Matthew Le God

A takeover doesn't allow them to outspend us next season. Our income will still be significantly higher, so will our wage/transfer budget next season. Our squad is already a lot better than theirs.

Not every CEO has the same duties.

That still would not be able to give Rohl a bigger wage and transfer budget he'd have with us for next season. Our income will dwarf theirs and allows us to spend more.

Yes, can you name something? Because we do not know his exact job remit and some at Sport Republic may be responsible fot some of the things he is being blamed for.

The plans significantly changed from those original plans. Significantly higher in spec and scope. That impacted the cost.

I have been to Staplewood Campus three times and have seen plans/videos of Coventry's training ground. So I made a comparison.

The figures I provided show a vast gap in wage bills and that it isn't unreasonable to think they apply to a vast gap in both manager and player wages between the clubs. What reason would there be for that not to be the case?

See my last answer.

I did name the figures. We had nearly 4x the wage budget the last time we were in the same league. Little has changed for that not to be the case next season. Are you seriously suggesting a club would have 4x the overall wage budget, but it wouldn't apply to the manager?

I think that is likely to be the reason. Although with the window this season opening on 1st June, hopefully we have them in place before 23rd June!.

Wage bills in 2023/24 accounts... Coventry £23.4m Saints £80.9m

Saints will once again be a 1st year parachute payment club. Our wage bill in 2023/24 was significantly higher than Coventry City as evidenced on the Companies House website. Nothing financially has notably changed for us not to have a wage bill for both players and manager significantly above a non parachute payment team like Coventry next season.

I not seen enough of his teams play to really know. His CV is reasonably good relative to the place we find ourselves.

I asked for exact. What in his job remit warrants his sacking?

They recently hired an assistant sporting director to support Spors. But sporting director is not Bitcon's job.

The sentence "Don't we now pay more in interest on the loan, despite refinancing for more favourable terms?" is phrased as a question, but it functions as a claim because it implies a specific assertion: that you are paying more in interest now, even though you refinanced under supposedly better conditions. This kind of rhetorical question carries an assumption or point of view, making it a claim disguised as a question.

Although Coventry have recently refurbished, it is smaller and to a lower spec than Staplewood. No where near as much money invested into it.

Saints have a better squad, better academy, better training ground, significantly bigger income next season, significantly bigger wage/transfer budget and bigger manager wage.

You've made the claim, not me.

I asked 'what exactly'. An example with evidence.

22 goals in 42 England games is better than 'pretty shit'.

Everton announce Goodison will still be used for the women's team...

Tax

What exactly has he personally done that warrants being sacked?

Rick Wakeman's grandson has signed for the academy...