Jump to content

The never-ending League Restructure debate (Many merged threads)


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 4.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

fev balance sheet will reflect work on ground which will see capacity increase, income streams increase via rent on business units. also invested in centre of excellence, which wil reep its own rewards.

so overall our deficit shows value for money. wonde if

other clubs deficits show the same investment gains.

VIVA THE FEVOLUTION

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Martyn, that clears that up a bit. The same goes for all member clubs then?  I still think that it was unfair to focus on Featherstone's worse case scenario.

The reason for focussing on Featherstone is that they own the freehold of their stadium, and all credit to them for doing so.

 

Their immediate rivals - Halifax, Leigh and Sheffield - don't.

 

So if those clubs were to go into administration it wouldn't affect their stadia, whereas if the same fate befell Featherstone, their stadium would be under threat.

 

Sadly we have seen many clubs over the years lose their stadium as their major asset, and I would hate to see the same thing happen to Featherstone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Martyn, that clears that up a bit. The same goes for all member clubs then?  I still think that it was unfair to focus on Featherstone's worse case scenario.

As I understand it the club doesn't have liabilities or loans wih any banks Ian. It doesn't even have an overdraft and pays it's wages and VAT on time and certainly under the current stewardship has never asked the RFL for it's monies to be paid early,

As mentioned many times the club owns it's own stadium, various educational premises, state of the art training and conditioning facilities and 18 acres of land. Every penny the club generates goes directly to the club. Barring Leeds I'm not sure if there are any other clubs that have this facility.

Stangely, none of this is focussed upon????

 

I'm not saying everyone should be loud hailing rovers achievements either. Just some balance.

"I love our club, absolutely love it". (Overton, M 2007)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange how you did not focus on our £10,046 and only chose to show negative aspects

 

This cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.  The forum is replete with posts congratulating Featherstone on their ambition, solid achievements and the progress they are making.

 

Read post #3580 again.

 

For example.

the truth is that it has actually made very good progress in the licensing era, not least in developing the stadium.....The lodged accounts don't, of course, show the details of these liabilities, and I'm sure the club is on top of them

 

It it wrong for posters, including me, who have seen things go wrong at a number of clubs in the past, to caution care and offer advice on how to avoid disappointment.? No its not.

 

As for censorship on TRL, that is a complete and utter nonsense. 

 

One thing, though, comes over clearly. Whenever ANYONE mentions Featherstone even in a positive way, you wade in defensively, crying "unfair"  and playing the victim card., and then you wonder why you get such robust responses.

 

 It really is time in my view that you remove the shoulder chips.

“Bouncing on beds, I remember from childhood, is a great depression reliever.”
 Robert M. Pirsig, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ian,

 

The accounts show BOTH massive "liabilities" and also a small "profit". Good old accountants they are so confusing.

 

A bit like KPMG who really confused me about how downgrading SL clubs into a second tier will increase attendances significantly. The do have odd ways of looking at money. Bit like the bankers I suppose.

 

All along I have been waiting for Griff to comment as he has a great handle on accounts and knows Rovers accounts inside out. We did discuss in the summer if Mr. Nahaboos input may put the clubs land assets at risk and I think something had been done about this.

 

Anyway "Calling Griff" where are you??

I know that Griff is obsessed with our accounts, lol but I also know that he understands them better than me and you as it turns out.

 

I think the key here is Mark Campbell, we are lucky enough to have a chairman who really does have our interests at heat.  He as put so much into the club that I believe he would have guarded against any risk with land assets.

 

With any risk and with any club there is always a risk.

"You cant be scared of death. When that time comes, it comes....I've been blessed. God's looked out for me, so, I'm happy." -Sean Taylor, #21, Washington Redskins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason for focussing on Featherstone is that they own the freehold of their stadium, and all credit to them for doing so.

 

Their immediate rivals - Halifax, Leigh and Sheffield - don't.

 

So if those clubs were to go into administration it wouldn't affect their stadia, whereas if the same fate befell Featherstone, their stadium would be under threat.

 

Sadly we have seen many clubs over the years lose their stadium as their major asset, and I would hate to see the same thing happen to Featherstone.

