Not one thing that would generate immediate income. These are all long term and our problems are now apparently.
MC may have done one thing to produce immediate money that is to sell our captain which if true I look forward to the explanation because my previous negative posts will be nothing to what I think will be posted on here. Let's hope this is just a pictorial rumour but it does appear to follow the Salford previous signing strategy.

Look Salford 10 months ago and look at them now things change

I haven't sold dk nor is there any pending offer.
Do not for one moment though believe I won't IF the future of the entire club is on the line, just because of the stick I'll get on here for doing so.
We are working round the clock to raise revenue and cut costs. People want paying and I can't magic money. If I have to sell any players, it's not because of what's happening now and in the future, it's because of what has happened over the last 2 years!

Do not for one moment doubt that if you did you will alienate the very people you need to buy the season tickets meaning you would need to sell again alienating more and so on.

Sell Danny Kirmond or lose the club? Are you for real by saying you'd lose the club, as those are the options. He won't sell if he has money from other sources

I don't doubt that. But if only other option is admin which would you choose?

Sell Kath Hetherington

Really? And your serious answer would be?

Is Agent XIII James Elston in disguise? Negative slant on everything. You've left the club Jimmy, let it go. We want to be positive but it gets difficult with you undermining everything

It seems Mr Benson is back.

IF Danny was to be sold it would be disappointing but I have faith in MC that it would be necessary for the future of the club. Neil Fox left, David Topliss left, both arguably had a greater influence on Wakefield Trinity than Danny and the club survived their loss.
Danny would be a huge loss but if his leaving helped ensure the future of Wakefield Trinity, then I can live with that.
I've had a lot of highs and a hell of a lot of lows following Wakefield over the last forty years, but as I've said on here before. My 'T' shirt says "Wakefield till I die". That's the way it is and that's the way it's going to be.

She is on the pay roll which I did find a surprise, so let's see what she can do because so far I have not noticed many changes.

Didn't really answer my question though did it? Would you choose Danny or the club if you were down to your last option?

Everyone has a price, if selling them all meant the club survived then it would have to be done. Won't sell too many season tickets on the back of it though.

The reverse is if you sell such a popular player or weaken the squad further will there be enough supporters left to save the club. I know you a relative newcomer at Wakefield Trinity therefore don't assume those on the forum represents the majority of those that paid their money last season. The people on here will support the team whatever the division they are in unfortunately I would guess that at least 3000 would not. That is the way modern sport is today everyone wants to support success or a team they think will be successful not one that is under strength and losing every week.
I now expect that because KH is being paid but not willing to put her money into the club that we will see immediate improvements and the sale of players will not be necessary.

Much of your post has merit, I have two things to add, where I differ in view.

1) as I recall the club went into free fall and fell a very long way, in the seasons following Topliss' sale... Only when he returned as coach was equilibrium restored.

2) I have seen nothing in Carter's portfolio which gives me any confidence that he is an appropriate leader for this situation.

However he is the only option, so therefore any debate about his policy is pointless. If survival is possible we cannot afford to be split... As someone who has stood amongst crowds of a few hundred at belle Vue, watching a terrible team lose consistently in lower divisions, I would say " it was still great fun"....

So whatever keeps the club alive!!

Is ok by me.

Without question there is some merit to what you say, however at a time of everyone trying to pull together - why the need to swim against the tide? things are negative enough without you adding a further level of negativity to the situation
Are you after an "i told you so medal" if you are proven to be right on something most people can second guess anyway with a little common sense, or just to be a loan voice in the wilderness that will dissapear or alter their stance to be right or take some kind of misguided high ground after being proven wrong.
I dont know, i dont get it - and to be completely fair i see no need but thats democracy i guess!!

That depends on what "the club" means

If it is sell Danny or the club will fold, of course the answer is sell

If it is sell Danny or the club will have to operate on a lower budget, possibly I'd keep, depends how that pans out but I'd like to give it a go if we could still stay in Super league, but just in lower levels.

If it is sell Danny or sell another player instead, I'd keep him.

Wrong again I am not after any medal in fact I am trying to point out how dangerous his honest approach can be because I want the club to survive in the top level. I would add that his honesty regarding KH was misinformed what good does it do pointing out that she refused to invest but is now a paid employee. I know by saying a pittance he is trying to reduce the impact of the news that she is a paid employee. It would just be better not to say anything.
With regards Aiton the statement regarding his contract could be taken to mean we get a lot out of him for what he does indicating he is paid less than some who contribute less. I.e. "Good value for money" . Honesty can be a dangerous policy all I am saying is don't assume we need to know the full details of every deal. To withhold some aspects does not detract from his honesty policy but it gives those with ill intent towards the club less ammunition.

A good sensible post....But.....Then you'd get the more negative poster stating we want more transparency! Damned if you do and damned if you don't!

I am not saying withhold all information but be selective on what you put into the public domain. We would not have known for example that KH was asked and refused to invest, by withholding this bit of the information it would not detract from the nucleus of the story.

By putting it on record that she was asked to invest, it prevents the clamour for her to invest.
Equally, if KH remains at the club for any length of time, will she become more likely to either invest personally or, to persuade others to invest.
Cant see that MC has done anything detrimental here.

It's easy to pick holes in what somebody else is doing, it's very easy to say too much or too little and either way you will get detractors.
He's put his money where his mouth is and therefore has earned done grace in my book, rather than being continually negative you should cut home some slack.
If you think you know better you know what you can do, as he has always said he would welcome someone with expertise that would benefit the club.

I think you're absolutely right with this and the comments in your previous post. Being open and honest about the financial position the club is currently in is all well and good if it encourages people to rally round and chip in where they can, but taken too far, it can have exactly the opposite effect.

If I were Kath Hetherington, I'm not sure I'd be too chuffed to read that I was being paid "a pittance" for my services either. It sounds a little demeaning. Focusing on her generosity might have been the way to go, but that's maybe easy for me to say when I'm not the one who's on the spot.

I imagine MC was trying to highlight that KH is not taking much out of the club in return for her expertise - a positive message, much of which is lost in translation without context and nuance; a good lesson in speaking to the media!

I have some sympathy with those saying that brutal honesty may not be the most helpful; honesty is good, but a bit less brutality might not go amiss.