Jump to content

M j M

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Posts posted by M j M

  1. 1 hour ago, Morris Wanchuk said:

    My point was, Fev have achieved a great deal, but if you’ve only so much funding & you’ve got to put together a SL squad, you are reliant on partners to get you going. No club has funded an all singing & dancing stadium off their own back.

    Cas & Wakey are both easy targets, but both have had schemes stall or cancelled for various reasons. You could write a good book about the shenanigans that have gone on surrounding Newmarket/Belle Vue this last decade.

    If Fev had got promoted in 98, I personally don’t believe Post Office Rd would be in as good a nick as it is now. The pressure of staying in SL would’ve been the main priority.

    I don't think this is quite correct. What Cas and Wakey have both suffered from is a lack of certainty. Not, before the spreadsheet fans interject, about where they will be in the league system but more what their stadium strategy was. Fev knew they were staying at POR so could invest/work with fans to invest in that ground. Both Cas and Wakey have spent hundreds of thousands on legal and planning fees with the aim of moving away from Wheldon Rd and Belle Vue. They weren't in a position to plough money into spending more than the essential on the old grounds when they fully expected they were going to move away.

    The collapse of those schemes is where this has all gone wrong. They were both valid developments that should have given the clubs brand new stadia. I didn't personally believe the locations were the best but the failure of them - and the council's disinterest/bungling - is what really marks those two clubs out from every other club in the league which has been able to progress their stadium plans.

    Finger pointers from other SL clubs mostly don't take the time to understand any of the issues involved whilst simultaneously pretending their clubs either haven't had significant outside assistance or managed to clear all the planning and development hurdles, with council backing, that Cas and Wakey fell at.

    • Like 10
  2. 6 minutes ago, paul hicks said:

    interesting although i did not realise points were awarded for increase in owner investment.  in this case it looks strange because the owner does not need to increase investment.  what on earth would Leeds spend the extra investment on that they cant manage to do now

    I agree, it penalises self-sufficient clubs. Here's the official logic behind it.




    • Like 1
  3. 3 hours ago, Leonard said:

    The first shares I ever bought were in a company called Albert Fisher - around late 90s.

    One of the largest food producers in the UK at time. Profitable, but heavy debt burden due to poor acquisitions.

    They hired McKinsey for some reason to tell them how to run their business and paid a small fortune.

    6 months after the review they went bust.

    The company I worked for was bought by a private equity house in 2015. Three years later we went bust.

    In our best year we made profits of around £10-£15m. In the three years before going kaput we spent £18m on consultants, most of whom were amongst the most self-confident but, in the context of our business, utterly clueless people I have ever met. The combination of their costs and their recommendations were fundamental to our demise.

    My view on this: I'm sure IMG have got some smart people on board and there's definitely value to be got out of working with them. But we definitely shouldn't assume they have a clue how to administrate, market and grow a hyper-regional sport like Rugby League.

    • Like 7
  4. 12 minutes ago, Gates1 said:

    Balance sheet is only worth 0.5 points (and everyone gets 0.25). 

    I imagine a lot of clubs will get zero on the Balance Sheet metric. It's 0.5 points for a Balance Sheet of >£100k (presumably they are using Net Assets to assess this) and 0.25 points if it's >0 but less than £100k. Nothing if your Balance Sheet is negative.

    e.g. whereas Leeds have net assets of +£13m and Warrington +£8m, Wigan are -£9m Huddersfield -£19m and London -£27m.

    (Now even Net Assets is possible to manipulate to if you put your mind to it (e.g. switching debt to share capital, or revaluing property, both things St Helens have done in recent years).

    • Like 2
  5. It's still really boring seeing people attack Cas for the state of their ground when those people's own clubs have lucked into a new stadium, had one built for them by a rich benefactor or seen one facilitated by the local council. Cas unfortunately have been repeatedly let down - and the lack of certainty as to what will happen with their plans has been the biggest problem.

