When picking through the bones of an interview, it may not be until after the event that you can pick up on something said that raises questions.

That was the case last Thursday when Paul Tisdale held his weekly press call ahead of Saturday's postponed trip to Bournemouth, rescheduled for tomorrow.

As usual, Exeter City's manager was happy to answer any questions put to him by the press gang, but it was one answer in reference to Bournemouth's spending this January that caused alarm.

Tisdale is always thoughtful with responses to questions and I do not believe he said something he should not have when he made reference to Exeter's budget for next season. His words were: "It is not their [Bournemouth's] fault they have money to spend and I'm certainly not going to deride them for having money. Good for them. It so happens that they can spend on one player [Matt Tubbs] that we can spend on our entire squad next season."

The fee Bournemouth paid for Tubbs has not been revealed, but a figure of £800,000 has been mentioned. That is the highest figure given so, if Tisdale is right, it means Exeter's playing budget will again be slashed next season.

It suffered a hit this year as City were victims of modern-day transfer rules, which allows players to leave for nothing if over the age of 24 and at the end of their contracts. They would easily have received good prices for the likes of Matt Taylor and Ryan Harley last summer, while Jamie Cureton would surely have commanded a fee as well, after a 20-goal season.

All three departed for nothing, leaving Exeter considerably worse off financially and in terms of playing personnel, whereas, in years gone by, they could have been sitting on perhaps as much as £500,000 after the sales of all three.

The Bosman ruling, which sent shock waves through football back in 1995, does little to help clubs like Exeter, who are reliant on player sales to help balance the books.

The likes of Jamie Mackie, George Friend and Danny Seaborne have all gone mid-season when Exeter have received substantial offers, but, with Scott Golbourne out of contract this summer and, in all probability, likely to move on, were the club in a position to keep him and turn down the cash offer from Barnsley?

Crowds are significantly down on last year, the club have struggled and the fixture calendar has not been kind, with Exeter having away games at crucial times of the year, such as Boxing Day or indeed on the opening day of the season. All are factors which have damaged City's finances.

You get the impression that the Golbourne deal was in many ways out of Exeter's hands.

The club needs money to survive and, perhaps for the first time in a long time, they were forced to sell rather than try to barter for a better deal.

Nothing has been officially mentioned as yet with regards to next season's budget, but, if Tisdale is right, then preliminary talks with the board seem to have taken place.

Next term, maintaining a League One place on that sort of budget would undoubtedly present Tisdale with his toughest challenge yet.