What’s going on in Yorkshire

[Wolford6]

On 06/06/2023 at 10:23, Harry Stottle said:

 I'll give you this though Yorkshire has much more sheep s4it and wimberries.

Yes, but Yorkshire folk and the Welsh can tell them apart. Be careful they've been separated down that stall in Bury market.

https://www.marketinglancashire.com/news/whinberry-picking-special-batch-gin/

Otherwise that gin will taste like baaacardi.

 

 

Edited June 7, 2023 by Wolford6

[M j M]

23 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

What separates a club like St Helens from one like Leeds then? It isn't the wealth of people behind them is it? 

Whilst all clubs are different you can usually assemble some broad parallels but Leeds are quite unique in terms of financing and operation.

St Helens wouldn't be in the position they are on and off field without the tens of millions ploughed in by Coleman. The relationship Paul Caddick has to Leeds doesn't involve financial support in that way.

[GUBRATS]

7 minutes ago, M j M said:

Whilst all clubs are different you can usually assemble some broad parallels but Leeds are quite unique in terms of financing and operation.

St Helens wouldn't be in the position they are on and off field without the tens of millions ploughed in by Coleman. The relationship Paul Caddick has to Leeds doesn't involve financial support in that way.

Not surprising really , he's from Yorkshire , Castleford to be precise , shame he didn't help out his home town club , rather than the easy option

[meast]

On 06/06/2023 at 01:20, Anita Bath said:

So said Brighouse Rangers all those years ago

Aye well, there's still time for them yet  

[meast]

On 06/06/2023 at 07:31, FearTheVee said:

Leeds, Huddersfield and Hull FC are the ones with something to answer for in terms of performances vs resources.

Leeds and Hull have made a string of poor coaching appointments and have reaped the results. Huddersfield have fallen for quantity over quality and signing underperforming hype like Jake Connor. Hull have also seemingly taken their eye off the development ball (the merger with Rovers academy a while back being a prime example of a club that doesn’t see youth development as an investment in competitive advantage).

Wakey and Cas are not big clubs and are scraping by in broadly the way you would expect them to. Shame we look like getting Fev to replace one of them.

Hull KR are doing pretty well and have got recruitment and coach right.

Hopefully Tony Smith can build something at Hull FC but I have zero confidence in Smith at Leeds or anything really at Wakey/Cas. Hudds need a couple of results to go their way and could conceivably find a groove but otherwise Watson will be under real pressure.

Huddersfield aren't a big club, certainly in terms of on field performances, attendances, recent history, especially the last 30 years or Castleford are a bigger club, and I would probably say Wakefield too.

Don't forget Huddersfield were a 2nd /3rd Division team for the best part of 2 decades struggling to stay afloat with a few hundred loyal fans while Wakefield and Castleford were top flight clubs winning the odd trophy here and there.

Leeds, for all their commercial revenue, history, fanbase etc are one seriously underperforming professional sports club.

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, meast said:

Huddersfield aren't a big club, certainly in terms of on field performances, attendances, recent history, especially the last 30 years or Castleford are a bigger club, and I would probably say Wakefield too.

Don't forget Huddersfield were a 2nd /3rd Division team for the best part of 2 decades struggling to stay afloat with a few hundred loyal fans while Wakefield and Castleford were top flight clubs winning the odd trophy here and there.

Leeds, for all their commercial revenue, history, fanbase etc are one seriously underperforming professional sports club.

Oh dear

[meast]

On 06/06/2023 at 10:23, Harry Stottle said:

Even that shopping centre, is Mile's behind the Trafford Centre this side of the pennines, I'll give you this though Yorkshire has much more sheep s4it and wimberries.

Yorkshire also has one of the original and biggest of these monstrosities in Sheffield, the one in Leeds (like a lot in Leeds) was just a poor copy of something in Sheffield  

[meast]

6 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Oh dear

What's up?

