Good idea in principle, but unless a club believes that this scheme will draw significantly more away support rather than just subsidising those that would attend anyway, then why would they want the hassle? I'm not saying this is the case, just looking at other perspectives.

In response to Gooseyget the money up front and choose a cut off point where cancellation costs the organiser nothing [/i. The problem is that those people who have good intentions get taken advantage of by those who "look after number one".

I think you'll find that most of us already understand this

I came away from the meeting a little confused and disappointed that we were being totally unrealistic, but on reflection I think this is what was meant:

Stabilise the club
Gradual ground improvement
Competitive in championship
Bounce straight back if relegated
Links with local college to aid ground improvement
Better links with amateurs and youth teams
Better links with fans
50% of any profit will go toward local debts from previous club.
Ultimate ambition -Superleague (if we happen to be ready in 2014 we will go for it in not then 2017)

I think the club were trying to say that they will make the most of opportunities presented to them, and were trying to put forward an ambitious front to attract new support and funds. I think the implication was that if we made substantial progress then we would "go for it". However, to the listener it came across that the prime target was superleague in 2014 with the subsequent thought that the new board either lack realism, are naive or think we are both!

Its early days - lets give them a chance.

PS I'm still no clearer re the "debt legacy". I, and several others asked previous directors about the tax position and the general financial position to be told that tax bills were paid and the club was in good health

This has some really good points.

The new board's initial efforts have to be applauded.

Attracting a huge global corporation as Molson-Coors is was a great start. If they're willing to put money in to us it can be used to attract other large sponsors.

Allowing kids who play for local junior clubs in for nothing, the kind of fantastic idea that Cougars are all about.

A willingness to get on the back of Br*dford council's back because they only fund us £20k/year as opposed to the millions they already have and intend to pump in to the B*lls.

Whilst I feel making Super League in 4 years time is a nearly impossible task (and lets face it even if we met all the criteria it would only be a slim chance) it at least gives the board a target to aim for. So long as they don't put the club's future in jeopardy trying for it I don't see a problem.

Can you explain to me why this is a good thing ?

Then I'll explain how it can actually be counter productive

Money

Hmmm... If there was a lot of it I would fill a bath and roll around in it

But seriously, I would expect any well run business to have a strategy that will enable the company to reach its objectives. This money should be spent within the strategic plan.

..... you mean a very, very big bath

How does it go.... if you fail to plan, you plan to fail.

If I answer correctly will I get two stars on my report?

You and I both know you are trying to avoid stating the obvious , the money would go on an improved playing squad , as success on the pitch will result in more income through the turnstiles , wouldn't it ?

But you and I also know that it doesn't work like that

Sponsorship is great , however it has to profitable for the sponsor or it will only last for a short time , if it has only been given because of locality then it is of little long term use

The CEO of United Emirates Airlines is from Leigh , he was approached in 2003/4 to sponsor the club , he declined but suggested if we were ever to get into SL for us to ask again , this we did the following year but unfortunatley a local business had already taken the option as the main shirt sponsor , but true to his word they did sponsor us , the local business struggled and ultimatley went bust 14 months into a 2 year deal and only paid for part of the original agreed amount

A ' Charitable ' sponsor is not a long term strategy , it is a short term boost , and sometimes it is a bad thing as it can make an administration lazy , they also tend to only want to invest in a tangible item , ie a particular player or the like , when a more useful contribution would be a marketing budget for 3/4 years to enable the club to try to build a bigger fan base , and fans tend to last longer than sponsors

There is no such thing as bad money - only bad management. The real problem is that directors are usually also fans and that's where common (business) sense goes out of the window.

Our last BOD made all the right noises re not overspending but look what happened. They told everyone within earshot how good our finances were but were apparently telling porkies. I can only assume that they were grasping at straws and trying to balance current debt against possible future income.

There is far more to being a director than strutting Nero like around the executive lounge and looking down your nose at the plebs (fans).

Now your getting it