@ginger_michael@DWA2005@CommitteeFCUM Of course. But let's have the survival chat that includes playing at a lower level so we can do those maths too.
And...as ive also said...this isn't anything to do with questioning the democratic decision making. Its about principle. To coin a phrase, doing things differently.
@ginger_michael@DWA2005@CommitteeFCUM Ok. Again. Look at the original post...it was a comment on attendance, not finance.
But chasing on-field success is costing more, of that there is no doubt.
@DWA2005@CommitteeFCUM Of course. Its a perilous situation. Several years on the Board years ago taught me that. But again, this wasn't really meant to be about the finances- it's reasons why people might be switching off.
@DWA2005@CommitteeFCUM But...as said earlier; this is a response to a post about attendances. There is no doubt that the things I initially mentioned will have an affect. 60 quid membership, abolishing pay what you can afford, stadium naming rights etc etc.
Honestly, this is a pointless existence. I don’t like almost everything about the club - players, execs, ownership, the way it behaves, treats its fans. The history, fanbase and the stadium is all there is.
@DWA2005@CommitteeFCUM I'm not here to criticise the democratic nature of the watering down of principles, I was simply replying to a post about attendances. We stand for less than we did, we make more cash grabs than we did. People will be turned off by that.
@ShoresOfSicily7@CommitteeFCUM It's only a financial burden if you are chasing greater success (promotion) on the pitch. We'd get the same gates in the Counties without the expenditure. That's 50-100k a year saved to repay the loan.