Turner or Cody (3 Viewers)

The phrase that was used was 'club of our stature'

Not

'club of stature'

In other words, he was not saying that we are a big club, but that we should be big enough to be able to buy players of a certain ability (again, not of great ability, but of the likes of the players under debate)

Anyway, bottom line is we have suffered misguided and misleading club management for too long.!!!

Kuklinski said:

Any club that has haemorrhaged money like we have over the last 10/12 years, and continues to do so, should think itself lucky we are even bringing players in.

Where do people get this notion that we are a club of stature? We have been lucky to survive these last few years, we are living hand to mouth, yet some think we are a club of stature. It's disrespectful to clubs who have grown within their financial means and are now bigger & better than us, clubs like Brighton for example.

Breaking news, CCFC is not the top of any young, up and coming players list of destinations, despite our "stature".

Click to expand...

Think people can hold their own club in whatever stature they like.

Glenn Storer said:

Quick question, I'm very much on the fence regarding camps and anti-sisu or whatever...but why? Why should we have the financial firepower? We've been a Championship club for 10 years. For only one of those did we mount a real challenge.

Click to expand...

To my way of thinking under Geoffrey Robinson/ Bryan Richardson we got relegated with huge amounts of debt. If I recall correctly 60 million pounds of debt. Robinson I understood got the debt to around 30 million before selling CCFC to SISU for an undisclosed amount of money. At the time SISU said they would write off the debt.

SISU now claim to have spent 30 million on CCFC. But as far as I can tell they haven't done that on player's. Which makes me think that most of the 30 million is actually related to the intial purchase of the club.

So it seems to me that they aren't selling players/ cutting the wage bill to finance CCFC debt, but their own debt in buying the club in the first place. In this respect we seem similar to Man U in the sense that the 'losses' they made in recent years have more to do with paying off Glazer's debt than player purchases.

So a club of our stature/ size should be performing better financially than I think we are led to believe. Look at all the other clubs of our approximate size....

I think the debt is partly the initial debts on purchase and partly the money that has been lost running the club. You are however right in that they certainly initially claimed the debt had been written off, and that money invested by SISU was NOT classed as a debt (in public) to be repaid until relatively recently.

I think that sea-change came around the time we sold Dann & Fox. Although even then the phrase "self-sustainable" hadn't been used yet. What happened I assume is the credit crunch meant a change of plan-instead of buying quality young players until we had a team full of Danns, Westwoods and Hendersons and were in the top flight, we had to cut costs and only spend what we raise. But only since last Spring has this been fully communicated with the fans, and only since then has the money invested by SISU been classed as a "debt". Before then we assumed they were "funding" the club and we were debt free!

As for the original question, i wasnt too gutted about him leaving (although he is a good player) it was more the small sum that Cardiff paid for him!! Did we have any further payments to be paid to us??

As for cody, i have high hopes like everyone else but he has never been proven at championship level so time will tell.