I am usually supportive of the club and far less cynical than a number on here, but I'm finding it really difficult to support Argyle's decision in this case.
If Argyle have done nothing wrong, then why release a statement that they will review the way it was communicated?
I don't believe for one moment that the email was merely the supporting documentation.
I think that is more likely to have happened is that Marie was informed that the budget was to be cut, that she should tell the players that contracts would not be renewed. Her reaction was such that she would resign with immediate effect (in PR parlance), but what is more likely is that she told them that they could shove the job where the sun doesn't shine. A few days later someone asks if the players had been told and in a panic the email was hastily written and sent (not read and not edited).
Let's assume that Marie had said that she would inform the players, but subsequently decided to resign. I would have expected one of the first things to happen would be to find out if she had, indeed, carried out what she said she would do before she left the building. However, having a disgruntled employee about to leave (or having already left), I would have contacted at least one or two players to establish if they had been told and to write a carefully worded email when it was discovered that she hadn't.
Simon's idea is that PAFC is about the wider community than just the men's team. Women's football is on the rise, and it seems the decision is that it has to be scaled back as we can't afford it. It is a reasonable argument, but that can equally be applied to the men's team, many time over. Perhaps discussions have already taken place: "OK, we need to sell players to cut our losses, and we'll give the local lads a chance to play for us. Luke's lad can play in goal, we've got Caleb Roberts in midfield and Freddie can start on the wing. And we'll give the players a pint of gold top at half time."
