Vikings announce financial figures

[l'angelo mysterioso]

what a shame that you are always trying to read everything related to widnes as a negative, just face the facts that we are a far more forward looking and successful club than your beloved featherstone. we have the ground, the academy structure, and now the financial stability that you so obviously envy...........get over it we are in a far far stronger position to gain a super league license than the rovers.

what on earth are you talking about?

[tonyXIII]

May I pose a question for our Widnes friends?

The club certainly seems to be in very good shape now. Is it just possible that you are in a much better position to make a go of SL now than you were two years ago? After all, look at how we have struggled! Maybe the decision was the right one after all?

So, my question is: "With hindsight, how do you now feel about the decision in 2008?"

[BulldogBurt]

May I pose a question for our Widnes friends?

The club certainly seems to be in very good shape now. Is it just possible that you are in a much better position to make a go of SL now than you were two years ago? After all, look at how we have struggled! Maybe the decision was the right one after all?

So, my question is: "With hindsight, how do you now feel about the decision in 2008?"

It's a good point mate and one I've pondered recently. I think that with Mr. O'Connor on board and just starting his revamp of the club then we'd have managed fine this time.

However, I do feel that franchising is great for giving clubs a set of defined criteria to aim at and we've had time to demonstrate how serious and well organised we are as an entire club (finally!).

[Bulletproof]

May I pose a question for our Widnes friends?

The club certainly seems to be in very good shape now. Is it just possible that you are in a much better position to make a go of SL now than you were two years ago? After all, look at how we have struggled! Maybe the decision was the right one after all?

So, my question is: "With hindsight, how do you now feel about the decision in 2008?"

I think we'd have been fine coming up with Steve O Connor on board. As it stands, our crowds are stagnating because there is little excitement in the rugby.

I'm not particularly sold on franchising. We could come out of it smelling of roses but the clubs who lose out will lose far too much in my opinion. We're selling them out.

The decision to leave us out was based on a number of clubs getting new stadiums and being supposedly stronger than we are. One of those has had to move to a completely different part of the country and of those getting stadia none have actually started building, and crowds wise we could have done better. So I still think it was the wrong decision. We could come out of this strong but it will remain to be seen whether the championship will be treated fairly in years to come. I do worry for certain teams. Whoever we replace wont be primed for coming back up, I think they will soon find it hard from the championship to justify replacing anyone in super league or going straight to the front of the queue. Thats the problem. A number of teams currently in super league would be only as strong as the better teams in the championship if they dropped down. So what justification is there of giving them 6 years and counting in the top flight? One measly team gets replaced? A number of average teams get 6 then 9 years in the top flight unhindered at the expense of clubs just as viable? On what basis is this fair?

[tonyXIII]

Thanks for the replies. Reasoned arguments which we should all consider when discussing 'franchising'.

Bulletproof, I think your crowds will pick up, especially when you get your place at the 'top table'. I agree with your concerns about what happens to the club(s) which lose out. Are they condemned to a three-year 'ghetto'? The RFL really must sort out their own thinking about the second tier.

BulldogBurt, I think you're right on both counts. With Mr O'Connor in charge, I think you would have done well, had you got the vote over my lot last time. I agree with what you say about franchising "giving clubs a set of defined criteria to aim at" and Widnes have set their stall out perfectly. (I also think Salford have - it's about priorities and ours was the ground and now is on-field performance)

I was fascinated with the 'licensing' last time round and I will be next time (not least because Salford are in the firing line) but I felt that, despite the obvious disappointment, most Widnes fans had no argument with the decision, but they had a real problem with the decision-making process, which certainly could have been more transparent.

Anyway, thanks for the answers and Good Luck in SL in 2012.

[FearTheVee]

I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

there's nothing wrong with local authorities investing in sports clubs. I thought Vengance expressed that idea very well, hence my reply.

Sorry, I quoted you by mistake - no idea why!

[Red Willow]

I think we'd have been fine coming up with Steve O Connor on board. As it stands, our crowds are stagnating because there is little excitement in the rugby.

I'm not particularly sold on franchising. We could come out of it smelling of roses but the clubs who lose out will lose far too much in my opinion. We're selling them out.

