Apparently these will be in the club shop and kiosks in the hope of raising more money
-
It feels like the investment is ever nearer!!
Women's team statement & now two club statements (page 33&76 -16 June)
- Thread starter The Pasty Kid
- Start date
I live in Bournemouth and would love to hear where you got this figure from as friends close to the club think that is laughable? If you're including the academies (girls and boys) then that might be the right figure?
Agree, this is my view as well that we went for it as there was a one-off opportunity with 2 promotion places available.
But I don't think we are just returning to where we were before. The fallout from this will set the women's team a lot further back than that. With no manager, no budget and hardly any players, we must be dead certs for relegation next season (if we are even able to field a team). Don't know what is below the women's national league, but will likely be as if the men's team would drop out of L2, Sunday league football and tough to come back from.
Just feels a shame given what we started to build. I get the financial issue, but still wonder if there wasn't an alternative, just pruning the tree rather than cutting it down completely. Marie may or may not have stayed. Players like Poole, Noble, Proctor would likely have left anyway (they are more than capable of playing at a higher level), but keeping some of the others might have prevented the team disappearing down the drain, as now seem likely.
Anyway it is what it is.
Completely agree. I remember watching one of the womens' World Cup quarter finals years ago on the beeb, which they won, and Guy Mowbray excitedly said a number of times that it was the first time that England had reached a semi final since Italia '90. He kept repeating it and it irritated me
Days on and I’m still raging. I am so ashamed of my club.
The comments from some on here about sponsors not caring is so naive. Just listening to a conversations on the train now and non-football fans are discussing it. The school my wife works have lots of young girls who talk endlessly about the women’s team they are going to be disillusioned their hero’s have gone overnight to save money for the men’s team they care less about.
I imagine there have been some lively calls to the office from concerned stakeholders who invest more money in Argyle than you or me.
This poor management and cultural awareness is a disgrace. I await with interest the next communication from the club.
For those who don’t care about women’s football, surely its impact on the community and the city is important and if you don’t care about that either, I am genuinely not interested in your views.
The comments from some on here about sponsors not caring is so naive. Just listening to a conversations on the train now and non-football fans are discussing it. The school my wife works have lots of young girls who talk endlessly about the women’s team they are going to be disillusioned their hero’s have gone overnight to save money for the men’s team they care less about.
I imagine there have been some lively calls to the office from concerned stakeholders who invest more money in Argyle than you or me.
This poor management and cultural awareness is a disgrace. I await with interest the next communication from the club.
For those who don’t care about women’s football, surely its impact on the community and the city is important and if you don’t care about that either, I am genuinely not interested in your views.
On Pasoti withdrawing sponsorship. I wonder if there’s another way. We don’t want to damage the club financially but we do want the club to seriously address how they are operating in such matters. So as a commercial sponsor could we engage with them and make any future sponsorship conditional? In their statement they said they will review their communications? Could sponsorship be made on condition of that review and its findings being transparent? Just seeing if there’s another way. Clearly, it’s up to the owners of this site to choose what they think best.
I try not to comment on things which go on behind the scenes as not privy to full details but this does reflect negatively on the club. It also goes against the 'One'Argyle mantra which was starting to gain momentum after a few difficult months last season. Anyway I will go on buying pasties and a pint at the games to feed the funnel
pasoti withdrawing sponsorship is an entirely appropriate and proportionate response in my view. Well done and thanks to those involved in that decision 
A lot of this reminds me of the oft made point that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We seem to have made a lot of decisions that seemed to be 'the right thing to do' which have backfired, which hopefully won't include Foulston too. I think I'd rather not have gone big (relatively speaking) on the women's side at all if this was going to be the fallout.
Sometimes the cold and hard-headed decisions made by someone who knows what they're doing (dare I say a football man) leads to better outcomes for everyone than the values-led strategy we seem to have been wedded to.
Sometimes the cold and hard-headed decisions made by someone who knows what they're doing (dare I say a football man) leads to better outcomes for everyone than the values-led strategy we seem to have been wedded to.
Investing what we did in last year’s women’s is clearly the wrong thing to have done, retrospectively. We didn’t have the money and it’s not bringing in the revenue, but ….. when you give a community an asset to look up to and be proud of and move young people half way across the UK to work on a project you can’t pull the plug in its entirety in one go and expect to just be able to reset people’s expectations.
This is is not about cutting the funding. It is about how they have done it, releasing everyone in one go, and how they have communicated it and expected everything else to carry on as normal.
