Yer now jog on =#FF0000Edit-AS

I have already asked for the abusive posts to stop.

Is it half term at Cretin University?

Now stop trying to steal sandras thunder

Thunder stealer is my middle name ginge.

Is it

YOU are a bit 'naughty' for a bishop. If you can't stand the heat (have to make personal insults) then stay out of the kitchen.

How anyone who made himself look such an idiot can then laugh at anyone else is beyond me!

The thing I don't understand is this. On the one hand in the HDM he's said there'll be no more under-writing of club losses by directors. On the other he's said next year you should be getting 10k a week easily which he's said before means break even. So isn't it just a case of " as you were"?

Yes if you ignore the word 'should' which clearly you did.

Budgiezilla, sorry for being nasty to you earlier. Mistook you for a Hull fan, you're a Leyther aren't you?



I remember you from NL days, we used to have a good craic back then.



Again, apologies.



Still a terrible thread though.

News Flash. Mrs Barista in selective reading shocker!

Are you doubting your chairman ?

Doubt everything.



Even this.

Not if he said 'should' no.

Seeing as it is obvious to most that don't have a clear agenda that when he says it he obviously means that it is probable.

Didn't he say you were averaging 8k and effectively turning people away currently, and getting them and more away fans in should mean 10k?



It's all a bit chicken and egg, I suppose. Is there so much latent support that a sub cap squad will pull in 10k is probably the question. Otherwise downgrading/weakening the squad could put 10k at risk. Same at FC, tough in the current environment and with full cap spend and unlimited capacity we're scraping 11.5k. Tough times.

We have had conversations about you deliberately missing context to further an arguement before.

How about you stop it.



Oh and before you deny it don't bother we both know it's the truth.

What context do you want? This is a thread about Rovers policies and the change of direction reported by Hudgell in a couple of different media outlets this week. He has talked very specifically about the link between attendances and squad quality: "that's it for the directors in terms of subsidising the club. Without the revenue the stand will generate for us we would really have to cut back on spend to the point where I would question whether we could be competitive in the league".



NH thinks that 10,000 crowds can be achieved by a modest increase in away fans and says the club often has to turn home fans away from full East and West Stands.



The link between achieving attendances and squad quality could scarcely be more clearly articulated by your chairman. The context of squad quality and policy, which is the subject of this thread, is absolutely achievement of attendances, as Neil quite rightly points out.



As for the word "should", my direct quote says the stand "will" generate the income necessary to achieve a competitive squad, so stronger than "should".



Sounds like you'll go with pretty much this year's squad, a couple of Aussies out and a couple in, more young players getting a go.

Once again you are playing with context.

'Will' means we wont have to REALLY cut back, unless you are going to pull another quote out of your backside the word 'really' doesn't mean there won't be any cuts at all otherwise he would have said so.

As you have happily cleared up that 'will' means a competitive squad that doesn't mean we will be spending up too maximum cap.



Like I said your agenda is showing so just turn it down a tad.

And you accuse some-one of playing with context....priceless

I fail to see your point.

I am looking at ALL the words not just the words I want to due to my agenda.

But then again I'm hardly surprised you are on here trying to back Mrs B up even though she has a track record for it.

Mrs B does not need backing up and certainly not by me.....Mrs B commented on how she perceived the words you then got all high and mighty and [ithen[/i went on to post how you perceive the words, like I say priceless

Including the word "will". Good.



I'm an FC fan, my agenda is to not like Rovers much. In the same way that Neil Hudgell's agenda is to not like FC much. It's his right to make bold pro-Rovers statements, even anti -FC ones, although a shame he can't make reference to Peter Gentle by name in his q&a- maybe it rankles. Not unreasonable to offer an alternative interpretation to his words. When Rovers fans spin them to their positive extreme, there is no challenge to their interpretation. Balance and consistency are key.



So, there's a policy change afoot. If Rovers are confident of hitting 10k from the off next season, presumably you'd be spending full cap-ish. For prudence, there'll probably be a build to this level though, so perhaps the spend on squad will reflect, at least indirectly, the percentage of 130,000 that can realistically be expected. Binning off Webster is effectively like getting £100k to the bottom line for no effort or loss at all, good decision. Clinton too, maybe.

Like watching the spotty kids with four eyes argue over the isotope of Barium this.

Yeah, I'm enjoying it too - just wish I could join in, but I've only seen a summary so can't offer an opinion on the fine points of interpretation. Bloomin' finely-cut-tree-only news sources.



MO, FWIW - we hope/expect that the new stand will make us (more) self-sustaining, while remaining reasonably competitive. It gives us a chance (which is good), not a guarantee (which is the anti-Hudgell's

consolation). We're also looking for a better value (perhaps as opposed to simply 'better', in the short-term) squad.



Reet, I'm off to see if those B&W nutcases are in need of any balance and consistency. Love a bit of bank-holiday thankless Cassandra-like matyrdom, me.

No your agenda is to be annoying and cause arguements on here.

As for what NH has supposed to have said by using the clever words he has means it isn't anywhere near as clear cut as you wish it to be.

Hardly rocket science is it.