Towards an objective view of the last 8 months

[Gareth Nicholson]

I would submit that:

1) There are fans whose relationship with Argyle is essentially as a passive consumer. They have put years, sometimes decades, into supporting their club. They want to see ambition, they want to see success, they want to see good players playing good football. Their supporting experience is about going to games, having a few beers with friends and hopefully getting a good result. They see support for the club in straightforward terms: buy a season ticket, get behind the lads and hold your nose at what's going on above.

2) There are fans who want more than that; they want to be an active commissioner of how the club is run. They want stability, they want an ownership structure that recognises and embraces Argyle's role in the community. They think that the grass roots can only flourish if there's a healthy light shining on them. They too want to enjoy their football but not at the expense of mistreatment of staff and lack of transparency and accountability in how the club is run. Their commitment to the club is not in doubt, but it could be conditional on a structure that appreciates the wider social and economic environment in which the club exists.

My contention is that there is nothing wrong with either of these positions. Debate is healthy, argument is healthy. Being a passive consumer does not necessarily mean you do not appreciate that things should have been done differently but the problem with passivity is that by definition it diminishes influence. Being an active commissioner does not necessarily mean that you don't care about formation and tactics, but it does recognise that the on-pitch success or failure over a season or two means nothing in context of future stability.

Where does the objectivity come in? Through independent observers. Prof John Beech, 'Digger' and David Conn in the Guardian, respected bloggers: all have caught a whiff about Argyle from the M7 to the Ridsdale troika. They're like our coal mine canaries and they're keeling over cos it's a bit gassy.

I would love to reconcile myself to being a passive consumer, but it just isn't possible at present. There is too much happening that flatly shouldn't.

 

[Brad Rickard]

I would submit that:

1) There are fans whose relationship with Argyle is essentially as a passive comsumer. They have put years, sometimes decades, into supporting their club. They want to see ambition, they want to see success, they want to see good players playing good football. Their supporting experience is about going to games, having a few beers with friends and hopefully getting a good result. They see support for the club in straightforward terms: buy a season ticket, get behind the lads and hold your nose at what's going on above.

2) There are fans who want more than that; they want to be an active commissioner of how the club is run. They want stability, they want an ownership structure that recognises and embraces Argyle's role in the community. They think that the grass roots can only flourish if there's a healthy light shining on them. They too want to enjoy their football but not at the expense of mistreatment of staff and lack of transparency and accountability in how the club is run. Their commitment to the club is not in doubt, but it could be conditional on a structure that appreciates the wider social and economic environment in which the club exists.

My contention is that there is nothing wrong with either of these positions. Debate is healthy, argument is healthy. Being a passive consumer does not necessarily mean you do not appreciate that things should have been done differently but the problem with passivity is that by definition it diminishes influence. Being an active commissioner does not necessarily mean that you don't care about formation and tactics, but it does recognise that the on-pitch success or failure over a season or two means nothing in context of future stability.

Where does the objectivity come in? Through independent observers. Prof John Beech, 'Digger' and David Conn in the Guardian, respected bloggers: all have caught a whiff about Argyle from the Magnificent seven to the Ridsdale troika. They're like our coal mine canaries and they're keeling over cos it's a bit gassy.

I would love to reconcile myself to being a passive consumer, but it just isn't possible at present. There is too much happening that flatly shouldn't.

great post! :iagree: :stout:

 

[Charlie Wood]

Whenever I try to detach myself from the politics I keep coming back to two words...PETER RIDSDALE. I defy anybody to find one committed supported at any of the other 91 league teams who would want him involved with their club.

I've tried to give him a chance and he is certainly a personable guy, but he is who he is.

And that's without even considering things higher up the food chain!

 

[The Doctor]

Whenever I try to detach myself from the politics I keep coming back to two words...PETER RIDSDALE. I defy anybody to find one committed supported at any of the other 91 league teams who would want him involved with their club.

I've tried to give him a chance and he is certainly a personable guy, but he is who he is.

And that's without even considering things higher up the food chain!

Indeed, but I find myself being much more concerned about Kevin Heaney than Peter Ridsdale, which in many ways says it all really.

 

[oggyale]

I would submit that:

1) There are fans whose relationship with Argyle is essentially as a passive comsumer. They have put years, sometimes decades, into supporting their club. They want to see ambition, they want to see success, they want to see good players playing good football. Their supporting experience is about going to games, having a few beers with friends and hopefully getting a good result. They see support for the club in straightforward terms: buy a season ticket, get behind the lads and hold your nose at what's going on above.

