Coventry Saint

We could spend £75k on Andy Ryan and I'd still basically class that as 'hee-haw'. #sofuckingmoney

I'm just glad you've been able to let it (Quiton)go.

But we're not about to start splashing it on transfer fees. As we've established, we prefer to remain profitable or, at worst, financially neutral.

Have you seen him recently? Even month to month sounds optimistic.

Too injury prone.

He must have done the same paper round as Charlie Adam.

All this jealousy flying around, but I don't feel jealous of anybody. Bit jealous, tbh.

So... is that zero chance, or a bit of a chance, or a massive chance but we sold our other chances to cover it, thus rendering the entire exercise chance neutral? ^^^ mad jelly.

Can't disagree with anything you've said. We arguably still need a CH, CM and a CF, and I'd want/hope they were all in the 'good enough to play in the Prem' category. We're a little bit short at the minute, but it's only late June so there is plenty of time.

No danger of you lot signing Shankland. He retired from football in January.

Guys, can I gently suggest we draw a line under this? I think we can agree that it's all of little consequence now.

True. I honestly don't know why it worries non-Saints fans quite so much, TBH.

Just wait til we storm the league with a rag-tag bunch of former part-timers (and Stelios). The seethe will be off the scale.

Yes, and our bottom line financial position didn't change.

Actually, he said this: If paying for players with money you've raised by selling players isn't the very definition of 'financially neutral', then I don't know what is. So, as usual, VT, you're spouting ill-founded, delusional nonsense. Blinded by the seethe. Thanks for playing, word salad, back in your box, gutted for you, ainsleyharriett.jpg, etc etc etc.

I've also heard it. On here. Does that represent proof? I don't think so.

I was there, and was desperate for us to sign him after that. I'm a football expert

Pure seethe. Don't worry, pal, the next SMISA surplus payment is going to be used to pay for you to get your end away.

2,000 season tickets sold so far. Early bird offer ends on Sunday. We're obviously holding back our big-name striker signing until the offer ends, to provide a spike in sales when they go to full price. Yeah... That's definitely it.

So you're saying, because we could afford it, because of the player sales, that there was some sort of cost neutrality going on there?

This is what it boils down to, tbh.

If you're going to call people out for making sweeping/unsupported statements - and use phrases such as 'utter fallacy' - then you're going to need to back this up with actual evidence. (£25,000 was the figure widely quoted at the time.)

Bear in mind we'll charge you interest until you pay off the remaining 13%.

Well, none of us is sure of that, tbf. The context of the debate was whether we had blown this summer's budget in January. It's been pretty accurately demonstrated why that's not the case. The myth that we bought our way out of trouble seems to to pervade, but I'm not sure why it bothers folk, and I'm certainly not sure why people might have expected us to do anything else. We did good business, we stayed up. It was a gamble that paid off, but one which didn't involve blowing any budgets. So yes, I'm not sure why you're bothering or, really, what point you're trying to make.