'Early Bird' Season Ticket Deadline Extended AGAIN

[Andy S]

I really don't get the complaints about the price rise.

1. When the price was set we were 4 points away from being safe with 6 games to go. DA flipped that right up but the club set the price.

2. It is reported we made a loss last year with our relatively large average gates. That tells me the wages the chimps were on exceeded our income targets.

3. We don't have a sugar daddy so the money we have available has to come from corporate, retail, sponsorship and the gates. The more money through the door the better the signings

4 ST price for price per game is still very good value in my eyes.

Now I know some will come out with dull maths and give it yea but if we sell a thousand more STs at a reduced rate of last seasons prices we will have more money. Unfortunately that won't happen. We have a solid core of ST holders which won't go up tremendously and probably won't drop off that much. Maybe a few 100 who will just turn up on a Saturday anyway and pay higher prices .

A lot of fans were having a go at the budget last season. I don't believe the budget was the issue but the man spending it was however we can't have it both ways. More money in will mean higher budget and as fans we need to help the cause.

Have one less pint before the game it will soon make up the difference

Like

 

[davie nine]

I really don't get the complaints about the price rise.

1. When the price was set we were 4 points away from being safe with 6 games to go. DA flipped that right up but the club set the price.

2. It is reported we made a loss last year with our relatively large average gates. That tells me the wages the chimps were on exceeded our income targets.

3. We don't have a sugar daddy so the money we have available has to come from corporate, retail, sponsorship and the gates. The more money through the door the better the signings

4 ST price for price per game is still very good value in my eyes.

Now I know some will come out with dull maths and give it yea but if we sell a thousand more STs at a reduced rate of last seasons prices we will have more money. Unfortunately that won't happen. We have a solid core of ST holders which won't go up tremendously and probably won't drop off that much. Maybe a few 100 who will just turn up on a Saturday anyway and pay higher prices .

A lot of fans were having a go at the budget last season. I don't believe the budget was the issue but the man spending it was however we can't have it both ways. More money in will mean higher budget and as fans we need to help the cause.

Have one less pint before the game it will soon make up the difference

A very reasonable opinion, rsp4. I can’t disagree, even the penultimate paragraph is true. That was his biggest mistake in his 4 years here and, unfortunately, it rightly cost him his job.

 

[Shankster]

No one knew what the budget was, Adams was positive about it then used it as an excuse when the brown stuff made contact with the fan.

I don’t trust any suit to use money totally to the benefit of the many be it the board of a club or a politician, therefore what will your ticket money do? fund a player, add a toilet seat to the estates budget, pay the boards dividend ‘entitlement’?

Your driving thought when buying a season ticket should never be ‘it’ll ensure the playing budget is competitive’ rather ‘I enjoy football and ********** is my club’

Football is for the fans NOT the suits in the boardroom, your job isn’t to fund it

 

[Metal Green Mickey]

New pitch, Refurbished Grandstand, New Manager & coaching staff, new head of recruitment and New CEO.

When l look at everything going on, l have to say you can’t really argue that Argyle are sitting on their hands watching the footballing world go by.

I totally get the argument about £400 for a season ticket is a lot for league two football.

However, what with so many things going on including new players will be arriving at Argyle in the summer then lm afraid, as fans, something has to give in terms of the value of our season tickets.

Hallett’s money may well be loans to the club but they are investing in infrastructure that hopefully benefits the club. He has had to put his own money in and the repayments (in terms of years) are such that really will they benefit him and his wife?

I think because of what l see going on in the background then this makes it all the more important about what’s going on the field of HP. IF we see attacking style of football then personally l won’t care about it being £400. Recruitment will be important.

I’m excited, not because of one particular thing, but because there are so many different aspects that are underway at Argyle lm intrigued to see how all this plays out.

 

[L G]

You can ask the Mods to change your username if you want mate.

Argyletilnextweek? :funny:

 

[April 1971]

No one knew what the budget was, Adams was positive about it then used it as an excuse when the brown stuff made contact with the fan.