2) There are fans who want more than that; they want to be an active commissioner of how the club is run. They want stability, they want an ownership structure that recognises and embraces Argyle's role in the community. They think that the grass roots can only flourish if there's a healthy light shining on them. They too want to enjoy their football but not at the expense of mistreatment of staff and lack of transparency and accountability in how the club is run. Their commitment to the club is not in doubt, but it could be conditional on a structure that appreciates the wider social and economic environment in which the club exists.

My contention is that there is nothing wrong with either of these positions. Debate is healthy, argument is healthy. Being a passive consumer does not necessarily mean you do not appreciate that things should have been done differently but the problem with passivity is that by definition it diminishes influence. Being an active commissioner does not necessarily mean that you don't care about formation and tactics, but it does recognise that the on-pitch success or failure over a season or two means nothing in context of future stability.

Where does the objectivity come in? Through independent observers. Prof John Beech, 'Digger' and David Conn in the Guardian, respected bloggers: all have caught a whiff about Argyle from the Magnificent seven to the Ridsdale troika. They're like our coal mine canaries and they're keeling over cos it's a bit gassy.

I would love to reconcile myself to being a passive consumer, but it just isn't possible at present. There is too much happening that flatly shouldn't.

I am a passive supporter. I leave the running of the club to those who should know how to run the club. Sadly,the last 2/3 years have not seen that.

We are where we are due to the stupidity of seven people who thought they knew better. This has resulted in a huge split among the supporters on who they wish to run the club now,and in the future.

I feel sorry for the staff and players,i really do.

I and others have put money into the collecting buckets,others have raised monies through other means to help out,there is not much else anyone can do. And how long can supporters do this ?. There will come a time when they can't.

 

[esmer]

Putting everybody into a compartment is patronising.
What I want to see from whoever runs the club is competence, hopefully allied with investment. I don't want to become personal friends with the owners and will probably never meet them and will have no wish to do so. I don't have to like them, all I ask is competent management and adequate funding.

 

[Gareth Nicholson]

Putting everybody into a compartment is patronising.
What I want to see from whoever runs the club is competence, hopefully allied with investment. I don't want to become personal friends with the owners and will probably never meet them and will have no wish to do so. I don't have to like them, all I ask is competent management and adequate funding.

I haven't put 'everybody' into a compartment. I've generalised from the two lines of argument generally debated here.

And if you can't see the irony of calling for competent management and adequate funding at the same time as whirling your pom-poms for Ridsdale and Heaney then there's really nothing else to say.

 

[esmer]

Putting everybody into a compartment is patronising.
What I want to see from whoever runs the club is competence, hopefully allied with investment. I don't want to become personal friends with the owners and will probably never meet them and will have no wish to do so. I don't have to like them, all I ask is competent management and adequate funding.

I haven't put 'everybody' into a compartment. I've generalised from the two lines of argument generally debated here.

And if you can't see the irony of calling for competent management and adequate funding at the same time as whirling your pom-poms for Ridsdale and Heaney then there's really nothing else to say.

You should speak for yourself and yourself alone. I'm quite capable of having my own views, when I want to be patronised I'll let you know.

Regarding funding there is a real possibility that Ridsdale can attract it and he certainly has experience in running football clubs, whilst James Brent hasn't and his "living within our means" ethic smacks of a certain Dan MaCauly

 

[Gareth Nicholson]

You should speak for yourself and yourself alone. I'm quite capable of having my own views, when I want to be patronised I'll let you know.

Regarding funding there is a real possibility that Ridsdale can attract it and he certainly has experience in running football clubs, whilst James Brent hasn't and his "living within our means" ethic smacks of a certain Dan MaCauly

I'll definitely let you know when I'm going to patronise you.

You're saying you don't want us to live within our means? Ridsdale does have experience in running football clubs. He has left a very impressive track record wherever he has gone.

 

[Gerald Wylie]

Ridsdale borrowed £60 million against future gate receipts at Leeds.When he left them, they were £103 million in debt, and about to get relegated down two divisions.
He took Barnsley to the brink of liquidation, only to be saved at the last minute by two local businessmen who bought him out.
He took Cardiff from £35 million debt to £66 million debt and survived four winding up orders.
All this can be gleaned from Wikipaedia.
He manages to liquidate his own company(can't imagine why)and yet potentially ends up owning a football league club for £1.
And there are still people who sing his praises.
Guilfoyle has looked after Ridsdale from day one,and there needs to be an inquiry into this whole affair.

 

[Brixton 'ill Pilgrim]

Putting everybody into a compartment is patronising.
What I want to see from whoever runs the club is competence, hopefully allied with investment. I don't want to become personal friends with the owners and will probably never meet them and will have no wish to do so. I don't have to like them, all I ask is competent management and adequate funding.

I haven't put 'everybody' into a compartment. I've generalised from the two lines of argument generally debated here.

