jc you may know more than me, but i did not think sheffield had a money man so to speak, and the point i was making is even when we had a money man, we did not make a profit, they have, all i am saying is surely there are lessons we as a club can learn from them.

Iv'e no doubt at all sheffield are a very well run club and they are run on the tightest of budgets but everything that the club is doing at the moment can't be done on gate reciepts and a bit of sponsorship

Doesn't Aston perform several other roles at the club (as well as 1st team coach)? I imagine that helps keep costs down.
Maybe they don't pay as much as we think for the use of Bramhall Lane?
Maybe, coming from a city (so a greater catchment area) they find sponsorship easier to come by?
Maybe most of the squad are in well paid 'day jobs'......so turn out for the Eagles just for the hell of it (plus expenses!!), so the wage bill is less than we think?
Maybe - as has been suggested - the REAL cost of running the club is unknown, as it's all tied up with the dreaded 'Directors Loans'??

Perhaps it stems from the re-formation of the club, once they'd been cast adrift, following the 'merger' with Hudds? Starting again from scratch, they've learned to 'cut their cloth' according to their means over the last decade......summat we are only recently coming to terms with!!

I think it should be applauded and puts the Bulls to shame.

Clearly a better run outfit than most though headline figures often don't tell all.

2010 accounts show turnover at £645k and profit at £8k.

To answer a question before, their accounts to Sept 2010 still show [inegative [/inet assets (or debt) of £63k.

Until these accounts, this had been rising by 15-20k a year. They still have a negative profit and loss account (cumulative losses over the years) of £242k versus share capital (what shareholders have put in) of £179k.

So long as the status quo remains then thats not a problem, pretty much like when AT was at Leigh.