In our favour though all the bar and refreshment takings along with the other money making from facilities goes directly back to the club, has Robin pointed out.  This gives us a distinct advantage financially over our rivals.

"You cant be scared of death. When that time comes, it comes....I've been blessed. God's looked out for me, so, I'm happy." -Sean Taylor, #21, Washington Redskins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the profit was £10,046, according to the accounts lodged at Companies House, which are open to all to view.

And well done to the club.

But the club still has the liabilities that I referred to earlier in this thread. There is nothing inconsistent in making a profit but also having significant liabilities, as any accountant will tell you.

The club has been very well run over the last five years, which I fully acknowledge, and the main hope for everybody is that it continues to be so.

Martyn, all clubs have liabilities. Featherstones are pretty insignificant when compared to the likes of Wigan, St. Helens, hull etc yet there is no talk of impeding doom from you about any other clubs. I'm sure featherstone will face struggles along the way just like pretty much any other club, maybe like the long list of clubs already in super league.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

KPMG know it's about money hence they said loads of fans will flood to the games to justify their suggestions. I've two years to wait now to see if that was disingenuous or not!

 

I stated in a previous post that KPMG's consultancy is frankly a waste time and resources.

Edited by GeordieSaint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And John, as a former moderator on the Rovers, i have known you moderate that forum, as this is the reason i stopped doing it, i banned a person off the forum an within 2 hours you re-instated him

 

The current club forum moderators don't seem to have a problem with the way the site functions. If they do, they can raise any issues with me and I'm happy to discuss them.

 

The TotalRL general Terms & Conditions of Use apply to all sections of the forum, though. If any moderator wants to ban anyone from any part of the TotalRL forum, that person would have to be in breach of those Terms & Conditions. If they weren't, then I'd reinstate them. Disagreeing with a moderator is not against the Terms & Conditions.

 

Ultimately, yes, it is my overall responsibility as Site Admin to oversee all sections of the forum and ensure that the site's rules are applied fairly but, and I would hope all the current moderators of all our club based forums would back me up on this, I do not interfere in the way they moderate their forums so long as they are applying the general Terms & Conditions of Use of TotalRL.

 

There have been circumstances in which people I have banned under the T&Cs from the forums as a whole for repeated breaches of the rules have been reinstated to individual forums at the request of a local club moderator, so these things can work both ways (though I doubt you would ever acknowledge that and are probably unaware of the circumstances anyway because I try not to make a song and dance about such things). Give and take, tolerance and understanding, etc, all essential qualities in a good moderator, and incredibly hard to find in my experience.

 

It's a tough job, being Site Admin on here, you can't please everyone all the time, but I stand by the actions I have taken in this thread to remove a lot of personalised drivel that has threatened to drag the debate off topic and into an ever-decreasing catfight amongst individuals who want to grind an axe rather than debate the subject under discussion.

 

For anyone who seriously cannot stand the way TotalRL is moderated, the internet is a big place and other forums are available.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.  The forum is replete with posts congratulating Featherstone on their ambition, solid achievements and the progress they are making.

 

Read post #3580 again.

 

For example.

the truth is that it has actually made very good progress in the licensing era, not least in developing the stadium.....The lodged accounts don't, of course, show the details of these liabilities, and I'm sure the club is on top of them

 

It it wrong for posters, including me, who have seen things go wrong at a number of clubs in the past, to caution care and offer advice on how to avoid disappointment.? No its not.

 

As for censorship on TRL, that is a complete and utter nonsense. 

 

One thing, though, comes over clearly. Whenever ANYONE mentions Featherstone even in a positive way, you wade in defensively, crying "unfair"  and playing the victim card., and then you wonder why you get such robust responses.

 

 It really is time in my view that you remove the shoulder chips.

Morning John, first of all thanks for being positive on the game even though you disagree with the new structure.

 

As for your comments on the above, as usual I totally disagree.

"You cant be scared of death. When that time comes, it comes....I've been blessed. God's looked out for me, so, I'm happy." -Sean Taylor, #21, Washington Redskins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In our favour though all the bar and refreshment takings along with the other money making from facilities goes directly back to the club, has Robin pointed out.  This gives us a distinct advantage financially over our rivals.

