22 replies to this topic

[Forever Trinity]

Just had a look at HKR accounts, seems some smoke and mirrors here.

Accounts show a reduction in losses but another loss non the less on previous years losses. There are also substantial amounts of money owed to 'investors'

Should club finances be part of the licensing system? turnover etc is but not profit and loss.

How can clubs like Hull KR spend up to the cap but like Saints make a loss? surely like other clubs they should cut their cloth accordingly.

[The Parksider]

Just had a look at HKR accounts, seems some smoke and mirrors here.

Accounts show a reduction in losses but another loss non the less on previous years losses. There are also substantial amounts of money owed to 'investors'

Should club finances be part of the licensing system? turnover etc is but not profit and loss.

How can clubs like Hull KR spend up to the cap but like Saints make a loss? surely like other clubs they should cut their cloth accordingly.

If you want a super "superleague" you need all clubs spending up to the cap.

If the normal business turnover does not enable a superleague club to do it then of course the RFL should allow club chairmen and directors to put their own money in so they can do it.

To ensure a professional Superleague from top to bottom SKY put £15M a year in and Club directors probably put another £5M+ in.

In theory it would be nice that all clubs self sustain. In practice it's nice that private money makes up the shortfall.

Imagine Harlequins running to their turnover, or Salford or Crusaders, it would be a disaster, the end of expansion and a lopsided league in which the top clubs will go on forever and the bottom clubs go nowhere but to oblivion.

[Old Frightful]

Rovers' chairman Neil Hudgell said a few weeks ago that he was fed up of the media scrutinising Hull KR's finances.

He said summat along the lines of "If myself and my fellow directors want to put money in a losing business, then that's up to us".

Clearly they know they're not going to be profitable until they get crowds in excess of 10k, they've already stated this. As far as I know, they've only come near to selling Craven Park out once, 10,089 v Hull this season, and as the current ground capacity is not much over 10k, their ground improvements to increase that capacity may not help much.

Signing Willie Mason should increase the gates a bit next season but I can't help wondering how long Hudge and his fellow directors will continue subsidising the club in these difficult financial times.

How they must wish to know Hull FC's secret.

Serve up garbage week in/week out and still get 14k averages.

[sam]

Just had a look at HKR accounts, seems some smoke and mirrors here.

Accounts show a reduction in losses but another loss non the less on previous years losses. There are also substantial amounts of money owed to 'investors'

Should club finances be part of the licensing system? turnover etc is but not profit and loss.

How can clubs like Hull KR spend up to the cap but like Saints make a loss? surely like other clubs they should cut their cloth accordingly.

lets hope they're paying their taxes on time.

[Tipster Ste]

The salary cap as its stands today is nothing but a hinderance to the big clubs and a road to ruin for the lesser clubs. In a previous SL life clubs could either spend the max or up to 50% of their turnover. Some where along this rainbow that rule was abolished and now all clubs can spend the max alledgely to create this 'super' Super league as mentioned above but lets analyse that. The top clubs still win everything yet clubs such as Hull KR can spend the same as Warrington, Leeds and Wigan. All three of these clubs could spend more than the cap than they currently do and could quite possibly attract high profile NRL and RU players to our game to improve the games profile etc. But they cant because they have a limted salary cap to adhere to. Meanwhile other clubs can throw money at average players and travel on the road to ruin. Ask yourselves these questions and if the answer is yes to most questions the salary isnt serving any purpose to the game in 2010 and beyond ....

1) Are clubs still operating at a loss and losing money?

2) Could some clubs spend more than the current salary cap?

3) Could those clubs sign Union/NRL players to boost leagues media profile?

4) Are the same teams still winning all the major trophies?

I leave it to you all to debate, but in my opinion if the salary cap where to be abolished tomorrow we would have the same resulting set of finances but a more high profile media game due to the players the top clubs could go on and sign.

[sam]

I leave it to you all to debate, but in my opinion if the salary cap where to be abolished tomorrow we would have the same resulting set of finances but a more high profile media game due to the players the top clubs could go on and sign.

if you abolished the salary cap tomorrow the first thing that would happen is a mass recharging of agents mobile phones, then simon moran would offer daft money for a player, which in turn would have the rest of the squad knocking on his door asking for a raise, so within a matter of months, maybe a full season, you'd have increased the wage bill by god knows what to keep the same players happy.

oh, and the same teams would still win everything.

[Old Frightful]

if you abolished the salary cap tomorrow the first thing that would happen is a mass recharging of agents mobile phones, then simon moran would offer daft money for a player, which in turn would have the rest of the squad knocking on his door asking for a raise, so within a matter of months, maybe a full season, you'd have increased the wage bill by god knows what to keep the same players happy.

oh, and the same teams would still win everything.

