Rahic Interview

the big majority of league one clubs are self funded and we can compete with most of them. I like the idea of developing young players and build the club up in a sustainable way. Bringing in expensive risky signings doesn’t always work either

 

i agree. Hopefully the players will have a good surface to play on next season and we don't get many postponed games. I just dont agree with the general fan opinion that they are providing a permanent solution due to ambition and are trying to get our infrastructure ready for the Championship. They are fixing it because they have to, but that's not to say that we won't benefit from it.

 

Some would suggest that's what happend with the original Nhaki situation and the bargin basement signing from Guiseley, but let's not go there.

 

I get the impression they were shocked and surprised at the state of pitch this season, a bit more 'due diligence' on the history of the pitch would have told them we have problems with drainage at Valley Parade. I hope when they bought the club they got something knocked off the price to deal with it. There again, from what i here they didn't know about the 25 years ticket holders so there are things they didn't pick up on.

 

That's just incorrect. The majority of league 1 clubs lose money. Several hundreds of thousands of pounds.

 

Unfortunatly I do agree with that comment, and as a club we will be worse off if he goes.

 

A deliberate misinterpretation of what I said . For instance they were told the training pitch and the pitch itself needs upgrading it is being done. Discussion over players etc all healthy. It’s when an employee is anti the way the club want to go that it becomes unworkable

 

Wow its certainly getting warm on here today good debate.

 

Come agian, is that Scarborough talk ?.

 

There wasn't any expensive risky signings in Parkinson's squad, we did alright with them

 

Whilst I agree with the majority of this well-structured and written post, I still feel you are unfair on McCall. I was, like you, concerned when he returned, but his brand of football was refreshing after the style under PP. Both had their successes, but watching us pass teams to death and create chances was a joy.

The problem was that we lost our cup final and with it, a clutch of very good players. The replacements that Greg and Edin signed (and if believed, Stuart approved), were simply not as good. He did an amazing job of getting that group into the PO positions again. But as soon as injuries and suspensions hit us in January, the wheels simply fell off. If it was such an easy task of getting that same group playing again, why was Grayson’s record no better?

In relation to budgets, some complained that the previous owners banged on about deficits and having to sell players, have cup runs etc to compete. But as soon as we try the alternative, that is wrong too.

At the end of the day, if our average break-even budget for players is around £2.75m, do we want to spend that all on wages with no money left for transfer fees? Or do we want to spend £300k to £400k if it on fees with the rest used for wages, in the hope we can develop those investments and make a profit.

Swings and roundabouts, but at the end of the day, the alternative wasn’t a plan. It relied on a lot of luck and the brilliance of PP

 

Exactly what’s the argument

 

Dear Bronco, I deliver the Scarborough talk.

 

Eh you, stop knocking the club !!.

 

Its not really worth getting in one with you, let that bronco fella do that. Looks tiring

 

Much better than showing someone the door in an abrupt manner
We need to make friends not enemies

 

In tht case can you translate what park posted above.

 

Just doing my 'due diligence' Dave .

 

So who was anti ?, McCall was sacked because of the bad run we were told, even though it was acknowledged the working relationship wasn't good, so again who was the employee who was anti ?.

 

I am hampered in that task due to a lack of parallel structures and punctuation in his post.