by Schards#2 » 10 Jul 2007 12:00
by Coppelled Streets » 10 Jul 2007 12:02
by Wycombe Royal » 10 Jul 2007 12:14
Schards#2 Simplistictly....
IN - in TV revenue, circa £65,000,000
OUT - in net transfers, circa £3,000,000
by Coppelled Streets » 10 Jul 2007 12:21
Wycombe RoyalSchards#2 Simplistictly....
IN - in TV revenue, circa £65,000,000
OUT - in net transfers, circa £3,000,000
If it is so simple, why have you left out the biggest expense?
by SpaceCruiser » 10 Jul 2007 12:27
Schards#2 OUT - in net transfers, circa £3,000,000
by Schards#2 » 10 Jul 2007 12:30
SpaceCruiserSchards#2 OUT - in net transfers, circa £3,000,000
Soccerbase says otherwise: £5,750,000 and they've even missed out Andre Bikey, so the total out really is £6,750,000. And you seem to have ignored the wages. Surely there is more out than a mere £3 mill.
by SpaceCruiser » 10 Jul 2007 12:34
Schards#2SpaceCruiserSchards#2 OUT - in net transfers, circa £3,000,000
Soccerbase says otherwise: £5,750,000 and they've even missed out Andre Bikey, so the total out really is £6,750,000. And you seem to have ignored the wages. Surely there is more out than a mere £3 mill.
Does Soccerbase include the sale of Halford?
by Stranded » 10 Jul 2007 12:36
by Schards#2 » 10 Jul 2007 12:43
Stranded Did the team not compete in the Premiership last season? Or did I just dream that.
by Wycombe Royal » 10 Jul 2007 13:00
Schards#2Stranded Did the team not compete in the Premiership last season? Or did I just dream that.
Yes it did, but not as a result of the increased ticket revenue as the club has chosen to spend a fraction of the funds at its disposal.
I'm not saying the club's choice to not compete financial with pretty much every other club in the Premiership is neccessarily wrong. Just that you can't say you are charging more in order to do that, but not actually do it.
by Bowman's Quiver » 10 Jul 2007 13:09
Wycombe RoyalSchards#2 Simplistictly....
IN - in TV revenue, circa £65,000,000
OUT - in net transfers, circa £3,000,000
If it is so simple, why have you left out the biggest expense?
by Stranded » 10 Jul 2007 13:10
Schards#2Stranded Did the team not compete in the Premiership last season? Or did I just dream that.
Yes it did, but not as a result of the increased ticket revenue as the club has chosen to spend a fraction of the funds at its disposal.
I'm not saying the club's choice to not compete financial with pretty much every other club in the Premiership is neccessarily wrong. Just that you can't say you are charging more in order to do that, but not actually do it.
by Harps stay sharp » 10 Jul 2007 13:12
Schards#2 Simplistictly....
IN - in TV revenue, circa £65,000,000
OUT - in net transfers, circa £3,000,000
Given that the reason we were given that ticket prices were hiked by 80% odd last year was so we could build a team to compete in the Premiership, should the club be refunding some of it if it refuses to compete in the transfer/wages market and is, presumably sitting on tens of millions of pounds?
by SpaceCruiser » 10 Jul 2007 13:19
Wycombe RoyalSchards#2Stranded Did the team not compete in the Premiership last season? Or did I just dream that.
Yes it did, but not as a result of the increased ticket revenue as the club has chosen to spend a fraction of the funds at its disposal.
I'm not saying the club's choice to not compete financial with pretty much every other club in the Premiership is neccessarily wrong. Just that you can't say you are charging more in order to do that, but not actually do it.
Didn't we go over this whole toopic last season about 427 times?
by Wycombe Royal » 10 Jul 2007 13:21
SpaceCruiserWycombe RoyalSchards#2Stranded Did the team not compete in the Premiership last season? Or did I just dream that.
Yes it did, but not as a result of the increased ticket revenue as the club has chosen to spend a fraction of the funds at its disposal.
I'm not saying the club's choice to not compete financial with pretty much every other club in the Premiership is neccessarily wrong. Just that you can't say you are charging more in order to do that, but not actually do it.
Didn't we go over this whole toopic last season about 427 times?
How did you arrive at that figure?
by Wycombe Royal » 10 Jul 2007 13:32
Harold If Reading fail, then the board will be to blame.
by Coppelled Streets » 10 Jul 2007 13:33
Wycombe RoyalHarold If Reading fail, then the board will be to blame.
Why would they? It has been stated that the funds are available, so surely then it must be Hammond and Coppell who would be to blame for not spending it?
Harold gets it wrong again when attempting a fishing trip.
by Stranded » 10 Jul 2007 14:09
HaroldWycombe RoyalHarold If Reading fail, then the board will be to blame.
Why would they? It has been stated that the funds are available, so surely then it must be Hammond and Coppell who would be to blame for not spending it?
Harold gets it wrong again when attempting a fishing trip.
it says funds available, but we dont know how much!!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 72 guests