Here we go again.

Do you believe that every penny the players of certain other clubs receive is paid by the club?

If you DO, do you believe those clubs are able to sign players - especially overseas ones - on salaries well below the market rate?

If you do NOT, do you instead believe that a club in our position has the same scope to aqcuire players who have somehow managed to secure significant external funding as clubs with a much better record of recent success and (by pure coincidence, no doubt) a wealthy owner?

We come back to the earlier argument - how, other than driving the club into administration and making an offer to the administrator (surely no fresponsible shareholder would seek to do that...?), do you secure the change of ownership of the club that you say is necessary, given the current structure of the shareholdings?

And the (practicable ) answer is...?

and sacking the board is magically going to cure that is it?

I don't know any of that and I don't think Mr Moran/Leneghan/Davey is running his books past you either. There's something weird going on here to be honest. Despite a raise in income levels from the pledge we have a situation where a good player becomes availabale and I suggest we sign him. Straight away 2 prolific posters poo poo the idea that we have any chance of signing him. This is not the board lowering expectations but posters on here pusposefully pouring cold water on any ambition whatsoever. Why? If we don't sign him fair enough but why the near hysterical pounce to sidetrack any expectation of success.

On the last point, it is you who constantly roll out the 'what do you expect...' mantra as if the board is there to mow the grass and little else. Bennett has brought money in to the club and I suggest they spend it, that is all. Furthermore, where does it say that a club goes into administration if the BOD resigns?

And then to respond with 'Here we go'. I'm sorry if I'm getting on your nerves - maybe a detention?

Signing Trent Waterhouse - I told you about 10 posts back

30 lines at least, for sure.

Whilst no-one has sought to "poo poo" the chances of signing him, OK you have a point in that it is perhaps too easy to assume that we won't get a look in. That should not be taken as a given, since that is tantamount to throwing in the towel. Equally, though, there are clearly some harsh financial realities out there, and to assume that the board is NOT making a play for such marquee players as Waterhouse (as you seem to be) is probably (IMO) doing them a dis-service.

Don't forget that agents throw around names of other clubs that "might" be interested just to try and bid the player's value up? And what you'll likely never know is whether we DID make approaches, but were either too far out on the asking price or were not the club the player wanted to join. If, for instance, we are in a position to offer a player £200k p.a. (and that is nearly TWICE the "top" value Phil Clarke used in his piece recently to try and show how a team could be built within the cap) then that is about AUD 300k. Let us say that is what several other clubs offer him too, recognising that they have no more cap space free. Yet we see FAR higher figures for annual packages being regularly referred to in the Aussie media. So if the player wants AUD 500k (say) and if his agent tells him that if he signs for xyz club he can get him an image rights deal with some Bermudan-registered outfit he has never heard of (just by way of example) for AUD 200k on top of the £200k, what does the player do?

Niot trying to patronise you, just suggest that it is not impossibel that we ARE trying to secure such signings, but - for whatever reason - lack the financial and/or prestige clout to do so. And I suggest a player is likely to want more anyway for signing for an underperforming club, since he will enjoy his game less, be expected to do proportionately more of the work and have much less chance of winning titles?

Regarding the bringing the money in...I rather suspect that what has been brought in was enough to keep the club going without the need for further big injections from shareholders probably unwilling or unable to commit the sort of sums necessary? I do not for one minute think we are suddenly overflowing with riches, as the next set of publsihed accounts will IMO surely show. We have bought some time, I suspect. But we are again in the catch-22 of needing to perform ON the park to take the presssure off OFF the park. And yet we need the latter to help facilitate the former.

You suggest sack the board. I have previously said that all that would lead to is the same old faces again in the boardroom. Unless enough of the shareholders agree to sell out - and they have a majority so they can ensure the board registers the share transfers - what is the solution?

As for the Administration point, I never said or suggested that would be the consequence if the BOD resigned. I said it would be a way of securing a change of ownership. Maybe someone considered that in the past, who can know? But, again, a majority of the shareholders would have to be behind that to make it happen, and if they did it deliberately they would face being personally liable for the company's debts. As well as probably doing very severe damage to the club, especially since the Council could then repossess Odsal and sell it for development. So again, what is the solution?

I have seen you call for the BOD to resign, and for the shareholders to appoint a new board presumably. But the shareholders can do that at ANY TIME - just convene an EGM and, if they have the majority, sack the board and appoint - themselves again??? Good move, that...

I can offer no practicable solution following your route. Can you?

Like we signed the Unmentionable One? One player to transform us from mediocrity into a top 4 club? Come on!

And how much do you think he would cost anyway? REAL cost?

I've no idea what the real cost of signing the Waterhouses, Pryce's are but I can fairly guess at the cost of not signing them. I think we have to be bolder - the pledge was a bold idea but trust is being stretched tio breaking point if we don't back that up with at least 2 signings in the 'quality' bracket. I think the fan base need to hear something genuinely impressive or the argument about the board will be pointless as nobody will able to get in the boardroom for boxes of season tickets.

Indeed.

But we are still no further forward - it is easy to point to what appears to be wrong, a lot harder to come up with a practicable solution, especially if the playing field is far from level. Your solution is to go and find the money - quite possibly from sources outside of the salary cap - to sign up a couple of marquee players. Only the club will know the extent to which that is practicable, and the extent to which they have already tried or are trying.

And no, I don't have any easy solutions either. That is no excuse to give up. Unfortunately, I suspect much of the answer in the short term lies in hard graft on the park. Until the growing success starts to breed on itself as it has at certain other clubs. As it did here at the start of SL.

Edited for accuracy.

Think you might have missed the thread title. The one you need to start should go something like, 'somewhere between 11th and 14th next year, 7k crowds and administration'. That real enough for you?