fc baldy wrote:How do they fleece us....its our choice if we pay for passes and shirts isnt it.
We may be under but nobody may not have been available and tbh....Agar wouldnt have done ant better would he.
Not exactly a free market system tho is it. If they start charging £80 for shirts you aren't gonna just go and buy the cheaper rovers one are you. I'd definately rather complain and whinge about it.
Joined: Feb 21 2007 Posts: 6965 Location: Waiting To Announce Our Next Signing
Kosh wrote:We heard you the first 500 times TBH.
I'm not taking anybodies word for anything. I've already said, more than once, that it wouldn't surprise me if we were well below cap. I'm challenging the figure, not the idea.
My figure is correct, half a million under cap
Need Any Carpets Supplying And Fitting, Free Home Sampling Measuring & Planning Service- PM Thanks
Joined: Jul 31 2003 Posts: 36786 Location: Leafy Worcester, home of the Black Pear
Mrs Barista wrote:I do. As a supporter, my first priority is that the club survives, which it wouldn't have done without the merger. Obviously, then, the strides made off the pitch in terms of a £1million improvement to the finances since 2004 have been vital.
My second priority is success on the pitch. If everyone else is at or close to the cap and we are short to that extent, as a customer I'm being short-changed as we're not giving ouselves the best chance of that. We're paying the same price as other SL clubs (in fact more than most, but that's OK given our facilities) but getting less of our money spent on the team. For a club with our numbers of supporters and levels of merchandise turnover that's not acceptable.
Well put.
This isn't an issue to be dismissed out of hand as the implications, if true, are enormously important.
At the same time I'm reluctant to run around shouting about the sky falling without at least some evidence. Although I accept that's going to be difficult to provide.
Mrs Barista wrote:If this were true, what do people think our board's agenda is exactly? They won't be making much cash out of the business on an ongoing basis (stories of Kath's salary aside) as I understand interest on their loans is linked to base rate. They may be trying to improve the value of the business for onward sale, but surely they must recognise that 2 finishes outside the play-offs is eroding the value of the club as fast as profits are increasing it, so no one really benefits.
I have no idea. If it were a deliberate policy rather than as a result of misfortune/incompetence with recruitment and retention then it's a frankly baffling one.
Hold on to me baby, his bony hands will do you no harm It said in the cards, we lost our souls to the Nameless One
Joined: Mar 28 2005 Posts: 20992 Location: THE HOME CITY OF LUKE CAMPBELL OLYMPIC GOLD MEDALIST
IF it is true then the board need to tell us why this happend and why they lied to us.............Until we know the truth its a waste of time going on about it and trying to prove who has the biggest source.
“We will not accept a top eight finish as a barometer of supposed success at any point in the future whilst I am the owner of this club.
Thats why you got the Bullet Agar...Adam Pearson wants winners...not useless gits like you.
"Rugby League is a simple game played by simple people. Rugby Union is a complex game played by wankers." L.Daley 2005
Joined: Jul 31 2003 Posts: 36786 Location: Leafy Worcester, home of the Black Pear
Robbo4 wrote:The figure quoted by the brother is correct.
Must admit I'm struggling to see how. I could see us being as much as £300k short but I'm not sure where the other £200k would come from. Some of the players that have left over the last two season must have been on astronomic salaries.
Hold on to me baby, his bony hands will do you no harm It said in the cards, we lost our souls to the Nameless One
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