I don’t trust any suit to use money totally to the benefit of the many be it the board of a club or a politician, therefore what will your ticket money do? fund a player, add a toilet seat to the estates budget, pay the boards dividend ‘entitlement’?

Your driving thought when buying a season ticket should never be ‘it’ll ensure the playing budget is competitive’ rather ‘I enjoy football and ********** is my club’

Football is for the fans NOT the suits in the boardroom, your job isn’t to fund it

Sorry I just don’t get your final paragraph, Argyle is my club always has been, if we want success we as supporters have to be part of it by paying towards the wages of everyone who works for the club, I’m not particularly keen on someone else subsidising my club, nobody pays towards my holidays or meals out, so why Football?

 

[metroace]

I really don't get the complaints about the price rise.

1. When the price was set we were 4 points away from being safe with 6 games to go. DA flipped that right up but the club set the price.

2. It is reported we made a loss last year with our relatively large average gates. That tells me the wages the chimps were on exceeded our income targets.

3. We don't have a sugar daddy so the money we have available has to come from corporate, retail, sponsorship and the gates. The more money through the door the better the signings

4 ST price for price per game is still very good value in my eyes.

Now I know some will come out with dull maths and give it yea but if we sell a thousand more STs at a reduced rate of last seasons prices we will have more money. Unfortunately that won't happen. We have a solid core of ST holders which won't go up tremendously and probably won't drop off that much. Maybe a few 100 who will just turn up on a Saturday anyway and pay higher prices .

A lot of fans were having a go at the budget last season. I don't believe the budget was the issue but the man spending it was however we can't have it both ways. More money in will mean higher budget and as fans we need to help the cause.

Have one less pint before the game it will soon make up the difference

Like

LIKE

 

[davie nine]

No one knew what the budget was, Adams was positive about it then used it as an excuse when the brown stuff made contact with the fan.

I don’t trust any suit to use money totally to the benefit of the many be it the board of a club or a politician, therefore what will your ticket money do? fund a player, add a toilet seat to the estates budget, pay the boards dividend ‘entitlement’?

Your driving thought when buying a season ticket should never be ‘it’ll ensure the playing budget is competitive’ rather ‘I enjoy football and ********** is my club’

Football is for the fans NOT the suits in the boardroom, your job isn’t to fund it

Sorry I just don’t get your final paragraph, Argyle is my club always has been, if we want success we as supporters have to be part of it by paying towards the wages of everyone who works for the club, I’m not particularly keen on someone else subsidising my club, nobody pays towards my holidays or meals out, so why Football?

I see that you are a new member although, of course, you may have been a silent Pasoti observer for a long while.
If not, you will soon find that Shankster has some unorthodox, enigmatic and superior opinions often articulated to demonstrate how well educated he is compared to us Janners.
I agree with you about paying for MY club and do not understand his observations about the ‘suits in the boardroom’ who he seems to think are benefitting from the dividends they receive from their shares.
He is, no doubt, happy that his number 1 team has done well in the Champions League.

 

[Green Blooded]

I really don't get the complaints about the price rise.

1. When the price was set we were 4 points away from being safe with 6 games to go. DA flipped that right up but the club set the price.

2. It is reported we made a loss last year with our relatively large average gates. That tells me the wages the chimps were on exceeded our income targets.

3. We don't have a sugar daddy so the money we have available has to come from corporate, retail, sponsorship and the gates. The more money through the door the better the signings

4 ST price for price per game is still very good value in my eyes.

Now I know some will come out with dull maths and give it yea but if we sell a thousand more STs at a reduced rate of last seasons prices we will have more money. Unfortunately that won't happen. We have a solid core of ST holders which won't go up tremendously and probably won't drop off that much. Maybe a few 100 who will just turn up on a Saturday anyway and pay higher prices .

A lot of fans were having a go at the budget last season. I don't believe the budget was the issue but the man spending it was however we can't have it both ways. More money in will mean higher budget and as fans we need to help the cause.

Have one less pint before the game it will soon make up the difference

Personally I don't think paying around 19 pound per game, which I am, is great value as a ST holder, I think it is about where it should be anyway imo.

