Turnover league table

[Saint Toppy]

Well thats the holding company...what else would it include??? External stadium revenue? Reserve team football being played at the HJ?

It all counts towards wires revenue imo

In Warrington's case it can't count towards the rugby teams revenue because Warrington dont own their stadium outright. Revenue from other activities such as reserve team football will go to the holding company and the rugby club will then receive their share of any profits that company makes.

Different to someone like saints who own Langtree Park so they can count all external revenues such as reserve football on their books (though Saints also operate holding companies as well)

[M j M]

In terms of actual figures, Leeds accounts for 2014 have just been published and show turnover in the year to 31 October 14 of £10,896,053 and profit before tax of £1.07m.

[Saint Toppy]

In terms of actual figures, Leeds accounts for 2014 have just been published and show turnover in the year to 31 October 14 of £10,896,053 and profit before tax of £1.07m.

Saints have just published their figures as well.

Turnover up from £5.3M to £7.1M in the year and for the first time since the SL era started they're not losing money.

They probably would have reached this point last year if not for their external catering company going bust and forcing the club to take over everything at a moments notice meaning a big investment they hadn't planned for.

[ELBOWSEYE]

In Warrington's case it can't count towards the rugby teams revenue because Warrington dont own their stadium outright. Revenue from other activities such as reserve team football will go to the holding company and the rugby club will then receive their share of any profits that company makes.

Different to someone like saints who own Langtree Park so they can count all external revenues such as reserve football on their books (though Saints also operate holding companies as well)

so who owns the stadium. As far as reported the rugby club use all profits and they won't let reserve teams use the stadium because the one season it happened the playing surface was ruined.

[Saint Toppy]

so who owns the stadium. As far as reported the rugby club use all profits and they won't let reserve teams use the stadium because the one season it happened the playing surface was ruined.

When it was built the Holding company who owns the stadium was jointly owned by the council and the Warrington directors.

Having just done a check it appears the council has since diluted its share in the holding company to just 12.8% now giving Simon Moran the majority holding (78.2%).

It also looks like their reported turnover for last year was £6.5M

[Dave T]

When it was built the Holding company who owns the stadium was jointly owned by the council and the Warrington directors.

Having just done a check it appears the council has since diluted its share in the holding company to just 12.8% now giving Simon Moran the majority holding (78.2%).

It also looks like their reported turnover for last year was £6.5M

were the council ever joint owners? I thought they were always minor shareholders.

[Krytensmate]

were the council ever joint owners? I thought they were always minor shareholders.

That's what I was told in 2004 by Andy Gatcliffe

[DoubleD]

Saints have just published their figures as well.

Turnover up from £5.3M to £7.1M in the year and for the first time since the SL era started they're not losing money.

They probably would have reached this point last year if not for their external catering company going bust and forcing the club to take over everything at a moments notice meaning a big investment they hadn't planned for.

 

That's an excellent result by the Saints. Through superb management and a bit of luck with the stadium deal, the club has really turned itself around from a fairly average one off the field to one of the top ones. Congratulations and it sets a standard for others to follow. Warrington should also be congratulated on this too

[Dunbar]

That's an excellent result by the Saints. Through superb management and a bit of luck with the stadium deal, the club has really turned itself around from a fairly average one off the field to one of the top ones. Congratulations and it sets a standard for others to follow. Warrington should also be congratulated on this too

Agreed. There are a number of very well run clubs these days.

[Padge]

That's what I was told in 2004 by Andy Gatcliffe

 

The council as far as I'm aware from all the digging I've done in the past have never held more than a 16% share in the holding company.

[Padge]

no reserve team football played at Warrington, but off field revenue making up for drop in gate receipts.

 

What are you calling off-field revenue?

[Krytensmate]

The council as far as I'm aware from all the digging I've done in the past have never held more than a 16% share in the holding company.

As I said , that's what I was told

[M j M]

Saints stated result is before interest and depreciation so whilst an improvement over where they've been in most recent years they are still going to be posting a not insignificant accounting loss before tax after say at least £300k of depreciation on the stadium.

[Dave T]

The council as far as I'm aware from all the digging I've done in the past have never held more than a 16% share in the holding company.

wasnt sure of exact percentages, but that kind of number was my understanding, the 12.8% currently was in the right area.

I had never heard that the council were joint owners of the ground, in fact I thought it was an area of controversy thatvthey had invested and didnt own more.

[Padge]

As I said , that's what I was told

 

And the figure I have given is a published figure.

 

Warrington Council have only ever been a minor shareholder.

 

It seems to me you have mis-understood what Gatcliffe was saying.

 

I have £2,000 of shares in a £Billion business, I am a joint owner, it doesn't mean I own half the business.

[ELBOWSEYE]

What are you calling off-field revenue?

they rent parts of the stadium ie the NHS use the east stand. There are other deals that bring in revenue. Not directly connected to rugby.

[Padge]

they rent parts of the stadium ie the NHS use the east stand. There are other deals that bring in revenue. Not directly connected to rugby.

 

That money goes to the stadium company not the rugby league.

 

Although both are owned by the holding company the operate in isolation. That is not the rugby clubs money.

