ncfcstar

Definitely Juninho.

I don't know anyone who goes on work trips and spends their whole time working, what a sad life that would be.

No it wasn't, were you in the stadium for the Leeds game? The game where Farke had completely given up any sense of the football we'd previously played under him? The fans had turned on Farke and this revisionism that persists around his dismissal is really quite silly.

To be fair to Zoe, and the board, from the discussions I've had with her I think they are doing all they can to get the 'new stand' into a position where it can be built once the funding (and demand) is there. Not necessarily a kicking of the can, and you could easily question the plausibility of building the stand when you look at attendances in the last 18 months.

In this interests of transparency, would you be willing to share how the Trust voted @GMF?

I'd say last night's projection makes that pretty obvious.

Agree with the sentiment of your post, although I take issue with @Ren's dig at the club. We've never been in administration so it's not a case of going into administration 'again'. Again I go back to my previous post where people will do anything they can to bash Delia, who from the looks of it is doing all she can to help the club without making a fortune for herself. But you are right, the self funding model only really provides success in very serendipitous scenarios, of which we have benefited from on a few occasions recently. In most scenarios you end up treading water, or slowly declining as other clubs increase their financial clout beyond yours. This is why, if we want to compete in the top 26 of English clubs, we need this outside investment. Without it there are just too many ducks that need to line up perfectly in order to see success.

Some of the posts here are ridiculous in their conspiratorial tone. If Delia decided to hand over her shares to MA for 1p someone somewhere would find something suspicious about it. Maybe, just maybe, Delia has tried her best and just wants the best outcome for the club and the supporters? I know that might be hard for some to swallow. I hope shareholders vote for the waiver, and I look forward to seeing what MA brings to the table once he has a 'dual control' of the club alongside Delia and Michael.

Barnsley sold at a time when investors were buying up clubs along the proposed HS2 route.

This isn't even a debate for me, you can easily separate the commercial running of the club i.e. CEO role from the footballing side of the club i.e. Sporting Director. This is how it should be, it's just that in England we have some weird obsession with everyone in football being involved in all the decisions. CEO's should be overseeing the operation and budgeting of the club, and leaving the footballing decisions to a Sporting Director, their team, and the Head Coach.

There is a distinct difference (imo) from being a Sporting Director, and being involved in player recruitment which knowing Cullen's background I would assume is more from the financial side rather than strategy and 'data'. If the club is rejigging the function of certain roles then fine, but I would suggest that Cullen would be more suited to Zoe Webber's role than Stuart's. To be honest I'd be very disappointed if the club decide to throw the SD role in the bin just because one person is moving on. It's a specialist role and not the role of someone who has just been 'involved' in player recruitment previously.

I don't disagree with any of that, but the money is the big difference between us and Brighton. If we'd have been promoted with access to the kind of finances that Brighton (and Bloom's sworn enemy at Brentford) have then I'm certain we'd have been able to compete and build in a similar fashion to them. The finances enable them to have the strategy you've laid out, and to succeed with it.

I like the principle but there is just no chance the club would throw away revenue like that when you can release 3 kits every season, and you can almost guarantee the same people will buy them.

The economics of that in comparison to what they currently do just wouldn't work. Say you get 100 people who buy the kit today @ £55. Perhaps if you go for a 2 year kit @ £65, 150 people buy today. You'd still see the same tailing off in sales over the year, but it would be a longer, slower, painful death towards month 24 in the second scenario. What they currently do guarantees (unless something out of the ordinary happens) that you get a nice hit of revenue every July.

We're very very lucky that we have Lotus as the sponsor, as anything else on that shirt would make a bad kit 100 times worse. IMO we've hit the jackpot when it comes to branding on the shirt as it makes any design possible - this though it a miss unlike the fantastic home shirt last season.