Investment

[TIL 1010 4,748]

Wiz you are confused as the meeting at the Labour Club was a forum with Martin O''Neil not an anti Chase protest. Jimmy Jones was not at that meeting but was at the St Andrews Hall gathering when the platform was Roy, Jimmy Jones,Harry Serruys and Derek Wood a former Lord Mayor. I accept you may well have been on a walking stick and not in a wheelchair but you always make great play on here of being wheelchair bound so i made an assumption on that.

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="Wiz"][quote user="Wiz"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Wiz"][quote user="lappinitup"]Are you now saying it was a mistake to get him out Wiz? Do you think he would have turned it round? [/quote] Who knows Lapps, the general opinion at protest meetings I went to suggested no.[/quote]That was never going to happen Wiz as Barclays Bank were about to claim the keys to Carrow Road due to short term unsecured loans being called in. That was when Geoffrey Watling stepped in and bought Chase out and thereby saving the club from such action. You may ask how i know and what i know is that Barclays had put plod on notice of what was about to happen in order to have a presence available should Watling have not been able to prevent it happening.[/quote]Forgot to mention those protest meetings you claim to have attended Wiz. Having been involved in the old NCISA from day one i recall the very first meeting at my old Pub on Silver Road,a meeting at Lakenham Leisure on Cricket Ground Road, one organised by Mike Lloyds City First at The Waterfront who subsequently came on board with NCISA and of course the meeting at St Andrews Hall. Can you refresh my memory as to which one you were at as i only remember one disabled fan in a wheelchair and that was dear old Keith Roads at any of these ''protest meetings'' ?[/quote]

St Andrews Hall Til and I used a walking stick for that meet, plus at a Labour Party hall? in the City when Mr Jones attended....I was interviewed on Anglia TV for that one![/quote]

PS. Blowers chaired St Andrews Hall, Harry S .........was two sheets to the west ............and it was muted that'' Mike Walker could return......lardy Cambridge spoke .

Didn''t see you though![/quote]

Wiz, let''s cut to the chase.

Hardly anybody cares, and the ones who do care don''t believe you.

[TIL 1010 4,748]

[quote user="morty"]Match up how many times we have lost out on players, to how many times we have publically outbid another club for a player for a player that they genuinely want.Of course its money. I doubt many clubs are shaking in their boots at the financial might of Norwich City.[/quote]Nonsense Morty as that is something we never do. Whenever have we conducted our transfers in public ? Just to say also about chucking a few more million quid at our transfer policy which you said in another post how about two players who we were connected with over the summer and some fans questioned our ability to attract them here was 1) Van Dijk who according to AN who two of our mates were talking to on saturday night in a bar wanted a ridiculous contract and wage demands and 2) Charlie Austin who''s knees are apparently shot to bits. Now with regard to Van Dijk should we risk another RVW scenario with a long contract and break our wage structure iand he flops and with Austin buy someone who might be another sicknote ? It is a damned if you do and a damned if we don''t situation but i for one trust the judgement of AN and the CEO. Of course they might get it wrong on the odd occasion but who has never made a mistake ?

[morty 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="morty"]Match up how many times we have lost out on players, to how many times we have publically outbid another club for a player for a player that they genuinely want.Of course its money. I doubt many clubs are shaking in their boots at the financial might of Norwich City.[/quote]Nonsense Morty as that is something we never do. Whenever have we conducted our transfers in public ? Just to say also about chucking a few more million quid at our transfer policy which you said in another post how about two players who we were connected with over the summer and some fans questioned our ability to attract them here was 1) Van Dijk who according to AN who two of our mates were talking to on saturday night in a bar wanted a ridiculous contract and wage demands and 2) Charlie Austin who''s knees are apparently shot to bits. Now with regard to Van Dijk should we risk another RVW scenario with a long contract and break our wage structure iand he flops and with Austin buy someone who might be another sicknote ? It is a damned if you do and a damned if we don''t situation but i for one trust the judgement of AN and the CEO. Of course they might get it wrong on the odd occasion but who has never made a mistake ?[/quote]I trust them too.But they need to be self aware to the wider football world, and they need to learn the mistakes of the past.

