I think Ardley has said so himself re budget

wazza, I read the whole piece and it makes it clear the player's previous agent wanted the release clause not the club. The club negotiated on it, as is their legal right, the player signed it. Read the link someone else put up, he's only having to take deals from the likes of Borehamwood cos he screwed up an EPL and a Championship club gig with his attitude. Boo fucking hoo. The club statement, if correct, shows they honoured their side of it, they told us what is acceptable we didn't want to pay it, both sides walked away. It is quite possible they named the clubs and stated this level of detail so that it is clear that both us and Tranmere have done nothing wrong, whilst making their own position clear. Lesson for all players, read the contract don't just sign it and expect to be able to have a moan later. Based on what is stated as the wording the club aren't in the wrong. To me it looks like they've acted to call the agents bluff and cut the legs from under him. If anything far from trying to up the price they are choosing to make him unsellable. They seem willing to take that hit to teach him and his agent a lesson.

its one of those things isn't it, we don't actually need the money...until we do. Lets hope it pans out

Is there any proof that Ardley has been given more cash (relatively) than previous seasons? I would hate to see unsubstantiated guesswork (if that's what it is) be used as a stick for the Ardley bashers to use all season.

Trebor, that is really useful info, thanks. Is it about recognising that we had maybe lost sight of the football side a bit in the need to get the stadium built (which is totally understandable as it is hopefully going to be home for the next 100 years) and this new approach is rectifying that a bit?

"Spunking" was a slightly emotive word, I admit, used partly out of frustration that every season NA gets an increased budget and (at least prior to now) hasn't seemed to use it very well, and also the fact that it's short-term spending that doesn't secure a long-term fixed asset, which is what the money was originally designated to do. (Albeit that old budget = success formula can get trotted out again and the new stadium is likely to generate more income if we're at a higher level etc.)

I do know we need Appiah to actually stay fit for the majority of games though

I think we will finish between 15th-bottom, and don't know enough about others recruitment to call it either way currently tbh

I'm not sure if I'd use the word 'spunking' on the squad, more investing. Attractive football = more bums on seats at KM (as opposed to ST holders waking up on a Saturday and thinking 'nah' and non ST's reducing matches attended). Going to games last season felt a duty, not a joy. It was about the social side, seeing mates etc but not the games. An better squad playing either attractive or winning football (ideally both) = more beer drunk, money in shop etc as more people actually in the ground on match day?

Kyle - how are you feeling about recruitment and next season now. Are you still thinking its a mathematical impossibility that NA could build a squad good enough to stay up, or has he managed to factor in some equivocation to the equation?

Thanks Trebor. That's a tad surprising I must say

Totally agree Wazza, was baffled yesterday anyone could think differently

And Matt responded to that again: "With regard to your first follow up point, we expect to have other means of filling a cash flow hole if one arises along the lines you suggest and Erik is comfortable that we are not taking on anything too excessive as a risk - the amounts are relatively small compared to the overall financing."

Oops! Darn the lack of paragraph breaks in this forum! :o/

So I asked about it on Webjam because it alarmed me, and Matt Breach came back to explain. I then tried to summarise it to check my understanding and Matt agreed I'd summarised it okay: "thank you for taking the time to explain that, Matt – I think I now understand the arrangement. If I could summarise just to check? We’re about to get a big pot of money (from Chelsea, Galliards, etc.) to finance building the new stadium, and some of that money will be put aside into a smaller pot for contingency in case the stadium-building costs go up. We don’t envisage needing to dip into that contingency pot until near the end of the stadium’s construction (if at all). Once we’re in the new stadium, we anticipate that extra income will help us fund an increase in the playing budget. Rather than wait until then, why not use some of the money from the contingency pot that we already have and would otherwise be sat there unused to put towards a slightly increased playing budget now? Hope I’ve got that right! Two follow-up questions: 1. The contingency pot will be at least partially depleted before we finish the stadium. Say we get right to the final stages of the build and find that we need the full original contingency amount in order to complete the stadium. How do we finance that? The pot will be partially empty, and we won’t at that point have access to the extra income because the stadium won’t be complete and we won’t be in it, so it looks like we reach a potential dead end. 2. More a comment, really: I a bit unsettled that this at least partially pre-empts a discussion and strategic decision that should be made by the Trust membership, once the stadium is complete, regarding what balance we want to strike between increasing the playing budget and/or repaying our debt/progressing towards full 20,000 capacity."

*so not

Fucking hell Boreham Wood come across ridiculously tinpot. Their ultra clear release clause isn’t that at all; you can only sign the play by negotiating like any other deal - the figure is just given as a starting point for the negotiations. But if you must put out that ridiculous statement, maybe leave out the names of the bidding clubs do not to make us look complicit.

I have many concerns about the club, but Erik being reckless with our budget is not one of them.

lol, don't worry ill take it as 'no not really'

Give me a mo and I'll try to explain it.

surely all that's still ringfenced?

I'm still not quite sure how we'll cope if it turns out we needed the stadium contingency as a stadium contingency rather than for spunking on wages/transfers.

Wu - think the club are finally realising that in professional football at this level, you do have to start paying for transfer fees and the like

Fair to say Ardley is being backed with a decent amount of cash this season, as evidenced by the transfer fees we are paying etc. That has to help.

Morning all. Snozzle - I admire their blind faith in pre-season...