The decision to leave us out was based on a number of clubs getting new stadiums and being supposedly stronger than we are. One of those has had to move to a completely different part of the country and of those getting stadia none have actually started building, and crowds wise we could have done better. So I still think it was the wrong decision. We could come out of this strong but it will remain to be seen whether the championship will be treated fairly in years to come. I do worry for certain teams. Whoever we replace wont be primed for coming back up, I think they will soon find it hard from the championship to justify replacing anyone in super league or going straight to the front of the queue. Thats the problem. A number of teams currently in super league would be only as strong as the better teams in the championship if they dropped down. So what justification is there of giving them 6 years and counting in the top flight? One measly team gets replaced? A number of average teams get 6 then 9 years in the top flight unhindered at the expense of clubs just as viable? On what basis is this fair?

What ever the reasons Widnes post a rofit it is good news.

I guess some are worried that the profit is just down to mr O'Connor pumping in huge sums in sponsorship.

The only dispute I have is your reason why Widnes didn't get a franchise last time. The reason was the current Widnes club were unable to produce 3 yeas accounts as they ahd wiped out the debts by going bust.

This might have been an advantage for returning to profit but whatever or however Widnes have managed it this is good news and something for others to aspire to.

Coming on the back of a successful year for the Academy it does show that some of the thinking behind franchises works.

Next is the hard work for the rugby paying public to see the Championship as a valid comp, not disparage it.

[hoss118]

even with a 3808 average crowd, doing a crude basic calculation, at 3k paying customers at

[hoss118]

even with a 3808 average crowd, doing a crude basic calculation, at 3k paying customers at

[hoss118]

May I pose a question for our Widnes friends?

The club certainly seems to be in very good shape now. Is it just possible that you are in a much better position to make a go of SL now than you were two years ago? After all, look at how we have struggled! Maybe the decision was the right one after all?

So, my question is: "With hindsight, how do you now feel about the decision in 2008?"

as a widnes fan at the time i thought it was wrong however it has given the people of the rfl world that are chairmen was here for the long run and to help us maintain a better club for the long term. for this i think it has been good for the club to build up what we have . it also helped that we ticked the nrc box last year as this give us more options to focus on the other parts of widnes rlfc ie the youth set up and so forth as our unders 18s are showing against the top super league clubs under 18s . yet other teams have put most of there resources into the first team to tick that box . back to the question was it right at the time to not give us a super league status . i belive it was . hopefully if we are granted one this time around we can follow in the footseps of our cheshire neighbours warrington who have grown as a club over the last four or five seasons very well

[shrek]

Edited September 1, 2010 by shrek

[Bomb Jack]

[RP London]

There was

Edited September 2, 2010 by RP London

[Red Willow]

Why are Widnes spending money on the ground if it is council owned?

[Johnny Rocco]

Why are Widnes spending money on the ground if it is council owned?

Cos we can!

[Tipster Ste]

Does anyone really believe these results?? The Beano prints more truth.

May i suggest Ian Lenghan or Gary Hetherington quickly seek a conference call to Steve O Connor and his management team to understand how he managed to create a

[Bomb Jack]

Does anyone really believe these results?? The Beano prints more truth.

May i suggest Ian Lenghan or Gary Hetherington quickly seek a conference call to Steve O Connor and his management team to understand how he managed to create a

[chrisl1]

The only dispute I have is your reason why Widnes didn't get a franchise last time. The reason was the current Widnes club were unable to produce 3 yeas accounts as they ahd wiped out the debts by going bust.

I'm not too sure that this was the case. One of the criteria in the last round of licensing was that a club applying for a Super League licence had to be "solvent". Widnes were clearly "solvent" when they submitted their application in March 2008.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_leag...gue/7138760.stm

[tonyXIII]

I'm not too sure that this was the case. One of the criteria in the last round of licensing was that a club applying for a Super League licence had to be "solvent". Widnes were clearly "solvent" when they submitted their application in March 2008.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_leag...gue/7138760.stm

I thought Widnes went bust less than 12 months before the licensing decision and, therefore, were unable to produce a full year's accounts (the new club had been trading for less than 12 months).

