Because most companies have squeezed this sort of discretionary expenditure in recent years possibly.

Going right back to the original post, references on Twitter to a major investor, Seventies red's club insight on players coming in rather than going out, and Rovers continuing to sign new players, these things do point to a positive outcome being announced shortly, in which case the £500k lump sum is probably not that material.

Naughty naughty boy. You will get some Libel red pen for that Heinous remark. It's Spin. Simple.

We've noted your evidence, when things don't turn out as panned, we've already seen your Nostradamus like apothecary of terrible events.

You will not admit to them, but the under current is clear to see.

If things turn out to the contrary, you'll claim a victory.

Scant reward.

As in bringing a cornucopia, oh, I give up.

I claim immunity from this phalanx of the sciences.

I skipped to this page, read your post and I didn't even need to read anything before.

The same threads with the same posters with the same points over and over and over again. The usual suspects think they're annoying but the annoyance wore off a long time ago to the point were Rovers fans who've posted in the past probably take one look and see the same old tripe and can't even be bothered to read more than one line so they get fed up and don't come back.

The mods need to have a discussion between them about what direction this board is going because it's disintegrating and we've lost a lot of posters and it's no wonder we rarely get any new posters (who are Rovers fans) on here anymore.

Anyway, regarding FC fans I'll say this. Whether you chose to believe me or not I don't care, but I do have a good mate with ties to an FC board member and he has said that Pearson has spent a lot more money on FC than he ever anticipated and he wants results - plain and simple. The only thing is, is that your squad simply isn't good enough to deliver those results and the realisation that throwing money at a club hasn't duplicated the same effect as back-to-back promotions as Chairman of Hull City, is making him realise that he's made a big mistake hence why Hay has gone.

Given that FC will not equal their top-six place finish like last year, if Pearson doesn't sack Gentle, then he'll look stupid to those he's been gobbing off to.

I don't believe that you've got a good mate.

A few points, my love.

1 I'm unsure how you know it's the the same points made repeatedly if you've only read one page.
2 You slate repetition yet yourself posted 150 times in 48 hours to the effect that Peter Fox was a far superior winger to Tom Briscoe. No one can hope to reach those levels of tedium.
3 I post on a minority of threads on this board, it's you who chooses to exaggerate my importance, not sure why that could be tbh.
4 You've made not a single point relevant to the thread topic, but posted only about others who have and then tried to de-rail onto Hull FC. Not for the first time, I note. I've already replied to The Mighty F90 that FC will record record losses and acknowledge Pearson will be disappointed with his investment.
5 If FC go pop, we know you and GML will tap dance on our grave. But isn't the game in the city stronger for having derbies? And they certainly guarantee you 4 easy points a season.

So, to save you reading the thread, but in an attempt to get it back on track, the topic is yesterday's Mike Smith interview, what did you make of it?

By inference, I'm not suggesting NH is being dishonest, and whilst Mike Smith can waffle on (and on and on) he isn't prone to being dishonest either.

As I said to Mrs B, there is a contradiction and by my own rule of thumb reckoning (which isn't prudent) I cannot get close to the figure quoted by NH. . .unless I add in the transfer fees etc.

Out - Wheeldon, Watts, Webster, Clinton, Netherton, Green, Taylor, Murrell, McDonnell, Galea. Plus Peterson, Sheriff and Johnson, though they might not have been in the top 25 earners.

The wage bill and cap spend are slightly different, which in itself is a possible area of confusion or obfuscation.

In - Paterson, Tuimavave, Eden, Burns, Walker, Gleeson, Caro, plus Brown, Esslemont and Beharrell.

After that you've got upgrades, Salter, J. Green, Hall, Lovegrove and Josh Hodgson all got new contracts. While it was rumoured that we were trying to be more prudent and drive harder bargains, the indirect inflationary pressures of the NRL tv deal and the ongoing paucity of talent available means that they will have been upgrades most likely. Certainly overall. McDonnell was acknowledged to have come at below market value and 5 of the departures were props, who are generally not amongst your biggest earners (though I expect Clinton will have been an exception for us). Tbh, it sounds about right to me. Certainly more likely than the £1m or £1.2m I've seen suggested on occasion.

How ironic that this thread is called interesting read

Neil Hudgell also stated that the wages of our 10 full time Academy players was coming out of our first team spend.

You have never had many posters on this board, as you all prefer to massage your own ego's elsewhere. I guess you can all discuss the "spin" and how you are the greatest team in the world, with the best fans, whilst every ref decision goes against you and everyone hates you.