There isn’t a brief synopsis thread like there was for the Barnsley game so it inflates the number of comments in this one.
-
Welcome to PASOTI. Sponsored by Lang & Potter
Fleetwood v Argyle Match Thread
- Thread starter loyal1970
- Start date
There isn’t a brief synopsis thread like there was for the Barnsley game so it inflates the number of comments in this one.
The 5 subs rule is yet again another EFL initiative that stacks things in favour of the bigger budget clubs. I think we see this manifested in all aspects of football, including the long standing media bias towards traditionally bigger clubs. I would have thought the ethos of the EFL and the FA would be to create a more level playing field, which makes the game more attractive across the board. But no, commercial interests have become the hidden agenda in the shadows of corporate and institutional operations, including betting syndicates. There's potentially a lot of corruption in the industry, Blatter and Platini are just the tip of a big iceberg, as global corporatism has taken over the game. It seems 'they' don't want well run aspiring 'smaller' clubs to succeed, and when we manage to get one step forward, they contrive something to put us two steps back. imo
Last edited:
You could argue parachute payments ruined the chances of success for smaller clubs.
I will be astonished if the super league isn’t coming back. We already have a stupidly expanded champions league so we aren’t far away.
Yes, parachute payments to me, are like an insurance scheme and puts a brick wall between the bigger clubs and the rest. Our only hope is by skill, judgement and quite a bit of luck, one season it all goes in our favour and we go up (Simon's only realistic strategy). Then like Posh and Rotherham the parachute scheme allows us to yoyo up and down indefinitely. Or we do what they really want and thats find billionaire corporate investors to pump mega millions into the club and join their 'big club'.
l thought the some of people within Argyle green were billionaires? Or was that not correct?
That's what I'm alluding to really. Simon's sustainable strategy is morally and ethically laudible and we all are behind it. But we know in the long term that isn't enough to beat their 'game'. Do we end up another club who sells out to greed and ambition at all costs? Personally, I don't want that, but for any club like ours I'm not sure that we can prevent it. American investors won't just settle for the status quo imo. For me the underlying issue now is ethics, we can either go one way or the other. It will become increasingly harder for Simon to hold them off. I know some fans will welcome it. It seems like going off topic, but in a smaller way the Fleetwood vs Argyle wages scenario is a glimpse of what we're up against. coyg
Last edited:
I thought the SMCP threshold for L1 was 60% of turnover and 55% for L2.??
Well those who read PASOTI many years ago will remember a poster called Mike Salisbury (I think) telling (lecturing 
) us that if we didn't make it into the top tier then we never ever would. The discussion then was all about how the Premier League and Championship finances were about to be stacked in favour of the teams already up there and how things like parachute payments would mean a club like Argyle would forever be at such a disadvantage that we'd be destined to stay down at exactly the level we're at now (without huge external investment). It was something like that anyway. It might have been around the time that one of the TV deals was renegotiated and the allocation of money between divisions altered and it was probably amidst a debate about how much money was being spent on the squad in comparison to other teams. Anyway, all I am saying is that surely no-one can really be surprised that we are where we are and that other (bigger, ex-Prem teams) have a massive advantage over us even after they have fallen on relatively hard times (because they have bigger fanbases, better infrastructure etc and so are still more attractive to those with money).
) us that if we didn't make it into the top tier then we never ever would. The discussion then was all about how the Premier League and Championship finances were about to be stacked in favour of the teams already up there and how things like parachute payments would mean a club like Argyle would forever be at such a disadvantage that we'd be destined to stay down at exactly the level we're at now (without huge external investment). It was something like that anyway. It might have been around the time that one of the TV deals was renegotiated and the allocation of money between divisions altered and it was probably amidst a debate about how much money was being spent on the squad in comparison to other teams. Anyway, all I am saying is that surely no-one can really be surprised that we are where we are and that other (bigger, ex-Prem teams) have a massive advantage over us even after they have fallen on relatively hard times (because they have bigger fanbases, better infrastructure etc and so are still more attractive to those with money).
I did say that I don't know which protocols the EFL follow. The PL have their own competition rules to follow, which are not necessarily in tandem with those of the FA.
Just can't understand how Bournemouth have made it though, after all those years below us in Division 4. And now Premier League with their bigger fanbase 😉 and after falling on financial difficulties a few years ago.Well those who read PASOTI many years ago will remember a poster called Mike Salisbury (I think) telling (lecturing