Also, it doesn't matter what we pay, it is just plugging a hole caused by bad financial management or wasted money from bad decisions. Some of these may have been from the manager, but is still approved by the board, and you can't use 'belief in the manager' or 'backing him' to justify that as an excuse to wipe the board from any responsibility if there are shortfalls.

If we made a loss on our gates that is very concerning and signifies we are once again not cutting our cloth accordingly. They can't just bleed us dry to fill the void, that is not a long term or feasible solution.

More money = better signings? Assuming the money isn't needed to fill a void
which seems to be the rhetoric, that is subjective. It depends on your idea of better. Remember Mpenza? What a waste of money that was! Hopefully we never repeat that but sometimes these things happen, even unintentionally. We could have more money and just waste it.
Also, how about the teams that run on much lower gates and have less commercial opportunity? Sugar daddies are not rife amongst the lower leagues, so how do we explain their sustainability and progress, or some of their impressive players, in contrast with ours? Why aren't those with lower gates paying twice as much to fund their club and help field a half decent team?

What is the difference? If you think we can fund the club to better players and success I would argue that imho you are a little naïve. It is far more complex and requires more creativity and sound management than has been in place so far.

 

[Action Jackson]

I really don't get the complaints about the price rise.

1. When the price was set we were 4 points away from being safe with 6 games to go. DA flipped that right up but the club set the price.

2. It is reported we made a loss last year with our relatively large average gates. That tells me the wages the chimps were on exceeded our income targets.

3. We don't have a sugar daddy so the money we have available has to come from corporate, retail, sponsorship and the gates. The more money through the door the better the signings

4 ST price for price per game is still very good value in my eyes.

Now I know some will come out with dull maths and give it yea but if we sell a thousand more STs at a reduced rate of last seasons prices we will have more money. Unfortunately that won't happen. We have a solid core of ST holders which won't go up tremendously and probably won't drop off that much. Maybe a few 100 who will just turn up on a Saturday anyway and pay higher prices .

A lot of fans were having a go at the budget last season. I don't believe the budget was the issue but the man spending it was however we can't have it both ways. More money in will mean higher budget and as fans we need to help the cause.

Have one less pint before the game it will soon make up the difference

Like

LIKE

Whats with you putting 'LIKE' on loads of comments?

 

[Shankster]

I really don't get the complaints about the price rise.

1. When the price was set we were 4 points away from being safe with 6 games to go. DA flipped that right up but the club set the price.

2. It is reported we made a loss last year with our relatively large average gates. That tells me the wages the chimps were on exceeded our income targets.

3. We don't have a sugar daddy so the money we have available has to come from corporate, retail, sponsorship and the gates. The more money through the door the better the signings

4 ST price for price per game is still very good value in my eyes.

Now I know some will come out with dull maths and give it yea but if we sell a thousand more STs at a reduced rate of last seasons prices we will have more money. Unfortunately that won't happen. We have a solid core of ST holders which won't go up tremendously and probably won't drop off that much. Maybe a few 100 who will just turn up on a Saturday anyway and pay higher prices .

A lot of fans were having a go at the budget last season. I don't believe the budget was the issue but the man spending it was however we can't have it both ways. More money in will mean higher budget and as fans we need to help the cause.

Have one less pint before the game it will soon make up the difference

Like

LIKE

Whats with you putting 'LIKE' on loads of comments?

Like

 

[landons forehead]

I really don't get the complaints about the price rise.

1. When the price was set we were 4 points away from being safe with 6 games to go. DA flipped that right up but the club set the price.

2. It is reported we made a loss last year with our relatively large average gates. That tells me the wages the chimps were on exceeded our income targets.

3. We don't have a sugar daddy so the money we have available has to come from corporate, retail, sponsorship and the gates. The more money through the door the better the signings

4 ST price for price per game is still very good value in my eyes.

Now I know some will come out with dull maths and give it yea but if we sell a thousand more STs at a reduced rate of last seasons prices we will have more money. Unfortunately that won't happen. We have a solid core of ST holders which won't go up tremendously and probably won't drop off that much. Maybe a few 100 who will just turn up on a Saturday anyway and pay higher prices .

