Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Dr Koukash on FiveLive


  • Please log in to reply
411 replies to this topic

#121 Southstander13

Southstander13
  • Coach
  • 1,295 posts

Posted 22 March 2013 - 09:00 AM

In his original press conference he did say all creditors would be paid in full.


Yeah he did, so the former players not paid are getting their money owed to them too.

#122 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,168 posts

Posted 22 March 2013 - 09:02 AM

http://www.reds.co.u...ress-conference

12.24 time stamp


12:24 Posted Image
Steve @ SCR: Question about Patten, Anderson and the tax bill


Thursday January 31, 2013 12:24 Steve @ SCR




12:24 Posted Image
Steve @ SCR: Every creditor will be paid and paid 100 pence in the pound - everyone will be paid in full

If you use "should of", "would of" or "could of", you are a moron.

On Odsal Top baht 'at.

 


#123 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 8,099 posts

Posted 22 March 2013 - 09:08 AM

In his original press conference he did say all creditors would be paid in full.


Yes, but spread over a time period of between 5 and 25 years for various creditors. Personally I think its time that we adopted football's approach to creditors and insist that those within the game get paid first - they look after their own first so why don't we ?

Edited by Derwent, 22 March 2013 - 09:08 AM.


#124 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,168 posts

Posted 22 March 2013 - 09:12 AM

Yes, but spread over a time period of between 5 and 25 years for various creditors. Personally I think its time that we adopted football's approach to creditors and insist that those within the game get paid first - they look after their own first so why don't we ?

I'm keeping quiet when it comes to clubs and paying their creditors.

If you use "should of", "would of" or "could of", you are a moron.

On Odsal Top baht 'at.

 


#125 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,793 posts

Posted 22 March 2013 - 09:12 AM

Yes, but spread over a time period of between 5 and 25 years for various creditors.

That was just the council. The council is owed millions. A formal CVA has been arranged with the council.

Edited by Saintslass, 22 March 2013 - 09:12 AM.


#126 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 42,703 posts

Posted 22 March 2013 - 09:12 AM

So it's not evening out the game, it's not preventing clubs going bust, we are agreed it seems.

What then is the point of the salary cap?


not really

you said it was supposed to stop clubs going bust. I said it wasn't. I said it wasasafeguard to help them avoid doing so. You can't stop businesses getting into dofficulties, you can attempt to avoid the obvious pitfalls.

How does not having a salary cap even out the game? The richest clubs, and/or the clubs most willing to spend money they haven't got will have an advantage over the rest: and the ones spendingwhat they haven't got will surely pay te price.

If you want o 'even out the game', you will need a draft system and the centralisation of all finance, marketing,strict standards that all can adhere to, player development and facilities. To do that properly you will have to exclude clubs who are unable, or unwilling to operate adequately within those strict standards.

Fancuy it?
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#127 Segovia Carpet

Segovia Carpet
  • Coach
  • 1,419 posts

Posted 22 March 2013 - 09:18 AM

Perhaps Dr Koukash should concentrate on paying the club's creditors within the game before he stamps his feet about not being allowed to spend more money. I imagine the likes of Leigh Sports Village (owed £138,000 for training facilities) and Shaun McRea (owed £103,500) are overjoyed to hear that the Salford club has pots of money to spend......


You well know how a CVA works & the Dr has reaffirmed all creditors will be paid in full. The 75% majority was achieved. A new Company was formed and the Doctor now has a fresh playing field.

#128 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,832 posts

Posted 22 March 2013 - 09:18 AM

Some people seem to struggle to understand the benefits of any decision that is made in RL – and therefore immediately call for it to be scrapped if it doesn’t do what they want it to.

eg. because we haven’t caught the Aussies up at Test level, SL overall has failed.

Let’s have a look at the salary cap and a couple of the supposed benefits with a level head:

a) Stopping clubs from going bust:
People state that there are still clubs in financial difficulties so it is a failure.
1 - It is important to remember that we are in the worst financial crisis the world has ever seen, the country is struggling and businesses are failing left right and centre. RL clubs went bust in the good times, so even with the tightest financial controls clubs will struggle now, as fans tighten their belts, businesses do not embrace sponsorship deals – and indeed some sponsors even go bust not fulfilling their deals.
2 – What the limit does is prevent a megalomaniac boss deciding that their best plan is to spend £4m on salaries (that they can’t afford) in the hope that crowds will flock and Wembley and Old Trafford trips will cover this. It is a dangerous game and at some stage this crumbles as either the boss gets bored and moves on, or the cash flow just isn’t there. Whilst there are still teams that struggle, the cap protects the clubs from terrible business practise, which we have seen loads of over the years. We hear so often in RL that owners are looking to make their club self-sufficent, we have attracted a certain type of investor to our game that appreciates good business practice and how important it is that revenues can cover the bills. Warrington were in a much worse state when we were allowed to spend what we wanted – just a couple of years after large spending on Welsh RU players, Ellis, Bateman, Davies, Phillips etc. we were living hand to mouth and without the sales of Harris and Sculthorpe we’d probably have gone bust earlier.