Whatever, I think RW is right on this. Widnes' gripe was that they had been told that 'going bust' would not prevent them getting a licence, whereas it actually did because they got a 'C' licence like almost everyone else and the lack of accounts turned out to be the deciding factor.

At least, that's how I remember it. Shouldn't be a problem this time round. Perhaps we could all look to the future, instead of the past?

[chrisl1]

I thought Widnes went bust less than 12 months before the licensing decision and, therefore, were unable to produce a full year's accounts (the new club had been trading for less than 12 months).

Whatever, I think RW is right on this. Widnes' gripe was that they had been told that 'going bust' would not prevent them getting a licence, whereas it actually did because they got a 'C' licence like almost everyone else and the lack of accounts turned out to be the deciding factor.

At least, that's how I remember it. Shouldn't be a problem this time round. Perhaps we could all look to the future, instead of the past?

"Solvency" was defined in the criterion "as being in accordance with accounting definitions of solvency although this criterion can be satisfied if there is a written owners guarantee of the club's debts". There is no mention of the production of three years accounts. But as you say it should not be a problem this time.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Ten+crucial+...ws)-a0174709384

[tonyXIII]

"Solvency" was defined in the criterion "as being in accordance with accounting definitions of solvency although this criterion can be satisfied if there is a written owners guarantee of the club's debts". There is no mention of the production of three years accounts. But as you say it should not be a problem this time.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Ten+crucial+...ws)-a0174709384

Point taken. And Steve O'Connor's offer of a 'bond' was an interesting ploy. However, I hope to see Widnes in SL in 2012 and wish them well.

[tonyXIII]

"Solvency" was defined in the criterion "as being in accordance with accounting definitions of solvency although this criterion can be satisfied if there is a written owners guarantee of the club's debts". There is no mention of the production of three years accounts. But as you say it should not be a problem this time.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Ten+crucial+...ws)-a0174709384

Actually, I've just read your link a bit more carefully and I think point 10 is rather interesting, don't you?

"Compliance with salary-cap regulations. Specifically, clubs must not have incurred any breach of the salary cap in the last three years."

If this is still in place, one or two clubs might be sweating in 8 months time, don't you think? Or perhaps not, considering who the likely culprits are?

[Tipster Ste]

The Green Eyed Monster arises again. It's not that you don't believe it, it's that you don't want to believe it.

Widnes are light years ahead of Leigh off the field, and you don't like it.

Steve O'Connor is a very, very successful local businessman, who sold his Haulage Company for over 30 million pounds. He has a very astute and wise business head, and can obviously bring a lot to a Company.

That's why Stobarts kept him on once they had bought him out.

I'm sure you'd give your right arm to have an O'Connor at Leigh..........

Not jealous I happen to believe you should be in SL after all the RFL have wrongly relegated you twice in the last 15 years.

if you honestly believe you had a'proper' turnover of 2.5m with a 1m profit then you are an IDIOT!

Its absolutely impossible in fact one of your very own fans has highlighted exactly what SOC has done he has written off loans he provided in 2008 in the 2009 accounts subequently creating a huge amount of income. I hope he's ready to do like wise for a number of years to justify this latest lie!!

[ChrisB]

Not jealous I happen to believe you should be in SL after all the RFL have wrongly relegated you twice in the last 15 years.

if you honestly believe you had a'proper' turnover of 2.5m with a 1m profit then you are an IDIOT!

Its absolutely impossible in fact one of your very own fans has highlighted exactly what SOC has done he has written off loans he provided in 2008 in the 2009 accounts subequently creating a huge amount of income. I hope he's ready to do like wise for a number of years to justify this latest lie!!

He's highlight EXACTLY what SOC has done?!? Strange that as the fan is not someone that has any reason to see the accounts as they are being prepared and they are not available for public scrutiny yet.

The main fact is that they WILL be available for public viewing soon enough. This isn't like pulling an attendance figure out of thin air. These figures can and will be checked so let's wait for them to come out before you start conjecturing that there's wrong doing.

[1976PMJwires]

OMG what is this ###### all about.

However Widnes make there 1M profit is there business.

What people should be asking ??? Net or Gross....... theres the big difference.

again

WELL DONE WIDNES.... SL 2012 awaits you.