[Harry Stottle]

37 minutes ago, meast said:

Yorkshire also has one of the original and biggest of these monstrosities in Sheffield, the one in Leeds (like a lot in Leeds) was just a poor copy of something in Sheffield  

Yes totally agree the one in Sheffield is most definatley a monstrosity, no character and faceless.

[GUBRATS]

5 hours ago, meast said:

What's up?

Criticising the mighty

[meast]

10 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Criticising the mighty

I'm not with you, what do you mean?

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, meast said:

I'm not with you, what do you mean?

Leeds

[meast]

Not criticising, just the way it is, they should be doing far better given their resources.

[JohnM]

SL table is neatly split into two, with the lower half being made up entirely of teams from East of the Pennines.

[Damien]

On 07/06/2023 at 12:22, M j M said:

Whilst all clubs are different you can usually assemble some broad parallels but Leeds are quite unique in terms of financing and operation.

St Helens wouldn't be in the position they are on and off field without the tens of millions ploughed in by Coleman. The relationship Paul Caddick has to Leeds doesn't involve financial support in that way.

Leeds were in serious financial difficulties and were £5 million in debt when Caddick took over and losing £500,000 a year. Yorkshire cricket had said they were moving out and there was talk that Headingley was to be sold. Attendances were also poor and they were near the bottom of the league with Leeds almost being relegated.

Caddicks financial support got Leeds out of that hole and it was literally why he was brought in. He funded the club, sorted the debt and paid for big signings like Iestyn Harris, and many more, and an entire rebrand.

You can say Saints wouldn't be in the position they are in if it wasn't for a benefactor but neither would Leeds.

[Tommygilf]

50 minutes ago, Damien said:

Leeds were in serious financial difficulties and were £5 million in debt when Caddick took over and losing £500,000 a year. Yorkshire cricket had said they were moving out and there was talk that Headingley was to be sold. Attendances were also poor and they were near the bottom of the league with Leeds almost being relegated.

Caddicks financial support got Leeds out of that hole and it was literally why he was brought in. He funded the club, sorted the debt and paid for big signings like Iestyn Harris, and many more, and an entire rebrand.

You can say Saints wouldn't be in the position they are in if it wasn't for a benefactor but neither would Leeds.

Absolutely true, though Leeds' benefactor hasn't had to do any "benefacting" for well over a decade now, if not two.

[Damien]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

Absolutely true, though Leeds' benefactor hasn't had to do any "benefacting" for well over a decade now, if not two.

That goes without saying but doesn't change the point. Leeds had a benefactor to save them just as Saints had and wouldnt be where they are now without Caddick, just being further along on that journey doesnt change that.

[M j M]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

Leeds were in serious financial difficulties and were £5 million in debt when Caddick took over and losing £500,000 a year. Yorkshire cricket had said they were moving out and there was talk that Headingley was to be sold. Attendances were also poor and they were near the bottom of the league with Leeds almost being relegated.

Caddicks financial support got Leeds out of that hole and it was literally why he was brought in. He funded the club, sorted the debt and paid for big signings like Iestyn Harris, and many more, and an entire rebrand.

You can say Saints wouldn't be in the position they are in if it wasn't for a benefactor but neither would Leeds.

Thanks for the history lesson

Of course there's a bit of a difference between what Hetherington says about the state of Leeds before he and Caddick took over and the reality.

Regardless, the difference is whilst Caddick put some money in at the time, he had it all repaid quite quickly and has never needed to put it back in. Indeed for most of the past 20 years Leeds have been lending money to the rest of the Caddick group.

[Damien]

40 minutes ago, M j M said:

Thanks for the history lesson

Of course there's a bit of a difference between what Hetherington says about the state of Leeds before he and Caddick took over and the reality.

Regardless, the difference is whilst Caddick put some money in at the time, he had it all repaid quite quickly and has never needed to put it back in. Indeed for most of the past 20 years Leeds have been lending money to the rest of the Caddick group.

Leeds were in a right state, trying to portray differently is revisionism.

