Martin Lawrence
Well-known Exeweb poster
Best post I have read in ages .TBF The facebook generation are always in meltdown about something.
Best post I have read in ages .TBF The facebook generation are always in meltdown about something.
Are you aware of the likely effects of no crowd at SJP on matchdays for the foreseeable on our income ? If so then you hopefully understand the need to use windfall to support club through Covid rather than splash the cash like a 'Sugar Daddy' would.As a club I don't want to hear we don't have any money, don't have a sugar daddy etc etc for a long time.
We now have plenty of cash relative to the level we are at, how we choose to spend that cash is down to those in charge.
Let's move on from the little old Exeter City, we don't have a pot to p!$$ in vibe.
You don't seem to be able to read.Are you aware of the likely effects of no crowd at SJP on matchdays for the foreseeable on our income ? If so then you hopefully understand the need to use windfall to support club through Covid rather than splash the cash like a 'Sugar Daddy' would.
Our 'Sugar Daddy' remains our academy which occasionally gives us a windfall to survive / improve - all we can order is a pot with the size to be determined post Covid.
UTC
All of them bar about 3.You don't seem to be able to read.
I never said we should splash the cash.
Every league 1 / 2 club is in the same boat regarding no crowds etc, name the clubs in league 2 who have a sugar daddy pumping shed loads of cash in at the moment. I cannot see many.
Nonsense.All of them bar about 3.
Name the league 2 clubs where a sugar daddy has pumped in shed loads of cash this summer.All of them bar about 3.
1 | Barrow | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | Bolton | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
3 | Bradford | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
4 | Cambridge | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
5 | Carlisle | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
6 | Cheltenham | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
7 | Colchester | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
8 | Crawley | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
9 | Exeter | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
10 | Forest Green | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
11 | Grimsby | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
12 | Harrogate | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
13 | Leyton Orient | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
14 | Mansfield | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
15 | Morecambe | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
16 | Newport | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
17 | Oldham | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
18 | Port Vale | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
19 | Salford | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
20 | Scunthorpe | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
21 | Southend | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
22 | Stevenage | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
23 | Tranmere | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
24 | Walsall | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Which three?All of them bar about 3.
No it is not. If you analyse the accounts posted at Companies House for clubs in our division, they show that most clubs at our level lose between 500k an 2 million. As the majority do not bring in the level of transfer income that we do, the losses are being picked up by owners and boards. Covering these losses allows these clubs to continue spending at a level that is arguably not sustainable. It is this and a lack of effective regulatory governance that is creating an uneven playing field.Nonsense.