James Brent at PACSA Meeting 25th September

[Ollieargyle9]

Sam you are being extremely naïve about the way the football industry works. He wanted to go that's obvious and there's not really a lot a club can do in that situation other than get the best price they can whether it is a down payment with future add ons or whatever. The fact that half the money went to the balloon payment is nothing to do with it really.

This.

I'm actually amazed this has been turned back on the club as a negative. To get £200k + add-ons from a £50k offer on a player who made it clear he wanted out was a great bit of business IMO, the fact that JS has turned this back on the board to gain favor with fans is very sad indeed. If half went to the balloon payment he must have had just under £100k from the up front fee plus Conor's wages to bring in an attacking midfielder, speaks volumes on his eye for a good creative midfielder really. That and the fact that he had one in the form of Blizzard training with him for a good year and yet stuck with him as a defensive midfielder.

 

[Green Rhino]

What I didn't (it was late!) write down in that part of the note was that JB did say that he consulted with all of the relevant staff at the club regarding Conor's value and stuck to the script in getting that amount in, even in the face of pressure from the player himself for the club to accept a lower valuation.

The alternative of a spell in the Grandstand and the impact that would have on Conor's marketability when his contract expired was made clear to the player, James said.

From what I heard last night, it appears to me that on this issue PAFC played a blinder.

 

[Greenskin]

That's the problem Sam, no one can argue with any of that but you're assuming that what you have read is true.

Do you not think that the Board asked JS what he thought what CH's value as? Do you not think that the Board wanted to extend CH's contract way before Barnskey come in?

Do you not think that the Board were royally peed off when it became obvious that CH no longer wanted to ply his trade with PAFC?

It's always worth remembering what you read in the Herald may be misleading in so much as certain quotes can be taken out of context or the time line of what was said has been skewed.

I know that nothing would have kept Connor at PAFC, not money but geography and ambition to move up the football ladder came into it.

Whilst we might not think Barnsley might not be Man Utd, do you not think that an ambitious lad like Connor could work out that you're far more likely to be noticed in Yorkshire with what, 20 massive clubs within 80 miles than Devon?

Yeah right.Argyle's good players haven't been noticed by anyone over the past 7 years,have they.Only Norris,Ebanks Blake,Buzacky,Gosling,Halmosi,Mackie,Bolasie,Mason,Barnes,Stephens,Wright Phillips....

There was no room for "out of context" quoting in what Sheridan said,unless the Herald were telling a complete pack of lies.

"We were always going to miss a player like Conor.The lad went for £200k and should have gone for £400-500k in my eyes".

From that quote,it's abundantly clear that the board didn't ask Sheridan for a professional opinion on Hourihane's worth or if they did,they ignored it anyway.Rather worrying IMHO,especially when one of the constituent members of the board was one of the most vocal and open critics of the Stapleton regime when they instigated the sale of most of our better players in 2007.How times and opinions seem to have changed

 

[GreenSam]

I don't think the club could have done much more to convince Hourihane of our ambition.

He said (on more than one occasion, with no room for ambiguity) that he wouldn't have just left us for any League One side. He would only have left us for a League One side who he felt had a good chance of promotion to the Championship. The fact that they're currently struggling is neither here nor there- they weren't expected to struggle and they may well not struggle for much longer. Hourihane said that he felt we had a good chance of going up out of this league and he'd only leave us for a side that he felt had a good chance of getting up out of the next league- I don't see how that translates to him having a negative view of our ambition at all. He's an ambitious lad, he's 23, it's a short career and a side looking to get into the Championship will always trump a side looking to get into league one. I don't agree that ambition was the problem- we could have sold our ambition to him till the cows came home and I think he'd have still wanted to leave the club.

Where I do drift to the other side of the argument however and am tempted to agree with Sam is the possibility that we could have just said 'sorry pal, you're under contract and you're staying anyway'. That's a tactic that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. Some wantaway players perform to a high standard anyway and some do not. Who knows which one Hourihane would have been? My guess is that his inherent professionalism would have shone through and he'd have done a good job for us anyway- but thats only my guesswork.

 

[IJN]

From that quote,it's abundantly clear that the board didn't ask Sheridan for a professional opinion on Hourihane's worth or if they did,they ignored it anyway.Rather worrying IMHO,especially when one of the constituent members of the board was one of the most vocal and open critics of the Stapleton regime when they instigated the sale of most of our better players in 2007.How times and opinions seem to have changed

IF you believe that quote then I agree.

I don't.

 

[GreenSam]

What I didn't (it was late!) write down in that part of the note was that JB did say that he consulted with all of the relevant staff at the club regarding Conor's value and stuck to the script in getting that amount in, even in the face of pressure from the player himself for the club to accept a lower valuation.

The alternative of a spell in the Grandstand and the impact that would have on Conor's marketability when his contract expired was made clear to the player, James said.

From what I heard last night, it appears to me that on this issue PAFC played a blinder.

That's good that the club played hardball to that extent but could it not have been played a bit further. Ie, until we reached Sheridan's valuation of the player?

Or we could have just refused to sell him at all and said 'you'd better put your best in for the next year sunshine or else there aren't gonna be many clubs queuing up after you when you're on a free this summer'. I'm glad that the club chose not to cave in early doors and also got good add on money- I genuinely am. But I can't help but feel that our resolve could have gone a little further still in order to secure the very best we could.

 

[SWTT]

Ian, are you suggesting that either the Herald have misquoted Sheridan? Or that Sheridan is telling lies about his initial valuation of Hourihane?

