Broken_hearted_canary

i wont pretend to know what your on aboot. However my argument does has several valid points.

We are hopeless, and have been since the last game of our premiership season. We are going down, will lose our saleable assets for naff all n stay down there.

Nort a blady charnce matey

No, just someone whose very disilusioned about the quality of fans on this board. People just seem to expect a magic investor to turn up and put things right, Even to the point that chase has positive posts!

Well it look like our fabulos board are having a hard time of it, with all the nasty fans being mean about them with no need for it. Lets hope ipswich make a go of it so there''s one anglian team in the top divisions. Unless fans can get on board with the board then thats the only way.

lets face it, were buggered

Beatties not done so bad tho has he, scored 3 (i think) including the winner Vs man city - thats 3 point that could be very very important.

Basically what we''d get from staying up in the premiership, only in a smaller measure. daft post imho

Pardon me for the 3 posts.

[quote user="crafty canary"][quote user="Broken_hearted_canary"][quote user="crafty canary"] You cut your costs to a level commensurate with your income. You stop speculating in land, pay player salaries that match their abilities and the results they achieve and you cut back on the plethora of off-field employees. For example why the need for a club secretary and a chief executive? Why are we paying more for off-field salaries than we are for the players? Ousting the trout would not bring the pack of cards crashing down around our ears. If the club was as well run as she likes to make out she wouldn''t need to put money in in the first place. [/quote] Cut player wages then we will not attract championship quality players, perhaps we will find a natural environment where we are financially stable in league 2? Are we paying more for off-field salaries than on field? As far as i understand our playing wage bill s 40% of turnover (correct me if im wrong please) so that means at least 80% of our costs are salaries? why the need for over paid, under performing, valueless players is more the question. [/quote] You seem confused. Either you agree that we should stop paying salaries that don''t reflect performance or you don''t. To disagree then agree within the same post is an extreme case of fence-sitting it would seem. [/quote] Not really, If we cut player wages we wont attract quality players - I''d call that a fair statement. Second statement is a seperate one - having over paid, valueless players such as carl robinson, andy Hughes, D Ward & P Gallagher and to an extent J Curo is what i dont like. Sorry can''t see how these two statements contradict each other.

[quote user="crafty canary"][quote user="Broken_hearted_canary"][quote user="crafty canary"] You cut your costs to a level commensurate with your income. You stop speculating in land, pay player salaries that match their abilities and the results they achieve and you cut back on the plethora of off-field employees. For example why the need for a club secretary and a chief executive? Why are we paying more for off-field salaries than we are for the players? Ousting the trout would not bring the pack of cards crashing down around our ears. If the club was as well run as she likes to make out she wouldn''t need to put money in in the first place. [/quote] Cut player wages then we will not attract championship quality players, perhaps we will find a natural environment where we are financially stable in league 2? Are we paying more for off-field salaries than on field? As far as i understand our playing wage bill s 40% of turnover (correct me if im wrong please) so that means at least 80% of our costs are salaries? why the need for over paid, under performing, valueless players is more the question. [/quote] You seem confused. Either you agree that we should stop paying salaries that don''t reflect performance or you don''t. To disagree then agree within the same post is an extreme case of fence-sitting it would seem. [/quote] Not really, If we cut player wages we wont attract quality players - I''d call that a fair statement. Second statement is a seperate one - having over paid, valueless players such as carl robinson, andy Hughes, D Ward & P Gallagher and to an extent J Curo is what i dont like. Sorry can''t see how these two statements contradict each other.  

[quote user="crafty canary"][quote user="Broken_hearted_canary"][quote user="crafty canary"] You cut your costs to a level commensurate with your income. You stop speculating in land, pay player salaries that match their abilities and the results they achieve and you cut back on the plethora of off-field employees. For example why the need for a club secretary and a chief executive? Why are we paying more for off-field salaries than we are for the players? Ousting the trout would not bring the pack of cards crashing down around our ears. If the club was as well run as she likes to make out she wouldn''t need to put money in in the first place. [/quote] Cut player wages then we will not attract championship quality players, perhaps we will find a natural environment where we are financially stable in league 2? Are we paying more for off-field salaries than on field? As far as i understand our playing wage bill s 40% of turnover (correct me if im wrong please) so that means at least 80% of our costs are salaries? why the need for over paid, under performing, valueless players is more the question. [/quote] You seem confused. Either you agree that we should stop paying salaries that don''t reflect performance or you don''t. To disagree then agree within the same post is an extreme case of fence-sitting it would seem. [/quote] Not really, If we cut player wages we wont attract quality players - I''d call that a fair statement. Second statement is a seperate one - having over paid, valueless players such as carl robinson, andy Hughes, D Ward & P Gallagher and to an extent J Curo is what i dont like. Sorry can''t see how these two statements contradict each other.

we''ll struggle with or without them

[quote user="1st Wizard"][quote user="Broken_hearted_canary"] Another delia smith? Another celeb whose brand brings in a significant amount of cash through her brand? don''t get me wrong i think there is many things wrong with the current management system at CR but if there was any sensible business guys out there surely they would want to invest in addition to keeping delia on board - she is a strong national brand in her own right. [/quote] And thats why, with that logic, we could well be non league in two seasons, won ''t happen? ask Oxford!. [/quote]   I''m sorry - where exactly have i said we will never be relegated under smith?

[quote user="crafty canary"] You cut your costs to a level commensurate with your income. You stop speculating in land, pay player salaries that match their abilities and the results they achieve and you cut back on the plethora of off-field employees. For example why the need for a club secretary and a chief executive? Why are we paying more for off-field salaries than we are for the players? Ousting the trout would not bring the pack of cards crashing down around our ears. If the club was as well run as she likes to make out she wouldn''t need to put money in in the first place. [/quote] Cut player wages then we will not attract championship quality players, perhaps we will find a natural environment where we are financially stable in league 2? Are we paying more for off-field salaries than on field? As far as i understand our playing wage bill s 40% of turnover (correct me if im wrong please) so that means at least 80% of our costs are salaries? why the need for over paid, under performing, valueless players is more the question.