Quote ="bishops finger"So its not 11 out and 8 quality players in then?'" It's all just speculation viewtopic.php?f=59&t=526851&tsmp=1339924211&start=80 Quote ="Paul T - HKR"According to Wayne Parker 11-12 of the current first grade squad are going!'" Quote ="rover49"Although I don't have any confirmed knowledge, I was told by a usually reliable source that 7 will be going, Webster, Galea, Watts, Murrell, Netherton, Mc Donnell and Clinton. This was from someone within the club.'" All this is from the start of May I posted something similar but can't find it. I've said previously quality for me is a Michael Dobson or a Ben Galea. We wouldn't I'd imagine have the SC for 8 of those.

Quote ="bishops finger"So its not 11 out and 8 quality players in then?'" It's all just speculation viewtopic.php?f=59&t=526851&tsmp=1339924211&start=80 Quote ="Paul T - HKR"According to Wayne Parker 11-12 of the current first grade squad are going!'" Quote ="rover49"Although I don't have any confirmed knowledge, I was told by a usually reliable source that 7 will be going, Webster, Galea, Watts, Murrell, Netherton, Mc Donnell and Clinton. This was from someone within the club.'" All this is from the start of May I posted something similar but can't find it. I've said previously quality for me is a Michael Dobson or a Ben Galea. We wouldn't I'd imagine have the SC for 8 of those.

Quote ="Easty"It's all just speculation viewtopic.php?f=59&t=526851&tsmp=1339924211&start=80 All this is from the start of May I posted something similar but can't find it. I've said previously quality for me is a Michael Dobson or a Ben Galea. We wouldn't I'd imagine have the SC for 8 of those. '" Do you remember "wanye parker's wig"? Great poster, entice it back. The very lovely GML has hinted at a big clear out too.

Quote ="Easty"It's all just speculation viewtopic.php?f=59&t=526851&tsmp=1339924211&start=80 All this is from the start of May I posted something similar but can't find it. I've said previously quality for me is a Michael Dobson or a Ben Galea. We wouldn't I'd imagine have the SC for 8 of those. '" Do you remember "wanye parker's wig"? Great poster, entice it back. The very lovely GML has hinted at a big clear out too.

For wassocking fanny face's sake, although you are my favourite, that was brain dehydrating in it's extreme boredom.

Do we give a cats flange as fans about money? As long as we don't do a Bradford or a nineties Rovers of course we cocking don't. Most of us are lucky enough to have jobs, we're not responsible for Rovers, we just turn up every week and want a bit of entertainment.

We've got Mike Smith to make a massive steaming turd of running the club without us having to worry about it, email him if you're that bothered, that'll be a long conversation.

Well put sir.

Quote ="Mrs Barista"Well, Hudgell said it again this year: www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html You are right, it's never the same year on year. But the key point here is that a lot of costs (ground maintenance, rates, backroom staff, training camps, kit etc) are fixed. Sky income is fixed, or at least certain. If you spend £1.65m on players, the income from attendances is the balancing figure to break even. And I think he's saying that to afford that needs 10k every week. The problem is that you need to commit to the wage bill without knowing the attendances as you sign players up in advance. If you're being prudent, you'd not over-commit until you had evidence that 10k (or whatever that number is) was achievable. Don't forget the step up in costs next year too. In 40-20 magazine, Mike Smith says one of the North Stand partners has dropped out, leaving Rovers with a bigger share of costs to cover than expected, hence the delay in the East Stand extension. These costs are commitments Rovers have to cover, they're not discretionary in the way that the playing budget is, hence the playing budget being the most likely area to be squeezed if 10k looks uncertain.'" As expected. Well done for turning the subject to what you want. How about if you want to talk about the North stand you talk about it on the thread which has been created for the subject. I know you know where it is seeing as you have made the same point on there.

Quote ="Mrs Barista"Well, Hudgell said it again this year: www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html You are right, it's never the same year on year. But the key point here is that a lot of costs (ground maintenance, rates, backroom staff, training camps, kit etc) are fixed. Sky income is fixed, or at least certain. If you spend £1.65m on players, the income from attendances is the balancing figure to break even. And I think he's saying that to afford that needs 10k every week. The problem is that you need to commit to the wage bill without knowing the attendances as you sign players up in advance. If you're being prudent, you'd not over-commit until you had evidence that 10k (or whatever that number is) was achievable. Don't forget the step up in costs next year too. In 40-20 magazine, Mike Smith says one of the North Stand partners has dropped out, leaving Rovers with a bigger share of costs to cover than expected, hence the delay in the East Stand extension. These costs are commitments Rovers have to cover, they're not discretionary in the way that the playing budget is, hence the playing budget being the most likely area to be squeezed if 10k looks uncertain.'" As expected. Well done for turning the subject to what you want. How about if you want to talk about the North stand you talk about it on the thread which has been created for the subject. I know you know where it is seeing as you have made the same point on there.

