Search results

So Fishers initial comments were wrong then?

Yeah but that is where Fisher made a tit of himself. When Wasps bought the ground he said like a sulky child that he wouldn’t want the ground under those terms. Next minute he’s claiming Wasps underpaid. Both those statements couldn’t be correct

When taking on a public body like the council, the key is to get the public on side. Sisu however decided to piss off the public first, and then try and take on the council. How that hedge fund stays in business is beyond me. They clearly have no idea how basic human psychology works.

We’re probably paying more than £1.2m now anyway and if we hadn’t bust ACL then there never would’ve been a Wasps or Frasers.

He was lazy, slagged the club off, and looked like he didn’t care when we were going down. Also he was a direct replacement for Keane, who was the complete opposite of all those things

Which is sensible business. We should've got them on sale before Wembley this year

Attendances were great in the 87-88 season 17.5k, with the biggest crowd of the season being over 27k (which was pretty much all HR could hold by then) Keep in mind this was an era when the likes of Arsenal couldn't even get above 30k

So if Vik broke his leg, how would we have covered the losses?

I’m purely saying this in the context of the “employee owes their employer nothing” comment. It can’t all be one way.

Equally so, if you let a departing player dictate all the terms, to the detriment of the club, are you not showing that you have no ambition? This was the problem we had for years. If the owners/board demonstrate an indifference to the club on the pitch, why should we expect the players to care?

Equally so is it not embarrassing to think an employer should concern itself with the future happiness of an employee that is leaving?

He's already got that

Well we don't have details of his previous club. And yes, investment in infrastructure is fine, as that will grow the club. What I'm talking about is using the money to pay ground rent or HMRC. Day to day running costs should never be funded with asset sales. Only a failing business would...

We sold 12,066 in the early bird last year, which covered a period of two months. So we've sold in a week what it took two months to sell last year

True, its how much is the question. There isn't really an excuse for all of that money to go towards the team (be it fees are wages). The fact we're making a loss is an irrelevance, as he should already have a plan in place to cover that

Sounds like we'll soon see the colour of Doug's money then. Will he give Robins the £17m? Or will he make the same mistake the previous two owners made and think that selling assets to fund running costs is a sensible idea?

I have said that I’m making a presumption it’s an accurate translation, but I hope it’s not

I agree it is disproportionate, sometimes that is the easiest way to make a point

I do think it’s inappropriate for a player to publicly be discussing their own value.

So if Robins was asked his opinion of Todd Kane, and Robins gave his honest held belief of “he’s shite”, would you be happy with that? Or do you not think he should be more diplomatic? You can give an honest answer without being inappropriate