grandstand with the associated corporate facilities?

Yesterdays "performance" on Sky shows that Albion are going to get relegated this year. No if's or but's - relegation is a certainty unless something drastic changes. Albion need to get their heads out of the sand and realise that this situation has been on the cards for a number of years now. It wasn't that long ago that they were challenging for promotion but their league position has been falling year on year for far too long now. Even Jersey are above us now.