Jackson Hastings

[GUBRATS]

7 minutes ago, Damien said:

That is far from fact and is purely your opinion.

The other ' big ' clubs all own/run their stadiums , their revenue streams will already be outstripping Wigan's , and it will only increase over time , Wigan can still compete because if their superior junior development , it suits them for it to stay low 

[Damien]

4 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

The other ' big ' clubs all own/run their stadiums , their revenue streams will already be outstripping Wigan's , and it will only increase over time , Wigan can still compete because if their superior junior development , it suits them for it to stay low 

The salary cap would have to increase substantially or be scrapped for such a scenario to start to have an effect, if the salary cap was increased by 50% to £3 million I can't see them suffering. Much of the trouble is that Wigan don't have to try that hard to be competitive off the field or make vast amounts of money, what they do sees them stay on top. There is absolutely no incentive to do more because they cant spend it anyway or reinvest it in the team. The current system just encourages laziness and the bare minimum.

However if such a scenario came to pass then so be it, Rugby League has been held back for far too long by clubs and people looking to maintain the status quo.

[GUBRATS]

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

The salary cap would have to increase substantially or be scrapped for such a scenario to start to have an effect, if the salary cap was increased by 50% to £3 million I can't see them suffering. Much of the trouble is that Wigan don't have to try that hard to be competitive off the field or make vast amounts of money, what they do sees them stay on top. There is absolutely no incentive to do more because they cant spend it anyway or reinvest it in the team. The current system just encourages laziness and the bare minimum.

However if such a scenario came to pass then so be it, Rugby League has been held back for far too long by clubs and people looking to maintain the status quo.

Riversider stated ' vastly ' increased Salary Cap , is that the same as your ' substantially ' ?

If Wigan could increase their revenue , they would ,that's wether they could spend it or not 

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Riversider stated ' vastly ' increased Salary Cap , is that the same as your ' substantially ' ?

If Wigan could increase their revenue , they would ,that's wether they could spend it or not 

I don't see why you are splitting hairs, do you have a point? There is very little difference in meaning between vastly and substantially. I think a 50% increase is covered by both meanings don't you?

There is no incentive to. They have been very successful over the last decade doing what they do. Increasing revenue will not see them retaining any more players. There is little point in going round in circles on this point.

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

I don't see why you are splitting hairs, do you have a point? There is very little difference in meaning between vastly and substantially. I think a 50% increase is covered by both meanings don't you?

There is no incentive to. They have been very successful over the last decade doing what they do. Increasing revenue will not see them retaining any more players. There is little point in going round in circles on this point.

There is no incentive to make a profit ?

But fine if you don't wish to carry on the discussion , I'll happily leave it here 

[Damien]

Just now, GUBRATS said:

There is no incentive to make a profit ?

But fine if you don't wish to carry on the discussion , I'll happily leave it here 

You said to increase revenue. Profit and revenue are two distinct things. Owners do not invest in Rugby League to make a profit. For some, like millionaires like Lenegan, it could actually be convenient to run at a loss and any money they put in would be negligible to them. For others it is an opportunity to cheaply advertise their latest products, as Lenegan has done numerous times. If it was of benefit to make more money and be able to spend it, or bank it, then Wigan would be run differently but it isn't.

I actually did want to continue the discussion as to what was the actual point of your question Riversider stated ' vastly ' increased Salary Cap , is that the same as your ' substantially ' ? but you didn't answer. I didn't really see the point of going round in circles whether there was an incentive for Wigan to increase revenue as its not really a discussion and there is little more to add than whats been said.

[M j M]

Wigan run at a substantial deficit which Lenagan covers personally. He's rich enough but not THAT rich. He's not a Moran or Coleman or Caddick. I imagine his company takes up lucrative sponsorship space is because they can't find anyone else.

[GUBRATS]

6 hours ago, Damien said:

You said to increase revenue. Profit and revenue are two distinct things. Owners do not invest in Rugby League to make a profit. For some, like millionaires like Lenegan, it could actually be convenient to run at a loss and any money they put in would be negligible to them. For others it is an opportunity to cheaply advertise their latest products, as Lenegan has done numerous times. If it was of benefit to make more money and be able to spend it, or bank it, then Wigan would be run differently but it isn't.

I actually did want to continue the discussion as to what was the actual point of your question Riversider stated ' vastly ' increased Salary Cap , is that the same as your ' substantially ' ? but you didn't answer. I didn't really see the point of going round in circles whether there was an incentive for Wigan to increase revenue as its not really a discussion and there is little more to add than whats been said.

Any owner would prefer a profit to a loss , if not they are an idiot 

Leeds have been happily turning over 10 million + and making modest profits for years now  so why take on £ 45 million's worth of debt unless that is to make more money 

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, M j M said:

Wigan run at a substantial deficit which Lenagan covers personally. He's rich enough but not THAT rich. He's not a Moran or Coleman or Caddick. I imagine his company takes up lucrative sponsorship space is because they can't find anyone else.

It is irrelevant if Wigan run at a profit or loss. Wigan could easily run at a profit if they wanted to. Running at a loss is only an issue when it means a clubs future is under threat. It is a complete red herring.

Lenegan is easily rich enough in Rugby League terms. His companies take up lucrative space because he is the owner and he can. Probably the same as Caddick is plastered all over Headingley. Now we all know you are a little obsessed with Wigan and the hate is strong but this is lame.