A lot of fans were having a go at the budget last season. I don't believe the budget was the issue but the man spending it was however we can't have it both ways. More money in will mean higher budget and as fans we need to help the cause.

Have one less pint before the game it will soon make up the difference

Personally I don't think paying around 19 pound per game, which I am, is great value as a ST holder, I think it is about where it should be anyway imo.

Also, it doesn't matter what we pay, it is just plugging a hole caused by bad financial management or wasted money from bad decisions. Some of these may have been from the manager, but is still approved by the board, and you can't use 'belief in the manager' or 'backing him' to justify that as an excuse to wipe the board from any responsibility if there are shortfalls.

If we made a loss on our gates that is very concerning and signifies we are once again not cutting our cloth accordingly. They can't just bleed us dry to fill the void, that is not a long term or feasible solution.

More money = better signings? Assuming the money isn't needed to fill a void
which seems to be the rhetoric, that is subjective. It depends on your idea of better. Remember Mpenza? What a waste of money that was! Hopefully we never repeat that but sometimes these things happen, even unintentionally. We could have more money and just waste it.
Also, how about the teams that run on much lower gates and have less commercial opportunity? Sugar daddies are not rife amongst the lower leagues, so how do we explain their sustainability and progress, or some of their impressive players, in contrast with ours? Why aren't those with lower gates paying twice as much to fund their club and help field a half decent team?

What is the difference? If you think we can fund the club to better players and success I would argue that imho you are a little naïve. It is far more complex and requires more creativity and sound management than has been in place so far.

This for me. I am not endorsing the inexcusable shambles that was the 18/19 season (whether the fault for that lies with players, management or the board) by paying a hiked price for a season ticket in 19/20. Accrington, Wimbledon and Rochdale all managed to finish above Argyle on vastly smaller attendances.

I have no idea how wisely the club is spending money off the pitch, but on it we have seen so much waste, with an endless stream of players who sign and then barely get a game. Adams was allowed to sign Anderson this season as a wide player, but where was Ainsworth, also a wide player, while this signing was being made? Wylde coming back to the club last season, Dyson, Wootton & Peter Grant this. Each a spectacular waste of a wage. I accept that not every signing works out, but the way I see it, the fans are now being asked to pay for the mistakes of board/management.

If the board (who are ultimately responsible for the whole shebang) see that fans will still renew their season tickets at a higher price, in a lower league, and after a terrible preceding season, they have no incentive to learn from their mistakes.

 

[rsp4]

I really don't get the complaints about the price rise.

1. When the price was set we were 4 points away from being safe with 6 games to go. DA flipped that right up but the club set the price.

2. It is reported we made a loss last year with our relatively large average gates. That tells me the wages the chimps were on exceeded our income targets.

3. We don't have a sugar daddy so the money we have available has to come from corporate, retail, sponsorship and the gates. The more money through the door the better the signings

4 ST price for price per game is still very good value in my eyes.

Now I know some will come out with dull maths and give it yea but if we sell a thousand more STs at a reduced rate of last seasons prices we will have more money. Unfortunately that won't happen. We have a solid core of ST holders which won't go up tremendously and probably won't drop off that much. Maybe a few 100 who will just turn up on a Saturday anyway and pay higher prices .

A lot of fans were having a go at the budget last season. I don't believe the budget was the issue but the man spending it was however we can't have it both ways. More money in will mean higher budget and as fans we need to help the cause.

Have one less pint before the game it will soon make up the difference

Personally I don't think paying around 19 pound per game, which I am, is great value as a ST holder, I think it is about where it should be anyway imo.

Also, it doesn't matter what we pay, it is just plugging a hole caused by bad financial management or wasted money from bad decisions. Some of these may have been from the manager, but is still approved by the board, and you can't use 'belief in the manager' or 'backing him' to justify that as an excuse to wipe the board from any responsibility if there are shortfalls.

If we made a loss on our gates that is very concerning and signifies we are once again not cutting our cloth accordingly. They can't just bleed us dry to fill the void, that is not a long term or feasible solution.