[nutty nigel 7,536]

Morty, are you now saying that nobody else wanted any of our players? Seriously? Like we didn''t have to outbid others and they signed for us out of pity or something?

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="morty"]Yes Purple, our strict wage structure was what I was talking about.Which I get the reasons for.But as pointed out previously, its all very well and good ploughing this moral crusade for financial good housekeeping, but this game has long since been a level playing field.I had high hopes for FFP, I really did, but it looks like clubs have made a nonsense of it.If we''re not careful our reward for taking a stand and being well run, could be relegation.And just to point out, I am 100% behind the board, players and management, this isn''t dissent. But its concern.[/quote]That is a very stupid thing to say, morty.* The directors are not crusading for anything. They are just not following the example of so many other clubs by spending their way into serious and long-term trouble. Of course the playing field is not level, but that is no argument for risking administration. And as my statistics (which you have ignored, since they don''t help your case but do mine) show, we actually have been in mid-table in terms of spending what we can afford, striking a balance between prudence and ambition.*I have very belatedly come round to your view, that if a poster says something really idiotic they should be told so in uncompromising language. I am sure you will appreciate having converted me.

[Jacko 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Yes Jacko, I fully understand what you and Morty are saying. But where is the evidence that supports this? As Purple says our boards policy of running the club "as a mutual" puts our spending in real terms above many other clubs. The intention tospend everything available is proved in the accounts. The only alternative is to spend money we don''t have. Is that what you are aspiring to?[/quote]

What evidence is there to support the fact we have spent all our money available this season already though Nigel?

Even taking into account increased wages and costs across the board, a net spend of 3-4 million would suggest that we haven''t done that yet this season. I would venture to suggest? Particularly when we were chucking around bids for the likes of Gayle and Naismith on transfer deadline day.

There is clearly money available and it does make you wonder whether that could have been used to push the boat out to acquire a top class defender - which we blatantly need. You look at the difference Brady has made to us (in an area we desperately short in) and you just wonder what a signing of that ilk in defence could have done for us as well.

As LDC says, none of us want rubbish here for the sake of it and if people don''t want to come for other reasons aside from financial ones then fair enough - you can''t sign what isn''t there as he''s correctly said. But we''re perfectly entitled to ask the question.

We''re not hammering the board at all. In fact, I''ve praised their performance in comparison to many of our contemporaries on this very thread. I''m just suggesting that we just need that extra bit of quality in an area we are desperately short in to help get us over the line this season. You just wonder whether that additional bit of finance could have sealed the deal for us.

I don''t think that equates to financial meltdown as you seem to be implying. You''re last question is also daft because Morty and I have said on several occasions we don''t want to see this club screwed financially.

[Wiz 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]Wiz you are confused as the meeting at the Labour Club was a forum with Martin O''Neil not an anti Chase protest. Jimmy Jones was not at that meeting but was at the St Andrews Hall gathering when the platform was Roy, Jimmy Jones,Harry Serruys and Derek Wood a former Lord Mayor. I accept you may well have been on a walking stick and not in a wheelchair but you always make great play on here of being wheelchair bound so i made an assumption on that.[/quote]

Sorry Til , but I did see Mr Jones at a gathering of anti Chase supporters in the City at a hall off St Giles St/Rd, I thought it was at a Labour Party hall.

I can''t back down on something I know happened.

And these days the chair is a permanent fixture......I should have made that clear to you.

[morty 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="morty"]Yes Purple, our strict wage structure was what I was talking about.Which I get the reasons for.But as pointed out previously, its all very well and good ploughing this moral crusade for financial good housekeeping, but this game has long since been a level playing field.I had high hopes for FFP, I really did, but it looks like clubs have made a nonsense of it.If we''re not careful our reward for taking a stand and being well run, could be relegation.And just to point out, I am 100% behind the board, players and management, this isn''t dissent. But its concern.[/quote]That is a very stupid thing to say, morty.* The directors are not crusading for anything. They are just not following the example of so many other clubs by spending their way into serious and long-term trouble. Of course the playing field is not level, but that is no argument for risking administration. And as my statistics (which you have ignored, since they don''t help your case but do mine) show, we actually have been in mid-table in terms of spending what we can afford, striking a balance between prudence and ambition.*I have very belatedly come round to your view, that if a poster says something really idiotic they should be told so in uncompromising language. I am sure you will appreciate having converted me.[/quote]There is a middle ground to be had here Purple, credit me with more intelligence than people advocating "Spend spend spend" please.We are not hovering near financial ruin, and no one is advocating risking financial ruin.The prudence formula needs to be changed slightly.

