Yes. it does. When we were relegated in 2001 our wages were 125% or turnover.
People soon change their tune and are desperate to blame the club for our woes - even before SISU. People moan about wages but they still want to see Dublin, Huckerby, Keane, etc They want loads of players and moan when we sell them.
also break even was based on wages between 7.1m in 2005 7.1 in 2006 and 9.8m in 2007.
Turnovers were 8.7m in 2005 9.9m in 2006 and 9.7m in 2007
In my mind the problems were yes the rent being too high but the bigger factor was paying out too much in wages.
It is in a sense ironic that having very little in turnover and a small wage bill (what 2m?) that people are claiming we are playing the best football in years ....... kind of begs the question what was the real problem in previous years doesnt it?
If asset stripping means that we got rid of overpaid players just turning up every week or worse spending the time on the treatment table, then SISU have eventually, in that respect, done a good job. It shows as well that you can have players motivated by performance rather than money which seems to be what SP is doing. However, still makes no sense whatsoever to be playing at Northampton! Any which way you do the maths confirms it. Even if they agreed a short term rent deal while they build their phantom stadium would be better than this!:facepalm: