In the second of this new monthly series, Fans Director Brian Attmore answers questions from supporters in Q&A format.

If you have a question for Brian's next Q&A at the end of this month, please e-mail it to cfuinbox@btinternet.com

Have we now 'sold' all rights to any future income from Dave Kitson or would we still receive further income dependent upon future events (i.e. appearances, goals, international caps, Stoke avoiding relegation etc.) or/and will we receive further income at a fixed point in the future?

We will receive no further income related to Dave Kitson's future performance at Stoke City. There are, however, other possible benefits for Cambridge United to be had from Reading, although it is not another fee.

Were CUFC prompted to cash in on the 'sell-on' clause prematurely due to any doubts relating to the enforceability of the clause? For example, did Reading indicate that they intended not to pay the 'sell-on' money?

There was a degree of ambiguity in the wording of the sell-on clause which triggered concern. This, coupled with the knowledge that clubs have various ways of structuring transfer deals, was taken into account. By the latter I am referring to how monies are paid, the structure of future conditional payments, and the possibility of including another player in deal with an 'inflated value' as makeweight.

Is it fair to assume that (assuming the 'sell-on' clause was enforceable) the only benefit to CUFC from striking a deal of this nature is to maximise the guaranteed upfront cash that we receive and in doing so we have capped the maximum amount that we will receive?

It was a guaranteed amount of money that represents good value to a Club at our level. In addition there are possible future benefits to Cambridge United to be gained from Reading at a future date.

I think the final price that Stoke paid for Kitson (£5.5.million) surprised most people given that media coverage prior to this last week had been quoting figures of £2.5 to £4 million. Can you assure us that CUFC were not mislead by Reading into agreeing a settlement based upon the (mis)understanding that the final sale price would be much lower than the actual figure?

It is an intriguing situation. In this instance it appears to be that both clubs want to portray the transfer as 'really big'. Usually it is the opposite.

Stoke City having gained promotion to the Premiership with its associated income of millions had not made any signings all summer. They had waited and waited, before making headlines with a suggested big-money signing. It was in their interests to talk about how much the deal was (or could be worth) to appease their fans. They were now with the big boys and spending accordingly.

Reading, on the other hand, also had reason to 'big it up'. They had a desire to show their fans that they were only going to lose a star player for really big money, although in reality they have not received the sorts of figures being quoted.

We did not have to take the deal. It was common knowledge that Reading were looking to offload a striker or strikers following their relegation from the Premiership. There was no guarantee that it would be Dave Kitson or what price they would receive up front from any deal. My understanding is that the initial payment is much less than £2.5m. A deal may not have come off or it could have been allied to another makeweight player transfer so whilst we may have got more money there was the strong possibility of recouping less - much less - or even nothing.

Given that the board of CUFC are stating that we have received a 'very large' amount of money in settlement of our 'sell-on' rights do you feel that the Reading Board are being disingenuous to their fans by stating that 'There is no sell-on clause to Kitson's former club Cambridge United'?
On the Reading site Nicky Hammond said there is no sell-on fee to Cambridge. It is in your interests, I expect, to explain what the actual situation is at the moment. Fans don't like being treated like fodder, with all due respect. Will you publish details of this Sell-on? If not, could you give the reasons?

It is Reading's decision not to mention that they had in fact paid a settlement for the sell on rights. The amounts paid are confidential, as are the actual amounts in the deal between Stoke City and Reading.

Is part of the agreement that the final settlement amount shall remain undisclosed (again)? Recently money from transfers hasn't been published. I would expect this will be published publicly with the full annual report?

Part of the agreement is that these are kept confidential.

All transfer monies received and paid out will be included in the annual accounts, usually published in December. The Football Club's financial year runs from 1st June until 31st May the following year. Hence all transfers up until the end of May this year will be in the next set of accounts, whilst those after that date will be included in those for 2008-9 i.e. the following year.