More money = better signings? Assuming the money isn't needed to fill a void
which seems to be the rhetoric, that is subjective. It depends on your idea of better. Remember Mpenza? What a waste of money that was! Hopefully we never repeat that but sometimes these things happen, even unintentionally. We could have more money and just waste it.
Also, how about the teams that run on much lower gates and have less commercial opportunity? Sugar daddies are not rife amongst the lower leagues, so how do we explain their sustainability and progress, or some of their impressive players, in contrast with ours? Why aren't those with lower gates paying twice as much to fund their club and help field a half decent team?

What is the difference? If you think we can fund the club to better players and success I would argue that imho you are a little naïve. It is far more complex and requires more creativity and sound management than has been in place so far.

This for me. I am not endorsing the inexcusable shambles that was the 18/19 season (whether the fault for that lies with players, management or the board) by paying a hiked price for a season ticket in 19/20. Accrington, Wimbledon and Rochdale all managed to finish above Argyle on vastly smaller attendances.

I have no idea how wisely the club is spending money off the pitch, but on it we have seen so much waste, with an endless stream of players who sign and then barely get a game. Adams was allowed to sign Anderson this season as a wide player, but where was Ainsworth, also a wide player, while this signing was being made? Wylde coming back to the club last season, Dyson, Wootton & Peter Grant this. Each a spectacular waste of a wage. I accept that not every signing works out, but the way I see it, the fans are now being asked to pay for the mistakes of board/management.

If the board (who are ultimately responsible for the whole shebang) see that fans will still renew their season tickets at a higher price, in a lower league, and after a terrible preceding season, they have no incentive to learn from their mistakes.

In answer to both of you really.

1. I stated the Budget set last year was fine for our needs However it was totally wasted by the manager, not the board.

2. In answer to your Don's and Dale are both closer to more dense football areas where players can move around without upping sticks. Don's beat us on GD so they didn't have a good season either. Stanley are being funded by their chairman, not to the extent of others but still being funded. They also have a system of bringing players on and making money. We have done that in a long time.

3. Mpenza????WTF has that got to do with ST prices this season. This board are not in it for the money. Why would they be? I have not doubt the money going into the club is for the club.

4. The sustainability and progress mentioned is because of decent managers not wasting the tight budget and learning from their mistakes. I take you back to line 1.

5. Thanks for calling me naive :funny: . At the moment our money is going into the club. Not always towards the playing staff but that's the right way to do things. The chimps here last season can move on but the club has to survive. Anyway there is a limit of how Much income can be spent on players wages. The sugar daddies get around this.

I stand by my comment. The ST price will be what it is and I don't understand the moaning. Have one less pint or vape sit will soon pay off

 

[davie nine]

This is getting monotonous, rsp. I keep agreeing with you.

 

[Keepitgreen]

I really don't get the complaints about the price rise.

1. When the price was set we were 4 points away from being safe with 6 games to go. DA flipped that right up but the club set the price.

2. It is reported we made a loss last year with our relatively large average gates. That tells me the wages the chimps were on exceeded our income targets.

3. We don't have a sugar daddy so the money we have available has to come from corporate, retail, sponsorship and the gates. The more money through the door the better the signings

4 ST price for price per game is still very good value in my eyes.

Now I know some will come out with dull maths and give it yea but if we sell a thousand more STs at a reduced rate of last seasons prices we will have more money. Unfortunately that won't happen. We have a solid core of ST holders which won't go up tremendously and probably won't drop off that much. Maybe a few 100 who will just turn up on a Saturday anyway and pay higher prices .

A lot of fans were having a go at the budget last season. I don't believe the budget was the issue but the man spending it was however we can't have it both ways. More money in will mean higher budget and as fans we need to help the cause.

Have one less pint before the game it will soon make up the difference

Personally I don't think paying around 19 pound per game, which I am, is great value as a ST holder, I think it is about where it should be anyway imo.

The dearest ST at the moment is an adult at £395 which equates to £17.17 a match, which I believe is good value.