[lubic]

The CFC don't want to go up?

Can someone explain the logic behind this conspiracy theory please.

The board are often accused of being businessmen out for what they can get. Then the same people accuse them of not wanting promotion. It just doesn't stand up as a theory - you accuse them of being greedy and then accuse them of meddling to prevent the club earning more money.

I'm I being thick or blind or what?

[Wooden Spoon]

Paul, on Feb 10 2006, 09:52 PM, said:

The CFC don't want to go up?

Can someone explain the logic behind this conspiracy theory please.

The board are often accused of being businessmen out for what they can get. Then the same people accuse them of not wanting promotion. It just doesn't stand up as a theory - you accuse them of being greedy and then accuse them of meddling to prevent the club earning more money.

I'm I being thick or blind or what?

its been said by many people for many years. after the cox/barlow era its a constant moan at saltergate.

i think the situation at rotherham explains why people think the board(s) over the years have "run scared" at the last min.

no your not thick, and unless your keyboard is in brialle your not blind

[Jets Fan]

Paul, on Feb 10 2006, 09:52 PM, said:

The CFC don't want to go up?

Can someone explain the logic behind this conspiracy theory please.

The board are often accused of being businessmen out for what they can get. Then the same people accuse them of not wanting promotion. It just doesn't stand up as a theory - you accuse them of being greedy and then accuse them of meddling to prevent the club earning more money.

I'm I being thick or blind or what?

We would need a new ground if we went up so it would cost em too much, and better players with higher wages. Have we got that cash, 75k would have secured Clingan the best loan signing ever imo and we couldnt afford that!!

[Gary the Snail]

Plus....the same thicko's keep forgetting one very important fact.....the board do not own the club! They are subsidising it currently, so surely in their best interest to get promoted and therefore increase the chances of not actually having to bail out a club which doesn't even have a good enough credit record to get an overdraft.

[lubic]

death, on Feb 10 2006, 10:57 PM, said:

its been said by many people for many years. after the cox/barlow era its a constant moan at saltergate.

i think the situation at rotherham explains why people think the board(s) over the years have "run scared" at the last min.

no your not thick, and unless your keyboard is in brialle your not blind

The Rotherham situation doesn't explain anything. The board are clearly prudent and wouldn't allow the club to get into a situation where they lose 140k a month no matter what league it was in. With the current regime in place, they could go up and whether they stay there or not the financial situation would improve. The board must realise that they're competent and that they've imposed some discipline, and they're clearly not idiots so I'm sure they must realise they'd make some money.

It's so painfully obvious to me, so I'd like to know why people think the board are stopping themselves from earning more money because I'd sooner believe that Fidel Castro is with the CIA than this.

[fishini]

Sparkys Dream, on Feb 10 2006, 10:00 PM, said:

Plus....the same thicko's keep forgetting one very important fact.....the board do not own the club! They are subsidising it currently, so surely in their best interest to get promoted and therefore increase the chances of not actually having to bail out a club which doesn't even have a good enough credit record to get an overdraft.

So why over the years have we fell at the last hurdle, seems to me only the fans really want promotion, if the Club and Board did then i assure you we would be thrashing teams like Hartlepool but no we get stupid ar*ehole tactics like tonight, they were so wrong they had to be planned

[lubic]

bookerandyb, on Feb 10 2006, 10:58 PM, said:

We would need a new ground if we went up so it would cost em too much, and better players with higher wages. Have we got that cash, 75k would have secured Clingan the best loan signing ever imo and we couldnt afford that!!

But they plan to have a new ground on League 1 finances and financial plans are no doubt being drawn up based on League 1 earnings projections - at least I hope they are otherwise they've taken leave of their senses. And they don't need a new ground anyway so that argument is wrong on two counts.

The management have secured upper League 1 standard players on a League 2 turnover so I'd give them a fair chance of assembling a decent squad on a tiny Championship budget. Spending power isn't everything.

Any more reasons?

[Wooden Spoon]

Paul, on Feb 10 2006, 10:01 PM, said:

The Rotherham situation doesn't explain anything. The board are clearly prudent and wouldn't allow the club to get into a situation where they lose 140k a month no matter what league it was in.

thats the point. it costs to go up and stay up. hence people say "we dont want to go up".

i would rather be in this division and have a financially secure club, than "gamble", or "show ambition". the club tried it before, and had to sell everything. duncan took over in the early/mid 80`s and had just 3 players on the books. its not worth the gamble. sure and steady progress within your means every time. that, to some is lack of ambition. that leads some to say the club dont want to go up.

