Archived

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

weloveyouwakefield2

Inside Out BBC Yorkshire

299 posts in this topic

Chris Irvine seems to think we are a bunch of serfs who should doff our caps if the BBC deem us worthy of a half baked investigation slot on a regional programme.

Chris Irvine is a miserable git.

btw, I believe the show is available on IPlayer and was also accessible on a Sky channel for the whole country to watch if it wanted to, but I doubt it did!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a cheap shot on launch day. Totally unnecessary. They couldn't even produce hard figures to back up their 'in excess of £60 million' claim.

Perhaps the BBC thinks it's paying us too much for TV rights. Or maybe they've been left out of the World Cup deal. Or maybe they are trying to get a World Cup deal on the cheap. No idea. But that item was so empty of substance that the whole thing just looks vindictive.

Presumably the clubs accounts are readily available for examination at Companies House website. Surely there's someone at the RFL can either confirm or disprove the figure mentioned as they'll already be in possession of each club's accounts, won't they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If expenditure year after year exceeds income and the debt keeps getting bigger, eventually catastrophe will ensue. All I am saying is that those clubs in those situations need to reduce their expenditures to the point where the club at least breaks even.

So when Directors put money in they don't want back is that income, or is it debt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when Directors put money in they don't want back is that income, or is it debt?

loan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably the clubs accounts are readily available for examination at Companies House website. Surely there's someone at the RFL can either confirm or disprove the figure mentioned as they'll already be in possession of each club's accounts, won't they?

Not necessarily. The accounts will be at Companies House, yes, but small companies do not need to publish them (ie make them publically available) in full. That will be why the so-called expert could only estimate and probably only do so with a wild guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when Directors put money in they don't want back is that income, or is it debt?

Neither. They just convert them to shares! At least, they do at Saints anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a spectacularly misguided and financially illiterate reading of sets of accounts. Absolutely stunned that it went to the screens without anyone credibly asking the question, "is any of this debt a problem?".

The vast majority of it is owed to directors who are not expecting to see it repaid. That is completely not an issue. The headline figure was and is irrelevant, it's whether any of the clubs with debt need to pay it back or do not have directors who are willing or able to continue covering it. This is broadly the position Salford and Bradford ended up in. It is a much more nuanced thing - generally the clubs with tens of millions of pounds of "debt" are the ones who are ironically more secure as the owners have been happy to plough that money in themselves. The Bulls and Salford have been in trouble over much smaller sums but have had no one left to plug the gap.

Overall I think anyone with a decent understanding of accounts and/or sports finances could rip apart that piece and the so-called expert in a matter of minutes. I'm a little embarrassed for George Riley that he's been exposed to have such a shallow understanding of how sport actually works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope we put a stop to pinning any blame on poor old George Riley. We don't want him to stop "plugging" the game on the radio in-between his updates on the traffic or the weather - something for which we should be swooning in gratitude - and as the Times' Chris Irvine suggests, any news is good news... and, as a colleague of Stephen Jones', who might be in a better position than he to know just how much of a boost the former's decades-long hateful drivel (without so much as a pipsqueak put up as argument!) has been on the health and welfare of rugby league as a whole..?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope we put a stop to pinning any blame on poor old George Riley.

Hardly 'poor old'! That suntan wasn't obtained in this country, that's for sure! And he isn't old either. He did the piece and so he gets some stick for it. He's not been seen on Twitter tonight so far!

any news is good news...

But it isn't, you see. Mud sticks, as I've said previously. We aren't a big enough sport to absorb the shocking excuse for a programme with it's terrible timing that was tonight's Inside Out or whatever it is called. I just hope any potential sponsors have seen it for what it is ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardly 'poor old'! That suntan wasn't obtained in this country, that's for sure! And he isn't old either. He did the piece and so he gets some stick for it. He's not been seen on Twitter tonight so far!

But it isn't, you see. Mud sticks, as I've said previously. We aren't a big enough sport to absorb the shocking excuse for a programme with it's terrible timing that was tonight's Inside Out or whatever it is called. I just hope any potential sponsors have seen it for what it is ...