[Jacko 0]

Exactly, this isn''t a Watford style trolly dash were asking for. There is clearly one position we are short in and it could really cost us. Is it unreasonable to ask us to push the boat out in that one position when it could make all the difference in the final reckoning?

The board are doing an excellent job. You just wonder whether we need to tinker the formula slightly.

[Mello Yello 2,294]

I see that Tony Fernandes and fellow QPR owners have written off £180 million of loans.......Money to burn......We certainly dodged a bullet there when he was shown around the club by our current CEO a few years back.....

 

Have we paid our current ''Donating Directors'' their loans back.....and did they claim interest on them?

[morty 0]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

I see that Tony Fernandes and fellow QPR owners have written off £180 million of loans.......Money to burn......We certainly dodged a bullet there when he was shown around the club by our current CEO a few years back.....

 

Have we paid our current ''Donating Directors'' their loans back.....and did they claim interest on them?

[/quote]Lol, whilst I see what you are saying re QPR, can you not see how that really isn''t supporting the point you are trying to make?

[nutty nigel 7,536]

[quote user="Jacko"][quote user="nutty nigel"]Yes Jacko, I fully understand what you and Morty are saying. But where is the evidence that supports this? As Purple says our boards policy of running the club "as a mutual" puts our spending in real terms above many other clubs. The intention tospend everything available is proved in the accounts. The only alternative is to spend money we don''t have. Is that what you are aspiring to?[/quote]

What evidence is there to support the fact we have spent all our money available this season already though Nigel?

Even taking into account increased wages and costs across the board, a net spend of 3-4 million would suggest that we haven''t done that yet this season. I would venture to suggest? Particularly when we were chucking around bids for the likes of Gayle and Naismith on transfer deadline day.

There is clearly money available and it does make you wonder whether that could have been used to push the boat out to acquire a top class defender - which we blatantly need. You look at the difference Brady has made to us (in an area we desperately short in) and you just wonder what a signing of that ilk in defence could have done for us as well.

As LDC says, none of us want rubbish here for the sake of it and if people don''t want to come for other reasons aside from financial ones then fair enough - you can''t sign what isn''t there as he''s correctly said. But we''re perfectly entitled to ask the question.

We''re not hammering the board at all. In fact, I''ve praised their performance in comparison to many of our contemporaries on this very thread. I''m just suggesting that we just need that extra bit of quality in an area we are desperately short in to help get us over the line this season. You just wonder whether that additional bit of finance could have sealed the deal for us.

I don''t think that equates to financial meltdown as you seem to be implying. You''re last question is also daft because Morty and I have said on several occasions we don''t want to see this club screwed financially.[/quote]

 

I don''t think we did spend all our money. I don''t think anybody does. I would imagine we missed our targets. So the alternative would have been to spend the money on just anybody so long as its spent. But I don''t know this. If we held back the money for other reasons rest assured it will come out.

 

The interesting evidence of the boards policy is in the link Morty provided which shows the percentage of urnover our wages were. That kind of disproves his purpose for the link but hey ho...

 

Purple - If we''d stayed up and those bonuses we allowed for were paid would that have increased the 57%?

 

 

[Mello Yello 2,294]

What point?

[Highland Canary 76]

The derogation of FFP, and the riches of the new television deals, has fundamentally changed the landscape in favour of clubs with rich owners. Our farcical summer transfer window only goes to illustrate the limitations of our finances in attracting the quality of player necessary to retain our PL status. Indeed, following relegation, the ability of clubs without rich owners to have any chance of returning to the PL will be further impaired. In this context, our CEO''s ''strategic wheel'' will be most interesting, once again, at the AGM.

[morty 0]

The link is two years old NN.No one is proposing we spend the money "just for the sake of it"We all agree we would like to have seen strengthening at CB, and that buying in the summer was a better idea than leaving it till January.No one is advocating stupid spending leading to financial ruin.We bid on players, and we didn''t get them, the most likely reason being that we didn''t offer them enough wages. We are in a very, very stable financial position, it would not have been out of the question to relax the wage policy slightly, to give us a better chance of survival, which in turn increases our financial stability.Yup, I think that about covers it.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

What point?