Nah...that wouldn't happen.

Take Association Football for instance...oh, wait a minute...

[bewareshadows]

I have to agree, you take the cap away, those already spending top whack will spend more to get ahead of their rivals, who will also spend more. Those lower down will also spend more. In the end the wage bill will increase with no increase in the players signed.

Take SL. When all the money rolled into SL, who was the world record signing? Paul Newlove half a million.
A player who was already in the game playing very well. His quality was not increased by the money, just his agents bank balance.

Players don't just appear because more money is offered. There is not 100's of potential RL superstars sitting on the sidelines saying. I'm not playing league as they don't offer enough cash. However take the cap away and I'm all in.

There has been the odd 1 or 2 that went to union, but probably baring Jason Robinson they have been nnothing to write home about. As for the players to buy in, I can't think of many who we would want from union. Do we want a union prop who can know how to technically collapse a scrum to get a penalty try awarded?

RL still looks at other sports. Saints have signed a promising RU winger. Cas flirted with 100m sprinter. Warrington looked at Basketball in kevin penny.

If the talent is there RL can still offer enough to get the players. I'd hate to see what Saints average loss of £300k a year would look like with no salary cap. The average would probably look closer to the 800k loss we made this year. Or probably worse £1 - £2 million with the ground being remortgaged with no money and no new ground on the way. Saints looking at liquidation and the banks wanting to sell the ground to get their money back. Bascally Saints as it was back in the 80's. When all clubs were not just running at a loss but close to the whole sport including the only professional outfit Wigan having time called on their loans by the banks.

As big as the losses are now never forget SL saved alot of clubs from debts they could never repay without selling their players, grounds and souls.

[Saint Toppy]

Saints have signed a promising RU winger.

Who is this then ??? - If your on about Danny Brotherton he signed from Northampton Demons RL not the yawnion side

[dallymessenger]

Just had a look at HKR accounts, seems some smoke and mirrors here.

Accounts show a reduction in losses but another loss non the less on previous years losses. There are also substantial amounts of money owed to 'investors'

Should club finances be part of the licensing system? turnover etc is but not profit and loss.

How can clubs like Hull KR spend up to the cap but like Saints make a loss? surely like other clubs they should cut their cloth accordingly.

at least hull kr can pay their taxes on time unlike wakey

or indeed get their ground improved.

[RP London]

While every you can sustain losses then there is no issue.

Although its been said perhaps with tongues in cheek or with little digs, as long as you can pay your taxes it is very very are other creditors pull the plug as they lose money... always pay the tax man is the first rule of business..

If people are putting in money and are happy to keep doing so, if you can pay back what you need to on a loan, then the loss that is being made is absolutely irrelevant. its the same with negative equity on your house, as long as you can afford your mortgage repayments etc negative equity is only relevent when you move/remortgage.

its a case of "nothing to see here"..

plenty of clubs in all sports run like this (a fair few companies do too) but as long as people are prepard to fund them then there is no problem..

[bewareshadows]

Who is this then ??? - If your on about Danny Brotherton he signed from Northampton Demons RL not the yawnion side

Sorry thought he came from Northampton not Northampton Demons.

I only heared he did pretty well in the 9's competition at headingley.

[Griff]

I don't have a problem with wealthy directors putting money in to count towards the salary cap - provided it's not refundable. In other words - a sponsorship deal.

I do, however, think it's quite wrong for them to lend money to the club and have that counting as salary cap turnover. It wouldn't be permitted if the club borrowed it from a bank so why should it be OK for a director to lend it to the club ? A loan may well represent funds, it certainly does not represent profit.

The problem is, of course, that these directors usually want their money back when they get fed up of shovelling funds in (plenty of instances over the years). The exception appears to be Huddersfield, who have amassed huge losses over the past decade, with Uncle Ken still carrying on. However, even he is not immortal and there's no certainty that his heirs will be so generous. They would be perfectly entitled to ask Huddersfield for their money back at some point in the future.

[Doolittle]

I was beginning to wonder when this thread might turn up, but I do find it rather amusing that it was instigated by a Wakefield supporter!

Sure Rovers lose money, its the Chairman's cash, he and Rob Crossland make decisions to pump in money they will never see again. Most true supporters would do the same if they had the dosh. The key to Rovers financial performance long term is ground development. Our capacity may only have been tested twice (only 2 gates over 10,000 since we got in SL) but lets not mince words, the South Stand is appalling and only Hull fans are daft enough to actually pay to stand on it. So, realistically, the capacity is really around 8,700. By the end of next season it will be over 12,000 and the South Stand will be no more. This will give us a chance to become self-financing. I understand work on the East Stand extension starts in 2 weeks time and the North Stand (Golf) will be re-located to the other end before the next season kicks off. This will allow ground clearing & construction of the permanent North Stand to take place during the 2011 season.