Absolutely, and you would be foolish to put any of that at risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martyn, all clubs have liabilities. Featherstones are pretty insignificant when compared to the likes of Wigan, St. Helens, hull etc yet there is no talk of impeding doom from you about any other clubs. I'm sure featherstone will face struggles along the way just like pretty much any other club, maybe like the long list of clubs already in super league.

For a club to own its own stadium gives it a tremendous advantage, but also a tremendous responsibility.

 

I keep making the point that a club that owns its own stadium can't afford to go into administration, whereas it's not such a disaster for a club that doesn't.

 

So any club that owns its own stadium has to tread very carefully.

 

Featherstone is one of a reduced number of clubs in this position, but if the club is going to convert from employing part-time players to employing full-time ones, the potential risks should be obvious to anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current club forum moderators don't seem to have a problem with the way the site functions. If they do, they can raise any issues with me and I'm happy to discuss them.

 

The TotalRL general Terms & Conditions of Use apply to all sections of the forum, though. If any moderator wants to ban anyone from any part of the TotalRL forum, that person would have to be in breach of those Terms & Conditions. If they weren't, then I'd reinstate them. Disagreeing with a moderator is not against the Terms & Conditions.

 

Ultimately, yes, it is my overall responsibility as Site Admin to oversee all sections of the forum and ensure that the site's rules are applied fairly but, and I would hope all the current moderators of all our club based forums would back me up on this, I do not interfere in the way they moderate their forums so long as they are applying the general Terms & Conditions of Use of TotalRL.

 

There have been circumstances in which people I have banned under the T&Cs from the forums as a whole for repeated breaches of the rules have been reinstated to individual forums at the request of a local club moderator, so these things can work both ways (though I doubt you would ever acknowledge that and are probably unaware of the circumstances anyway because I try not to make a song and dance about such things). Give and take, tolerance and understanding, etc, all essential qualities in a good moderator, and incredibly hard to find in my experience.

 

It's a tough job, being Site Admin on here, you can't please everyone all the time, but I stand by the actions I have taken in this thread to remove a lot of personalised drivel that has threatened to drag the debate off topic and into an ever-decreasing catfight amongst individuals who want to grind an axe rather than debate the subject under discussion.

 

For anyone who seriously cannot stand the way TotalRL is moderated, the internet is a big place and other forums are available.

In my opinion, a nice way of putting what I say goes.  I reported a post to you back in July where some members were off topic slating Featherstone people.  Compared to my recent posts I have done nothing wrong but guess what mine were removed.

 

I suppose if you want a one way opinion on the state of the game then people like me can use other forums, after all that's exactly what you want us to do.

"You cant be scared of death. When that time comes, it comes....I've been blessed. God's looked out for me, so, I'm happy." -Sean Taylor, #21, Washington Redskins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a club to own its own stadium gives it a tremendous advantage, but also a tremendous responsibility.

 

I keep making the point that a club that owns its own stadium can't afford to go into administration, whereas it's not such a disaster for a club that doesn't.

 

So any club that owns its own stadium has to tread very carefully.

 

Absolutely.  I'm sure if anyone were to discuss this with, say, Saints management they would say the same thing.  Owning your own stadium is great in theory but it also comes along with the headache of making the stadium pay for itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martyn,

Would any club who rent a stadium, be automatically allowed to continue using it after entering administration ?

Administration means you cannot pay your bills, which would almost certainly include ground rent.

Would the owners of a rented ground simply say OK carry on using it and risk further loss of revenue ?

Would you say that the position Wakefield are in regarding who owns Belle Vue is preferrable to what we see at Featherstone ?

I am confident that the present Rovers BOD have got their fingers firmly on the pulse and would politely suggest they do not need your advice.

Lets not forget, Featherstone Rovers is a RUGBY club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

im pretty sure rovers posted a profit last year

 

Indeed they did ..... was Zak Hardaker involved in that ?  Impossible to say from the filed accounts.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My tuppence worth is that Franchising has failed because too many clubs were allowed to get away with underperforming. This comes down to a lack of leadership and strength at the top of the game.

