Yes Andrew.

Davide ...?

James? Sarah? Daddy Cool?

He' right, though, isn't he - it did cost Andrew Glover considerably more than the 40K or whatever was quoted to take over the club and more to the point, enable it to continue operating as a Super League club.

Whether or not we have the 2nd lowest spend on players is a different matter. I would doubt that, to be honest, as we don't have a bad lot, and challenging for the top 8 doesn't come cheap, even with home-growners.

I suspect the offer for Mason may have been on the proviso that Huddersfield contribute to his wages, though. The value of his subsequent deal at Cas after he'd been wrongfully dismissed would seem to bear that out.

Your turn Jack or are you going to lose all credibility and stay in your box?

No issue here, Mr Cools spin on events would do Tony Blair credit.

You really believe that don't you - I despair.

He did better than most but he isn't mother Teresa - give over.

Read your post to which I replied.

You said Glover had to honour a massive amount of debt from the previous regime

Of all those above he had no obligation to honour anything other than the bit regarding the RL which I admit I know nothing about. I would be interested to know what that was.

He chose to honour season tickets and box sales as a good will gesture and obviously for sound business reasons.

Shirt sales, well he missed the boat on those for that season, however he also missed having to run the club for the off season. That period between October and Feb is the most difficult of all to manage and the shirt sales and season tickets are used to fund that gap. So I would say they cancelled each other out. However which ever way you look at shirt sales they are only a missed business opportunity and not a debt, so knock those off your list.

The point is AG is a business man he will have known that when he took over the club exactly how much it would cost him. He will have also have known about the loss of shirt sales and all the other points you raised.

Knowing all this he obviously thought he was paying a fair price considering he had missed the commercial opportunities from the earlier part of the season. So I would say he went into it with his eyes wide open and happy with the terms of his purchase and he has not been saddled with anything from the previous regime.


I will simplify the situation, you buy a second hand car, you know it needs a service and some money spent on paintwork and you can see a couple of tyres are worn. You therefore factor those costs into the buying price.

I know for a fact, AG & one other director in particular have pumped a small fortune into the club to a.) pay off some of the existing debt and b.) to keep the club running from month to month.

That small fortune is well well into 6 figures from both of them. They must be off there rockers!!

I am not disputing AG and others have put large amounts of money into the club since it was purchased.
However what I can't understand is this myth about debt from the previous regime. When Ted and Co went
into liquidation all the debt ended with them.

decisions may have been made for business reasons to give money to people who had lost out to Ted purely on commercial grounds. However there is no obligation to do this and it would have been voluntary.

Without honouring the rugby related debts the rfl wouldn't have granted spirit of 1873 the golden share rugby licence. So there would have been no Wakefield trinity if he hadn't agreed. Simples.
And I'm not saying he didn't know these things. My point was that he spent a fortune honouring the old regimes debts. You disagreed.

Agreed! I must be!