Grumps wrote:Lets turn the tables then, you show me the income was £140m and that only £1.4m was from betting sponsorship. By the way,have you seen the sky bet adds on the pitch side adverts, do them for free do they, or come as part of the sky package?
We have no choice over the skybet adds - it’s part of the package clearly.
Why do we have to turn the tables ? I asked the question initially as to whether it was around 1%....after your original comment that the money we got from gambling companies was key to our transfer dealings which is what this thread is about.
The context of my comment was firstly that the money we get from gambling sponsorship is definitely not key to our ability to make transfers given the profit we are making and secondly it’s a small percentage of our overall revenue.
You have then since made comments saying it’s a lot more than 1% and I have asked that you provide the evidence of that....clearly you can’t. It’s probably just easier that you admit that.
At least my rationale is based on being able to read and understand our accounts and knowing that up until recently we had never had a sponsorship deal worth more than a million a year.
I’m not sure what your rationale is based on other than you seem to be fully behind being sponsored by gambling companies and for some reason think this is a key part of our recent financial performance.
As for showing you that our revenue was nearly £140m have you not seen the last accounts ?