Franchising was supposed to allow teams to up their game over the course of a 3 year licence period without the risks of relegation. What in fact has happened is far too many clubs have seen it as an opportunity to do the bare minimum.

The fact 2nd tier/Championship clubs have not had the same access to the sort of money Superleague clubs have means they've not been able to close the gap as much as they might. Although the gap is not as wide as it should have been because of the failures of Superleague clubs.

Looking forward I'd have preferred to have 2 leagues of 12 with 1 up 1 down but with minimum standards a la RU Premiership. That avoids the convoluted system we've now got where presumably if you can fund 13 players on the pitch pretty much anything else goes.

1 up 1 down with standards means you have to win on the pitch and look after the other bits. I'm not convinced that the 3rd group of 8 is going to add much. Are they really going to have playoffs to determine mid-table mediocrity?

I like the idea with a couple of midlands clubs we can have regionalised National Leagues with hopefully cross "conference" games as well.

It'll certainly be interesting to watch the scramble to avoid the bottom 2 this year and we might see a closing of the playing gap between SL and Championship gap over 3 years so we can hopefully see a 1 up 1 down next time round.

030910105148.jpg

http://www.wiganstpats.org

Producing Players Since 1910

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My tuppence worth is that Franchising has failed because too many clubs were allowed to get away with underperforming. This comes down to a lack of leadership and strength at the top of the game.

Franchising was supposed to allow teams to up their game over the course of a 3 year licence period without the risks of relegation. What in fact has happened is far too many clubs have seen it as an opportunity to do the bare minimum.

The fact 2nd tier/Championship clubs have not had the same access to the sort of money Superleague clubs have means they've not been able to close the gap as much as they might. Although the gap is not as wide as it should have been because of the failures of Superleague clubs.

Looking forward I'd have preferred to have 2 leagues of 12 with 1 up 1 down but with minimum standards a la RU Premiership. That avoids the convoluted system we've now got where presumably if you can fund 13 players on the pitch pretty much anything else goes.

1 up 1 down with standards means you have to win on the pitch and look after the other bits. I'm not convinced that the 3rd group of 8 is going to add much. Are they really going to have playoffs to determine mid-table mediocrity?

I like the idea with a couple of midlands clubs we can have regionalised National Leagues with hopefully cross "conference" games as well.

It'll certainly be interesting to watch the scramble to avoid the bottom 2 this year and we might see a closing of the playing gap between SL and Championship gap over 3 years so we can hopefully see a 1 up 1 down next time round.

1 up and down didnt work before (though was better than licensing). One spot didnt allow enough hope and refreshment for teams outside SL. Also the relegated club usually had an excessive parachute payment which put them at the advantage - also remember that RL has far more big clubs than RU outside their respective top flights, so its important to maintain interest for clubs outside SL. Should this new scheme not work (and I think it will), then 2 up 2 down would be a good compromise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Parky, either Martyn is lying or our board is telling fibs. http://featherstonerovers.net/article.php?id=11501

 

Well done Mr Sadler for highlighting our so called financial problems, it just shows how peeved he his with the recent developments which makes me soo happy :P

 

Didn't get chance to respond yesterday but yes I am looking forward to proper on field Rugby debates. 

 

Both of them were telling the truth.

 

Fev reported a profit.

 

Their current liabilities far exceed their current assets.  Largely due to the huge losses they made in the previous three years.

 

They're not the same thing.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martyn, you could not have given a fig about our finances until we started to become a threat to your ideals of how the game should look............... Not one bit.   You are not an accountant and the worst that can possibly happen is that we would end up like 90% of teams and renting.  Our land has hardly been benficial in furthering our cause in the summer era, and now we may get a look in you suddenly become concerned. 

I suggest you arrange a meeting with Mark Cambell and express your concerns to him instead of assuming stuff on here.  Now that would be the right thing to do if you were really concerned.

VIVA THE FEVOLUTION

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if i've got this right,some people are saying its ok for wakefield to be in sl and constantly failing and going into admin cos they've got nothing to lose but fev shouldn't be allowed in because they're a cracking club thats well run,makes a profit and owns its own stadium and land?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...