I do, when a club of our size is spending that far under cap then they are fleecing us , and we deserve better

what chance have we got of success and what chance has agar got tbh when he is operating from that far out of the cap

How do they fleece us....its our choice if we pay for passes and shirts isnt it.

We may be under but nobody may not have been available and tbh....Agar wouldnt have done ant better would he.

Because a club of our size with money and income we generate should be spending as near to cap as possibile imo, instead they try to make us believe that we have and have the brass neck to tell us we have

We have a board that can't be truthful, a team that doesn't care apart from 1 or 2, and a coach that can't the best out of them

Great recipe Mr Rule.like you say on your hour of spin how can you cook a meal if you don't have the ingredients

We heard you the first 500 times TBH.

I'm not taking anybodies word for anything. I've already said, more than once, that it wouldn't surprise me if we were well below cap. I'm challenging the figure, not the idea.

I do. As a supporter, my first priority is that the club survives, which it wouldn't have done without the merger. Obviously, then, the strides made off the pitch in terms of a £1million improvement to the finances since 2004 have been vital.

My second priority is success on the pitch. If everyone else is at or close to the cap and we are short to that extent, as a customer I'm being short-changed as we're not giving ouselves the best chance of that. We're paying the same price as other SL clubs (in fact more than most, but that's OK given our facilities) but getting less of our money spent on the team. For a club with our numbers of supporters and levels of merchandise turnover that's not acceptable.

If this were true, what do people think our board's agenda is exactly? They won't be making much cash out of the business on an ongoing basis (stories of Kath's salary aside) as I understand interest on their loans is linked to base rate. They may be trying to improve the value of the business for onward sale, but surely they must recognise that 2 finishes outside the play-offs is eroding the value of the club as fast as profits are increasing it, so no one really benefits.

Which part? Or both?

The figure quoted by the brother is correct.

Not exactly a free market system tho is it. If they start charging £80 for shirts you aren't gonna just go and buy the cheaper rovers one are you. I'd definately rather complain and whinge about it.

My figure is correct, [size=200half a million under cap[/size

Well put.

This isn't an issue to be dismissed out of hand as the implications, if true, are enormously important.

At the same time I'm reluctant to run around shouting about the sky falling without at least some evidence. Although I accept that's going to be difficult to provide.


I have no idea. If it were a deliberate policy rather than as a result of misfortune/incompetence with recruitment and retention then it's a frankly baffling one.

You do realise that using big bold type adds no credence whatsoever to your argument, don't you?

IF it is true then the board need to tell us why this happend and why they lied to us.............Until we know the truth its a waste of time going on about it and trying to prove who has the biggest source.