[Wanderer]

: Wed May 20, 2009 3:46 pm  

Gargoyle wrote:

I agree, but when a player who's Donny to the bone leaves we are in big trouble.

Good luck Pete, although you won't need it as much as The Dons!

100% agree. It says much about the current situation that Pete has finally ended his association with the Club.

: Wed May 20, 2009 4:08 pm  

Marshland wrote:

They run a successful Lottery that pays a good commission to amateur clubs who have tied in with them.

And perhaps they are good at maths

: Wed May 20, 2009 4:21 pm  

GeoffRoebuck wrote:

And perhaps they are good at maths

It's not the maths, It's getting out of the amateur zone and going out and selling your product to any sporting body that is willing to listen and give it a go (Lots of littles are better than now't)

: Wed May 20, 2009 5:21 pm  

Marshland wrote:

It's not the maths, It's getting out of the amateur zone and going out and selling your product to any sporting body that is willing to listen and give it a go (Lots of littles are better than now't)

They got there sums wrong at the start of the season we were told they had done a budget for home crowds of 800 which with the money from the RFL they would be alright we were never in a strong enough financial position to play & compete in Nat League 1 as I said last September they should have refused the offer of promotion until the club was on a more sound financial footing

: Wed May 20, 2009 5:29 pm  

Some 1 said last night that there isn't a massive difference between the 2 divisions apart from more away support this season, so were better off in this division imo.

: Wed May 20, 2009 6:19 pm  

JONNYDON wrote:

Some 1 said last night that there isn't a massive difference between the 2 divisions apart from more away support this season, so were better off in this division imo.

Nat 1 players expect to be paid more money than Nat 2 players

: Wed May 20, 2009 6:21 pm  

GeoffRoebuck wrote:

Nat 1 players expect to be paid more money than Nat 2 players

True.

: Wed May 20, 2009 6:35 pm  

GeoffRoebuck wrote:

Nat 1 players expect to be paid more money than Nat 2 players

They might expect it Geoff but i very much doubt that they were getting more money collectively than last year's players.

Infact i'd not be suprised if our wages were below many of the teams in the division below ours.

: Wed May 20, 2009 6:38 pm  

DRAGONFAN wrote:

They might expect it Geoff but i very much doubt that they were getting more money collectively than last year's players.

Infact i'd not be suprised if our wages were below many of the teams in the division below ours.

Neither would I.

[Wanderer]

: Wed May 20, 2009 6:43 pm  

Its probably fair to assume that something like half of the squad were on terms carried over from a two-year deal and that the squad was bolstered (particularly when it became obvious we'd got a few injuries) by players on match terms.

That might equate to a smaller wage bill than last season, but even if it's much the same, in theory the gate receipts for this season should have worked out to be greater so it does support the fact that we ought to have been better off in NL1.