Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Inside Out BBC Yorkshire


  • Please log in to reply
298 replies to this topic

#261 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,845 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 11:42 AM

I think the future direction should be a bigger spread for the game with a bigger SL and the wealth should be spread around. I think expansion, not ring fencing, should be the policy.


I've done a financial model for an 18 team SL.

In this model I've added York, Doncaster, Fev and Fax.

Each team gets a £930,000 share of the TV money.

That will increase losses amongst the current 14 SL clubs by £270K each and thus SL losses will go out to around -£72M.

I can't project anything BUT losses at York and Donny (Fev already lose money, and Fax break even on a low turnover and £930K won't be enough for them to continue profit in SL)

So I've conservatively estimated losses of £250K a year each on the basis that they will probably drop their player spend (and not compete) so the SL losses will go out to £73M in the first year and rise year on year faster than they are doing now.

What is your profitable model for a larger Superleague please?? Please project your figures and justification?

Edited by The Parksider, 03 February 2013 - 11:44 AM.


#262 oldrover

oldrover
  • Coach
  • 5,950 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 12:56 PM

for crying out loud, the seasons started. get out and watch a game.
joe mullaney is a god
the only good tiger is a stuffed tiger

Posted Image

#263 stewpot01

stewpot01
  • Coach
  • 126 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 01:18 PM

for crying out loud, the seasons started. get out and watch a game.


Too far to travel to my beloved Hunslet these days and Keighley is too cold.

#264 stewpot01

stewpot01
  • Coach
  • 126 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 01:22 PM

Because we'll lose the SKY contract for an Elite league, and the game will descend into a local semi pro oddity, that will please old men like me and keighley. Once were gone though :lol:


:lol: :lol: :lol:

#265 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,439 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 01:22 PM

Because we'll lose the SKY contract for an Elite league, and the game will descend into a local semi pro oddity, that will please old men like me and keighley. Once were gone though :lol:


Was that not a rhetorical question ? :mellow:
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#266 M j M

M j M
  • Coach
  • 101 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 01:45 PM

So I've conservatively estimated losses of £250K a year each on the basis that they will probably drop their player spend (and not compete) so the SL losses will go out to £73M in the first year and rise year on year faster than they are doing now.

You don't appear to know the difference between losses and debt. Which puts you in the George Riley class of financial comprehension.

#267 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 4,822 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 01:53 PM

I've done a financial model for an 18 team SL.

In this model I've added York, Doncaster, Fev and Fax.

Each team gets a £930,000 share of the TV money.

That will increase losses amongst the current 14 SL clubs by £270K each and thus SL losses will go out to around -£72M.

I can't project anything BUT losses at York and Donny (Fev already lose money, and Fax break even on a low turnover and £930K won't be enough for them to continue profit in SL)

So I've conservatively estimated losses of £250K a year each on the basis that they will probably drop their player spend (and not compete) so the SL losses will go out to £73M in the first year and rise year on year faster than they are doing now.

What is your profitable model for a larger Superleague please?? Please project your figures and justification?


Did you add in any extra money that the game might get from a bigger Sky contract negotiated because 1. There will be more Sky suscribers in the expansion areas and 2. Increased because already, without expansion, the viewing figures are increasingly impressive and Sky need us to fill their schedule with their second most watched product after soccer, who coverage on their channel has been decreased by competition. 0r 3. Maybe some extra TV money from another source such as ESPN.

I don't have figures, I'm not a bean counter, and I don't say this stuff will happen overnight. This should be a long term strategy. The alternative is a slimmed down 10 team league with the rest of the game slowly expiring. I don't think Sky would continue to subsidise the game at present levels for a reduced size competition.

Crowds have been rising year on year. If this trend continues, there will be extra gate money.

Once this depression ends then there will more money sloshing around on the corporate sponsorship front and maybe more investors wanting to play at running professional sports clubs.

None of these expansions would take place unless the appliying clubs were seen to be financially sound. How each club would do this is up to their management.