[scotchy]

That money goes to the stadium company not the rugby league.

 

Although both are owned by the holding company the operate in isolation. That is not the rugby clubs money.

In practice isn't none of it the rugby clubs money and all the holding companies money? im not sure the value of such a distinction.

[scotchy]

It is interesting isn't it, the game is apparently in absolute dire straights, we can't afford to do run academies, and can't afford a marquee allowance, can't afford to pay players more, have an absolute necessity to shrink the game, Yet here are just 4 clubs, turning over £30m and clearing a decent profit, owning very valuable assets. These are significant business.

 

 

The next time someone tells you the game is in the dumps, the next time we hear that we can't do this that or the other, remember this thread. This game is not poor, it is not second class, it is not on its knees, there are people whose interests are forwarded by painting this game as a struggling northern sport that simply cannot compete with RU and the NRL, is miles behind and will never catch up. They don't really like threads like these because they are terrified by the fact that we can compete, we aren't miles behind and we can catch up.

[Padge]

In practice isn't none of it the rugby clubs money and all the holding companies money? im not sure the value of such a distinction.

 

The distinction is in the liabilities of each. The stadium company can make a lot of money and the RL club run at break even, or a loss, if the rugby goes belly up for whatever reason the asset of the stadium is safe from creditors. The assets of the club are the players and little else.

 

Conversely when Moran bought the vast majority of the shares for the holding company he was in a position to offer the rugby club a good long term lease.

 

Moran was concerned before he took control of the sports holding company that the rugby club didn't have a long term lease at the stadium. Once he had control of the holding company he ensured Wire had a long term future at the stadium by putting them on a long term preferential lease.

 

He has still kept them apart though to protect one from the financial collapse of the other.

[scotchy]

The distinction is in the liabilities of each. The stadium company can make a lot of money and the RL club run at break even, or a loss, if the rugby goes belly up for whatever reason the asset of the stadium is safe from creditors. The assets of the club are the players and little else.

 

Conversely when Moran bought the vast majority of the shares for the holding company he was in a position to offer the rugby club a good long term lease.

 

Moran was concerned before he took control of the sports holding company that the rugby club didn't have a long term lease at the stadium. Once he had control of the holding company he ensured Wire had a long term future at the stadium by putting them on a long term preferential lease.

 

He has still kept them apart though to protect one from the financial collapse of the other.

I can see in terms of structure it can be quite useful to have them separate, and im sure there are plenty of erm...........efficiencies being taken advantage of. I meant more from the debate here, if the RL clubs with those tertiary income streams is bringing in x amount then is there much value to that distinction.

[Padge]

I can see in terms of structure it can be quite useful to have them separate, and im sure there are plenty of erm...........efficiencies being taken advantage of. I meant more from the debate here, if the RL clubs with those tertiary income streams is bringing in x amount then is there much value to that distinction.

 

You run the stadium at a profit and the club at close to break even, if the club needs money you take your share dividend money from the stadium and loan it to the club. You are still owed the money, but it is money from the profit from the stadium that you made on your dividend.

 

Clubs appear to be making little money. This means that when people set off on an exercise like this it is pointless, different clubs will operate differently. You can have a club and stadium kept seperate by a holding company. You can have a club that purely leases a stadium and you can have a club that owns and runs its own stadium as one entity.

 

How profit & loss works in each scenario is completely different.

[scotchy]

You run the stadium at a profit and the club at close to break even, if the club needs money you take your share dividend money from the stadium and loan it to the club. You are still owed the money, but it is money from the profit from the stadium that you made on your dividend.

 

Clubs appear to be making little money. This means that when people set off on an exercise like this it is pointless, different clubs will operate differently. You can have a club and stadium kept seperate by a holding company. You can have a club that purely leases a stadium and you can have a club that owns and runs its own stadium as one entity.

 

How profit & loss works in each scenario is completely different.

true and I would agree there is a fundamental difference to say Hull, I don't think there is an important distinction in this instance.

[Padge]

true and I would agree there is a fundamental difference to say Hull, I don't think there is an important distinction in this instance.

 

The OP asked a about a league table of club turnovers, I think there is an important distinction between the turnover of a holding company and a rugby club which may or may not be owned by a holding company.

 

For PR purposes clubs could put out a statement that could give the holding companies turnover, when in reality the turnover of the club itself is less and the profit even smaller.

 

To do the sort of comparison the OP is talking about would take a hell of a lot of accounting deciphering to squeeze out the reality.

[M j M]

The OP asked a about a league table of club turnovers, I think there is an important distinction between the turnover of a holding company and a rugby club which may or may not be owned by a holding company.

 

For PR purposes clubs could put out a statement that could give the holding companies turnover, when in reality the turnover of the club itself is less and the profit even smaller.

 

To do the sort of comparison the OP is talking about would take a hell of a lot of accounting deciphering to squeeze out the reality.

Not really, few clubs have really complicated structures and the Wire one is not massively difficult to unpick. I would count Warrington in substance as a stadium-owning club like Leeds and Saints. They have, in theory, assets which generate net revenues which can in turn subsidise the football department and are more on track to be sustainable businesses.