CosbehFox

Depends where your cynicism lies. They won’t go public with such an admission which is one of the big issues in my opinion.

Some transparency at last. That's around 70% of season ticket retaining a physical card..... Whilst it didn't lead to the scraping of the fee, major kudos to the fan groups for working together on this. Without it - that £250k going to the club which is what a months wages for some of the inadequate players on our wage bill.

Just wanted rid then. Strikes me as an agent move and half

Where's the sick bucket emoji

On a general point The club admitted as much last night at the Fans Consultation Committee and their relations with the fans were at a low. It’s taken a lot of work from some hard working people to get the club to listen because at times they’ve completely turned off the communication to fan groups hence the biteback at ticket prices/season tickets was two fold. Lack of consultation and the act itself. The new Fans Advisory Board and Fan Engagement Charter is going to be like marmite with the fan base. Some will think it’s alienating, others will think it’s acknowledging the issues.

Did Abdul pay you to do that? Canny bloke who runs it

Noticed that women are away at Everton same weekend the men are. Surprised they haven’t tried to do that more like some leagues have

You could flip that valid argument on its head though. Here's a realistic competition to win, so you project more of our budget towards that because it's easier to achieve bigger crowds and prize money. Other clubs might be saving money now but at the same time they aren't playing games with bigger crowds or latter competition to actually cash in. Was welcome to readNorthants have sold their quarter-final for the blast well (as have Warwicks) cos that first week in September scheduling could be a real turn-off and act as counter against you. I'd interested to know what the feeling is at Derbys, Worcs, Kent and Essex as they are the four non-test counties what haven't got to the T20 quarters. This competition represents their last realistic chance of hosting games which can be money spinners.

Barwell’s pitch is 4G

Interesting as of last week he hasn’t been able to take part in any pre season training

Wouldn’t want him playing on a plastic pitch given his previous injury to be honest

3 years but you just have to ‘start’ it. So as simple as a spade in the ground

Injured. KDH hasn’t been able to do any training work this summer

Now off to Panathinaikos. At the rate he’s trading down, it will be St Andrews by the time he’s 30

Everything you read on the latest plans for the Hundred see it morph further towards the competition which was always there in the first place. There’s talk of the next TV cycle to see it become a T20 comp. They want fans whom will travel home and away. It becomes a ten team tournament. Inch by inch it’s something already there in their face. This investment push looks desperate and the bottom line is that the maths don’t add up, so interest isn’t massive.

No ones doubted what you are saying in that post but your exact wording which you’ve been challenged on was ‘At the end of the day, owners have traditionally had their names all over clubs and stadia as long as football has existed - it doesn't seem such a big deal to me.’ You have mentioned that other LCFC chairmen pushing their business through the club yet none of them sponsored the shirt, stadium or a stand for example like the existing owners have.

Epsom? Bar a few advert boards I can’t remember Page and Moy plastered everywhere. Certainly didn’t sponsor a stand or the shirt for example

For info, Shrewsbury stream every league game as per the EFL arrangements we had last year.

Enzo’s comments towards Fernandez showing his sheer inexperience at management.

The point of a thread on a forum is for discussion. News and updates is for news sources

Still here baffled why they haven’t tapped in the open goal in front of them. All those £25 donations to charity resulting of the physical card charge. Within a couple of weeks, that money could have been donated openly to a charity with a big press piece. Possibly tie in with a new signing or one of the shirts being revealed. This is easy public relations stuff. Kill the dissenters argument such as myself and win a load of goodwill.

Smaller clubs with less resources than ours have charging less by half or more. Understandably costs increases which there may need to be a charge but that smaller clubs than our own can achieve it for lesser price is pretty damning. To the background of an increase on ticket prices and season tickets, it’s just not a good look.

Be the wages which makes the difference. Iversen be on a higher wage compared to him. So Derby happy to pay more of a fee in the long-term its a saving.

I did mention at £12 - some might take the priority point

Rudkin logic Turns down £4m - Iversen sits on his backside for six months, goes out to loan at Stoke, loses value Turns down approx £1m - Derby move onto the next keeper, backside or loan again, loses value.