The game took a pay cut from Sky between contract one and contract two but it survived. If it cannot obtain the extra revenue and the clubs had to operate on less Sky money, well it's been done before.

#268 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,845 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 02:04 PM

1. Did you add in any extra money that the game might get from a bigger Sky contract or maybe some extra TV money from another source such as ESPN.

2. I don't have figures.

3. I'm not a bean counter.

4. I don't say this stuff will happen overnight.

5. The alternative is a slimmed down 10 team league with the rest of the game slowly expiring.

6. Crowds have been rising year on year.

7. Once this depression ends then there will more money sloshing around

8. None of these expansions would take place unless the appliying clubs were seen to be financially sound. How each club would do this is up to their management.


1. No the reality is there's no extra money

2. Then how can you predict the economics of the game

3. You can count, you can do books.

4. When will it all kick off then?

5. No it's not. alternatives are stay as we are or 12 clubs.

6. No they haven't they are up and down at clubs

7. So RL is not racing towards expanding because of the "depression"?

8. No, you said these little clubs could all get ready for Superleague, so you tell me how?

You've really just ducked the whole thing.

#269 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,845 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 02:08 PM

You don't appear to know the difference between losses and debt. Which puts you in the George Riley class of financial comprehension.


I'm well aware of the fact the game runs at a very big loss on the accounts, but a much smaller loss depending on how much of the directors loans are written off by the directors. We have had this conversation already and I was part of it and agreed with this principle.

So why not keep up with the debate rather than jumping in to have a go on a spurious point?

#270 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,439 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 02:10 PM

You don't appear to know the difference between losses and debt. Which puts you in the George Riley class of financial comprehension.


I wondered that, actually.

Is he talking about (a) total creditors or ( b ) the excess of creditors over assets ?

Makes a huge difference to his argument.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#271 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,845 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 02:10 PM

for crying out loud, the seasons started. get out and watch a game.


I went Friday thank you. I'll get to as many games as you if not more. If you don't want to join a debate don't but don't come on here patronising, we all go to games and we all come on here for a good old RL argument. Can do both you know.

#272 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,845 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 02:17 PM

I wondered that, actually.

Is he talking about (a) total creditors or ( b ) the excess of creditors over assets ?

Makes a huge difference to his argument.


I'm talking about which way the Superleague debt (calculate it any way you want) would go if "The future direction should be a bigger spread for the game with a bigger SL and the wealth should be spread around".

That's the debate started by Keighley.

I'm arguing that if we expanded SL to 16 or 18 clubs the debt would go up. Define debt as you wish it's neither the argument nor the point. It's what would happen to SL financially if it went to 16 or 18 clubs.

You or MjM are very welcome to pass an opinion on Keighley's proposal, and very welcome to define SL debt as you wish, it's whether you think it would go up, down or stay the same that is the point of debate?

Your views Gentlemen?

#273 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,439 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 02:25 PM

I'm talking about which way the Superleague debt (calculate it any way you want) would go if "The future direction should be a bigger spread for the game with a bigger SL and the wealth should be spread around".

That's the debate started by Keighley.

I'm arguing that if we expanded SL to 16 or 18 clubs the debt would go up. Define debt as you wish it's neither the argument nor the point. It's what would happen to SL financially if it went to 16 or 18 clubs.

You or MjM are very welcome to pass an opinion on Keighley's proposal, and very welcome to define SL debt as you wish, it's whether you think it would go up, down or stay the same that is the point of debate?

Your views Gentlemen?


Yes, I accept that - what I'm getting at is that Riley wasn't clear what he meant by "in debt".

I am "in debt" to the gas men. When the bill comes, I have sufficient funds to pay it. I do not see it as a concern.

On the other hand, if I had a gas bill for £200 and assets of only £100, I would be concerned.

I'm not expecting this to be answered on this forum, by the way, just pointing out how superficial this ten minute piece was.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#274 M j M

M j M
  • Coach
  • 101 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 03:29 PM

I'm well aware of the fact the game runs at a very big loss on the accounts, but a much smaller loss depending on how much of the directors loans are written off by the directors. We have had this conversation already and I was part of it and agreed with this principle.

