Re: At what expense : Sun Nov 06, 2011 8:04 pm  

Gronk! wrote:

Did you actually watch the game? Before he went off he was taking 2 carries a set, made a couple of half breaks and put in a fair few tackles.

To be fair to Bren, I actually agree with him (for once). Ellis has been perhaps the most disappointing member of the Eng squad so far this series.

Heighington has been better than him and that's surprising from my point of view really. Oh to have Sam Burgess in our starting 13.

Re: At what expense : Sun Nov 06, 2011 8:53 pm  

Gronk! wrote:

Did you actually watch the game? Before he went off he was taking 2 carries a set, made a couple of half breaks and put in a fair few tackles.

You need to calm down my friend - this permanently combative attitude will play havoc with your blood pressure.

Ellis is without a doubt a class act - my point was that he didn't have time to do much prior to being taken off injured.

Re: At what expense : Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:59 pm  

Well, It's been announced on Sky Sports News this afternoon that you posted a £380k loss for the last year.

Maybe you'll be selling Chase to Leeds afterall to get a massive fee to balance the books again

Re: At what expense : Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:04 pm  

cheekydiddles wrote:

Well, It's been announced on Sky Sports News this afternoon that you posted a £380k loss for the last year.

Maybe you'll be selling Chase to Leeds afterall to get a massive fee to balance the books again

Or not.

We're actually less than the SL average and a lot of clubs posted bigger losses than us.

Re: At what expense : Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:27 pm  

Fully wrote:

Or not.

We're actually less than the SL average and a lot of clubs posted bigger losses than us.

The trolls are getting less informed as the days go by

Re: At what expense : Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:21 pm  

cheekydiddles wrote:

Well, It's been announced on Sky Sports News this afternoon that you posted a £380k loss for the last year.

Wrong: £356,178 (your information is 6.6% out, and if I was getting that annually on my savings, I'd be a very happy man)

cheekydiddles wrote:

Maybe you'll be selling Chase to Leeds afterall to get a massive fee to balance the books again

As the SL average for the year was a £490,000 LOSS per club (including our club!), I doubt it very much.

Re: At what expense : Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:33 pm  

To be fair when your own websites article opens with....

'Tigers chief executive Richard Wright is re-assuring supporters that the club is in good order financially despite announcing losses of around £380,000 at last night's shareholders AGM'.

....its easy to see where he got that figure from.

Re: At what expense : Thu Nov 10, 2011 2:40 am  

Theboyem wrote:

To be fair when your own websites article opens with....

'Tigers chief executive Richard Wright is re-assuring supporters that the club is in good order financially despite announcing losses of around £380,000 at last night's shareholders AGM'.

....its easy to see where he got that figure from.

Not really!

Re: At what expense : Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:06 pm  

Fully wrote:

Or not.

We're actually less than the SL average and a lot of clubs posted bigger losses than us.

Well all that really means is that MOST of the teams in Super Dooper League is ............................... French Connection UK ed

[Wildthing]

Re: At what expense : Thu Nov 10, 2011 3:28 pm  

FredLindopsLoveChild wrote:

Well all that really means is that MOST of the teams in Super Dooper League is ............................... French Connection UK ed

Writes the bitter Fax fan!