b ) Levelling up of the comp:
People state that we have the same old teams at the top so it is a failure.
1 – The top of the table is very competitive, however some clubs will always be more attractive to players irrespective of wages on offer. Man Utd will probably always have that over Man City, despite the fact that City can offer a lot more. If Many City had signed Van Persie this year I suspect the trophy would have been retained, but no, Man Utd’s name and history won that battle. Wigan will always be more attractive than Salford I’m sorry to say.
2 – Many assume that the clubs with rich backers would all just pay much more in wages – yet apart from Koukash, I haven’t seen any rich backer come out and say they want to throw more money at their clubs – in fact it contradicts their calls for a sustainable club. All that would happen in the short term is that clubs would use more overdrafts, cuts would be made from other areas, and wage bills would spiral.

I also think there is one absolutely massive benefit to the game that people ignore when it comes to the salary cap:
c)Spending on other benefits
Clubs know that they need to get another ‘edge’ on the competition, so we have seen a hell of a lot more investment in things like training facilities, sports science, youth development, training camps etc. Warrington have a turnover of around £5.5m yet they only spend £1.8m on the first team – this means that they have money to play with in terms of investing in these other areas. Off the field clubs have much bigger structures, driving sales, commercial revenues etc.
IMHO a real risk of allowing Warrington to spend what they want is simply that the first things to be cut will be the positive things like training, sports science, youth etc. simply so they could sign a SBW or Burgess or Graham.

IMHO the salary cap is doing an awful lot of good, we should constantly review if the limits are right for the game, and I believe they do that anyway.

Edited by Dave T, 22 March 2013 - 09:19 AM.


#129 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 42,703 posts

Posted 22 March 2013 - 09:23 AM

Some people seem to struggle to understand the benefits of any decision that is made in RL – and therefore immediately call for it to be scrapped if it doesn’t do what they want it to.

eg. because we haven’t caught the Aussies up at Test level, SL overall has failed.

Let’s have a look at the salary cap and a couple of the supposed benefits with a level head:

a) Stopping clubs from going bust:
People state that there are still clubs in financial difficulties so it is a failure.
1 - It is important to remember that we are in the worst financial crisis the world has ever seen, the country is struggling and businesses are failing left right and centre. RL clubs went bust in the good times, so even with the tightest financial controls clubs will struggle now, as fans tighten their belts, businesses do not embrace sponsorship deals – and indeed some sponsors even go bust not fulfilling their deals.
2 – What the limit does is prevent a megalomaniac boss deciding that their best plan is to spend £4m on salaries (that they can’t afford) in the hope that crowds will flock and Wembley and Old Trafford trips will cover this. It is a dangerous game and at some stage this crumbles as either the boss gets bored and moves on, or the cash flow just isn’t there. Whilst there are still teams that struggle, the cap protects the clubs from terrible business practise, which we have seen loads of over the years. We hear so often in RL that owners are looking to make their club self-sufficent, we have attracted a certain type of investor to our game that appreciates good business practice and how important it is that revenues can cover the bills. Warrington were in a much worse state when we were allowed to spend what we wanted – just a couple of years after large spending on Welsh RU players, Ellis, Bateman, Davies, Phillips etc. we were living hand to mouth and without the sales of Harris and Sculthorpe we’d probably have gone bust earlier.

b ) Levelling up of the comp:
People state that we have the same old teams at the top so it is a failure.
1 – The top of the table is very competitive, however some clubs will always be more attractive to players irrespective of wages on offer. Man Utd will probably always have that over Man City, despite the fact that City can offer a lot more. If Many City had signed Van Persie this year I suspect the trophy would have been retained, but no, Man Utd’s name and history won that battle. Wigan will always be more attractive than Salford I’m sorry to say.
2 – Many assume that the clubs with rich backers would all just pay much more in wages – yet apart from Koukash, I haven’t seen any rich backer come out and say they want to throw more money at their clubs – in fact it contradicts their calls for a sustainable club. All that would happen in the short term is that clubs would use more overdrafts, cuts would be made from other areas, and wage bills would spiral.

