who said maths was difficult

50% of Pasoti'ites say it is, the other 60% say it isn't.

who said maths was difficult

Whoever is looking at Argyle's books!

How do you stop a player leaving if he wants to go? Man U and Liverpool haven't managed it so why should we?

Replacing like for like was the big problem for us as CCC wages had spiralled to ridiculous levels which we couldn't afford along with a lot of other clubs at the same level. We were paying players way under what they could get elsewhere.

To replace those players with the same quality we would have had to pay out transfer fees of 1M+ and pay them 10k+ a week. We were punching way above our weight to the credit of the managers that had brought those players in but it came to an end when those players left.

Correct. And the claim by Greenskin that SEB was the only 'unavoidable' sale back then is wrong, in my view. Norris, for instance, was desperate to go to Ipswich and threatened never to play for Argyle again in the closing days of his transfer saga (as Stapes made public in his pre-Leicester game bombshells). How could Argyle have kept him - without paying a wage that would have been way beyond reach?

And trying to keep Gosling would have been daft, as well. The Buzsaky deal was less clear-cut, but the club was not in a strong position to turn down half a million for a player who would have gone for nothing in the summer.

As for X Isle's post, his analysis of supporter expectations at that time is correct. But I don't think it's right for anybody to claim that those expectations were to blame for what went wrong. It's the job of a board of directors to resist unrealistic expectations, to be strong and to pay out only what a business can afford to pay out in fees and wages. In that respect, the board has failed - and it was starting to fail before Kagami turned up, let alone Todd and Gardner.

Manchester Green's post at the top of the previous page is spot on, as well, I think.

How do you stop a player leaving if he wants to go? Man U and Liverpool haven't managed it so why should we?

Replacing like for like was the big problem for us as CCC wages had spiralled to ridiculous levels which we couldn't afford along with a lot of other clubs at the same level. We were paying players way under what they could get elsewhere.

To replace those players with the same quality we would have had to pay out transfer fees of 1M+ and pay them 10k+ a week. We were punching way above our weight to the credit of the managers that had brought those players in but it came to an end when those players left.

Correct. And the claim that SEB was the only 'unavoidable' sale back then is wrong, in my view. Norris, for instance, was desperate to go to Ipswich and threatened never to play for Argyle again in the closing days of his transfer saga (as Stapes made public in his pre-Leicester game bombshells). How could Argyle have kept him - without paying a wage that would have been way beyond reach?

And trying to keep Gosling would have been daft, as well.

Rubbish,absolute defeatist rubbish.Why was Norris keen to go to Ipswich? Because he was keen to go to a club "with ambitions that matched my own" as he stated at his first press conference at Ipswich.And why was it daft to try to keep Gosling? Would it have done his career that much harm to keep him until the following summer? Just the sort of negative crap that partly explains why a big city club has never achieved as much as a market town club in East Anglia.

I agree with what Rupert said earlier on... I think we should stop assuming it's administration tomorrow.

Why was Norris keen to go to Ipswich? Because he was keen to go to a club "with ambitions that matched my own" as he stated at his first press conference at Ipswich.

In such press conferences, "ambition" invariably means wages on offer. I refer you back to my previous post. It would have been madness for Argyle to try to match Ipswich's wage offer.

And as for Gosling, when a lad of his age is offered a move to a big Premier League club, how can a club of Argyle's size say no? There was no guarantee that such a move would have been on the table in the summer. Argyle could perhaps have pressed harder for a loan-back that season, but that was hardly a priority. He was not a first-team regular for Argyle.

[Bubba]

Norris told the club 6 months before leaving that he wanted to go to Ipswich to be closer to his family in Peterborough.
Magilton publically coverted him and only added fuel to the flames and I believe Argyle offered to match any wages he could get else where but his mind was set on leaving.

Why was Norris keen to go to Ipswich? Because he was keen to go to a club "with ambitions that matched my own" as he stated at his first press conference at Ipswich.

In such press conferences, "ambition" invariably means wages on offer. I refer you back to my previous post. It would have been madness for Argyle to try to match Ipswich's wage offer.

And as for Gosling, when a lad of his age is offered a move to a big Premier League club, how can a club of Argyle's size say no? There was no guarantee that such a move would have been on the table in the summer. Argyle could perhaps have pressed harder for a loan-back that season, but that was hardly a priority. He was not a first-team regular for Argyle.

Significant comment there-"a club of Argyle's size".How the hell do you expect the club to grow without keeping your best players? I heard the same stuff from the same board compliant press when players who could have helped Argyle to progress in the past were sold.And how do you know that Norris didn't mean exactly what he said? If he'd been convinced that Argyle had been truly serious in their intent about "going for it",would it not have made sense for him to hold on until the following summer,with the prospect of receiving a premiership wage? I wouldn't have thought he was that short of a bob or two to be that desperate.

How do you stop a player leaving if he wants to go? Man U and Liverpool haven't managed it so why should we?

Replacing like for like was the big problem for us as CCC wages had spiralled to ridiculous levels which we couldn't afford along with a lot of other clubs at the same level. We were paying players way under what they could get elsewhere.

To replace those players with the same quality we would have had to pay out transfer fees of 1M+ and pay them 10k+ a week. We were punching way above our weight to the credit of the managers that had brought those players in but it came to an end when those players left.