[lubic]

fishini, on Feb 10 2006, 11:05 PM, said:

So why over the years have we fell at the last hurdle, seems to me only the fans really want promotion, if the Club and Board did then i assure you we would be thrashing teams like Hartlepool but no we get stupid ar*ehole tactics like tonight, they were so wrong they had to be planned

That's a really serious accusation you know - match fixing esentially. You haven't explained why this board - forget all the ones in past - would not want promotion. That's what you're saying and I just can't find any basis for it.

[fishini]

Paul, on Feb 10 2006, 10:07 PM, said:

That's a really serious accusation you know - match fixing esentially. You haven't explained why this board - forget all the ones in past - would not want promotion. That's what you're saying and I just can't find any basis for it.

but this board or most of it is from the past is it not? Match fixing never said that I said we don't want promotion and losing matches it the way to achieve it

[dalekpete]

bookerandyb, on Feb 10 2006, 09:58 PM, said:

We would need a new ground if we went up so it would cost em too much, and better players with higher wages. Have we got that cash, 75k would have secured Clingan the best loan signing ever imo and we couldnt afford that!!

We intend to get a new ground. If we go up, and I am committed to this happening, we will have a three year dispensation from ground changes- more if plans are in place.

Guaranteed extra income is £1.3m so we could treble the players budget- although we wouldn't!

It would be stupid not to aim for promotion if it could be done without risk!

[lubic]

death, on Feb 10 2006, 11:07 PM, said:

thats the point. it costs to go up and stay up. hence people say "we dont want to go up".

True. People are saying that it's the board that doesn't want to go up. Putting aside emotional attachment and assuming that they're purely interested in making money, they would stand to gain from one season up there before coming straight back down.

Rotherham were poorly managed and reckless. I think that this board would be capable of going up and making steady progress in a higher league. And they'd make more money too. I still reject the idea that the board wouldn't want promotion. People aren't annoyed because steady progress isn't the right policy or because stupid gambles haven't been taken - they're saying that the slow and steady policy is too successful but for me this is impossible.

[Jets Fan]

dalekpete, on Feb 10 2006, 10:14 PM, said:

We intend to get a new ground. If we go up, and I am committed to this happening, we will have a three year dispensation from ground changes- more if plans are in place.

Guaranteed extra income is £1.3m so we could treble the players budget- although we wouldn't!

It would be stupid not to aim for promotion if it could be done without risk!

But, if we did go up and started getting hammered week in week out attendance would surley decline losing cash??

[fishini]

dalekpete, on Feb 10 2006, 10:14 PM, said:

We intend to get a new ground. If we go up, and I am committed to this happening, we will have a three year dispensation from ground changes- more if plans are in place.

Guaranteed extra income is £1.3m so we could treble the players budget- although we wouldn't!

It would be stupid not to aim for promotion if it could be done without risk!

So why the defensive negative football worse than Duncan (our most sucessful manger or have you all forgotton?) at this moment

[lubic]

fishini, on Feb 10 2006, 11:11 PM, said:

but this board or most of it is from the past is it not? Match fixing never said that I said we don't want promotion and losing matches it the way to achieve it

Whether individuals are from the past I don't know but it's irrelevant. This board, as a whole in the current context, has no reason not to want promotion, does it? Even if they didn't care a jot about the fans, promotion would be in their own collective interests, wouldn't it? If not, why not? That's the answer I'm looking for. Not general accusations and mumblings about how 'that's how it's always been'.

And what are you saying if it's not match fixing? Either way it borders on libellous.

bookerandyb, on Feb 10 2006, 11:17 PM, said:

But, if we did go up and started getting hammered week in week out attendance would surley decline losing cash??

Home attendance, yes. Away, not at all. And which part of guaranteed 1.3 million extra is incomprehensible?

[dalekpete]

bookerandyb, on Feb 10 2006, 10:17 PM, said:

But, if we did go up and started getting hammered week in week out attendance would surley decline losing cash??

I would expect that extra season ticket holders and away fans would keep crowds up. However the extra guaranteed income would possibly exceed current gate income!

[Jets Fan]

dalekpete, on Feb 10 2006, 10:22 PM, said:

I would expect that extra season ticket holders and away fans would keep crowds up. However the extra guaranteed income would possibly exceed current gate income!

POSSIBLY? thats a risk?

[lubic]

bookerandyb, on Feb 10 2006, 11:26 PM, said:

POSSIBLY? thats a risk?

*Slaps forehead*

[Jets Fan]

Paul, on Feb 10 2006, 10:27 PM, said:

*Slaps forehead*

wot does?