So why not keep up with the debate rather than jumping in to have a go on a spurious point?

It's hardly a spurious point when it is the key factor in determining the financial health or otherwise of the clubs. Have you actually looked at any clubs' financial statements? The only rugby clubs which I've seen recently writing off significant amounts of directors' loans are Wigan and Leeds RUFC Ltd. Most tend to just carry them - both of the noted examples did it to tidy the Balance Sheets on changes of ownership.

I've now looked at the accounts of the 11 clubs for 2011 (assuming the 14 less Catalans, Bradford and Wakefield, the latter two not having filed any accounts yet in their new forms - (although the Bulls last filed figures show a club with net assets of £840k). You can only get anywhere near to the claimed "debt" figure by including £10.7m at St Helens which is long-term debt to fund the stadium. Huddersfield and London, as expected, are the stand-out figures: London Rugby League Limited owed Hughes and Leneghan a combined £9.8m. Likewise Huddersfield had long-term loans of £7.2m.

That said, the only club which gets a fully clean bill of financial health at first glance (achieving all of positive cash balances, being profitable, having positive net assets and net current assets (as opposed to net current liabilities)) are Leeds. But profitability in a Rugby League environment is a peculiar thing: e.g. although they made a profit before tax of £600k, Leeds aren't really run to make money; the target is broadly break-even on a long-term basis and any surplus can mean more invested in the community game (or syphoned off to prop up Leeds RUFC...).

#275 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,439 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 04:17 PM

I wondered that, actually.

Is he talking about (a) total creditors or ( b ) the excess of creditors over assets ?

Makes a huge difference to his argument.


Can you answer this, then MjM ?

Just out of interest ?
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#276 M j M

M j M
  • Coach
  • 101 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 04:30 PM

Can you answer this, then MjM ?

Just out of interest ?

Total or long term liabilities. I can't quite tie his figures up - if you include the stadium owning-company of Huddersfield rather than the Giants' trading company it comes close on long term liabilities; if not you need to add current and long term liabilities together. He may have been more scientific and extracted all loans and financing arrangements from other liabilities but I can't be arsed going line by line as the answer isn't going to change :lol:

On the net asset/net liability level, in total across the eleven clubs there is an excess of assets over liabilities of £12.3m. But that ranges from £16.1m net assets at Saints and £15.5m at Leeds down to £10.7m net liabilities at London. But that in itself shows why you need to take these on a case-by-case basis as both Saints and London remain reliant on directors' support.

#277 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,439 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 04:52 PM

The stadium owning company feeds the soccer club as well - it shouldn't be included.

So actually - not all that much to worry about in most cases.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#278 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,845 posts

Posted 04 February 2013 - 10:41 AM

It's hardly a spurious point when it is the key factor in determining the financial health or otherwise of the clubs.


It's a spurious point. I accept your excellent figures.

Try to answer the actual question in debate.

If Superleague were extended by two championship clubs given that both would struggle for players and fans would the debt go up or down?

Mr. keighley thinks it's a good idea to invest in more clubs into SL who will in themselves bring more income to the table.

Is it a good idea on a financial basis?

#279 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,845 posts

Posted 04 February 2013 - 10:44 AM

Can you answer this, then MjM ?

Just out of interest ?


Have you grasped my point yet.

The question is as above. I accept the "better way" of expressing debt, now care to pass an opinion on wether SL debt (however calculated) would go up or down if two championship clubs came into SL to extend it to 14?

#280 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,439 posts

Posted 04 February 2013 - 02:29 PM

Have you grasped my point yet.

The question is as above. I accept the "better way" of expressing debt, now care to pass an opinion on wether SL debt (however calculated) would go up or down if two championship clubs came into SL to extend it to 14?


16, you mean, I take it.

On the assumption that all other factors remain the same (wage levels, Sky money, etc etc) obviously borrowing is likely to rise.
"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