Doesn't really matter what anyone on here says as nobody knows the full details.

What is being said by Pearson is at best a plea and at worst a threat. Even if season passes fell by 1,000 the increase in revenue from sky and the golden handshake for the academy will more than offset it. The increased pressure from the SMC isn't financial and some should remember that.

I'm not sure how Pearson can sanction a 'marquee player' signing in Frank Pritchard then claim the club is going under to the fans. Sika Manu too! Yes a nice addittion, but is another 6-figure salary second rower needed?

It's like ordering a take-away on a Friday and then moaning you've only got beans on toast on a Saturday.

You say that no one knows the full details yet claim definitively there will be no consequences if pass sales are down...

Well put. I'm sure our resident doom monger will be along to put you in your place when she's finished her latte

Westerman? Slightly off topic I know

Easy one to answer that.

If The club did not sign quality players there would be an even bigger shift away from the club. One thing Pearson cannot be called for is his willingness to put his month worth his mouth is player wise. We must be one of the very few clubs who have paid fee's for players in recent seasons. For one reason or another some of these players have not worked out (Daniel Holdsworth is a prime example). Many of these signings will have been sorted many months ago (Pritchard / Taylor / Manu etc).

At what point has it been announced that Manu will be on 6 figures?

Subsequently, the general mood has declined significantly. The very real prospect of not shifting as many season tickets as normal / corporate sponsors not renewing has fueled this concern. There are several reasons for this I feel.

Unfortunately there are many on here who it would seem would like to see Pearson fail.

Did Pearson actually say we would go under?

I think he said , in his typically belligerent way , that "we can't go on like this" , ie , spending more/the same money without seeing an increase in revenue which is not factually unreasonable. If he'd said that he recognised that the situation was at least partly his making and he's learned some lessons I think he'd have had a better response. The problem with that last statement though would have been he hasn't seemingly learned or changed anything and he steadfastly refuses to accept that in particular his inexperienced leadership team are not also a part of the problem.

So they can have the dubious pleasure of saying " I told you so".

I know a couple of people who have emailed him and he has responded that if people don't buy passes he would have to put the club into administration.

I was thinking about emailing him again my thoughts but I don't think he is in the mood to listen. I probably still should though.

Perhaps so, but it does seem those who are the biggest critics (of the club / Pearson / Radford) are the ones who are not actively contributing to the clubs coffers to try and make things better.

Pearson and Radford are not without criticism by any means and fans staying away is their prerogative, but it is quite ironic that those stay away fans actually feel they are doing something by staying away is a meaningful protest. Quite the contrary, its damaging the club no end.

This!!!

this this and this

So, you reckon Manu won't be on 6 figures? As long as it's above £50k, did we need another 2nd rower?

If we can't afford a marquee player, we shouldn't sign one.

I don't think anyone on here wants Pearson to fail, least of all me. And god knows where we'd be without him. But I'm sorry for feeling a little bit miffed at a bloke that's telling people at award ceremonies that there 'may not be a club to support' if we don't buy a pass, but will happily spend over £175k on one player.
The problem I have is merely the rhetoric and it's irony.

Who exactly are you referring to when you claim this?

They live with the pearson cheerleaders