January Transfers & Rumours

[Old_pie]

Our losses and the fact that we aren't sustainable yet, suggests we do. Why else would we spend so much for them to sit on the bench?

Yawn zzzzzzz. Look up for yourself in a decent dictionary the definitions of sustainable and profitable. I'm not doing it again.

[Kent Magpie]

I didn't say profitable. I said sustainable. I know the difference and at the moment we are not sustainable... we aim to be, but we aren't. On that basis why would we pass on a good offer for Langstaff?

[matt_magpie]

I didn't say profitable. I said sustainable. I know the difference and at the moment we are not sustainable... we aim to be, but we aren't. On that basis why would we pass on a good offer for Langstaff?

CEO said at forum we weren’t far off, we spent under budget in the summer, gates are far higher than budget I believe and also we obviously get a bit more TV money coming down now. Also add to that LWs compensation I would imagine this season we aren’t far off breaking even.

[Kent Magpie]

CEO said at forum we weren’t far off, we spent under budget in the summer, gates are far higher than budget I believe and also we obviously get a bit more TV money coming down now. Also add to that LWs compensation I would imagine this season we aren’t far off breaking even.

Fair point... but we can't let any optimism break out on here.

[Old_pie]

I didn't say profitable. I said sustainable. I know the difference and at the moment we are not sustainable... we aim to be, but we aren't. On that basis why would we pass on a good offer for Langstaff?

How do you know we are not sustainable? On what basis?

We are operating better than the budgeted input that the Bros had planned. Sustainable means they are prepared to input the amount of money each year to keep the club afloat. Are you saying that they haven't got enough to do that? If they haven't, as neither Trew or Hardy had, they we clearly are not sustainable, at least without selling our best assets. But, and if as I understand it, they can sustain the amount of input, as many clubs' owners need to, then we are sustainable. If you have information to the contrary then spill it out because the Bros have never indicated otherwise.

[queenslandpie]

On another matter how would you rate our January transfer business out of 10. I would give it a solid 8.5 we have strengthened in all areas we need to. There is a little debate of course about the signings and whether they will perform and fit in but I would say this is our best January window in a long long time.

[Smigpie]

Looks positive compared to our nearest competitors

[the_anticlough]

On another matter how would you rate our January transfer business out of 10. I would give it a solid 8.5 we have strengthened in all areas we need to. There is a little debate of course about the signings and whether they will perform and fit in but I would say this is our best January window in a long long time.

Robertson, Ashby-Hammond, Warner, Colkett, Jatta...

Yeah, everything that was being asked for in terms of position and age of players.
That's on paper of course, but as a minimum it's added immediate competition for places.

[durhampie]

I didn't say profitable. I said sustainable. I know the difference and at the moment we are not sustainable... we aim to be, but we aren't. On that basis why would we pass on a good offer for Langstaff?

All of those fools thinking they know about football finances..

[OP67]

I didn't say profitable. I said sustainable. I know the difference and at the moment we are not sustainable... we aim to be, but we aren't. On that basis why would we pass on a good offer for Langstaff?

Because he's under contract until June 2027 and if he continues to score during the remainder of the season and wins the golden boot he'll be work even more. Plus if we get get promoted due to those goals we'll get money from promotion as well. It's good business sense whichever way you look at it. Leave the business decisions to the brothers mate, think they know more about it.