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

It is irrelevant if Wigan run at a profit or loss. Wigan could easily run at a profit if they wanted to. Running at a loss is only an issue when it means a clubs future is under threat. It is a complete red herring.

Lenegan is easily rich enough in Rugby League terms. His companies take up lucrative space because he is the owner and he can. Probably the same as Caddick is plastered all over Headingley. Now we all know you are a little obsessed with Wigan and the hate is strong but this is lame.

" They could easily run at a profit if they wanted to " seriously ? , That would require them to get their attendances back up as that is their primary income stream 

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

" They could easily run at a profit if they wanted to " seriously ? , That would require them to get their attendances back up as that is their primary income stream 

Err yes. If running at a profit was that important they could cut costs if they wanted to. They could reduce their huge backroom staff, their community programs. They would not spend up to the cap and they would have no marquee players. They wouldn't invest in training facilities and things like Central Park. It's not about making a profit.

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

Err yes. If running at a profit was that important they could cut costs if they wanted to. They could reduce their huge backroom staff, their community programs. They would not spend up to the cap and they would have no marquee players. They wouldn't invest in training facilities and things like Central Park. It's not about making a profit.

But that isn't where the discussion was going was it ? , if they really wanted to make a profit , they could get relegated and go part time and play at Orrell ?

[Damien]

Just now, GUBRATS said:

But that isn't where the discussion was going was it ? , if they really wanted to make a profit , they could get relegated and go part time and play at Orrell ?

Ok now you are being obtuse. I thought you wanted a serious discussion but obviously not.

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

Ok now you are being obtuse. I thought you wanted a serious discussion but obviously not.

As I edited my post , the point was to increase the salary cap , your suggestion of making a profit doesn't really solve that problem or make it necessary ? Does it ? , Increasing turnover by improving attendances then gives the income to finance an increased cap spend , so it wasn't me being obtuse , I was being the serious one 

[Damien]

6 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

As I edited my post , the point was to increase the salary cap , your suggestion of making a profit doesn't really solve that problem or make it necessary ? Does it ? , Increasing turnover by improving attendances then gives the income to finance an increased cap spend , so it wasn't me being obtuse , I was being the serious one 

There is no problem and in the post I replied to you were talking about making a profit, not increasing the salary cap which you have now changed to. You are switching what you are trying to argue constantly.

You are the one obsessed with the club making a profit. Sports clubs do not exist to make money, particularly so in Rugby League, and multi millionaire owners do not invest in a Rugby League club to make money. They would certainly get a much better return elsewhere. Losses are only a problem if losses cannot be avoided and can't be sustained, such as in the case of Leigh last season. The club is not set up to make a profit nor needs to be. It isn't even advantageous for the club or owner to do so. That does not mean that the club could not spend more if it wanted to. This really shouldn't be that difficult to understand.

[deluded pom?]

Confirmed in LE he’s signed for Wigan.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

16 minutes ago, deluded pom? said:

Confirmed in LE he’s signed for Wigan.

For next year?

[EastLondonMike]

Cue Williams to Canberra announcement.

[Rupert Prince]

53 minutes ago, deluded pom? said:

Confirmed in LE he’s signed for Wigan.

Isn't that embargoed...?  Or is obvious that Hastings the last man standing in the Leeds Quota Rules saga.

[deluded pom?]

8 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

For next year?

Yes.

[Rupert Prince]

On 26/06/2019 at 06:24, Damien said:

There is no problem and in the post I replied to you were talking about making a profit, not increasing the salary cap which you have now changed to. You are switching what you are trying to argue constantly.

You are the one obsessed with the club making a profit. Sports clubs do not exist to make money, particularly so in Rugby League, and multi millionaire owners do not invest in a Rugby League club to make money. They would certainly get a much better return elsewhere. Losses are only a problem if losses cannot be avoided and can't be sustained, such as in the case of Leigh last season. The club is not set up to make a profit nor needs to be. It isn't even advantageous for the club or owner to do so. That does not mean that the club could not spend more if it wanted to. This really shouldn't be that difficult to understand.

If clubs don't exist to make money, well how come Widnes went bankrupt? Why did their best players disappear and why are they in the Championship and their playets on Championship wages?

Clubs have to be viable or they fold.

[Damien]

Just now, Rupert Prince said:

If clubs don't exist to make money, well how come Widnes went bankrupt? Why did their best players disappear and why are they in the Championship and their playets on Championship wages?

Clubs have to be viable or they fold.

That's awfully simplistic and you are conflating different things. Existing to make money and being viable are two completely different things.

[Rupert Prince]

2 hours ago, deluded pom? said:

Yes.

Apart from you, who else is saying that?  Wigan Today for instance are only talking about Mitch Clark.  I know we have a TRL teaser but if it's official, why is the press quiet and the Wigan club the same? 

PS... I am sure your suggestion is right BTW, it does look like an open secret .

[Rupert Prince]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

That's awfully simplistic and you are conflating different things. Existing to make money and being viable are two completely different things.

That's silly.  But frankly I am not bothered about spending time on the point.

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Rupert Prince said:

That's silly.  But frankly I am not bothered about spending time on the point.

Its not silly. If you cant understand the difference then that isn't my fault. Anyhow I've little inclination in spending time on a conversation, that you dragged up from 5 days ago and had already been done to death, anyway.