Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Terry Mullaney

Rovers making headway

629 posts in this topic

Two of those figures are the pence though .... :lol: :lol: :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: I do think your right though griff i do think our club will hold onto the land as long as possible.just for security reasons alone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ground improvements shouldn't affect profit. They are capitalised.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that but grounds cost money whatever it means and when the grounds are built the same amount of money will not need to be put in ground accounts or capitalised ( whatever that means ). The money that was previously diverted into the ground construction costs can be used for other purposes, one of which could be reducing or eliminating the debt entered into to construct the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that but grounds cost money whatever it means and when the grounds are built the same amount of money will not need to be put in ground accounts or capitalised ( whatever that means ). The money that was previously diverted into the ground construction costs can be used for other purposes, one of which could be reducing or eliminating the debt entered into to construct the ground.

Thats just it though keighley once our ground is built all the profits go back into the club unlike leigh and fax etc that dont own their own ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that but grounds cost money whatever it means and when the grounds are built the same amount of money will not need to be put in ground accounts or capitalised ( whatever that means ). The money that was previously diverted into the ground construction costs can be used for other purposes, one of which could be reducing or eliminating the debt entered into to construct the ground.

Money that's spent on assets that are expected to last a number of years are not written off in the year that the expenditure is made. The cost is spread over a number of years - its expected useful life. Obviously there's an element of opinion in here, but Fev spread the cost of any property over 50 years. So if they spend, say, £50000 on a building in any year, only £1000 goes against profits in that year. Plus, obviously, £1000 in each of the next 49 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats just it though keighley once our ground is built all the profits go back into the club unlike leigh and fax etc that dont own their own ground.

What increased revenue will the new stand/stands bring that you don't all ready have? Is there additional corporate dining etc in the new stands?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Money that's spent on assets that are expected to last a number of years are not written off in the year that the expenditure is made. The cost is spread over a number of years - its expected useful life. Obviously there's an element of opinion in here, but Fev spread the cost of any property over 50 years. So if they spend, say, £50000 on a building in any year, only £1000 goes against profits in that year. Plus, obviously, £1000 in each of the next 49 years.

I could be wrong griff but im sure our club does it yearly based only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i know it may be hard for the village idiots to comprehend, but a rich chairman doesn't always fund the club out of his own pocket. steve o'connor is our chairman and owner but he has stated many times since he took over the club that he wants the club to become self sufficient, starting with a minimum target of 7,000 stronghold members. that was the projected figure his accountant said would enable the club to spend the full salary cap, without going into the red. a rich chairman does not always equate to instant success, and very often when it does the club invariably ends up going #### up.............as a prime example just look at barrow, dessie fraudulantly funded the team with no regard to anything else and ok they won trophies as soon as the story broke about the brown envelope culture at the club the were stripped of all their points and relegated. i have the greatest sympathy with barrow fans who had tasted success for the first time in many many years, only for the actions of one man to taint their memories of the good times. rewind a bit further to 2007 when widnes had the best team ever seen in the CC the likes of blanch, grix, wilkes etc etc, all funded by ###### or bust financial strategy, the 2007 CC grand final was supposed to be the crowning glory on a great season for us. but i found out on the morning of the game that the players hadn;t been paid for 2 months and that if they lost the grand final the club would go into administration, the debacle of a display against castleford shocked and saddened many widnes fans, but i am convinced to this day that the players deliberately lost the GF to gain a release from the club. this was confirmed for me by one of the players i met a couple of years later, that is why the club needs to be built before the team, it's great winning everything in the CC but sometimes the stark reality is that being a big fish in a small pond doesn't mean anything in the long run............

If O'Connor sticks to his guns, Widnes might become the next Salford. 7,000 average attendances is a big ask at Widnes. The salary cap needs to be lowered if they want full time professional clubs to be financially stable outside the top 3 or 4 who can manage as is at present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What increased revenue will the new stand/stands bring that you don't all ready have? Is there additional corporate dining etc in the new stands?

i dont know about dinning,food stalls etc but it will be able hold more fans and a lot of people ive talked to want that end to be the fev end and make it like the old bullock shed with the atmosphere etc.But im sure food stalls etc will be available of some sort.But im in no doubt that if that stand becomes the old bullock shed we will get more fev fans through the gates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange when you look back the idea of SL and franchsing was that it would give financial stability for SL clubs to plan for the future and stop CC clubs spending money they didn't have trying to get into the top flight. Not much has changed in reality.

No sugar daddy or daddies prepared to "invest" for a number of years, no prospect of getting into SL. Maybe the RFL should add having sugar daddies as a criteria for entry.

That's probably an unwritten rule that most clubs have to obey if they want a franchise. Widnes were the last one to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont know about dinning,food stalls etc but it will be able hold more fans and a lot of people ive talked to want that end to be the fev end and make it like the old bullock shed with the atmosphere etc.But im sure food stalls etc will be available of some sort.But im in no doubt that if that stand becomes the old bullock shed we will get more fev fans through the gates.

So unless you increase your a attendances, you won't see any actual return on the new stand. That's the same position Halifax and Leigh are in. Regardless of owning their own ground. The only difference is the pie and beer money you get. And you get that now and are still making a loss while Halifax are making a profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The money that was previously diverted into the ground construction costs can be used for other purposes, one of which could be reducing or eliminating the debt entered into to construct the ground.

What money ? More loans ? Remember - it's not profit that's being generated from business activities, they're just borrowing money. Maybe the source of loans will dry up. Maybe one day, they'll have more loans than assets. At 31 December 2011, Fev's net assets were about half what they were three years earlier. (Source - Companies House)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong griff but im sure our club does it yearly based only.

Not what's in your accounts, pal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What money ? More loans ? Remember - it's not profit that's being generated from business activities, they're just borrowing money. Maybe the source of loans will dry up. Maybe one day, they'll have more loans than assets. At 31 December 2011, Fev's net assets were about half what they were three years earlier. (Source - Companies House)

We will always make a loss in the champ if we want SL thats a well known fact.We have been upgrading everything since mark came in.Thats where our losses are coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not what's in your accounts, pal.

I cant put that on a public forum griff come on mate.Like i said you will see what we have in 2015 but i will tell you now if we dont get SL no other champ club will and you heard it here first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant put that on a public forum griff come on mate.Like i said you will see what we have in 2015 but i will tell you now if we dont get SL no other champ club will and you heard it here first.

Of course. But your accounts, on public record, say ...

All fixed assets are initially recorded at cost. Depreciation is provided at the following annual rates in order to write off each asset over its estimated useful life.

Freehold property 2% on cost

Jargon, I know. But I translated it for you above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course. But your accounts, on public record, say ...

All fixed assets are initially recorded at cost. Depreciation is provided at the following annual rates in order to write off each asset over its estimated useful life.

Freehold property 2% on cost

Jargon, I know. But I translated it for you above.

All i will say is yes we made a loss but the loss is like you and me losing a penny griff thats all i will say.What im saying is most clubs would alter their salary cap the following season if they made a loss the season before but we have upped ours does'nt that tell you sumat griff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All i will say is yes we made a loss but the loss is like you and me losing a penny griff thats all i will say.What im saying is most clubs would alter their salary cap the following season if they made a loss the season before but we have upped ours does'nt that tell you sumat griff.

Yes. But not what you imply. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. But not what you imply. :lol:

We made a loss so why dont we do a widnes and forget the team and just concentrate on the off field stuff if we hav'nt got massive financial backing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to agree parky because in this day and age what is the point in continuing as a club if your not in SL? I personally think clubs will be killed off anyway in the next 20 years if they are not in SL.I think its sh** or bust for champ clubs at the minute.If we go bust so be it because whats the point in trolling around in a division where there is nothing to gain?

I don't disagree but, at the moment, the stable clubs seem to be in CC. SL is proving to be somewhat of a graveyard at it's presently constituted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do apologise if I have not made myself clear.

If Rovers have spare land they can sell off to secure the ready cash from a rich man to fund a real go at Superleague 2015-2018 then why not go for it??

It's a judgement call of course but I can't see a better time than NOW to try to be top dog in the area. Wakefield's plans may see them dominate in years to come and then the land value will be of no value in terms of securing SL status.

Rovers don't want a big stretch of land for the future, they want superleague which is far more valuable to them?

It's only speculation that the investors are after the land. I hope it's not true. Fev in SL with investors and keep the land would be the best bet. Develop the land and make it work for the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah - that's probably my issue with Fev's strategy.

Personally, I see nothing clever about lending part of your personal fortune to a club so that it can just buy success it can't really afford. No risk on behalf of the lender - if he wants his money back he can just sell the land, pay off the five mortgages and take his money from the remainder. What exactly is clever about it ? To me, it smacks of Harry Enfield's Loadsamoney - "look at my wad".

And what exactly do you mean by "cover your losses" ? With what ? More debt ? Asset sales ?

No one can touch the land assets Griff without the consent of the club's A shareholders ie the ordinary members who were given A shares when the club became limited. People can invest as much dosh as they like but they can't recoup their investment through sale of the land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one can touch the land assets Griff without the consent of the club's A shareholders ie the ordinary members who were given A shares when the club became limited. People can invest as much dosh as they like but they can't recoup their investment through sale of the land.

I never knew that terry that as just brightened up my day ;).So all the profits from the land sale goes back into the club? if so thats fantastic news

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one can touch the land assets Griff without the consent of the club's A shareholders ie the ordinary members who were given A shares when the club became limited. People can invest as much dosh as they like but they can't recoup their investment through sale of the land.

It doesn't really matter who sells the land all that matters is the lenders know their moneys covered by the land value. if one of them is owed £600,000 and demands it back what are the share holders going to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one can touch the land assets Griff without the consent of the club's A shareholders ie the ordinary members who were given A shares when the club became limited. People can invest as much dosh as they like but they can't recoup their investment through sale of the land.

That's good, Terry. But I suspect all bets would be off if a lender forced the issue through the courts. If no-one can come up with the cash to repay them, the only solution would be for that consent to be given.

Damnn - Bob beat me to it by seconds .......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never knew that terry that as just brightened up my day ;).So all the profits from the land sale goes back into the club? if so thats fantastic news

Steady, Gaz. You haven't sold it yet ......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017