[/quote]I assume you are trying to imply we should have had Tony Fernandes here.Yes, he is rich, but I would hardly point to his stewardship of QPR as some kind of success story....

[nutty nigel 7,536]

The link is the season we got relegated. That is the last full season we had in the EPL. A newer link wouldn''t be relevant.

 

Your most likely reason would mean it most likely that our other PL players signed for less than they could get elsewhere. Maybe out of pity?

 

Morty, it''s your point of view that the board are too prudent. If you want to leave it there then I''m happy to do so. If you want to debate what brings you to that conclusion I''m happy to do that too. But in order for that to happen you are going to have to discuss the figures on the link you provided.

 

 

[Jacko 0]

As I''ve said (on at least 3 occasions now) Nutty we don''t want to sign players for the sake of it but I was illustrating the fact that we didn''t spend the budget in the summer and therefore pushing the boat for a centre half does not equate to financial ruin or destitution. No one wants that. Chase nearly took us there and it was awful.

As I also said earlier if we got turned down for other reasons then fair enough. We can''t do anything about that and you can''t sign what is not there. But I think as supporters we entitled to ask the question? Could that little bit extra financial incentive have made the difference in a key area the pitch that we are evidently short in?

I''ll say it again. The board are doing brilliantly and we''ve out performed the Forests, Ipswichs, Derbys and Cardiffs of this world consistently in the last 6 years. But you just wonder whether we need to tweak the strategy slightly to make us competitive at this level.

For avoidance of doubt, we''re talking about one specific position area n the pitch in which we are weak that clearly needs improving. Not wholesale Qpr or Watford style buying.

[nutty nigel 7,536]

We''re in total agreement Jacko. I too would be very disappointed if we hadn''t done everyuthing we could to strengthen.

 

Where I differ from you and Morty is in the premise that the board were probably being too prudent because they had been too prudent in the past. The evidence doesn''t support that point of view.

 

[Mello Yello 2,294]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Mello Yello"]

What point?

[/quote]

I assume you are trying to imply we should have had Tony Fernandes here.

Yes, he is rich, but I would hardly point to his stewardship of QPR as some kind of success story....
[/quote]

 

Oh, you mean like a role reversal? Y''know, like that chap Paul Lambert was a success here at Carra but a failure at Villa.....and Torres was a goal machine at Liverpool and a meandering ballboy at Chelski.....etc.....etc.....

 

Yeah, in hindsight Mr Air Asia and his dosh could have destroyed this club - so just maybe - we are most fortunate that he preferred to go to Laaaandaaaan and pump his Wonga into a lego-size stadium......We may be playing them again next season if we aren''t too careful.......Mind you, it''s well documented that Mr Mac was certainly keen to have him on board at the time when Mr F was at Hethersett and in the ''Lotus position''.....Maybe some people at the top of Carra.......weren''t so keen?......Wonder why? I guess we''ll never know.....

[morty 0]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="morty"][quote user="Mello Yello"]

What point?

[/quote]I assume you are trying to imply we should have had Tony Fernandes here.Yes, he is rich, but I would hardly point to his stewardship of QPR as some kind of success story....[/quote]

 

Oh, you mean like a role reversal? Y''know, like that chap Paul Lambert was a success here at Carra but a failure at Villa.....and Torres was a goal machine at Liverpool and a meandering ballboy at Chelski.....etc.....etc.....

 

Yeah, in hindsight Mr Air Asia and his dosh could have destroyed this club - so just maybe - we are most fortunate that he preferred to go to Laaaandaaaan and pump his Wonga into a lego-size stadium......We may be playing them again next season if we aren''t too careful.......Mind you, it''s well documented that Mr Mac was certainly keen to have him on board at the time when Mr F was at Hethersett and in the ''Lotus position''.....Maybe some people at the top of Carra.......weren''t so keen?......Wonder why? I guess we''ll never know.....

[/quote]Well, yes we do know.He wanted majority ownership and 100% control. Looked like that was a pretty good call in the end, eh?

