Mrs B does not need backing up and certainly not by me.....Mrs B commented on how she perceived the words you then got all high and mighty and [ithen[/i went on to post how you perceive the words, like I say priceless

Including the word "will". Good.

I'm an FC fan, my agenda is to not like Rovers much. In the same way that Neil Hudgell's agenda is to not like FC much. It's his right to make bold pro-Rovers statements, even anti -FC ones, although a shame he can't make reference to Peter Gentle by name in his q&a- maybe it rankles. Not unreasonable to offer an alternative interpretation to his words. When Rovers fans spin them to their positive extreme, there is no challenge to their interpretation. Balance and consistency are key.

So, there's a policy change afoot. If Rovers are confident of hitting 10k from the off next season, presumably you'd be spending full cap-ish. For prudence, there'll probably be a build to this level though, so perhaps the spend on squad will reflect, at least indirectly, the percentage of 130,000 that can realistically be expected. Binning off Webster is effectively like getting £100k to the bottom line for no effort or loss at all, good decision. Clinton too, maybe.

Like watching the spotty kids with four eyes argue over the isotope of Barium this.

Yeah, I'm enjoying it too - just wish I could join in, but I've only seen a summary so can't offer an opinion on the fine points of interpretation. Bloomin' finely-cut-tree-only news sources.

MO, FWIW - we hope/expect that the new stand will make us (more) self-sustaining, while remaining reasonably competitive. It gives us a chance (which is good), not a guarantee (which is the anti-Hudgell's consolation). We're also looking for a better value (perhaps as opposed to simply 'better', in the short-term) squad.

Reet, I'm off to see if those B&W nutcases are in need of any balance and consistency. Love a bit of bank-holiday thankless Cassandra-like matyrdom, me.

No your agenda is to be annoying and cause arguements on here.
As for what NH has supposed to have said by using the clever words he has means it isn't anywhere near as clear cut as you wish it to be.
Hardly rocket science is it.

It's called stimulating debate. A forum where everyone agrees and views things from the same pro Rovers perspective is a) a bit weird, and b) already exists.

Look, Rovers supporters on here have, in the main, been celebrating the inclusion of 11 overseas players in your squad as a triumph of astute rule application to the refrain of "I couldn't care less where they come from, we need the strongest squad possible". Now Hudgell and co have re-set the principles, suddenly the new world of relying on youth and Paeas becomes gold standard. To respond en masse to this u-turn as nodding dogs requires some sort of challenge, surely?

FWIW, I think Hudgell's right. The question most pressing for Rovers fans however what the short term consequences might be. Dialling down squad quality a bit ("rebuild from bottom-up"icon_wink.gif and expecting an extra £2.2k on the gate each week to follow could be a bit optimistic. As the rather lovely MR has contended for a while, the rule-bending has been necessary to get a quality squad and re-engage fans. It's a bit of a gamble, arguably, to stop that.

why do you always bang on about our overseas players yet fail to mention the youth players weve brought through in the last couple of seasons a few more than you lot have managed . I already know your reply your so predictable and boring

I for one have not read or heard Neil Hudgell (or Rob Crossland) say Rovers will be operating on a reduced salary cap next season.

Yes, as Mrs B in her inimitible way alludes, both have stated on numerous occasions it will be the case if the club do not start operating on a sustainable financial footing, but it is my understranding they are prepared to underwrite Rovers losses during this period of transition. Now the North Stand is a 'reality' I fully expect them to honour this pledge for the length of the current franchise whilst the magic (or even symbolic) 10,000 is sought.

IMO 2014 is when the big decisions will be made.

Where's that come from?

I challenge you to find 1 post in your nal that fits that description.

I don't think they've reset the principles, so much as recognised the new reality. We had to get ourselves established and bring through some young players, which takes time despite what Smokey believes, to give us this option. And now it isn't even just an option - overseas players of the quality or profile of Berrigan, O'Meley, Fitzgibbon, Vella, Newton, Galea et al will be much rarer in SL, I reckon. The tax loopholes have been closed, the NRL has got richer, the non-fed exempt players are getting older.
Is something still a gamble when you have no other choice?
Where we do have to be realistic is with the trickle down inflationary effect, as explempified by Matty Smith. Players we've previously thought of as pretty average, will now command bigger wages, reflecting their 'improvement' relative to the diminished quality of the competition. If we try to recruit British players using the preconceptions of 2008 or 2009, we'll come home empty handed. On the other hand, how do you cut costs then?
Will it work out? I don't know, but that has been true every step of the way. If not it is finding a niche as a community club in the Championship, so we might as well have a go.

yeah I know, thanks. I live & learn (threads) .....hopefully.

Hudgell said yesterday "That's it for the directors in terms of subsidising the club." If 10k is break even, they either achieve 10k and spend at full cap, or continue to subsidise the club whilst spending the full cap, or spend less on players to break even. I think that logic is right.

Matty Smith is a great example. It's like Wests Tigers and Melbourne Storm fighting a $2m "Who blinks first?" negotiation for Mark Hewitt.