#Dan1326 wrote:
That's because they won't give us 10,000
They wont give us a 1000...but thats a story to come
Moderator: Gnome
#Dan1326 wrote:
That's because they won't give us 10,000
The excuse we've been given before for not taking up extra away allocations is that if they are not all sold, then the away club pays for the balance. Hopefully Barry Fry had to kite a cheque.Romford wrote:On a totally different note...do Peterboro have to pay for the extra 1000 that they didn't fill ?
You mean Gavin ? I'm after him due to my sons card not working for the 2nd game in a row...cockney farmer wrote:
I will phone ginger and ask him, anyway Romf you been so busy on this thread you have not had a chance to look at the Arsenal one , I was hoping to get a nibble.
Yeah, I think they are knocking down the traditional away end in October, so we will be unlikely to get many tickets in the seats.Romford wrote: They wont give us a 1000...but thats a story to come
I know you ain't mate...barlimanrob wrote:I'm not tarring you mate, I know where you're coming from.
Do you think its worth the risk not getting 'results' by playing riskier football?
I'm not scaremongering at all, our debt is not sustainable where we are.......
Really ?barlimanrob wrote:I'm not scaremongering at all, our debt is not sustainable where we are.......
Maybe I'm wrong then Pinks.the pink palermo wrote: Really ?
And here was me thinking our last published accounts made it clear the cost of our borrowing had reduced .
To put it in perspective , we spend around the same paying Kevin Nolan as we do servicing the debt .
I think in part there covering the pre-taken/spent ST monies. IIRC next season the club gets to retain 100% for the first time in three seasons.barlimanrob wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong then Pinks.
I thought the Chairmen were putting £40mill in to cover the drop in income?
I cant see that that's 'sustainable.'
Rob, I think if they do end up putting in that money it will be used - or at least a chunk of it will - to pay down the debt .My opinion is they will want to be debt free by the end of the 2013/14 season .Effectively go into Stratford with no legacy issues hanging over their heads .barlimanrob wrote:Maybe I'm wrong then Pinks.
I thought the Chairmen were putting £40mill in to cover the drop in income?
I cant see that that's 'sustainable.'
It's not just a question of paying down debt, tho, is it? This is like the economy as a whole. It's all very well paying down debt, but at some point you have to get the whole thing growing positively. Otherwise you get into a vicious circle of lowering income, rising debt and a greater and greater proportion of income servicing debt (plus, unless the debt is all at fixed rates, the cost of it can and will rocket when interest rates rise, which they surely will within the next two years).the pink palermo wrote: Maybe I'm wrong then Pinks.
I thought the Chairmen were putting £40mill in to cover the drop in income?
I cant see that that's 'sustainable.'
Rob, I think if they do end up putting in that money it will be used - or at least a chunk of it will - to pay down the debt .My opinion is they will want to be debt free by the end of the 2013/14 season .Effectively go into Stratford with no legacy issues hanging over their heads .
Completely agree.Romford wrote:
If the 442 doesn't work..change it at half time.
If Baldock isn't as good as his 20 mins at Wall made him look...you can bring him off.
This doesn't have to be one or the other...