And Sam, that's pretty much how I feel. Yes the club did well to get an offer vastly greater than the original, but the offer accepted is still weak in comparison to his true value - with hindsight really rubbing it in more so.

I could go to the butcher and offer him 50p for a steak, but he says it's worth £8. He's aware that in a weeks time the use by date will have passed and it'll have to be thrown out. Will he accept £3 up front and an extra 50p if I return satisfied that with the quality?

Yes the 50% going to creditors is the unfortunate legacy of the previous regime, but we were atleast aware when entering the deal that 120k of the figure would not be going to Plymouth Argyle Football Club. So, in that respects, because I'm judging this deal from an on field footballing perspective, it's a weak deal. How much of that figure was donated to Sheridan's budget?

Plus while it's somewhat assuring to hear that we got "substantial" add ons attached to the deal, I'm hesitant to get to excited over the size of these. Afterall Brent's idea of a magnificent two tiered grandstand was pretty underwhelming.

 

[Womble]

Ian, are you suggesting that either the Herald have misquoted Sheridan? Or that Sheridan is telling lies about his initial valuation of Hourihane?

And Sam, that's pretty much how I feel. Yes the club did well to get an offer vastly greater than the original, but the offer accepted is still weak in comparison to his true value - with hindsight really rubbing it in more so.

I could go to the butcher and offer him 50p for a steak, but he says it's worth £8. He's aware that in a weeks time the use by date will have passed and it'll have to be thrown out. Will he accept £3 up front and an extra 50p if I return satisfied that with the quality?

Yes the 50% going to creditors is the unfortunate legacy of the previous regime, but we were atleast aware when entering the deal that 120k of the figure would not be going to Plymouth Argyle Football Club. So, in that respects, because I'm judging this deal from an on field footballing perspective, it's a weak deal. How much of that figure was donated to Sheridan's budget?

Plus while it's somewhat assuring to hear that we got "substantial" add ons attached to the deal, I'm hesitant to get to excited over the size of these. Afterall Brent's idea of a magnificent two tiered grandstand was pretty underwhelming.

I agree entirely with this post - pretty much how I see it too.

 

[IJN]

Ian, are you suggesting that either the Herald have misquoted Sheridan? Or that Sheridan is telling lies about his initial valuation of Hourihane?

I'm saying that managers often get misquoted and sometimes timescale and context are all important.

I always remember the story about some African Bishop who came to the UK in the 80's and he was asked a myriad of questions and one of them was 'Your Grace, will you be visiting any night clubs whilst you are here' (referring to something he had said about GB having too many of them before his trip over) he said with a broad smile 'Are there any night clubs in London' - Next day headlines "Bishop asks are there any night clubs in London' - You see, he did say that, but was it in context?

It's quite simple, the thought that JS would not be asked is ludicrous, the possibility that JS (who is THE expert) would be ignored is dafter. No one at PAFC would pee about with £200k for a player who most sane people thought was our trump card.

 

[jsimmons]

Thanks for the summary, Peter, that saved me a job!

Not much to add from me:
In his introduction, James said he is "committed to getting Argyle right"

He also said that he still aspires to take Argyle to the Championship one day and, if that happens, there should be no reason why the club couldn't reach the Premiership from there.

The other question was:
Why didn't Argyle keep young goalkeeper Christian Walton?
JB said that Walton wanted to join Brighton. JB felt that if a young player wanted to join another club that he felt was better for his development, PAFC would ensure that any deal included significant add-on clauses as has happened in recent cases.

 

[monkeywrench]

Quite Ian. Furthermore apparently CH made it pretty clear that he didnt want to play for the club again.

 

[jsimmons]

One more question was asked to close the Q&A session:
How do you see PAFC developing, on and off the pitch, over the next five years?

JB: Hopefully into a sustainable Championship club ultimately, but the timescale is very difficult. Two clubs spent more than PAFC in League 2 last season - and one of them got relegated! JB wants to see a successful PAFC team and the new grandstand will help to support that ambition.

 

[fishypilgrim]

Somebody or somethings TRUE VALUE is only what someone is prepared to pay . Therefore Connor Hourihanes true value was £200k . If we had had more than one club interested in his services then we may have got a bit more for him . Clearly that was not the case .
All th eplayers mentioned above were in a different scenario - They were experienced championship players .

 

[IJN]

I would also add that JB said that Connor refused an extension to his contract, so it was obvious where his allegiance lied and it wasn't at PAFC. It's sometimes worth remembering that us fans love our club but the people that work for it aren't driven in the same way we are. I think that's true of most clubs in the UK.

 

[SWTT]

Well then, that's that. Argyle should go and offer £200 for Di Maria, once that's turned down we'll slowly increase our offers until we reach a maximum of £1000. They'll of course be delighted at this point that they've managed to barter the best deal from us and will accept, providing we chuck in a couple of extras. I'll give 'em my last Rolo to really sweeten the deal. It'll be the real morale booster United fans need as they see the fantastic job the board did with negotiations and securing every penny from us. That's how this works, right? Right? :crazy:

Ian, I'm struggling to see how Sheridan's exact quote could be misconstrued? He didn't think Hourihane should have been sold for £200k, he should have gone for £400-500k in his opinion. You're going to have to really spell this one out to me mate, because I'm not getting what you're trying to say. I'm unsure how your bishop story could be similar in the case of Sheridan's quote?