We work in hard times and have to make a hard decisions, it is important you don
Last edited:
The communication of the decision was beyond poor.
However, let’s look at the financial options to funding the team at the same level.
Crowd income, tv money and sponsorship come no where near the ÂŁ250000 needed for a season.
1). Mr and Mrs Hallett put their hands in their pockets and fund it with no real possibility of ever seeing their money return to them.
I find it uncomfortable when people tell other people what they should be doing with their money.
2). Reduce the men’s budget to fund the womens budget.
This is the decision most commonly put forward.
However this is the same as the first option. Mr and Mrs Hallett are “guaranteeing” the multi million pound shortfall this year. To reduce their own exposure they’ve reduced the women’s budget….and probably the men’s as well.
Whatever the reason SH does listen to the fans. Whatever type of team the women put out next year will play matches. If fans turned up in their thousands their budget would increase.
I have been berated, in person and online, for trying to defend the decision. Interestingly out of the group of women who berated me, called me names (sexist etc), not one of them went to a single woman’s game last season. Half of them have season tickets to the men’s team.
I think they proved my point.
However, let’s look at the financial options to funding the team at the same level.
Crowd income, tv money and sponsorship come no where near the ÂŁ250000 needed for a season.
1). Mr and Mrs Hallett put their hands in their pockets and fund it with no real possibility of ever seeing their money return to them.
I find it uncomfortable when people tell other people what they should be doing with their money.
2). Reduce the men’s budget to fund the womens budget.
This is the decision most commonly put forward.
However this is the same as the first option. Mr and Mrs Hallett are “guaranteeing” the multi million pound shortfall this year. To reduce their own exposure they’ve reduced the women’s budget….and probably the men’s as well.
Whatever the reason SH does listen to the fans. Whatever type of team the women put out next year will play matches. If fans turned up in their thousands their budget would increase.
I have been berated, in person and online, for trying to defend the decision. Interestingly out of the group of women who berated me, called me names (sexist etc), not one of them went to a single woman’s game last season. Half of them have season tickets to the men’s team.
I think they proved my point.
Interesting comment from Charlie Methven in the latest 'Business of Sport' video on YT, called "What is Going Wrong with Women’s Football?". At the end he talks specifically about the Argyle decision:
"... I saw the other day that Plymouth, who have run a very successful girls and women's program for a number of years, have made the decision that they no longer want to be a semi-professional club. They want to go back to being an amateur club. And one of the reasons for that is really super interesting, which is hang on a second, what are we actually doing here?
We're bringing in players from all areas outside of Devon and Cornwall to try and make us competitive in a system where there are no business and financial reasons for us to be elite and super competitive. And in so doing, we're actually narrowing the opportunities for local girls to be able to make their way through into a competitive first team.
Right? So actually what what are we doing existentially? What is the point of what we're doing?"
(my emphasis).
Pity the club weren't able to articulate the reasons for the decision as clearly as that when it happened.
The whole episode is worth a listen. He makes some interesting general points about the (mis-)development of the women's game in England.
"... I saw the other day that Plymouth, who have run a very successful girls and women's program for a number of years, have made the decision that they no longer want to be a semi-professional club. They want to go back to being an amateur club. And one of the reasons for that is really super interesting, which is hang on a second, what are we actually doing here?
We're bringing in players from all areas outside of Devon and Cornwall to try and make us competitive in a system where there are no business and financial reasons for us to be elite and super competitive. And in so doing, we're actually narrowing the opportunities for local girls to be able to make their way through into a competitive first team.
Right? So actually what what are we doing existentially? What is the point of what we're doing?"
(my emphasis).
Pity the club weren't able to articulate the reasons for the decision as clearly as that when it happened.
The whole episode is worth a listen. He makes some interesting general points about the (mis-)development of the women's game in England.
Your point, Ian, is that the Women's team take money from the Men's team and you prefer that the Women's team were self sufficient.
Your reasoning sounds sound but it is not what actually happens.
The club accounts do not differentiate between the men's income and expenditure and the women's income and expenditure. There is just one account, which includes both teams as well as the income and expenditure for the rest of the areas of the club.
The figure of ÂŁ200,000 that the club have put forward as the estimated loss that the women's team currently make each season is not set in stone but is a rough estimate.
Last season was a one off season when the opportunity came about to attempt to become a second team to get promotion when there is usually only one. The Hallets decided to push the boat out in order to get to the ÂŁ500,000 that would have been the prize for promotion. In order to make the effort towards promotion they authorised a new manager, her staff and her choice of new players to give it a go.
