a1canary 0 Posted March 23, 2009 Now that someone''s pointed out the seemingly disproportionate running costs of our club to others in this league, it makes me wonder about the Turners. We were led to believe part of their brief was to come in and leave no stone unturned in making us in to a mean, lean and trim organisation. Maybe the rest of the board didn''t agree with what they were proposing in order to do this and so they left. The board had better sort this out pronto because people will not accept a club with fan base like ours not being able to compete financially with clubs that get half our gates. That''s a joke. You have to wonder also what Doomcaster''s motivation was for laying our accounts bare to the press like he did. Maybe he was on the side of the Turners and wants everyone to know what a fat, lazy and inefficient operation we have become!? Because that''s how it looks! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shefcanary 2,955 Posted March 23, 2009 errh I think you''ll find that the only significant cost reductions they identified were in players wages - but that because the chances of any other club reducing their players wage bill they couldn''t force through the changes that were required. They did in fact introduce marketing cutbacks and this lead to Cullen''s departure to MK Dons - note that the Club has not replaced him subsequently thus making even further cost savings. In my opinion the loss of a strong marketting guy is the most serious risk to future progression of the club, even if we get relegated this year! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Desert Fox 0 Posted March 23, 2009 Shefcanary,I am no supporter of this board, but I was not aware that either of your statements are backed up by statements in the public domain. So you are either guessing, have inside information or I have missed the statements discussing these. So where did you get this information? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
venta icenorum 0 Posted March 23, 2009 [quote user="shefcanary"]errh I think you''ll find that the only significant cost reductions they identified were in players wages - but that because the chances of any other club reducing their players wage bill they couldn''t force through the changes that were required. They did in fact introduce marketing cutbacks and this lead to Cullen''s departure to MK Dons - note that the Club has not replaced him subsequently thus making even further cost savings. In my opinion the loss of a strong marketting guy is the most serious risk to future progression of the club, even if we get relegated this year![/quote]Did Terry Postle ever get replaced, or was that further cost-cutting? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shyster 0 Posted March 23, 2009 [quote user="shefcanary"]errh I think you''ll find that the only significant cost reductions they identified were in players wages - but that because the chances of any other club reducing their players wage bill they couldn''t force through the changes that were required. They did in fact introduce marketing cutbacks and this lead to Cullen''s departure to MK Dons - note that the Club has not replaced him subsequently thus making even further cost savings. In my opinion the loss of a strong marketting guy is the most serious risk to future progression of the club, even if we get relegated this year![/quote]Why do you insist on defending the undefendable? It''s as though you''re blind or totally oblivious to any given facts; or maybe you''re simply ignorant?People like you are why this country, let alone NCFC, is in such a sorry state. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Robert Ketts Yellow Army 35 Posted March 24, 2009 [quote user="a1canary"]Now that someone''s pointed out the seemingly disproportionate running costs of our club to others in this league, it makes me wonder about the Turners. We were led to believe part of their brief was to come in and leave no stone unturned in making us in to a mean, lean and trim organisation. Maybe the rest of the board didn''t agree with what they were proposing in order to do this and so they left. The board had better sort this out pronto because people will not accept a club with fan base like ours not being able to compete financially with clubs that get half our gates. That''s a joke. You have to wonder also what Doomcaster''s motivation was for laying our accounts bare to the press like he did. Maybe he was on the side of the Turners and wants everyone to know what a fat, lazy and inefficient operation we have become!? Because that''s how it looks![/quote] Send in the cost-cutters! Slash and burn! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rjwc22 0 Posted March 24, 2009 I hear the Fred the shred is looking for work if we want a proven cost cutter.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chunky Norwich 0 Posted March 24, 2009 [quote user="a1canary"]Now that someone''s pointed out the seemingly disproportionate running costs of our club to others in this league, it makes me wonder about the Turners. We were led to believe part of their brief was to come in and leave no stone unturned in making us in to a mean, lean and trim organisation. Maybe the rest of the board didn''t agree with what they were proposing in order to do this and so they left. The board had better sort this out pronto because people will not accept a club with fan base like ours not being able to compete financially with clubs that get half our gates. That''s a joke. You have to wonder also what Doomcaster''s motivation was for laying our accounts bare to the press like he did. Maybe he was on the side of the Turners and wants everyone to know what a fat, lazy and inefficient operation we have become!? Because that''s how it looks![/quote]The boys with flat-caps, little old ladies with thermos flasks and bored six-year-olds will. Unfortunately for us - because I agree with you - that''s probably three-quarters of our ground Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
