No, that £100k would stem the tide of the operating loss we already make. It would partially subsidise the amount a private owner already invests to keep the club above water. It doesn't automatically add an additional striker to the current playing budget.
If you want to high flying League One football, we'd need to increase the current revenue by a couple million minimum. Corporate boxes and a few thousand on the gates against big opposition doesn't get anywhere close to that. The numbers don't stack up for this supposed untapped potential that others are blind to take advantage of.
I like the idea of fan ownership in the sense it protects the clubs interest and gives some level of transparency. But it shouldn't be presented as an avenue to progress the club further. Realistically without external investment, there would be a lot less money available for the playing squad, and that's the price you pay. It's one or other, can't be both unless another 10k supporters suddenly materialise every match day.
You are refering to Sixfields as it is? If so yes, its absolute money drain that Thomas didn't address so now having to dig deeper than need be due to his neglect of duty.
A better equipped Sixfields attracts more income so elevates the need to prop up the shortfall.
An average of 8000 spectators turning up at a 10/12000 capacity stadium would more than allow us to compete in league 1.
That's 8000 average, are you suggesting we need 15000?
We dont for league 1.
