good to see
Moderators: Admin, Ralph, asl, Robin
-
- Posts: 2666
- Joined: 04 Oct 2012, 07:16
The pitch cutting up already from a warm up!!
-
- Posts: 29814
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Will take several summers and several more hundreds of thousands of pounds to repair the Gloucester damage. And to think some thought it was a good deal.confused.com wrote:The pitch cutting up already from a warm up!!
-
- Posts: 29814
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Surely we can use the £40k the groundshare apologists said would fill the club coffers every year to fund ongoing repairs during the season.
-
- Posts: 573
- Joined: 10 Nov 2010, 21:51
- Location: Cheltenhamshire
that money is sitting comfortably jn Bakers bank along sith the Marlon pack money Waters money etc etc
-
- Posts: 29814
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Scandalous comment.cheltsaxon wrote:that money is sitting comfortably jn Bakers bank along sith the Marlon pack money Waters money etc etc
-
- Posts: 573
- Joined: 10 Nov 2010, 21:51
- Location: Cheltenhamshire
can you show me where we have invested the money from Waters please roughly 50k plus two years wages we dont have to pay so id say around 100k
-
- Posts: 29814
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Maybe gate money is not enough to cover wages and costs so the money has filled that gap. We are one of the few clubs who manage to avoid losses year on year so there must be a reason for that.cheltsaxon wrote:can you show me where we have invested the money from Waters please roughly 50k plus two years wages we dont have to pay so id say around 100k
We were told it would all go into the playing budget.RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:Maybe gate money is not enough to cover wages and costs so the money has filled that gap. We are one of the few clubs who manage to avoid losses year on year so there must be a reason for that.cheltsaxon wrote:can you show me where we have invested the money from Waters please roughly 50k plus two years wages we dont have to pay so id say around 100k
-
- Posts: 29814
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Ok. So the Board reduced their contribution to the playing budget and spent their money on other costs. Net effect is the same.Benctfc wrote:We were told it would all go into the playing budget.RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:Maybe gate money is not enough to cover wages and costs so the money has filled that gap. We are one of the few clubs who manage to avoid losses year on year so there must be a reason for that.cheltsaxon wrote:can you show me where we have invested the money from Waters please roughly 50k plus two years wages we dont have to pay so id say around 100k
CTFC is not a profit making business. Any bonus income from transfers or cups has to stem the losses.
Maybe gate money is not enough to cover wages and costs so the money has filled that gap. We are one of the few clubs who manage to avoid losses year on year so there must be a reason for that.[/quote]
We were told it would all go into the playing budget.[/quote]
Ok. So the Board reduced their contribution to the playing budget and spent their money on other costs. Net effect is the same.
CTFC is not a profit making business. Any bonus income from transfers or cups has to stem the losses.[/quote]
But the budget is set by that point I don't see how they would start changing that this was clearly stated as being extra income added to it. I have no problems with it being used as money to cover costs but I think some honesty is needed as to why we have a small squad with most signings being unproven cheap players.
We were told it would all go into the playing budget.[/quote]
Ok. So the Board reduced their contribution to the playing budget and spent their money on other costs. Net effect is the same.
CTFC is not a profit making business. Any bonus income from transfers or cups has to stem the losses.[/quote]
But the budget is set by that point I don't see how they would start changing that this was clearly stated as being extra income added to it. I have no problems with it being used as money to cover costs but I think some honesty is needed as to why we have a small squad with most signings being unproven cheap players.
-
- Posts: 29814
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Link to evidence/confirmation please.horlickfanclub wrote:Yes.
-
- Posts: 2666
- Joined: 04 Oct 2012, 07:16
Would have thought undisclosed meant exactly that