In the context of overall losses within SL, Rovers don't particularly stand out, yet they come under far more scrutiny than others (Huddersfield for example). Why is this?

[Dave T]

I don't have a problem with wealthy directors putting money in to count towards the salary cap - provided it's not refundable. In other words - a sponsorship deal.

I do, however, think it's quite wrong for them to lend money to the club and have that counting as salary cap turnover. It wouldn't be permitted if the club borrowed it from a bank so why should it be OK for a director to lend it to the club ? A loan may well represent funds, it certainly does not represent profit.

The problem is, of course, that these directors usually want their money back when they get fed up of shovelling funds in (plenty of instances over the years). The exception appears to be Huddersfield, who have amassed huge losses over the past decade, with Uncle Ken still carrying on. However, even he is not immortal and there's no certainty that his heirs will be so generous. They would be perfectly entitled to ask Huddersfield for their money back at some point in the future.

There is no such thing as Salary Cap Turnover any more. Clubs are not limited to 50% of their turnover, they can spend up to the cap if they like.

[Griff]

There is no such thing as Salary Cap Turnover any more. Clubs are not limited to 50% of their turnover, they can spend up to the cap if they like.

Fair enough. Still trouble stored up for the future though.

[Bulliac]

Fair enough. Still trouble stored up for the future though.

It might or might not be to be fair. It depends very much the terms the loans were taken out on and, let's be honest, just how much the loaner is desperate to get the money back from the loanee, if at all, in some cases.

It does make you wonder why the cap remains though. Saving clubs from themselves was the original reason, but as it has been pointed out, this aspect has been dropped, which leaves the idea of a 'level playing field' as the only remaining reason for it. It demonstrably fails to provide that, even amongst clubs paying the full whack, so what is its 'raison d'être?

[goldcoaster]

I was beginning to wonder when this thread might turn up, but I do find it rather amusing that it was instigated by a Wakefield supporter!

Sure Rovers lose money, its the Chairman's cash, he and Rob Crossland make decisions to pump in money they will never see again. Most true supporters would do the same if they had the dosh. The key to Rovers financial performance long term is ground development. Our capacity may only have been tested twice (only 2 gates over 10,000 since we got in SL) but lets not mince words, the South Stand is appalling and only Hull fans are daft enough to actually pay to stand on it. So, realistically, the capacity is really around 8,700. By the end of next season it will be over 12,000 and the South Stand will be no more. This will give us a chance to become self-financing. I understand work on the East Stand extension starts in 2 weeks time and the North Stand (Golf) will be re-located to the other end before the next season kicks off. This will allow ground clearing & construction of the permanent North Stand to take place during the 2011 season.

In the context of overall losses within SL, Rovers don't particularly stand out, yet they come under far more scrutiny than others (Huddersfield for example). Why is this?

Cheers for the Stadium update. Having been to Craven Park, I thought the ground had potential, but without development, it isn't up to SL standard. It's good to know though they are improving both ends.

And about the finances. If a club is fortunate enough to have directors or backers that are keen to dish out the dollars, then good on em. Rugby League needs to encourage more businessmen to get involved in the sport

[dallymessenger]

I was beginning to wonder when this thread might turn up, but I do find it rather amusing that it was instigated by a Wakefield supporter!

Sure Rovers lose money, its the Chairman's cash, he and Rob Crossland make decisions to pump in money they will never see again. Most true supporters would do the same if they had the dosh. The key to Rovers financial performance long term is ground development. Our capacity may only have been tested twice (only 2 gates over 10,000 since we got in SL) but lets not mince words, the South Stand is appalling and only Hull fans are daft enough to actually pay to stand on it. So, realistically, the capacity is really around 8,700. By the end of next season it will be over 12,000 and the South Stand will be no more. This will give us a chance to become self-financing. I understand work on the East Stand extension starts in 2 weeks time and the North Stand (Golf) will be re-located to the other end before the next season kicks off. This will allow ground clearing & construction of the permanent North Stand to take place during the 2011 season.

In the context of overall losses within SL, Rovers don't particularly stand out, yet they come under far more scrutiny than others (Huddersfield for example). Why is this?

would that be the end of ground improvements and a 12,000 capacity or will there be bits on the side where the existing stands can be extended.

getting to 10,000 crowds shouldnt be that hard, youd hope 10 years down the track it could be more like 15,000, rather than being stuck at 12,000

[Roy Boy]

In the context of overall losses within SL, Rovers don't particularly stand out, yet they come under far more scrutiny than others (Huddersfield for example). Why is this?

Because everybody hates you?