[Jacko 0]

Nutty, if you are referring to the Ashton example that was just being done to illustrate a point. I wouldn''t get too wedded to it for the purposes of this debate.

What the example shows was that it was the area in which we were blatantly weak in 2004 (we were playing Gary Doherty there) and it was the main reason that we went down.

We didn''t have the money to buy Ashton in that summer window. That''s fair enough, we can''t spend what we haven''t got and I wouldn''t criticise the board for that decision we made.

What we can learn from that though (now we do have money available) is that sometimes you identify critical moments where exceptional expenditure is necessary - if you have the money, which I believe we do now.

We face an almost analgaous situation in which there is one area of the squad which is a clear weakness - namely central defence/right back. Only this time we do have the finance and we don''t necessary have to make do and mend.

Is it unreasonable to ask whether we could push the boat out to sign that one player (effectively the Robbie Brady of centre backs) who could make all the difference to us? If that player doesn''t exist then fair enough but it''s perfectly reasonable to ask the question.

[morty 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

We''re in total agreement Jacko. I too would be very disappointed if we hadn''t done everyuthing we could to strengthen.

 

Where I differ from you and Morty is in the premise that the board were probably being too prudent because they had been too prudent in the past. The evidence doesn''t support that point of view.

 

[/quote]The link was to illustrate profit and loss when discussing investors, not to illustrate prudence. Yes they did spend a lot of money that season, I haven''t said otherwise anywhere, have I? But they spent it pretty badly.There is no right or wrong here, and which point of view is more correct will only be proven in hindsight. If you know me at all then you will know that I really hope I am proven wrong in this case, and that if I''m not, I certainly won''t be crowing about it. But I don''t recall seeing anyone overjoyed about what we spent in the summer. A perfectly reasonable point of view and nothing to do with "Waaah wahhhh, they hint showing no hambishun"

[nutty nigel 7,536]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

We''re in total agreement Jacko. I too would be very disappointed if we hadn''t done everyuthing we could to strengthen.

 

Where I differ from you and Morty is in the premise that the board were probably being too prudent because they had been too prudent in the past. The evidence doesn''t support that point of view.

 

[/quote]The link was to illustrate profit and loss when discussing investors, not to illustrate prudence. Yes they did spend a lot of money that season, I haven''t said otherwise anywhere, have I? But they spent it pretty badly.There is no right or wrong here, and which point of view is more correct will only be proven in hindsight. If you know me at all then you will know that I really hope I am proven wrong in this case, and that if I''m not, I certainly won''t be crowing about it. But I don''t recall seeing anyone overjoyed about what we spent in the summer. A perfectly reasonable point of view and nothing to do with "Waaah wahhhh, they hint showing no hambishun"[/quote]

 

That isn''t what you''ve been saying throughout the thread. You have been saying the reason we didn''t sign more players was because the board was being too prudent and replicating mistakes they''d made in the past. You were saying that players won''t sign for us because we''re not competitive with wages. All the evidence suggests we are as competitive as we can be.

 

 

[morty 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="morty"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

We''re in total agreement Jacko. I too would be very disappointed if we hadn''t done everyuthing we could to strengthen.

 

Where I differ from you and Morty is in the premise that the board were probably being too prudent because they had been too prudent in the past. The evidence doesn''t support that point of view.

 

[/quote]The link was to illustrate profit and loss when discussing investors, not to illustrate prudence. Yes they did spend a lot of money that season, I haven''t said otherwise anywhere, have I? But they spent it pretty badly.There is no right or wrong here, and which point of view is more correct will only be proven in hindsight. If you know me at all then you will know that I really hope I am proven wrong in this case, and that if I''m not, I certainly won''t be crowing about it. But I don''t recall seeing anyone overjoyed about what we spent in the summer. A perfectly reasonable point of view and nothing to do with "Waaah wahhhh, they hint showing no hambishun"[/quote]

 

That isn''t what you''ve been saying throughout the thread. You have been saying the reason we didn''t sign more players was because the board was being too prudent and replicating mistakes they''d made in the past. You were saying that players won''t sign for us because we''re not competitive with wages. All the evidence suggests we are as competitive as we can be.

 

 

[/quote]What evidence is that exactly?