And if you can't see the irony of calling for competent management and adequate funding at the same time as whirling your pom-poms for Ridsdale and Heaney then there's really nothing else to say.

You should speak for yourself and yourself alone. I'm quite capable of having my own views, when I want to be patronised I'll let you know.

Regarding funding there is a real possibility that Ridsdale can attract it and he certainly has experience in running football clubs, whilst James Brent hasn't and his "living within our means" ethic smacks of a certain Dan MaCauly

Living within our means does not require the owner to regularly insult the fans, threaten to close the club, allow the stadium to fall into disrepair etc in the manner that Dan Macauley did.

A majority of chairmen, in addition to the football authorities, politicians, fans groups etc have recognised that the current model for football finance is unsustainable and changes need to be made. That is the way that league regulations will go in the next couple of years - in our current division we already subject to a salary cap. Sooner rather than later, "living within our means" will be the default setting for the majority of clubs.

 

[tonycholwell]

[

Living within our means does not require the owner to regularly insult the fans, threaten to close the club, allow the stadium to fall into disrepair etc in the manner that Dan Macauley did.

A majority of chairmen, in addition to the football authorities, politicians, fans groups etc have recognised that the current model for football finance is unsustainable and changes need to be made. That is the way that league regulations will go in the next couple of years - in our current division we already subject to a salary cap. Sooner rather than later, "living within our means" will be the default setting for the majority of clubs.

Afternoon Brixton, I found myself shaking my head in disagreement and nodding to agree in about equal measure.

The phrase "living within our means" can mean different things to diffferent people. Does that mean you only spend what you receive or can it be extended to mean you can borrow as long as its repayable within your means? By borrow do we mean investment in ground and facilities or players?

The basic premise of living within our means seems too obvious for anyone to disagree, yet how we interpret it can lead to dissatisfaction and contention. For example, if we have to wait another 125 years to finish the ground to an acceptable, modern, fresh, inviting and income generating state we would have failed in my view. Which I guess is where ownership comes in; one of my reservations of the Brent bid has always been his desire to offload back to PCC. Once done we would nevr get the stadium completed and the benefits that would accrue in my lifetime, nor I guess yours. Whilst appreciating he would argue he is safeguarding against rogue buyers it is at the same time stifling. I dont want to sound like T Blair, but, is there a third way?

Football finance is dominated by TV revenues and in turn this has led to a clamour by overseas buyers to be part of the action. Sky is unlikely to lose its pre dominance in the rights market and if it did, only to another similar broadcaster. However, it does strike me as a reasonably simple action to make all ownership of football clubs in the UK transparent. That is, no offshore companies, no nominee directors, just a full Companies House listing for all clubs and an open share register. Not so radical as I believe the Germans have a similar system. For those that say why do this to football and no one else I would say the rise of money into football has led to a growing fear of corruption, particularly via betting.

 

[Greenskin]

Peter Ridsdale has been here for more than 6 months. He came promising investors, they did not materialise. He now says he wants to attract investment and that he can, this is without the club being attached to its only asset.

If he had the ability to attract investment then he would already be the owner of our club and the ground with it. People looking for an investment in football do not look for a club in debt, in the bottom division, without any assets, without any development opportunity, without a large support, and with no history of success above the bottom two divisions.

What reason does anyone have to believe that investment will be found by Mr. Ridsdale now?

I will not take because he said so as an answer, he told Cardiff fans that season tickets bought in December would mean that money was spent on players in January.

The examples of Wigan,Reading,Hull,Cardiff,Swansea and Blackpool,all of whom attracted investment when in a similar situation to Argyle's current predicament ,would seem to contradict the conclusion in paragraph 2 of your post.

 

[esmer]

Wigan and Reading both had sugar daddy's come in and pay there way for them. Swansea play in a ground shared with the rugby team and I'm pretty sure owned by the Council, their supporters trust has 20% of the club, and they helped to bring the people in who saved their club. Peter Ridsdale does not fit into any of those categories.

I don't know much about Hull, Cardiff, or Blackpool. Was there large scale investment brought to the club at the time they or their local authority did not own their ground?

Anyway, that is not my point. My point is that we have heard about investors before from Mr. Ridsdale and they did not appear. Surely we were a more attractive proposition before the ground being sold to a private landlord. I just want to know what makes Esmer so sure that Ridsdale can bring investment in when he failed to do so when the club had assets.

Where did I say I was sure??? I just said it's POSSIBLE he can attract investment, perhaps he already has something lined up, I don't know. But the Brent plan means austerity and hard times, which if there is no alternative is completely acceptable to me, I'd rather that than no club at all.

 

[L G]

:lol:
Happy days.
Esmer. Really.....?