We don't know - it is all just speculation.

We're all familiar with the mood music from the club, but it is open to interpretation as to what exactly it means.

To fully understand Barista's interpretation, imagine it being spoken by an actor (over)playing the part of a Shakespearean fool ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespearean_fool ), forefinger to cheek, eyebrows raised in mock simplicity.

We don't know - it is all just speculation.

We're all familiar with the mood music from the club, but it is open to interpretation as to what exactly it means.

To fully understand Barista's interpretation, imagine it being spoken by an actor (over)playing the part of a Shakespearean fool ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespearean_fool ), forefinger to cheek, eyebrows raised in mock simplicity.

Well, Hudgell said it again this year:
www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html

You are right, it's never the same year on year. But the key point here is that a lot of costs (ground maintenance, rates, backroom staff, training camps, kit etc) are fixed. Sky income is fixed, or at least certain. If you spend £1.65m on players, the income from attendances is the balancing figure to break even. And I think he's saying that to afford that needs 10k every week. The problem is that you need to commit to the wage bill without knowing the attendances as you sign players up in advance. If you're being prudent, you'd not over-commit until you had evidence that 10k (or whatever that number is) was achievable.

Don't forget the step up in costs next year too. In 40-20 magazine, Mike Smith says one of the North Stand partners has dropped out, leaving Rovers with a bigger share of costs to cover than expected, hence the delay in the East Stand extension. These costs are commitments Rovers have to cover, they're not discretionary in the way that the playing budget is, hence the playing budget being the most likely area to be squeezed if 10k looks uncertain.

Well, Hudgell said it again this year:
www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html

You are right, it's never the same year on year. But the key point here is that a lot of costs (ground maintenance, rates, backroom staff, training camps, kit etc) are fixed. Sky income is fixed, or at least certain. If you spend £1.65m on players, the income from attendances is the balancing figure to break even. And I think he's saying that to afford that needs 10k every week. The problem is that you need to commit to the wage bill without knowing the attendances as you sign players up in advance. If you're being prudent, you'd not over-commit until you had evidence that 10k (or whatever that number is) was achievable.

Don't forget the step up in costs next year too. In 40-20 magazine, Mike Smith says one of the North Stand partners has dropped out, leaving Rovers with a bigger share of costs to cover than expected, hence the delay in the East Stand extension. These costs are commitments Rovers have to cover, they're not discretionary in the way that the playing budget is, hence the playing budget being the most likely area to be squeezed if 10k looks uncertain.