Jump to content


TotalRL.com Shop Alert: Last Ordering Date for Free Pre-Xmas Delivery within UK: 2pm Thursday 18th December!!
Rugby League Yearbook 2014/15 The Forbidden Game League Express League Express Gift Card Rugby League World Rugby League World Gift Card
Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards



Photo
- - - - -

Salford


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
81 replies to this topic

#41 Robin Evans

Robin Evans

    Robin Evans

  • Coach
  • 10,388 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 07:51 PM

It's a significant facet to an application tho. Its miles better than ours. Renting is irrelevant as long as they have a long trrm lease.
However, backing, juniors, finance, etc is stacked up in our fav and I reckon right at this mo, we would be favs if one team were to go up.

"I love our club, absolutely love it". (Overton, M 2007)

#42 thundergaz

thundergaz
  • Coach
  • 3,148 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 07:54 PM

Gaz, ignore the rights and wrongs of it but entry is via criteria the first being earn the right to apply, Fev, Sheff, Fax and Leigh have earned the right. Of those clubs we/Leigh are best placed to meet stadium/crowds/income because of LSV - LSV has 22 exec boxes and extra corporate in 4 lounges for up to another 600 - if full thats a massive income stream that you cannot currently compete with. We can run full jnr set up but we are behind you guys currently and are making profits after 2011's loss of our benefactor.
I am a two divisions of 10 in SL advocater, that figure allows all current ambitious clubs and 2 expansion to enjoy FT structures and enhanced fixtures. If results mattered then Fev walk it but the Widnes model is the one to follow for SL tick boxes, and that is how we must play. Salford, Wakey and Bradford are role models for us minnows to aspire to.


I'm sorry Craig but I totally disagree about it just being about criteria if that was the case you and fax would have been in SL a long time ago. It doesn't matter that much about criteria obviously you need to tick the criteria boxes but no matter how immaculate your criteria is if you haven't got a sugar daddy they will never let you in unless you fit into the expansion box. Look who as gone up out of our league and at the time they all had sugar daddy's in one way or another. Widnes sugar daddy Salford sugar daddy hull kr sugar daddy huddersfield sugar daddy etc etc etc see the theme. You might argue a case for Wakefield or c@s but wakey got in at just the right time that's the final we should of won and we would be in wakeys position now and as for c@s they had a sugar daddy of some kind because no way can a club yo yo like they did without a big financial backer.

Edited by thundergaz, 10 January 2013 - 08:01 PM.


#43 DAZROVER1985

DAZROVER1985
  • Coach
  • 322 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 08:12 PM

That's my point robin you can't base everything on just one criteria as he does.

#44 sidnee

sidnee
  • Coach
  • 3,964 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 10:07 PM

Aye, I know. Just thought I would point out the tiny flaw in his masterplan ;)
The weak conform, the strong survive.

#45 Steve Slater

Steve Slater
  • Coach
  • 1,942 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 09:47 AM

I'm sorry Craig but I totally disagree about it just being about criteria if that was the case you and fax would have been in SL a long time ago. It doesn't matter that much about criteria obviously you need to tick the criteria boxes but no matter how immaculate your criteria is if you haven't got a sugar daddy they will never let you in unless you fit into the expansion box. Look who as gone up out of our league and at the time they all had sugar daddy's in one way or another. Widnes sugar daddy Salford sugar daddy hull kr sugar daddy huddersfield sugar daddy etc etc etc see the theme. You might argue a case for Wakefield or c@s but wakey got in at just the right time that's the final we should of won and we would be in wakeys position now and as for c@s they had a sugar daddy of some kind because no way can a club yo yo like they did without a big financial backer.

I'm not so certain that Rovers would have remained in Super League TG? You have to admire Wakefield by the way they have begged, stole, borrowed and cheated to remain up there. Maybe they don't deserve to be in SL, but they still are. They have been on the brink so many times they have become masters of escapism. They are also bringing on promising youngsters, and remind me so much of the Fev of old.
I hope that if Rovers do get in Super League, they compete well through grit, determination and good management, rather than by splashing the cash.

#46 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,780 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 10:12 AM

LSV take all the profit though, not Leigh!


Stadiums owned/run by the council don't generate profits - if they did I think we get 11% or so. The problem is retained revenue and the initial agreement strangled Leigh, the new agreement ensures far greater retained revenues hence we could show an annual profit on reduced gates despite the central fund going to HMRC last year.
Its a pity Daz n Gaz struggle with literacy, are they a local boy band btw.?
The huge benefit LSV has is that it is debt free, so its purely running cost and income. The SL model with 6000 gates generates fantastic cash v costs. Leigh drew 5000 in a disastrous SL season at a dated stadium, with a team that was never going to compete, 6000 is possibly low for LSV projection.
This is all hypothetical of course as Salford will fall into admin and get a provisional licence for 2013.