Sorry, I'm on your side here... I was just being cheeky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob Wilson, Sports finance expert at Sheffield Hallam...
He has experience in major contracted research projects with SIRC including the economic impact of major sport events such as the London Marathon, sponsorship perceptions at the F1 British Grand Prix and environmental impacts of the Women's Rugby World Cup
.

isn't him saying "Using a term like 'Rugby League is staring at the financial abyss' is not too harsh a thing to say," a bit sensational and scare-mongering?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob Wilson, Sports finance expert at Sheffield Hallam...
He has experience in major contracted research projects with SIRC including the economic impact of major sport events such as the London Marathon, sponsorship perceptions at the F1 British Grand Prix and environmental impacts of the Women's Rugby World Cup
.

isn't him saying "Using a term like 'Rugby League is staring at the financial abyss' is not too harsh a thing to say," a bit sensational and scare-mongering?

I got his research paper on the "environmental impacts of the Women's Rugby (sic) World Cup" as a Christmas present - it was either that or a brand new mountain bike with which to ride over the South Downs...

I haven't got round to reading it yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong. Sky paid nothing towards the Championship. The Championships are now on Premier Sports (who also paid nothing for them). The internationals are awarded separately, hence the BBC got them in autumn last year. The challenge cup likewise is awarded separately and last year both the BBC and Sky were awarded bits of the comp.

Sky paid £126 million over five years for Super League and only Super League.

i meant £126m was the combined worth of the tv deals....my bad its actually £135m for SL & CC(2012 to 2016).....that includes roughly £1m for international origin too

http://www.therfl.co...tkinsReview.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as the Times' Chris Irvine suggests, any news is good news...

That must be why he spends his entire time on twitter doing TGG down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither. They just convert them to shares! At least, they do at Saints anyway.

Ah! so Saints are heavily in debt and on the brink of collapse then :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a spectacularly misguided and financially illiterate reading of sets of accounts. Absolutely stunned that it went to the screens without anyone credibly asking the question, "is any of this debt a problem?".

The vast majority of it is owed to directors who are not expecting to see it repaid. That is completely not an issue. The headline figure was and is irrelevant, it's whether any of the clubs with debt need to pay it back or do not have directors who are willing or able to continue covering it.

Clearly Huddersfield are deep in debt and have plans to go deeper for many years to come :lol:

The game has to take every penny anyone wants to gift it.

But the over riding principle applies that if that money is used just to keep a small club up with the big boys, rather than grow the small club into a bigger club then you just store up the problem until Mr. Rich leaves.

Not a financial problem if he doesn't want his moneyback, just a problem that an SL place is taken up by a club that isn't helping grow the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly Huddersfield are deep in debt and have plans to go deeper for many years to come :lol:

The game has to take every penny anyone wants to gift it.

But the over riding principle applies that if that money is used just to keep a small club up with the big boys, rather than grow the small club into a bigger club then you just store up the problem until Mr. Rich leaves.

Not a financial problem if he doesn't want his moneyback, just a problem that an SL place is taken up by a club that isn't helping grow the game.

Agree, that's the issue but they just didn't make that case. They led with a headline figure which is, frankly, irrelevant. They then sort of had a bit where they said it was hard to get people out of their armchairs but that doesn't tally with RL crowds which at top flight level have been at unprecedented levels over recent years. It's still a relatively small game and it has many challenges but this particular piece didn't get to the bottom of them whatsoever; it went in with its big lead SHOCK figure. Like I said, I'm embarrassed for GR who is usually quite good on daily sports reports but evidently doesn't have a deeper understanding of financial statements or sports finance - or who was happy to be too easily led by the nose by that seemingly clueless fellow from Sheffield.

It shied away from naming names or focussing on any clubs in particular but as it stands the vast majority of clubs are either financially healthy or have backers who have shown no intention of removing their backing. Focussing on the challenges of the London/Huddersfield single backer model or the more potentially precarious positions of Cas or possibly HKR or looking back at what happened at Bulls or Salford could have been insightful. The broad brush approach was frankly pretty worthless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the report is it doesnt give many facts and only looks at SL and not the other parts of the game. having said that there are major problems in the game and they are being wrongly addressed.

Some people on here need to get their heads out the sand and look at the real picture and not the one they want. Whilst the game is not in meltdown it is in serious trouble. Very poor management at most clubs in and out of SL has got us to the point where many clubs are strugglimng to survive. The really short term thinking of getting rid of academy teams to save money and getting Championship teams to act as a type of reserve/feeder club will damage the game mid to long term. SL is full of badly run clubs who since 1996 have thrown money away on trips abroad and over rated Australians and player agents instead of investing for the future off field or giving youth a chance instead of a unknown Aussie.