[nutty nigel 7,536]

[quote user="Jacko"]Nutty, if you are referring to the Ashton example that was just being done to illustrate a point. I wouldn''t get too wedded to it for the purposes of this debate.

What the example shows was that it was the area in which we were blatantly weak in 2004 (we were playing Gary Doherty there) and it was the main reason that we went down.

We didn''t have the money to buy Ashton in that summer window. That''s fair enough, we can''t spend what we haven''t got and I wouldn''t criticise the board for that decision we made.

What we can learn from that though (now we do have money available) is that sometimes you identify critical moments where exceptional expenditure is necessary - if you have the money, which I believe we do now.

We face an almost analgaous situation in which there is one area of the squad which is a clear weakness - namely central defence/right back. Only this time we do have the finance and we don''t necessary have to make do and mend.

Is it unreasonable to ask whether we could push the boat out to sign that one player (effectively the Robbie Brady of centre backs) who could make all the difference to us? If that player doesn''t exist then fair enough but it''s perfectly reasonable to ask the question.[/quote]

 

Central defence is the issue for me buddy. I think we''re quite well covered at fullback and the last few weeks have shown we have the personnel to play a variety of different formations of those full backs. But we are woefully short at CB. Whatever people may believe we are one quality centreback short. Ancouple of injuries/suspensions would bring that home for any doubters. But we were short there last season too even though we had centrebacks coming out of our ears. This just goes to show that numbers won''t mean improvement.

 

My only issue here is the belief that the reason we didn''t sign anyone was prudence and that we''re not competitive with wages. The facts that are available do not support this view.

 

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,536]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="morty"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

We''re in total agreement Jacko. I too would be very disappointed if we hadn''t done everyuthing we could to strengthen.

 

Where I differ from you and Morty is in the premise that the board were probably being too prudent because they had been too prudent in the past. The evidence doesn''t support that point of view.

 

[/quote]The link was to illustrate profit and loss when discussing investors, not to illustrate prudence. Yes they did spend a lot of money that season, I haven''t said otherwise anywhere, have I? But they spent it pretty badly.There is no right or wrong here, and which point of view is more correct will only be proven in hindsight. If you know me at all then you will know that I really hope I am proven wrong in this case, and that if I''m not, I certainly won''t be crowing about it. But I don''t recall seeing anyone overjoyed about what we spent in the summer. A perfectly reasonable point of view and nothing to do with "Waaah wahhhh, they hint showing no hambishun"[/quote]

 

That isn''t what you''ve been saying throughout the thread. You have been saying the reason we didn''t sign more players was because the board was being too prudent and replicating mistakes they''d made in the past. You were saying that players won''t sign for us because we''re not competitive with wages. All the evidence suggests we are as competitive as we can be.

 

 

[/quote]What evidence is that exactly?[/quote]

Your link.

[nutty nigel 7,536]

And our balance sheets.

[morty 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="morty"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="morty"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

We''re in total agreement Jacko. I too would be very disappointed if we hadn''t done everyuthing we could to strengthen.

 

Where I differ from you and Morty is in the premise that the board were probably being too prudent because they had been too prudent in the past. The evidence doesn''t support that point of view.

 

[/quote]The link was to illustrate profit and loss when discussing investors, not to illustrate prudence. Yes they did spend a lot of money that season, I haven''t said otherwise anywhere, have I? But they spent it pretty badly.There is no right or wrong here, and which point of view is more correct will only be proven in hindsight. If you know me at all then you will know that I really hope I am proven wrong in this case, and that if I''m not, I certainly won''t be crowing about it. But I don''t recall seeing anyone overjoyed about what we spent in the summer. A perfectly reasonable point of view and nothing to do with "Waaah wahhhh, they hint showing no hambishun"[/quote]

 

That isn''t what you''ve been saying throughout the thread. You have been saying the reason we didn''t sign more players was because the board was being too prudent and replicating mistakes they''d made in the past. You were saying that players won''t sign for us because we''re not competitive with wages. All the evidence suggests we are as competitive as we can be.

 

 

[/quote]What evidence is that exactly?[/quote]

Your link.

[/quote]A link that sets out what happened two seasons ago? I would call that no evidence whatsoever of what may, or may have not happened this summer.