Cost of staying up would be less than the cost of getting back up.

At this time we need three or four quality players. If we went down, we'd probably lose a couple of our better players. We'd lose gate receipts and advertising revenues, and we'd still need to strengthen overall from what we now have.

At this point in time we need to strengthen the defence quite urgently, and we need to invest in a goal scoring centre forward who can attract the fans to games.

We have seen what this side can offer and it's not good enough. It's not far off, but it's not good enough. We're not mean enough at the back (in fact we're awful at the back) and we're not lethal enough up front.

It's not good enough to say that Ritchie has money to sign players but then also say that we won't compete on wages. Ritchie can't sign players on peanuts. I actually feel quite sorry for Ritchie tonight, and if I was him, well, I'd consider moving to a different club.

 

makes sense to me

this isnt rocket science although I do wonder if we are expected to believe that it is

simplistically I know but it comes down to an evaluation of the risks and as you say, the risk of going down is greater than the financial risk of spending to stay up. Would I expect the board to have formally considered these risks - yes (oh there I go with my naive head on again)

if they have done the evaluation and for the short/medium term, financial prudence is the primary objective, perhaps it would be good relationship management to make a clear statement to the interest parties (i.e the supporters) about it