The massive loss of grant money from Sport England will cause massive damage to many areas which have had a Development officer(s). This is a real concern and I would rather the BBC or any Journo look at where the game is heading at all levels and speak to people at Grassroots level who often have more idea about things than some CEO at a SL Club.

SL is not dieing but its at a crossroads for many of its clubs. Can the game survive full time of will it slip into a Semi pro stage as most of the clubs even in SL cant afford or be properly managed to be fulltime without running up debts that eventually hurt them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't sorry to much, it looks like every team sport seems to be having financial problems.

Could the day of the silly wages in some sports be coming to an end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just seen blake solly say on sky sports news say that "the net liabilities across the whole of the SL clubs is only £2m"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm embarrassed for GR who is usually quite good on daily sports reports but evidently doesn't have a deeper understanding of financial statements or sports finance - or who was happy to be too easily led by the nose.....

As Mr. Drake says shock horror sells better than all in the garden is rosy. If Riley didn't act the stooge someone else would have got the gig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just seen blake solly say on sky sports news say that "the net liabilities across the whole of the SL clubs is only £2m"

Net liabilities are a totally different issue to level of debt. They are the difference between the value of your assets and the value of your liabilities, but are often a complete red herring. For example, a club could have £10m of debt but value it's stadium and fixtures & fittings at £11m therefore saying it had net assets of £1m. In reality, it's stadium is probably worth nowhere near that amount as who would want to buy it in isolation, e.g. Saints new stadium will be valued as an asset on their balance sheet for the full capitalised build cost but if they put it up for sale tomorrow they'd get nowhere near that price for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people on here need to get their heads out the sand and look at the real picture and not the one they want. Whilst the game is not in meltdown it is in serious trouble. Very poor management at most clubs in and out of SL has got us to the point where many clubs are strugglimng to survive. The really short term thinking of getting rid of academy teams to save money and getting Championship teams to act as a type of reserve/feeder club will damage the game mid to long term. SL is full of badly run clubs .

Just had a look at the real picture and SL is backed by a contract of £90,000,000 pounds and the following wealthy benefactors messrs Caddick, Moran, Lenegan, Mcmanus, O'Connor, Koukash, Khan, Davey, Glover, Pearson Hudgell, Hughes etc etc.

That's before anyone goes through a turnstyle.

So no Superleague is not struggling to survive.

If anyone wants to get their heads out of the sand it's the old time fans who want to preserve all the old time clubs many of whom are from relatively small towns and are hemmed in by their rivals.

This makes it hard for them to be Superleague clubs when they don't have many super players or super amounts of fans and can't expand.

It's not "poor management" at all. Why do we always have to blame all the ills of the game on certain people??

Cas are the biggest strugglers. It's not Ferres's fault his town is only 40,000 people and that just down one road Wakefield are looking to mop up the best players and as many fans as they can whilst down the other road featherstone are at it. It's not his fault nobody wants a piece of land out of town, it's probably how cas got it in the first place. It's not his fault wakefield council won't help with a ground because if they have to help one they have to help all three.

There's no problem over the academy anyway? What does this oversized development system churn out in terms of quality professionals for the respective clubs every year against how many kids it just rejects?? They got it in Hull when they decided they only really need one academy, but then bottled it. I can think of a few other places where less can be more.

It's a minority sport/game and always will be so it's not easy to grow it and it's even harder when the games history is allowed to drag it backwards. We actually haven't done that bad in the circumstances. "Full of badly run clubs" give over, Leeds, Wigan, Hull, Wire, Saints, Catalans are clubs I'm personally proud of. For the rest it's been a struggle to step up from semi-pro to pro but all over the place we see Mr. O'Connor trying to rebuild Widnes as a power, Mr. Koukash wants a dynasty, Mr. davey has secured Fartown as a big club again, Mr. Khan and his board are going to keep Bradford on an even keel. Mr. Hudgell hopes Mr. larvin and the ground developments will come up trumps.

The game isn't "struggling to survive" it's struggling to shake off it's past. I wouldn't mind your comments if it wasn't for the fact the RFL/SLE recognised the problems Hudgell outlined last year and are actively looking at ways of sorting out a format and funding such that we can get additional security and hopefully growth. But i can't see how anyone can be blind to the achievements of Superleague over what we had in 1995 achieved against a very very difficult sports market of Soccer going mega big, Union going professional and mega big, and now the NRL going cash rich.

I think were managing very very well indeed in the circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked the bit about the Lincolnshire floods. Very interesting.

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