So what, there is no affordable credit available to a club like ours these days - so why not fight to save money the old fashion way by not paying for shoddy goods.

You call it struggling but have you seen the books?

No, AG has and must have his reasons.

We may well be struggling but we mat not, both are assumptions.

The CCJ subject has been done to death, it's becoming tiresome now, we are no worse off than a healthy percentage of other SL clubs and better off than a few. I think people should move on and be more concerned about our performances on the field.

Once the judgement is made you have lost you need to pay. Not paying is not good.

I said difficulty getting credit (not finance). If the club can't get credit how do they owe people money in the first place? No credit means people insisting on cash up front or not dealing with us. This can result in more pressure on cash flow and/or paying more for services because we have less choice of who to deal with.

Surely you can see the connection between these issues and on the field performance. Eventually, if things continue in the same vein, the club may need to look at reducing the cost of the playing squad and we would end up where we have been in the past selling or letting go our better players in an effort to try and balance the books.

Does any one spend time searching for other clubs with CCJs? Do they have them too? The only reason I hear about ours is via a rather sad Cas fan discovery being posted on here.

If they are all from the same company, it matters not, as the court have found against us, so clearly they did not agree that the goods/services were shoddy. In instances where they have ruled a lower amount was to be paid than that which the claimant was seeking, why have we not paid straight away?

If the 8 or more are from various companies, and we are refusing to pay due to shoddy goods/services, then I would strongly suggest whoever is awarding the contracts is not going through the appropriate due diligence/tender process -and the club needs to rectify this.

It's amazing how we go from an imaginative thread about Tim Smith going to Salford, onto we're doomed and the club is skint.
Whilst none of us know the actual state of the clubs finances, the post about the club taking on the new shirt sponsor, I think, was excellent work by the club and comment about it possibly being less than the France deal is irrelevant as Mr France is paying nil pounds, so it pretty certain that we have improved in this area.
Also as mentioned, some very successful companies do have ccj's against their name and although it may be preferable not to have them, sometimes they are a fact of life, context is everything, not the headline.

When the club budgeted at the end of last season they did not kno Eric France were going bust so the money they were due to pay was not received. The new deal will be for less money therefore a hole to fill albeit a smaller one than had no new sponsor have been found

I'm sure CCJ's are like water off a ducks back to Glover with financial clout like he's got. Whilst not being a Sugar Daddy he's certainly not bart a few bob. Let the man do his job, he ain't done too bad so far.

The Northampton issue is an on line service. If you do a bit of research you will see we have not paid the amounts that were applied for once the jusgement is made its not the end of it.

I dont understand why fans feel the need to bring the club down. I have been trinity for over 40 years and see the club in much better shape than its been for yonks. In AG you have an owner thats put money back in the cluband has the best interest of the club at heart.
Give the club a break , together we are stronger my -rs

So no one should air an opinion other than ones that praise the club. Maybe the clubs strapline should be changed to Together we are Sheep

I support the club and team, but that does not mean, I don't have a right to question some of the things they do and how they do them.

Tricky
You can do whatever you like when you like. Many of the opinions are based on ear say and guess work, and not based on fact.
You also have the right to ask questions, just not sure you will get an informed response on the Wakey forum.
Seems to me that many feel the need to look on the neg side of things, the pots half empty and all that.

You are right to question the club and imo you have always done so in a construtive manner, far too many posters on here need to stop grazing and lift their heads out of the grass from time to time.

Over the years we've not asked enough questions at this club.

Thats about 99% of everything written on these boards.

Glass half full/empty is sometimes difficult to decide upon.

I agree in principle. However when it's the same issue over and over again? Worse still when said issue is uses to make 2+2=500! How the issues with ccj's ends up with the sale of Smith to Salford is utter speculation of the most negative kind. If Tim Smith is wanted by Salford and he wants to go no number of ccj's will make a difference as we simply cannot compete with the money this guy is "allegedly" about to throw around.

I've said it since day one, AG has stabalised the club but we are a way off competing just yet.

HERE HERE! I dont think AG is rich but the guy has opened 2 shops in the City centre gave us a lovely stand at Belle vue helped crowds increase etc. Hes done amazing for us too many people on here cannot wait to stick the boot in. AG has done excellent and gave us 100% . He saves us where is the gratitude? SHORT MEMORIES ONCE AGAIN !

Has Tim Smith been lodging ccj's against us? What's this got to do with him? I watch the team, not the business plan!

The thread started with me posting a rumour from the Salford board about Tim Smith and principally that I would not want McGoldrick at Wakey. The CCJ side of it was an issue that came about in response to a comment you made, following someone else's comments about us maybe needing to cash in.

I never actually suggested that the CCJ's were anything to do with the reason why the club would consider selling Tim or indeed that they even were considering doing so, but merely offering them as one indicator that the club were not necessarily in the best of health financially. Consequently, whilst I am probably guilty of causing the thread to drift off topic, this does not in my opinion constitute putting 2+2 together and getting 5.

I'll explain NGBC so maybe you'll understand what it means.

Constructive criticism is the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others, usually involving both positive and negative comments, in a friendly manner rather than an oppositional one

Its what adults do.

Baa.

I probably caused the thread to drift off topic, but in response to your comment, the business plan has a direct impact on whose in the team your watching.

So leave worrying about it to those whose job it is. When I'm watching Tim unlock a defence with a well timed pass I don't think "I hope the club pays the caterers or we might lose him".

I keep hearing about the CCJ situation and I have kept off giving and informed opinion on the situation but feel now is the time to say something.
Firstly a CCJ is not a direct indicator of financial sustainability, it is purely an indicator that there is a discrepancy between what company/person A thinks is owed to them by company/person B.
It is often used as a lever by one party to another to force some kind of settlement out of them.
The cost of asking a court to rule on a CCJ is relatively cheap (depending on size of debt) and with the advent of online applications (as with the Northampton county court) makes it very simple to do with no need to employ and expensive legal advisor.
IMO these CCJ's that currently sit on WTW may cause some administrative concern but it does not worry my financially

The CCJs might have been paid but it can still show against the club if the small amount (was £1 a few years ago)to mark the CCJ as paid has not also been paid.

Silly comparison,BT established years with a net worth of millions and millions,Spirit of 1873,new start business with a negative net worth of over £1m