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

That goes without saying but doesn't change the point. Leeds had a benefactor to save them just as Saints had and wouldnt be where they are now without Caddick, just being further along on that journey doesnt change that.

I suppose the argument is that Leeds could quite possibly never need a benefactor again after a single investment which was paid off almost immediately, whereas, to maintain this level of spending, some others will always need a benefactor of sorts? 

[M j M]

14 minutes ago, Damien said:

Leeds were in a right state, trying to portray differently is revisionism.

Nobody is saying that Leeds weren't in a tricky position, mostly due to their failure on and off field in the first Super League season. But much of the story Hetherington tells about the levels of inherited debt and successive years of losses is exaggerated, misleading or simply untrue.

Edited June 11, 2023 by M j M

[Damien]

15 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I suppose the argument is that Leeds could quite possibly never need a benefactor again after a single investment which was paid off almost immediately, whereas, to maintain this level of spending, some others will always need a benefactor of sorts? 

Leeds didn't go from owing £5 million and losing £500,000 a year, then spending loads on players, such as 350k on Iestyn Harris, and a rebrand, to paying that off almost immediately. Caddick bankrolled all of that and his finance made it possible, as did his companies benefitting from the Headingley redevelopment.

There is nothing wrong with all that but lets not pretend Leeds have been some sort of unique club who got to where they are with no help or assistance.

Edited June 11, 2023 by Damien

[Damien]

25 minutes ago, M j M said:

Nobody is saying that Leeds weren't in a tricky position, mostly due to their failure on and off field in the first Super League season. But much of the story Hetherington tells about the levels of inherited debt and successive years of losses is exaggerated, misleading or simply untrue.

Leeds were in a tricky position because they had spent heavily for many years well before Super League and won diddly squat. You know this though. Alf Davies said all this at the time and that's why he looked to sell. Nothing to do with Hetherington. Leeds were only a Caddick takeover away from selling Headingley and being bought by Caspian and moved to Elland Road. Thankfully they weren't.

It is funny though how we have to take Hetherington's word as gospel when it suits but not when it doesn't.

Edited June 11, 2023 by Damien

[M j M]

Alf Davies didn't own Leeds so the club wasn't his to sell and Leeds weren't £5m in debt.

Meanwhile the club made profits in the "spending heavily before Super League" era, only flipping into being lossmaking during the Centenary season and Super League I (the latter being the source of the "£500k losses"). They then were profitable by 1998 and, until Covid, have largely remained so ever since.

I've no idea why we've ended up going down this rabbit hole. The basics are that, thanks to luck of geography and circumstance, Leeds are probably the only properly financially sustainable English club in Super League. They're very fortunate to still own their stadium and to exist in a particular market and location with a lot of big financial and other companies on their doorstep and a huge population to go at. Which is why the formula isn't really replicable by most other SL clubs.

None of which is to downplay the work Hetherington has done for the past 25+ years. He's the absolute best in the business. But most if not all Leeds fans know by now not to take his comments on certain things too literally.

[GUBRATS]

53 minutes ago, M j M said:

Alf Davies didn't own Leeds so the club wasn't his to sell and Leeds weren't £5m in debt.

Meanwhile the club made profits in the "spending heavily before Super League" era, only flipping into being lossmaking during the Centenary season and Super League I (the latter being the source of the "£500k losses"). They then were profitable by 1998 and, until Covid, have largely remained so ever since.

I've no idea why we've ended up going down this rabbit hole. The basics are that, thanks to luck of geography and circumstance, Leeds are probably the only properly financially sustainable English club in Super League. They're very fortunate to still own their stadium and to exist in a particular market and location with a lot of big financial and other companies on their doorstep and a huge population to go at. Which is why the formula isn't really replicable by most other SL clubs.

None of which is to downplay the work Hetherington has done for the past 25+ years. He's the absolute best in the business. But most if not all Leeds fans know by now not to take his comments on certain things too literally.

A former '  double glazing salesman ' telling ' porkies ' ? , Would have thought that ?