Edited by sweaty craiq, 11 January 2013 - 10:39 AM.


#47 DAZROVER1985

DAZROVER1985
  • Coach
  • 322 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 12:11 PM

So you are still basing Leigh are best for super league because of the stadium then?

#48 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,912 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 12:21 PM

................ Salford sugar daddy ...........


Salford ? :blink:
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#49 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,780 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 01:41 PM

So you are still basing Leigh are best for super league because of the stadium then?


Do you dance or mime?

Leigh have an advantage in facilities and potential to generate income, those advantages are down to the stadium. They are one of 4 clubs able to currently apply, at present I believe POR wouldn't meet minimum standards, if they still exist, and as a consequence Fax and Leigh would be looked at more positively should the need arise.

#50 DAZROVER1985

DAZROVER1985
  • Coach
  • 322 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 03:22 PM

By the time the next licenses come round fevs will be up to standard if its still determined by licenses that is, and we are significantly expanding hospitality areas so I'm not sure who would have the advantage then as we can utilise ours 7 days a week banking all the money. Just out of interest what sort of income do Leigh generate on non match days from the stadium and do they take all monies on match days.

#51 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,912 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 03:32 PM

By the time the next licenses come round fevs will be up to standard if its still determined by licenses that is, and we are significantly expanding hospitality areas so I'm not sure who would have the advantage then as we can utilise ours 7 days a week banking all the money. Just out of interest what sort of income do Leigh generate on non match days from the stadium and do they take all monies on match days.


Yes, Daz, but the other side of the coin is what sort of costs do Rovers incur, maintaining the stadium to safety standards, insurance, interest on the mortgages, rates - all the things that go with being a property magnate ?

Having property is nice, but it can be a millstone round your neck when there are so few chances to use it to the full during the year.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#52 jamescolin

jamescolin
  • Coach
  • 3,284 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 03:58 PM

You diversify. If you have the product and you own it you can turn your hands to other things that occur outside the rugby season. That is of course if you are the right kind of controller. You look at the market, find out where and what the demand is and then use your facilities in that sphere. The answer is not to be narrow minded.

#53 oldrover

oldrover
  • Coach
  • 6,164 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 04:18 PM

Yes, Daz, but the other side of the coin is what sort of costs do Rovers incur, maintaining the stadium to safety standards, insurance, interest on the mortgages, rates - all the things that go with being a property magnate ?

Having property is nice, but it can be a millstone round your neck when there are so few chances to use it to the full during the year.

surely you don't see renting a stadium as a plus
joe mullaney is a god
the only good tiger is a stuffed tiger

Posted Image

#54 sidnee

sidnee
  • Coach
  • 3,964 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 04:18 PM

Rent it to sheffield. Don valley being knocked down and not welcome for every game at bramall lane.

Whatever loss we are going to make is what they pay!

Sorted.
The weak conform, the strong survive.

#55 DAZROVER1985

DAZROVER1985
  • Coach
  • 322 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 05:00 PM

Yes, Daz, but the other side of the coin is what sort of costs do Rovers incur, maintaining the stadium to safety standards, insurance, interest on the mortgages, rates - all the things that go with being a property magnate ?

Having property is nice, but it can be a millstone round your neck when there are so few chances to use it to the full during the year.

yes there are added risks but there are also big benefits if u can utilise the facilities where as renting u are limited to maximising match day revenue.

#56 jamescolin

jamescolin
  • Coach
  • 3,284 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 06:18 PM

yes there are added risks but there are also big benefits if u can utilise the facilities where as renting u are limited to maximising match day revenue.


It is always better to own. You control the situation. Your land value goes up with inflation and you can diversify. Within law you can make alterations to buldings and revenue sources. One very good example springs to mind not a 1000 miles away from the Rovers and that is Farmer Copley's land. From being a crop farmer we now have a restaurant, kids playing facilities, a shop and leisure facilities. Sound business thinking.

#57 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,912 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 06:29 PM

surely you don't see renting a stadium as a plus


Looking at the accounts - yes.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#58 DAZROVER1985

DAZROVER1985
  • Coach
  • 322 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 07:07 PM

Looking at the accounts - yes.

what was Sheffield turnover last year then and what was fevs?

#59 jamescolin

jamescolin
  • Coach
  • 3,284 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 07:12 PM

Looking at the accounts - yes.


Depends where you look obviously not at Fixed Assets in ths case. All businesses are about cash flow and sound management. But a fixed asset always leaves you with something to sell if you have mishandled. Anyway accounts only tell you the position at a fixed point in time. It may be totally different six months down the road.

#60 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,912 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 07:15 PM

what was Sheffield turnover last year then and what was fevs?


Fev don't disclose it.

And they're perfectly entitled to do that.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users