Grabban: 6 million; João Carvalho: 13 million

I said attendance is relevant (as a primary source if income) if you do not want a club to take on owner debt.

Your table is irrelevant because it says nothing about a club's solvency (or owner debt). Brentford's attendance is meaningless because their owner has leant them 100 million, for example.

Not really sure what your first question meant, so, I'll reiterate as best I can.

It's true we should be in the Championship on footballing merit.

It's not true that our attendance doesn't influence our ability to compete (given that we won't take on owner debt).

 

[QUOTE="E3Red, post: 2352802, member]
Cannot stress this enough: we are batting above our average by even being in the league.

[/QUOTE]

You clearly have no understanding of this football club, it’s place in the scheme of things or it’s history. You’ve listened to too much Keith Hill, too much Patrick Cryne, damping down expectations to justify mediocrity. This is a championship football club. History tells you so. Attendances tell you so. So why accept less?

 

I suggest you read the posts, I have made in this thread.

I've already explained why this is wrong.

 

I’ve read them. You’ve fallen into the trap of a thousand people before you by buying into black and white logic; namely that there is somehow a dichotomy of reckless spending or ludicrous frugality and profit - you have to be either Geoffrey Richmond or Patrick Cryne and there is no third way, nothing in between.

To convert to political terms, you’re basically suggesting it’s either the EDL or Momentum; and they are the only ways. I hate to sound Blairite, but there is a third way. It was absolutely possible for us to remain profitable this season, to survive in the Championship AND remain financially viable. We didn’t have to sell every single one of our good players. Life isn’t black or white.

 

I never said our attendances don't influence our ability to compete. I said they are large enough to mean we're not above our level in this division.

 

Sounds great. How would you have done this?

 

He'll be calling you a Bury and Bolton fan next. I got that just for disagreeing with him.

 

He's just told you.

 

The definitely aren't. For a bottom 7 finish.

 

What? How?

 

How would we have kept our best players without taking on debt from the owners?

I don't want the club to take on any debt from the owners....do you?

 

In practical terms? Let Davies go. Sold Lindsay but not sold Pinnock ( or less preferably the other way round if that was somehow not possible). Sold Thiam. Kept Moore. Spent double the money we spent on Patrick Schmidt on someone the manager is actually willing to give game time to rather than jizzing money up the wall on someone he clearly doesn’t rate, doesn’t want and won’t play. Maximised the potential of future revenue streams by minimising the likelihood of us losing £6m in revenues that they have made inevitable through their short termist but ultimately imprudent dealings.

Good enough?

 

By not selling them. Not selling players does not increase debt. We have sold £millions worth of players in the last few seasons, the end of year accounts showed a healthy balance, we did not need to sell further players to keep in the black.

 

Does that mean something to you?

 

He genuinely thinks it’s either Bolton or Cryne/Lee style asset stripping. It’s one extreme or another and there’s no in between.

Im sorry to say it and I know how patronising it sounds but I honestly think he’s just a bit thick.

 

Likewise.

 

The genius reveals his winning tactic.

When was the last time we made a profit? How much was it?

 

I thought you'd lost interest?

 

Last couple of seasons, can't remember exactly but millions

 

That's not what reflected in the accounts.