Correct. And the claim by Greenskin that SEB was the only 'unavoidable' sale back then is wrong, in my view. Norris, for instance, was desperate to go to Ipswich and threatened never to play for Argyle again in the closing days of his transfer saga (as Stapes made public in his pre-Leicester game bombshells). How could Argyle have kept him - without paying a wage that would have been way beyond reach?

And trying to keep Gosling would have been daft, as well. The Buzsaky deal was less clear-cut, but the club was not in a strong position to turn down half a million for a player who would have gone for nothing in the summer.

As for X Isle's post, his analysis of supporter expectations at that time is correct. But I don't think it's right for anybody to claim that those expectations were to blame for what went wrong. It's the job of a board of directors to resist unrealistic expectations, to be strong and to pay out only what a business can afford to pay out in fees and wages. In that respect, the board has failed - and it was starting to fail before Kagami turned up, let alone Todd and Gardner.

Manchester Green's post at the top of the previous page is spot on, as well, I think.

Entirely agree with this. It is the job of the Directors (including PS) to ensure the business does not lose control of expenditure. They failed, and cannot hide from this.
With this in mind, a clean sweep is needed, as I do not believe the fanbase could be united behind a new board containing any remnant of the current regime.

[Bubba]

Entirely agree with this. It is the job of the Directors (including PS) to ensure the business does not lose control of expenditure. They failed, and cannot hide from this.
With this in mind, a clean sweep is needed, as I do not believe the fanbase could be united behind a new board containing any remnant of the current regime.

Totally agree but the Riddler hinted that 1 of the existing board may remain even if a new regime took over and my guess, much to my distain and I expect many others, would be that PS will still be involved in running PAFC.

How do you stop a player leaving if he wants to go? Man U and Liverpool haven't managed it so why should we?

Replacing like for like was the big problem for us as CCC wages had spiralled to ridiculous levels which we couldn't afford along with a lot of other clubs at the same level. We were paying players way under what they could get elsewhere.

To replace those players with the same quality we would have had to pay out transfer fees of 1M+ and pay them 10k+ a week. We were punching way above our weight to the credit of the managers that had brought those players in but it came to an end when those players left.

Correct. And the claim by Greenskin that SEB was the only 'unavoidable' sale back then is wrong, in my view. Norris, for instance, was desperate to go to Ipswich and threatened never to play for Argyle again in the closing days of his transfer saga (as Stapes made public in his pre-Leicester game bombshells). How could Argyle have kept him - without paying a wage that would have been way beyond reach?

And trying to keep Gosling would have been daft, as well. The Buzsaky deal was less clear-cut, but the club was not in a strong position to turn down half a million for a player who would have gone for nothing in the summer.

As for X Isle's post, his analysis of supporter expectations at that time is correct. But I don't think it's right for anybody to claim that those expectations were to blame for what went wrong. It's the job of a board of directors to resist unrealistic expectations, to be strong and to pay out only what a business can afford to pay out in fees and wages. In that respect, the board has failed - and it was starting to fail before Kagami turned up, let alone Todd and Gardner.

Manchester Green's post at the top of the previous page is spot on, as well, I think.

Entirely agree with this. It is the job of the Directors (including PS) to ensure the business does not lose control of expenditure. They failed, and cannot hide from this.
With this in mind, a clean sweep is needed, as I do not believe the fanbase could be united behind a new board containing any remnant of the current regime.

Maybe you need to check the poll on this issue. It reads otherwise.

Let's kick start 'Operation Valkerie' if Paul Stapleton is kept on the board.

How do you stop a player leaving if he wants to go? Man U and Liverpool haven't managed it so why should we?

Replacing like for like was the big problem for us as CCC wages had spiralled to ridiculous levels which we couldn't afford along with a lot of other clubs at the same level. We were paying players way under what they could get elsewhere.

To replace those players with the same quality we would have had to pay out transfer fees of 1M+ and pay them 10k+ a week. We were punching way above our weight to the credit of the managers that had brought those players in but it came to an end when those players left.

Correct. And the claim by Greenskin that SEB was the only 'unavoidable' sale back then is wrong, in my view. Norris, for instance, was desperate to go to Ipswich and threatened never to play for Argyle again in the closing days of his transfer saga (as Stapes made public in his pre-Leicester game bombshells). How could Argyle have kept him - without paying a wage that would have been way beyond reach?

And trying to keep Gosling would have been daft, as well. The Buzsaky deal was less clear-cut, but the club was not in a strong position to turn down half a million for a player who would have gone for nothing in the summer.

As for X Isle's post, his analysis of supporter expectations at that time is correct. But I don't think it's right for anybody to claim that those expectations were to blame for what went wrong. It's the job of a board of directors to resist unrealistic expectations, to be strong and to pay out only what a business can afford to pay out in fees and wages. In that respect, the board has failed - and it was starting to fail before Kagami turned up, let alone Todd and Gardner.

Manchester Green's post at the top of the previous page is spot on, as well, I think.

Entirely agree with this. It is the job of the Directors (including PS) to ensure the business does not lose control of expenditure. They failed, and cannot hide from this.
With this in mind, a clean sweep is needed, as I do not believe the fanbase could be united behind a new board containing any remnant of the current regime.

Maybe you need to check the poll on this issue. It reads otherwise.

Let's kick start 'Operation Valkerie' if Paul Stapleton is kept on the board.

Not sure I follow your point NCB.

Would you support a current Director(s) prepack?
We need a complete clean sweep.
62% [ 133 ]