Players payments all been met and on time. All it was was a change in date of payment.

No fan likes seeing this when they log onto the forum and once is understandable but the more of these we have the better they need to explain them. We don't hear of the bigger sides going through this so why are we. The Club should understand that when these things happen, people will think the worst and comments about the old days will start to crop up more & more.

Of course we have a very tight budget here, that should go without saying, whether some people want to call that skint it's up to them but I wouldn't look at it that way. There's no way we can expect AG to be constantly sticking his own funds into the clubs like various other owners have to and I wouldn't want it that way tbh.

Hopefully what Uptoncat says is correct and it's all sorted but I do hope this is the end of them and we can just concentrate on winning the GF.

So it was the players who applied to the courts for the CCJ to be issued to the club. I find that a bit strange if true.

The problem is that AG is not as well off as it appeared and can't afford to keep the club afloat. Not all millionaire business men are actually millionaires and a millions pounds is not much money any way nowadays.

It's not "like" it's exactly the same.

I said this until I was blue in the face and continually got shot down by certain poster. The old regime didn't fail because they were incompetent or especially dodgy. They failed because eventually they were overwhelmed by a business simply incapable of sustaining itself at a SL level in it's present circumstances.

The line between success and failure is as narrow off the pitch as on. It is BV tah simply cannot produce the income required - it never could and it never will. NM will not offer drastically more revenue certainly not at the begining. However the difference will probably be enough for us to be on the right side of survival - just.

Until then we will limp into NM with the BOD having to borrow/lend to keep us afloat. If they manage it and it's not guaranteed the new stadium and a hopefully improved economy (an issue many on here don't seem to register) will see us through.

Before the AG protector brigade come along, I'm not blaming him or his people for anything - it was always an impossible ask for the last owner and it will remain so for this one for a few years yet.

Best of luck

No I didn't say or imply that. I was referring to an earlier post which implied players payments were late. That wasn't the case the payment date has just been changed by a couple of days. Hope that clears that up for you.

Nothing to worry about according to AG on twitter. 'Business' apparently. Time will tell i guess.

Must be budgeted for.

Thanks

See Supporters Trust thread

At least the new regime are TRYING to make improvements to a club that was on its knees. The old regime had years upon years to put a stand up AG did it in 6 month!

You miss the point.

It's nothing to do with Ted or AG it's to do with the general state of the club and the ground IMO. BV has been improved significantly over the past 20 years starting with the floodlights, boxes, new toilet blocks and new barriers. All this cost it just happens that the latest and most visible was the roof.

The sad fact is that despite AG's best efforts I fear we still don't generate enough cash to run a SL club at a level to compete. We are not alone just look at Salford and even Bradford.

I assume you are young. Thus a bit of history. After the Hillsborough disaster a lot of clubs were clobbered by new ground rules (by law). BV was hit harder than most and money earmarked for a new stand was continually diluted to meet these new criteria, the floodlights being an expensive one along with the underpinning of the kop.

I feel very sorry for anyone who takes on WTRLFC the BV version unless of course they are midas rich which would be nice.

I wouldn't argue that BV is a millstone that will drag down whomever owns the club, so long as it is based there; NM can't happen soon enough.

I disagree, to use carphone warehouse as an example is not silly at all, it fully supports my point. A big, well known and financially strong company has CCJ's against them. Do you think any less of CPW or think they will go bust? Do you think they have financial troubles? I suspect you don't. So to say it is a silly example is missing my point completely.

CPW lost their CCJ against me. CPW lost. The court ruled in my favour. If the court ruled against Wakefield Trinity does that mean the situation is vastly different?

Only the club know the true ins and outs of this CCJ, we can just see the public record.

I think, as I said before, people should calm down unless they know the facts.