gazza77

They're sent out just before the season starts, every year. As you say, no need to panic.

This is my thought of the actual situation, combined with a lack of transparency in the press releases.

I'd agree it was time for a fresh start playing wise. The unanswered question is why we've less money that last year to spend, when the club was apparently not dependant on any benefactors.

I've never squared that one off either. I get paying less on playing squad if the intention is to invest elsewhere, and the logic in not spending what we haven't got. What doesn't make sense is the cutting of costs because individuals don't want to (or can't afford to) keep putting their hand in their pockets, when as you say we were supposedly self sufficient meaning that no-one was doing that. No way of knowing of course, but I'd suspect it's that we weren't as self sufficient as proclaimed last season.

IMG benefit. Why boost crowd numbers to improve competitors scores.

I'm not too concerned about the lack of signings at present, we've been here before and it's worked out ok. Plus it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out why the plan has changed, why we're reducing spend and why we're late to market. What I would like to see however is what the longer term plan is, now the dust has settled on last season. We know we need to improve on the IMG scores, so where are we targeting?

If you read back to the start of the thread, you'll see it started with a note that their is a new charge against the club registered at companies house. As for the other elements, who knows. You'll need to wait for the accounts to see what is owed, and interest rate is unlikely to be published anywhere.

Cornwall are excluded because too many clubs refused to go there. Shouldn't be their decision.

You'd assume Ellis has also signed up for 2024 now.

How much did he weigh though?

The clubs probably get the into in advance of general publication.

Season tickets are usually sent out shortly before the season starts. It's the same every year.

I'd agree. The purpose of this loan is probably less clear however, as iirc the one you reference was intended to support progressing ground development, specifically the use of the land to become revenue generating.

I can't say for sure, but unusual to agree to a charge against an asset without some benefit in return, usually financial.

If it was personal finance, the equivalent is broadly the same as the charge a bank has over your house, IE a mortgage.

Longstaff?

You don't have to like the rules to play to them.

Old Trafford?

We're signing allsorts?

Once upon a time, we always used to have a number of players openly employed on a PT basis by the foundation. I've seen plenty of examples of players doing community work over the last few years, but nothing explicitly saying any were foundation employees. I wonder if that's an option to support one or two signings with additional income.

On signing for Bradford, JD said "I didn't really want to leave Fev and come to to play on the world's smallest pitch, but needs must."

Some of us go to the games because they're entertainment, at least occasionally. Yes, I'd love us to have a stab at SL, however I'm content with us aiming for being the best we can be. A competitive league, uncertain outcomes and an entertaining brand of rugby is what I'm looking for.

It's a pain the new system for those of us who like to visit rival clubs social media pages to see what's happening across the game. It's now something that really feels to be discouraged, as you're essentially improving the score of competitors. Same applies with going to away games, given the scoring of attendances.