Search results

While the idea is a decent one, would we really wanting to be playing on that pitch more during the winter months when there's already rugby going on? We could run the risk of injuries if it's deteriorated again and the pitch will need as much rest as possible. Would also have to have agreement...

Then we take it off the next payment. I still maintain that the best option by a sensible owner would have been to provide a loan to cover the unexpected costs/lost revenue.

I think he's relying on the food bank now.

Whereas we just sell a player for undervalue.

As I said, makes far more sense to bridge that with a loan from the owners than weakening the team in the medium to longer term. Legally as tenants there's no way we can be expected to pay for it long term as it was deemed unsafe and therefore had to have work done on it for us to get what we...

I just knew someone would say that!

If we can't go a few weeks without having to sell a player then somethings terribly wrong. We know those games will be played and the income received in the next couple of months so a short term bridging loan to cover that makes far more sense than selling your most consistent CB for...

Yeah, but I don't like him. So that another positive!

I agree with that entirely, but I felt the one change (which may have come from executives rather than the owner) had been that we'd returned to the policy of bringing in decent young players to develop, sell and then buy more decent prospects to build. Over the past year or so that model seems...

All the talk of budgets and expenses is fine, but it always comes down to a particular point. Why, when we have attendances that are above average do we have one of the lowest budgets and salaries? I'm not sitting here expecting us to have millions to spend on players and be able to pay them...

The owners load more debt onto the club every year, but don't necessarily take money out. It's still a shit way to run things, as clearly what they want is a financial return. But then anyone with half a brain would tell you if that's what you want don't invest in a football club! If she does...

I disagree with the term businessman (and not just for the woke gender reasons) Businespeople would understand that what they're doing will ultimately lose them more in value than the transfer funds. If there was a shortfall it would have been far more sensible for them/her to have covered it...

IF it's a genuine link (sorry Greggs, but you make up so much stuff I have to take it with a pinch of salt even if it's not got your usual trademark nonsense attached) then it smacks of short term desperation. Of an age where he won't lead to a future transfer fee and likely on pretty high...

I've replaced all the slot screws in my house with phillips.

But they're arguably taking a massive risk doing so. Although I was pleased for them getting promoted, now I'd really like to see the get relegated having spent all this money just to see what situation they find themselves in.

Given the energy problems we face you could almost understand the cap being almost trebled in a year. If it weren't for the fact that the energy companies are posting record profits. If the price was such a problem at best profits would be static. Considering the aim of the cap is supposed to...

Also the make up of Gareth Southgate's WC squad.

It's possible, but it's also possible they made another enquiry to check the lay of the land. We knew we've had an almost perfect storm of issues thanks to no home games and likely funding the pitch repairs so I'm sure members of rivals in the same business would be aware of our situation...

As I've said before there's no benefit from doing so. It's swings and roundabouts. If they take that money now the offers they get for the club will be lowered. It could end up losing more value than they get if the team plays poorly, attendances decrease and especially if relegation were to...