I also think there is one absolutely massive benefit to the game that people ignore when it comes to the salary cap:
c)Spending on other benefits
Clubs know that they need to get another ‘edge’ on the competition, so we have seen a hell of a lot more investment in things like training facilities, sports science, youth development, training camps etc. Warrington have a turnover of around £5.5m yet they only spend £1.8m on the first team – this means that they have money to play with in terms of investing in these other areas. Off the field clubs have much bigger structures, driving sales, commercial revenues etc.
IMHO a real risk of allowing Warrington to spend what they want is simply that the first things to be cut will be the positive things like training, sports science, youth etc. simply so they could sign a SBW or Burgess or Graham.

IMHO the salary cap is doing an awful lot of good, we should constantly review if the limits are right for the game, and I believe they do that anyway.

aye
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#130 Ponterover

Ponterover
  • Coach
  • 1,786 posts

Posted 22 March 2013 - 09:35 AM

not really

you said it was supposed to stop clubs going bust. I said it wasn't. I said it wasasafeguard to help them avoid doing so. You can't stop businesses getting into dofficulties, you can attempt to avoid the obvious pitfalls.

How does not having a salary cap even out the game? The richest clubs, and/or the clubs most willing to spend money they haven't got will have an advantage over the rest: and the ones spendingwhat they haven't got will surely pay te price.

If you want o 'even out the game', you will need a draft system and the centralisation of all finance, marketing,strict standards that all can adhere to, player development and facilities. To do that properly you will have to exclude clubs who are unable, or unwilling to operate adequately within those strict standards.

Fancuy it?


I'd argue that we don't want or need to even out the game, in fact in trying to, we will slowly kill it.

#131 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 42,703 posts

Posted 22 March 2013 - 09:50 AM

I'd argue that we don't want or need to even out the game, in fact in trying to, we will slowly kill it.



Spot on

IMHO the salary cap should be scrapped.

It holds out game back, it doesn't produce an even competition and it doesn't stop clubs going bust. I'm struggling to find a use for it.


you seem to have c hanged your mind since yesterday.You are of course entitled to do this.
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#132 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 8,099 posts

Posted 22 March 2013 - 10:04 AM

I'd argue that we don't want or need to even out the game, in fact in trying to, we will slowly kill it.


The salary cap doesn't even out the game, but to a certain extent it does stop the gap between top and bottom becoming a huge chasm. People often get excited on here about the 'best SL ever' and how competitive the games are - do you think you'd get that if the top 5 clubs were spending £2.5m each and the bottom clubs still struggling to spend £1m ? The only way you can scrap the salary cap and still have a competitive league is to completely restructure the distribution of central funds in the game so that all clubs have a relatively equal income, but that is never going to happen.

#133 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,787 posts

Posted 22 March 2013 - 10:25 AM

There is a big difference between top line and bottom line when looking at a clubs turnover, eg merchandise sales are turnover but cost of sales - stock, shop, staff etc - need to come off before you have spare income to spend, same with food, drink etc . The key to director philanthropy is that it does not shackle the club ie not as loans and the books should be covered every year, so if Koukash wants to spend £5m getting Salford challenging for honours then it is paid into the club the year it was spent, therefore ih he lost interest he doesn't ask for it back via a loan. In this scenario let them spend what they want.

#134 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,832 posts

Posted 22 March 2013 - 10:27 AM

There is a big difference between top line and bottom line when looking at a clubs turnover, eg merchandise sales are turnover but cost of sales - stock, shop, staff etc - need to come off before you have spare income to spend, same with food, drink etc . The key to director philanthropy is that it does not shackle the club ie not as loans and the books should be covered every year, so if Koukash wants to spend £5m getting Salford challenging for honours then it is paid into the club the year it was spent, therefore ih he lost interest he doesn't ask for it back via a loan. In this scenario let them spend what they want.

yep - I think that is one of the reasons that a 50% cap doesn't always work to stop clubs overspending as two clubs could turnover £5m yet have massively different cost bases. £5m could make a large profit with one club and a massive loss with another.

#135 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 22 March 2013 - 10:47 AM

yep - I think that is one of the reasons that a 50% cap doesn't always work to stop clubs overspending as two clubs could turnover £5m yet have massively different cost bases. £5m could make a large profit with one club and a massive loss with another.


A major part of that cost base is player wages though.

#136 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,787 posts

Posted 22 March 2013 - 10:54 AM

It is very easy to show huge income for a purpose with the right owners. Widnes mastered this in ticking boxes in the last franchise farce

#137 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,832 posts

Posted 22 March 2013 - 11:05 AM

A major part of that cost base is player wages though.

Of course it is - not only player wages.

