For me, until crowds increase significantly, it’s probably more cost effective to just rent it. With little non-match day revenue, I don’t see a business case for them to own it urgently.
If this article is accurate, it seems to evidence an ownership policy principally if not wholly of profit, with pitch performance a poorer relation. Perhaps we should prepare to be perpetually underwhelmed, cos these owners are here for the long term.
Hats off to Patrick, that was probably when he met him in the hotel in Sheffield near to where he was having treatment in his final months. A mad supporter until the end, if l was in his situation the last thing on my mind would be a football club and an overpaid footballer.
It does seem like he has a panini album where he’s the mad kid at school who’ll swap you a gold foil for a conker and a bag o cola bottles...
Its what a few have been saying from the get-go. There's nothing going on at Nice and with their fans(ultras) to give anyone with any kind of balanced view any encouragement. And talking of balanced view.. I know last night was a bit of a GG/club love in. But in the interest of said balance, alternate view/fairness. Then someone like, say, Paul Heckingbottom ort to be allowed the same platform, do you not think.. Nar.. not hold mi breath.
While ever the council own 50%. Of the ground nobody can asset strip the club nor crank up loans against the ground so I'm led to believe
Is it the case that the reported option to purchase the ground and land related only to the 50% share which Patrick (now the Cryne family) owned? [I'm assuming this was of course in separate (corporate) ownership to the club itself.]
That’s correct imo but also no ones gonna invest in the infrastructure of the stands in this scenario as the council won’t get it past the planning dept even if they wanted to . That’s the problem on one hand we’re safe but on the other were stagnant .
Something I don't understand is if Stendel didn't think moncur fit the side and he didn't need replacing (logically because we have better in the squad already) then why did he play him 25 or so times this season? In (I think) 27 games this season Daniel Stendel has thought that George Moncur was the best available player to be on the pitch for us. Not replacing him means playing a player who was previously lower in the pecking order.