Poll - which is more likely?

You missed a third choice.

Ritchie wants to strengthen, of course, but neither he or GS are willing to shell out the stupid money that even mediocre players are looking for these days. One big salary completely screws up a side - the spirit and attitude engendered during the play-offs disappears instantly and the side go into freefall. Defeats WITHOUT the effort and talent being shown. Do you want that??</p>

I'd tick that box.</p>

 

RE: You missed a third choice.

Nobody available, for the money we have, that Ritchie wants and feels would strengthen the side.

 

What about

GS is prepared to take the risk that we go down to balance the books this year..take the season ticket/flinders/tv money and run</p>

AR is towing the line and bullshitting the fans regarding possible transfers when in fact we are highly unlikely to get in any new faces unless, of course, 2 tins of brokken biscuits seal the deal.</p>

 

Did I say that?

The players available that are within our budget are ones that Ritchie doesn't feel would enhance the squad.

Or is he deliberately not bringing anyone in because he wants us to fail and get relegated?

Let me think which of those options is the most likely.

There's no point bringing players in for the sake of it unless the manager feels they are better than what we already have.

 

Whats this about us reporting another loss this year?

Thats not what I was told from a good source (no names mentioned and all that)</p>

 

So therefore

It must all be a deliberate ploy to get the club relegated again!

I've got it!

 

Maybe its a risk someone is prepared to take?

I could do an approximate financial risk analysis but it would be a waste time, I am sure the club has done in order to fix its budgets.</p>

It could be that the financial risks of relegation are outweighed by the risk of paying out good wages on longish contracts? Maybe the rewards of survival this season within the desired budgets are great enough to take the chance.</p>

Its just that its not being officially said and the fans appear to have been / are being bulshitted.</p>

I'm only guessing but it seems a reasonble hypothesis to me.</p>

 

I think

That what we have is an inexperienced chairman who has the best intentions and a good head for business but who see's the club too much as a business and not enough as a football club and is trying to run it the same as he would any other business. Sticking to strict wage bills and making sure that the accounts add up at the end of the month.</p>

The plus side of this is that we aren't going to stretch ourselves and end up in administration come february.</p>

The bad side of it is that it fails to recognise that a football club isn't just another business and that sometimes you have to take risks because if you dont and you try to play it safe all the time then the only way is down and when that happens you are into a spiral of declining crowds, less income and therfore less expenditure to balance the books, less expenditure then means less crowds, less income and less expenditure and before you know it you're in the bottom tier or worse.</p>

There has to be a balance between taking the risks and balancing the books and at the moment I think that we are getting the balance wrong and while it will show a good balance sheet at the end of the year it could very easily show a much worse one when we are playing in league 1 again next year.</p>

Just my opinion like, i'm probably wrong.</p>

 

Think the answer lies somewhere in between ....

.... there is money, but not enough of it (less than 100k).

No point in risking the future of the club by breaking the bank to get someone "box office" in right now, wait for the transfer window maybe sell a couple of players and then re-invest the money.

 

Which would come under

"The players available that are within our budget are ones that Ritchie doesn't feel would enhance the squad."

i.e. The players within our budget are the freebies!