#138 Viking Warrior

Viking Warrior
  • Coach
  • 5,243 posts

Posted 22 March 2013 - 11:14 AM

Some people seem to struggle to understand the benefits of any decision that is made in RL – and therefore immediately call for it to be scrapped if it doesn’t do what they want it to.

eg. because we haven’t caught the Aussies up at Test level, SL overall has failed.

Let’s have a look at the salary cap and a couple of the supposed benefits with a level head:

a) Stopping clubs from going bust:
People state that there are still clubs in financial difficulties so it is a failure.
1 - It is important to remember that we are in the worst financial crisis the world has ever seen, the country is struggling and businesses are failing left right and centre. RL clubs went bust in the good times, so even with the tightest financial controls clubs will struggle now, as fans tighten their belts, businesses do not embrace sponsorship deals – and indeed some sponsors even go bust not fulfilling their deals.
2 – What the limit does is prevent a megalomaniac boss deciding that their best plan is to spend £4m on salaries (that they can’t afford) in the hope that crowds will flock and Wembley and Old Trafford trips will cover this. It is a dangerous game and at some stage this crumbles as either the boss gets bored and moves on, or the cash flow just isn’t there. Whilst there are still teams that struggle, the cap protects the clubs from terrible business practise, which we have seen loads of over the years. We hear so often in RL that owners are looking to make their club self-sufficent, we have attracted a certain type of investor to our game that appreciates good business practice and how important it is that revenues can cover the bills. Warrington were in a much worse state when we were allowed to spend what we wanted – just a couple of years after large spending on Welsh RU players, Ellis, Bateman, Davies, Phillips etc. we were living hand to mouth and without the sales of Harris and Sculthorpe we’d probably have gone bust earlier.

b ) Levelling up of the comp:
People state that we have the same old teams at the top so it is a failure.
1 – The top of the table is very competitive, however some clubs will always be more attractive to players irrespective of wages on offer. Man Utd will probably always have that over Man City, despite the fact that City can offer a lot more. If Many City had signed Van Persie this year I suspect the trophy would have been retained, but no, Man Utd’s name and history won that battle. Wigan will always be more attractive than Salford I’m sorry to say.
2 – Many assume that the clubs with rich backers would all just pay much more in wages – yet apart from Koukash, I haven’t seen any rich backer come out and say they want to throw more money at their clubs – in fact it contradicts their calls for a sustainable club. All that would happen in the short term is that clubs would use more overdrafts, cuts would be made from other areas, and wage bills would spiral.

I also think there is one absolutely massive benefit to the game that people ignore when it comes to the salary cap:
c)Spending on other benefits
Clubs know that they need to get another ‘edge’ on the competition, so we have seen a hell of a lot more investment in things like training facilities, sports science, youth development, training camps etc. Warrington have a turnover of around £5.5m yet they only spend £1.8m on the first team – this means that they have money to play with in terms of investing in these other areas. Off the field clubs have much bigger structures, driving sales, commercial revenues etc.
IMHO a real risk of allowing Warrington to spend what they want is simply that the first things to be cut will be the positive things like training, sports science, youth etc. simply so they could sign a SBW or Burgess or Graham.

IMHO the salary cap is doing an awful lot of good, we should constantly review if the limits are right for the game, and I believe they do that anyway.


and that dave is one of the best posts ever made on this forum..........
"Why is Napoleon crying ?" said one sailor to the other, "poor ###### thinks he's being exiled to st helens" came the reply.



https://scontent-a-l...276002364_n.jpg

#139 brooza

brooza
  • Moderator
  • 4,461 posts

Posted 22 March 2013 - 11:26 AM

so if Koukash wants to spend £5m getting Salford challenging for honours then it is paid into the club the year it was spent, therefore ih he lost interest he doesn't ask for it back via a loan. In this scenario let them spend what they want.

Here's a scenario:

Salford get their exemption, they sign several players on A LOT of money on 5 year contracts. The first 2 years, Koukash covers the wages, then he gets bored and leaves. Those player salaries still need to be paid for 3 years
St Albans Centurions 1st Team Manager. Former Medway Dragons Wheelchair RL player.

Leeds Rhinos, St Albans Centurions y Griffons Madrid fan. Also follow (to a lesser extent) Catalans Dragons, London Broncos, South Sydney Rabbitohs, Jacksonville Axemen, Vrchlabi Mad Squirrels, København Black Swans, Red Star Belgrade and North Hertfordshire Crusaders.

Moderator of the International board

#140 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,721 posts

Posted 22 March 2013 - 01:27 PM

People often get excited on here about the 'best SL ever' and how competitive the games are - do you think you'd get that if the top 5 clubs were spending £2.5m each and the bottom clubs still struggling to spend £1m ?


That sounds like SL1 & SL2...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users