Good for you mate.
I'd forgotten about Foxy Bingo. Will do that today myself

As depressing as this post is, i think its a pretty accurate reflection sadly.

Depends on the terms, I suppose. It might be a way of getting a player more cheaply, in that the cost of living is less for the player, and the director has the advantage of knowing the nature of his tenant.

The only alternative would be to let the player sort his own accommodation out in the private sector, which makes it a less attractive reason to join the club, or the director rents the property to the club, who sub-lets it at a greater rent to the player. Again, though, the player loses out.

That sounds fairly legit to me, and a common sense way of sorting out accommodation for a player.

I agree with you on the two snipped bits but not really on the fans asking for refunds. They bought a season ticket. There is nothing on there to say it guarentees the team they want. If we are in superleague there should be no refunds at all..... imho

Unless said individual is profiting from his fortunate position within the club and the club doesnt benefit in any way.
I accept i may be going a bit x files, but if "our very own" wildcat dolls issue is true and they are not our very own they belong to someone else and that comes as a cost to us, i am getting a bit cheesed off when the club is as skint as we are and i think rightly suspicious.

If the wildcat dolls are making a profit out of the club?
This needs to stop now!
It's one luxury I can live without.
Id rather see youngest given the chance to play rugby on the pitch instead!
And if they are a separate company?
Are they not trading on our trademark wildcat dolls?
They need to change there name to Elstons Dolls!
If they have been booked this weekend I hope they are donating there fee back to the club!!!!

I agree with you on the Dolls issue, as that has nothing to do with rugby. I think it's a trickier issue with the housing as the alternatives are probably worse.

A player from out of the area (I presume these are overseas players) has to live somewhere. The club could just find them somewhere in the private sector and let them pay the going rate. But what if a director can let them live cheaper? A more attractive option for the player and so maybe more likely to secure a signature at maybe a lower price for the club. The club could buy properties and rent them out, but any undervalue of rent would be seen as a taxable benefit and so not benefit the player as much.

I can see how it can irk that a director is able to secure a stream of tenants, but if it helps secure a player, then there is benefit to the club at no cost to the club.

The Dolls issue is just about paying over the odds for some pom-pom waving, which I can happily do without. That costs the club money, which reduces the budget for players.

I'm not defending the Dolls particularly. It's not something that interests me at the game.
However, none of the people commenting (Including me) know the details.

Having them as a private ownership rather than club owned, we may save on insurance and other employers costs.
They are a good marketing brand for us so I see the good they do outside match day.

I do however agree that if it is simply a money earner for an individual then I'd change how that worked.....not necessarily get rid.

Whilst I'm not 100% on this i think each dancer gets £25 per game (less than the legal hourly rate - though I'm not sure if legal rate covers what they do) and the brand is Sarah Elston's for which, I would assume, she is paid by the club seperately from the job for which she is employed. I'd be interested if anyone could confirm whether the £400 figure is correct as this wouldn't make as much money for sarah as i would have thought. That being said its money for nothing as I don't think she dances anymore. All events undertaken by the "dolls" are seperate to the club. One thing is for sure; Sarah definitely has her head screwed on and is a very successful business woman as she also has her own dancing school which is of a good size and would generate quite an income in its own right.

I agree and good on her.

Fans pointing the finger at her is a real cheap shot.

I don't think it's ever as simple as one person to blame in situations like this as much as everyone seems to need to single someone out. It will be interesting to see if and when people within the club become outspoken and start to distance themselves from others (who they might have have had a very close working relationship with until the financial difficulties were made public).

Some of this is just searching for scapegoats, a bit like we used to blame Steve Southern for our poor results.
The real issue is trusting the Guardians of the club and again, at times like this there is plenty of finger pointing and looking for someone to blame.
We need to draw a line under what has gone and trust the new guys.

I'm just surprised there are such business's operating independently within the club, and that they are all capitalised on by the same individuals.
It's not an awfully big difference to the "jobs for the family" mentality I thought we'd seen the back of with Ted.
I accept that it may look like finger pointing, but I am genuinely surprised.

Its not what you know these days, it who you know.