At the end of the day they failed, but they were given the opportunity for all home games to be played at Home Park, which also allowed the club to see what effect that would have on attendances.
As it happens they were surprised that there was much more demand for food and drink per head than was anticipated (in comparison with the men's game), the club shop also sold more stock than anticipated, and the club encouraged attendances by keeping the price down, or not at all.
All this was experimental, as it had not been done before.
Last season was a one off, and with more travelling and extended cup matches cost the club far more than was anticipated at the start of the season.
When both men and women's seasons had finished there would have been a review of how things went.
It is impossible for the fanbase to know what the final figures were, but the fact that there were higher takings for both food and drink and for club shop sales, there must be reason for satisfaction for the Women's team playing at Home Park and next season will be no different.
Hospitality and Commercial sponsorship numbers are unknowns, but to gain J2O sponsorship must be a coup for the Women.
We are now One Argyle and the women's figures will be lumped with the men's figures into the accounts and it will be difficult to ascertain what profit or loss each team actually makes, so it makes a nonsense of saying that one team takes away the profit from the other.
We are at the start of creating the Womens team and it would be expected to be loss making at this stage of things, but who is to say that the Women's team may not be profit making in the future, as interest in the women's game improves throughout the land.
One Argyle means that the finance of the club does not differentiate between differing sections of the club. Hospitality generates income, the club staff become a financial liability but provide a service. This is just one example of a profit and a loss at the club. Why differentiate?
One Argyle means that everyone has as much right to watch a team of women as they have a team of men. The only difference is that the men have been in existence for over 100 plus years, the women have only just started.
Shame on those that want to down the women before they can even get started, they should be offered every opportunity to get off the ground, not criticised for "taking away money from the men's team"
We are now One Argyle and both teams have every right to play for our beloved club, Plymouth Argyle.
Your reasoning sounds sound but it is not what actually happens.
The club accounts do not differentiate between the men's income and expenditure and the women's income and expenditure. There is just one account, which includes both teams as well as the income and expenditure for the rest of the areas of the club.
The figure of ÂŁ200,000 that the club have put forward as the estimated loss that the women's team currently make each season is not set in stone but is a rough estimate.
Last season was a one off season when the opportunity came about to attempt to become a second team to get promotion when there is usually only one. The Hallets decided to push the boat out in order to get to the ÂŁ500,000 that would have been the prize for promotion. In order to make the effort towards promotion they authorised a new manager, her staff and her choice of new players to give it a go.
At the end of the day they failed, but they were given the opportunity for all home games to be played at Home Park, which also allowed the club to see what effect that would have on attendances.
As it happens they were surprised that there was much more demand for food and drink per head than was anticipated (in comparison with the men's game), the club shop also sold more stock than anticipated, and the club encouraged attendances by keeping the price down, or not at all.
All this was experimental, as it had not been done before.
Last season was a one off, and with more travelling and extended cup matches cost the club far more than was anticipated at the start of the season.
When both men and women's seasons had finished there would have been a review of how things went.
It is impossible for the fanbase to know what the final figures were, but the fact that there were higher takings for both food and drink and for club shop sales, there must be reason for satisfaction for the Women's team playing at Home Park and next season will be no different.
Hospitality and Commercial sponsorship numbers are unknowns, but to gain J2O sponsorship must be a coup for the Women.
We are now One Argyle and the women's figures will be lumped with the men's figures into the accounts and it will be difficult to ascertain what profit or loss each team actually makes, so it makes a nonsense of saying that one team takes away the profit from the other.
We are at the start of creating the Womens team and it would be expected to be loss making at this stage of things, but who is to say that the Women's team may not be profit making in the future, as interest in the women's game improves throughout the land.
One Argyle means that the finance of the club does not differentiate between differing sections of the club. Hospitality generates income, the club staff become a financial liability but provide a service. This is just one example of a profit and a loss at the club. Why differentiate?
One Argyle means that everyone has as much right to watch a team of women as they have a team of men. The only difference is that the men have been in existence for over 100 plus years, the women have only just started.
Shame on those that want to down the women before they can even get started, they should be offered every opportunity to get off the ground, not criticised for "taking away money from the men's team"
We are now One Argyle and both teams have every right to play for our beloved club, Plymouth Argyle.
Last edited:
"... interest in the women's game improves throughout the land." ???
Take a listen to the YT video I liked above. Gives an alternative view of the "increasing interest in the women's game".
It makes one wonder whether he expressed those thoughts to Paul Berne and Simon Hallett when he was down at the end of the season .