Yeah I took that statement on the Crumbie to be blarney. It's simply that there are things coming first.
It worries me a little that he even said that as it's seems a bare faced lie. If the land was there and the finance available it would be knocked down I am sure.
Could it not be that the club has come to a stalemate in its discussions with the planning and sports stadia authorities over the plans for Crumbie redevelopment? IIRC it was being suggested the terrace had to be regarded somewhat bizarrely as a separate building to avoid the Taylor Report dictats on open terrace standing. That would suggest the club have put the preservation of the terrace ahead of a redevelopment with few advantages in terms of creating additional revenue. It’s what’s implied by the terminology SC uses. If so, I’d support that approach.
With regards to the matches the players will be asked to play in the new schedule. It's not just about the number. It's about the length of the off season. Any shorter than now seems to be unacceptable to the players. All the clubs and Premiership Rugby keep ignoring that.
Traditional reasons for not developing the Crumbie could be lack of money. A new stand will have to be built in due course but is unlikely to produce extra revenue or increase capacity so it can wait until other projects are complete and paid for.
johnthegriff wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:13 am
Traditional reasons for not developing the Crumbie could be lack of money. A new stand will have to be built in due course but is unlikely to produce extra revenue or increase capacity so it can wait until other projects are complete and paid for.
I know of one player who costs the club £400k per year just to keep the physio busy....
“It is no use saying, ‘We are doing our best.’ You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.” Sir Winston Churchill.
johnthegriff wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:13 am
Traditional reasons for not developing the Crumbie could be lack of money. A new stand will have to be built in due course but is unlikely to produce extra revenue or increase capacity so it can wait until other projects are complete and paid for.
I know of one player who costs the club £400k per year just to keep the physio busy....
He keeps you busy on this forum as well Roly
Based on that, some on this forum might become more amenable to getting rid of Manu
johnthegriff wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:13 am
Traditional reasons for not developing the Crumbie could be lack of money. A new stand will have to be built in due course but is unlikely to produce extra revenue or increase capacity so it can wait until other projects are complete and paid for.
I know of one player who costs the club £400k per year just to keep the physio busy....
This may deserve its own thread but, hypothetically, would you let Manu go to Sarries?
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man
Assuming I am correct and we own the road behind the Crumbie - why can we not build over the road on stilts with a type of tunnel underneath? Toulon (Spit spit spit) have done that, Twickenham (Spit spit and double spit) have done that. Might even be able to widen the pitch at the same time. I think I know the answer - Money, money, money, Must be funny, In the rich man's world. Money, money, money, Always sunny, In the rich man's world.
Take this as you want but Manu was in talks with Sarries when there was talk of him leaving but he refused to see a specialist so Sarries pulled the plug!