    (BTW people would be amazed at how much they have spent just keeping the Jungle going, they certainly can't be classed as having "spent nothing" on the ground when the high levels of maintenance are factored in).

    • Like 6
  6. I've updated my estimate of how the Leeds score breaks down.

    I can't quite get it to where they have ended up but it's close enough.

    NB for anyone thinking Leeds have poor on-field performance recently, that's true enough and there are no bonus points for winning stuff. But under the definitions used in the calculation the finishing positions over the last three years have been 8th, 2nd and 3rd so not as bad as might be expected.


    • Thanks 1
  7. 2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

    I suppose the challenge here is that if Leeds were selling this, surely they would want the rewards?

    I don't think Manchester United sell for the Grand Final just because it is at their ground.

    The real issue here is that the RFL seem inept at every area of this.

    I'm sure you could find a way which would work for both parties. Headingley has, in the context of international games, essentially limitless corporate capacity it can open up so there would be plenty for them to both go at.

    • Like 1
  8. The ticketing website is appalling but it looks like the North Stand has gone off-sale for Headingley.

    Now it's not as big as the old version was and the centre sections are corporate* but if it is sold out that is a promising sign.

    (*if it's true the RFL have taken on selling the corporate rather than leaving it to Leeds then that's absolute madness)

  9. 1 hour ago, Leonard said:

    I was going to get two London season tickets this weekend, as there is a £199 early bird offer before the end of November.

    As it stands, I might well just skip the whole of next season and re-engage, if the club still exists, in the Championship in 2025.

    Can IMG give me any reason why I should attend a London game next season if they are relegated anyway and will limit themselves to PT to save money?

    Come on, don't be downcast.

    I've just crunched the numbers and by my reckoning when London do a SL, LLS and Challenge Cup treble next year, and pack out the Cherry Red for every game, they will be challenging Cas, Leigh and Wakey for that 12th spot. 🥳

    • Haha 2
  10. 22 minutes ago, Dave T said:

    Looking at my own team, we were 1.12 pts behind 2nd placed Wigan, which would be overhauled based on on-field performance if we ever won the thing! 

    Suggesting we scored well in other key areas. 

    Wigan will be weak on the financial and some of the stadium aspects so, ignoring the bonus points for trophy lifts, I'd expect Warrington to probably be slightly ahead of them.

    • Like 1
  11. The whole thing just confirms what we always knew - whilst we have a handful of six or seven clubs who are obviously very good and valuable to the top flight after that there are a whole bunch of clubs who are all about the same size or have offsetting plusses and minuses.

    Most of the Bs would make serviceable but not outstanding Super League clubs - and most have in the past or are now in there. The idea that the best way to find out which ones get into the top flight was through this contrived (and within the narrow band of border-line Bs) manipulable, spreadsheet exercise remains utterly ridiculous.

    • Like 3
    • Haha 2
  12. 19 hours ago, JohnM said:

    What's needed is not just three games but a newsworthy story of the whole series, with an underdog, an arrogant favourite, some controversy, some niggle, lots of jeopardy. 

    I always look back to the 1998 series vs the Kiwis on this point.

    The first test was at Huddersfield, an 18k crowd was ok but not a sell out and things were relativity muted in the build up.

    Enter Bill Harrigan. A contentious call just before half time let the Kiwis score followed by a clear penalty try not given to GB in the second half and we lost by 6 points. The coverage of this injustice the week after was insane (by RL standards) - and Frank Endacott coaching the Kiwis then went out in the press and stoked it to the max with some very well judged wind up comments.

    The result was the second test at Bolton which for a very long time remained that stadium's record crowd and was the first time I really saw ticket touts getting traction outside an RL game. 

    Controversy and protagonists who get people riled are really important factors in generating interest. Unfortunately our sport nowadays has great expertise in the "they're a really good team who are well coached so it will be a tight contest" approach to pre match build up.

    • Like 2
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.