Small point,but are you forgetting the amount of debt we wrote off when we went into the CVA?

think your blowing off steam al , and thats ok . If the franchise system is run as per book the guys before wrecked our chances . its a shame that Glover will be at the helm when the ship goes down . its a bit like Blair doing one and leaving brown with a no chance.

You're right, I am. So if the slate was wiped clean when we came out of the CVA, so to speak, it means 1.9 million over roughly 12 years, or around 150K/year average. Does that sound about right? Still a very attainable saving to make, IMO.

The club was in administration if my memory serves after the previous owners the Duncan family went bust. However and I'm not sure why the club was bought as a going concern by Ted Richardson and Brian Eccles. So yes it was considerably in debt. The club then went into a CVA in 2000 in which some debt was written of the rest reduced. however as in a personal IVA once the CVA was completed the club was obliged to pay as much of the remaining debt (which isn't written off as often believed) which include remorgaging etc. I'm not a shareholder so I don't know if this happened. What I do know is I have attended a number of AGM's as a proxy since 2004 and there has always been a six figure historical debt.

The issue here is not if AG is running the club better or worse but whether they accepted the loss of franchise and have been preparing ever since. I have no doubt that if we retain a franchise then the measure discussed would help. However if we are talking about savings then the massive bulk this season has been save on wages.

I will put it this way to explain the debt.

For Wakefield to be a force in SL we were always 500k per season short of revenue to achieve this.

For Wakefield to Just stay in SL we were always 200k per season short of what we needed, so times that by ten and hey presto.

I know it's crude but it's a possible explanation and no less plausible than most on here.

What people really need to grasp IMO is that if Trinity were run as a business which is the clarion cry on here it would have been shut down years ago as a non viable business IMO.

No it wasn't, at the end of a CVA or IVA you are required ti if possible remortgage/assets to release a proportion of the equity in your property/assets. This may be where the ground comes into it - I don't know it's a guess. I'm very familiar unfortunately with IVA's though I've never had one and as with all these things it's sold as a cure all and they never are.

That was the point I was trying to get at. The suggestion was made somewhere that Glover isn't wealthy enough/has no desire to run a SL club. Hence the question - by how much do we need to increase our revenue in addition to the monies we receive from Sky to be a sustainable SL club (if the owner puts none of his own money in)? If it's closer to 500K than 200K as you suggest, then obviously that isn't something you can just conjure out of a hat by making a few savings here and there, and requires something like Newmarket to have any chance at all. Even then, you'd have to assume that a few charitable donations would have to be made by the owner if you want to see a really good team on the pitch. What still doesn't add up for me is the claim that we could spend up to the full cap, though - unless this was just a mixture of spin and wishful thinking. It would surely require long arms and deep pockets too, given the circumstances.

His choice of words when he first said he was interested could suggest he was willing to take the club on the cheap and also be willing to drop down.

I think the exact statement was "If we can get to an average attendance of X we will be able to spend upto the full salary cap"

I would think the catering income will be a reasonable amount over the full season? If we werent getting any of this previously?, then that plus the reduction in wages of both playing and admin staff, would i imagine cover the lesser £200k figure mentioned.

Bit of a gamble this one.

As far as I'm aware Ray Barnes paid us a flat rate of 60k per season for all the catering rights. Now I don't actually know if this is a good deal as I don't know haw many pints or pies you have to sell in a season to make 60k clear profit. Clearly in a good year you could perhaps make that or exceed it by a good amount. In a bad year who knows. On thing I'm fairly sure is we won't come anywhere near that amount of profit in the Championship.

If I remember rightly AG and JE said we could spend up to full cap based on 10,000 attendance and that every 1000 less than that equated to roughly £100k less to spend. ie avarage attendance of 7500 would mean spending £250,000 less than the full salary cap.

Whether the club would spend to the full cap initially to try and bring in quality players and therefore achieve better results to generate more fans is another debate entirely.

Really? Do you really think Glover and the RFL a) had any reason to get together? and b) made a deal in direct contradiction of the whole franchising process which they are aware is under scrutiny already due to it's unpopularity in some quarters?

Just can't see any motive or evidence for this to be the case

dont burst his bubble

Don't know, it's pure speculation as is everything on here.

I'm not generally one for the conspiracy theories, but the one I don't get is Oakwell. Depends who and what you believe but as far as i'm aware Oakwell was open to us and we declined it even though it would have guaranteed SL. So that leaves two options, either we refused it because we didn't want a SL licence for whatever reason. Or we tool the RFL's advice which apparently was not to go their. Over this issue someone is not telling the truth else it makes no sense. I blieve the future of Crusaders has a part to play in this as does NM which is yet to become apparent.

Much as your addled mind has latched onto this AG is a saint beyond reproach idea most of us would rather hold fire and have an adult debate. Taking things as they come, analysing and looking at things from various angles in an attempt to find the truth.

This fundamentalist mentality you have in which everything is black or white or everything Richardson was evil and anything Glover is wonderful is ludicrous - but not unexpected sadly. Yours and a few others attempts to slam anyone down who dares to question as a heretic shows your insecurities.

If there is a bubble Mutley you are living in it