Definitely... bring it back , along with flared trousers and a soft perm . Behave , I don't even stand up when we score
Trouble is if a club really wants to get rid of such a stand, they only need to have a convenient fire.
Money is money. I bet he's glad he didn't scrap admission prices now. Sent from my SM-G850F using Tapatalk
Probably because they are a little embarrassed about the size of their ground?.. Whelan was/is right: 90% of the majority of premier clubs income comes from tv rights, merchandising and other commercial dealings. I did a bit of research about this a while ago and if i re-call man united got the largest income from the crowd, around 13% of total income. Then came arsenal. So apart from those teams with 50 thousand plus grounds the income is decent but negligable in the grand scheme of things. Burnley had the lowest crowd income accounting for 8% of total income: small change compared with the sky/bt millions they receive.
Err actually it isn't. It belongs to the football club. The call that Mr Cryne has on the cash is only in respect of the loans he made to the club. Mr C can take further money if it is a) treated as remuneration b) dividend if the club has made enough profit to cover the significant losses brought forward (unlikely)
Without question. He's just. Taking back his own money. Money that the business. Owe him. . Blackpool, they re. The team for you
How much ? Mr Cryne has written off significant amounts as gifts to the club. I'm not sure how much is still owing.
Really ? So a man who has invested significant amounts of his own capital would take out remuneration which he probably doesn't need. The effect of this would be to reduce the funds available for running costs going forward.
No he'd cash in some of the loan notes to recoup some of the capital he'd loaned the business Basically, and quite rightly he can't do with his own business what he sees fit to do so Without his loans we'd have no football club
Noone is saying he will. Thankfully we have an owner that would never do that unless absolutely necessary, but the question was whether he could, and whether I would be fine with it. Both of those answers are yes.
So you think he would acceptable for him to buy a new property but not spend anything on maintenance of an existing property of which he has 50% ownership?