Quote ="Mrs Barista"Well, Hudgell said it again this year: www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html You are right, it's never the same year on year. But the key point here is that a lot of costs (ground maintenance, rates, backroom staff, training camps, kit etc) are fixed. Sky income is fixed, or at least certain. If you spend £1.65m on players, the income from attendances is the balancing figure to break even. And I think he's saying that to afford that needs 10k every week. The problem is that you need to commit to the wage bill without knowing the attendances as you sign players up in advance. If you're being prudent, you'd not over-commit until you had evidence that 10k (or whatever that number is) was achievable. Don't forget the step up in costs next year too. In 40-20 magazine, Mike Smith says one of the North Stand partners has dropped out, leaving Rovers with a bigger share of costs to cover than expected, hence the delay in the East Stand extension. These costs are commitments Rovers have to cover, they're not discretionary in the way that the playing budget is, hence the playing budget being the most likely area to be squeezed if 10k looks uncertain.'" That is one obsessed bird.

Quote ="Mrs Barista"Well, Hudgell said it again this year: www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html You are right, it's never the same year on year. But the key point here is that a lot of costs (ground maintenance, rates, backroom staff, training camps, kit etc) are fixed. Sky income is fixed, or at least certain. If you spend £1.65m on players, the income from attendances is the balancing figure to break even. And I think he's saying that to afford that needs 10k every week. The problem is that you need to commit to the wage bill without knowing the attendances as you sign players up in advance. If you're being prudent, you'd not over-commit until you had evidence that 10k (or whatever that number is) was achievable. Don't forget the step up in costs next year too. In 40-20 magazine, Mike Smith says one of the North Stand partners has dropped out, leaving Rovers with a bigger share of costs to cover than expected, hence the delay in the East Stand extension. These costs are commitments Rovers have to cover, they're not discretionary in the way that the playing budget is, hence the playing budget being the most likely area to be squeezed if 10k looks uncertain.'" That is one obsessed bird.

I can see how a sensitive soul might interpret me posting some highly relevant, but slightly cautionary context, as simple trollage but this is a thread about squad changes vs this year. And I'm just making the point that, vs this year there are, according to your directors a couple of potential game-changers. Firstly they're not underwriting losses anymore. Understandable 7 years on with their hugely significant personal contributions to your resurgence. Secondly they're taking on a big incremental financial commitment, which, of course, may yield big upsides. So to post this in reply to a post hoping for an increase in spend to full cap is fair enough IMO.

I think that there are other clubs in for Lovegrove and McDonnell. I think they'll both stay at Rovers, but at prices inflated by market forces. Murrell to Cas, along with Webster. Taylor to Leeds for a fee and a house. Watts to Hull on a free. Clinton to Brisbane Broncos, perhaps no longer as their highest paid forward. Hall to sign a 2 year extension, Galea 1 year. Lopini Paea in along with that kid from Warrington, Kopczak, Reece Lyne, a centre from Newcastle Knights and another Con Mika style player. Con Mika to Hull.

If I get a hit rate >25% I'll be pretty pleased.

You'll be getting a one hundred per cent hit rate off my cricket bat around your chops.

I knew I wasn't your favourite. Should I go for a proper starfish, or Patrick Star?

That's subjective and, in my subjective but highly relevant (a non-subjective usage in this instance) opinion, wrong.



Yes; because you are a troll.



I'm going to delete further contributions made in a similar tone - don't want you typing in vain. Any complaints via pm. Ooh, look at me chucking by virtual weight about.



One day, we might have a thread about finances and sustainability. It'll be balanced, mature and, frankly, boring but right now that target demographic (ie me), can't be bothered - those toy soldiers won't paint themselves.

OK, Dad. At least I had a go at a keepers/goers list and got a new avatar. Pleasing.

So everyones leaving now and only 18 new signings are been made.

Chocolate starfish

You've added 16 permutations. for 25% only four need be correct which judging by the options it isn't really hard is it. I reckon with the deals in place already you've hit 25% and should be looking at over 50%.

Why don't you make it fun an use permutations that aren't already subject to intense rumour?

www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 20m74.html Think the NRL will have enough players out of contract looking at this mornings headlines in Sydney, so will be interesting current NRL players in Super League hoping to go back home look at Finch from Wigan no longer required by Rabbitohs interesting times. Rumours could be true though with regards to a surplus of Knights players that just might interest Sandercock....

www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 20m74.html Think the NRL will have enough players out of contract looking at this mornings headlines in Sydney, so will be interesting current NRL players in Super League hoping to go back home look at Finch from Wigan no longer required by Rabbitohs interesting times. Rumours could be true though with regards to a surplus of Knights players that just might interest Sandercock....

Do we think that Off-loading Liam Watts may have been done with a view to free up some cash to bring over one of these NRL players now?

Makes you wonder doesn't it

What about evarn tuimavave prop forward from Newcastle nights mmm

Lets just say free up a few places of the cap can certainly be utilized for younger and hungrier NRL players who faces dont fit with the new coaching regimes at they respective nrl clubs.Obvioulsy what we should not overlook is the current young talent available in the UK !!!!

So Ginge your already reading the possibilties of players

Geek

If it is, it's poor business. Letting Watts go at this stage of the game is the correct decision, but, for a player of his undoubted talent we should have harnessed it. Yes, he has to go now but should we have done more to nurture his talent? This club needs to be like a family, we stood up for Watts when he made an indiscretion, why hasn't he stuck with the family? If it's because he's a fine fellow (no filter) then sod off, but did we do enough before?

I'm really only playing devils advisor here.

Quota?

We'll find a way. It won't work, but we'll still give it a go. Never over estimate the gormcloptitude of The Smith.

Trust you to lower the tone!!!!!!