You have now served under five chairmen - Gary Harwood, Roger Hunt, Terry Baker, Lee Power and Phil Law. Do you think the outcome would have been the same had any of the others been chairman (or Reg Smart for that matter)? And out of the five, who do you think is the best negotiator?

It would be pure speculation to consider any other outcome. I believe that on this subject all of the above Chairman would have followed the collective wish of their Board of Directors.

Only Roger Hunt and Lee Power were directly active in negotiating player transfers. Both were operating in different circumstances.

Despite a relatively short queue (no more than a dozen people in front of me), I queued for virtually the whole of half time for a pie in the Habbin. Service was slow, the staff were surly and, although there were two of them, only one appeared to be serving customers, the other standing about idle and at one point disappearing - at half time?!
When I was eventually served the choice was extremely limited, with only 3 or 4 pies left. There was also an issue with the 'menu', which listed one pie as containing 'steak slice'. This turned out to be steak and kidney and was very good value at £2, though surely something must be done to bring back the bacon rolls?

Thank you for your comments. There has been feedback on similar lines from a number of supporters. The tea bars have suffered from a number of issues over the past few seasons and I know that it is an area that the Club and supporters want to get right.

We now have an outside company running them. They are professional caterers and have some good ideas, and since being in charge for only a few weeks they have had to 'hit the ground running'.

Of primary importance was the cleanliness of the tea bars followed by the implementation of robust procedures and accompanying staff training. The first two were tackled at once and the results have been pleasing. Staff coaching and training is ongoing and the lessons learned from the first few games will assist with this.
Other changes may well take place in due course following feedback that will give a better service but could take time.

Whilst we do not aim to run out of food, it is pleasing that takings have risen sharply already this season, which suggests that more people are being served than before.

I know that it happened a few weeks ago but I am still fuming about the ticketing surcharges imposed for the Play-off game at Wembley? For each ticket purchased there was a handling fee of £3 and 75p for collection. How can this be justified?

I fully understand your concern about the extra surcharges. To use the services of a ticket agency with the fees mentioned was not a decision that the Club took lightly. It was only after consulting with the Conference League, last year's finalists Morecambe and Exeter, this year's FA Trophy finalists Ebbsfleet, and listening to their experiences in selling Wembley tickets that we went down the route of using a ticket agency.

The agency we used was highly recommended. They took the risks involved of getting the tickets processed and out. Remember there were only 10 days for this to happen. As a Club we do not have the infrastructure to deal with such a vast amount of enquiries and ticket sales in the short space of time available.

In the event, our phones and volunteers had to work flat out just to deal with travel enquiries and the booking etc of fans onto 26 coaches. The sale of 9,000 tickets in the first 24 hours and to sell our entire allocation of over 21,000 tickets inside a week shows how efficient the process was.

I realise that as an individual you had to pay for this. If we had done it any other way, the costs would have had to be borne by the Club and we would have had the highly probable scenario of many people not even getting a ticket.

Again, I understand your concern. It was done in this way for the best of reasons. It was a shame the result did not match our best hopes for the game.

Why were vouchers not given out at the Everton game to enable those attending to gain reduced price admission for the Coventry and West Ham pre-season friendlies?

In hindsight, it is accepted that offering discount vouchers at the turnstile as suggested would have been a good idea rather than just offering it to those who pre-booked their Everton tickets. We would consider the voucher idea in future.

The aim of this initiative was to give loyal supporters a discount from the full admission price whilst ensuring good gate revenue for the Club.

Thanks to Brian Attmore for his time in answering the questions and CFU for organising the new monthly Q&As with Brian. To send your questions for the next one at the end of this month, please e-mail cfuinbox@btinternet.com

Make Your Click Count For The U's - talk about it on the Message Board!

You are respectfully reminded that any article, as with all content on this website, unless otherwise stated, is subject to copyright © and the Official Cambridge United Website must be acknowledged as the original source including all quotes.

AT080804