Actually yes, as without this it could be argued SISU got back more than they put in.
Wages to loanees cannot be counted as investments either, as we don't know how much the other club paid of their wages.
You can persist with the view that SISU have invested in the team if you wish but the evidence is thin.
It also contradicts the view that SISU have done well to cut costs and only the rent is holding us back. Agree this is a stupid line but many are peddling it.
BTW have you slept through the last month? You seem unaware we might not have a club next season and, if we do, it will spend even less on players than this season unless SISU sell
Misunderstood the post in question. I was refuting a claim that SISU have put "no money" into the club - simply untrue, regardless of one's views on SISU. I'm not persisting with an opinion, but a fact, they have invested. On and off the field. SISU's biggest crime was appointing incompetent managers who wasted what resources we had.
As a selling club, we have to sell players at profit to survive and to expect we spend, spend, spend is irresponsible and it actually put us on the road to L1 (under Richardson + Strachan). Dropping in attendances, non-ownership of the RICOH, coupled with high rent, making no revenue on match day was going to impede our potential to mobilise funds in the transfer market.
I'm not saying rent is the
only thing holding us back, it isn't, but it is a factor that is holding us back, how many L1 clubs can afford 1.28m in rent (the actual cost is even higher because we don't get revenues back, more to the tune of 1.5m)?
We will have a club next season, people are just thinking of the worse-case scenario so if it happens, it dampens the shock, but, CCFC will not go out of business.