Terrible financial news for Saints

[lucky 7]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/articles/ce8d91d1z22o

[ATLANTISMAN]

10 minutes ago, lucky 7 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/articles/ce8d91d1z22o

Not surprised St Helens are very poor commercially nowadays compared to other clubs.

Dragons Rhino's Leopards Wire Hull KR Wigan lead the way commercially.

Others well behind 

[Dave T]

It's been difficult to follow finances for a few years in part due to Covid, but that £9m turnover doesn't seem too bad for Saints versus other clubs (obviously costs substantially increasing).

Does that reflect a poor commercial performance versus the others?

[Eddie]

Many sports clubs are happy to make a loss as they have benefactors. 

[Dunbar]

Looking at data from Companies House.

St Helenes showed an operating loss of £1,218,292 in the year ending October 2022 and then a loss of £2,205,615 in year ending October 2023.  This is from turnover of £9,275,489 and '22 and £9,095,180 in '23.

Their loss after interest and taxation was £1,379,014 in 2022 and £2,046,194 in 2023 and so I am assuming that when the article says that "financial losses have more than trebled to over £1.3m and they expect next year's figure to be worse", it is the 2023 ~£2M loss that is already posted on Companies House they are referring to.

For comparative purposes, Wigan made an operating loss of £1,637,314 for the year ending November 2023 and a loss after taxation of £1,680,625.  This was on turnover of £6,589,786 (in 2022, it was a loss after taxation of £1,215,515 from turnover of £6,633,231.

So, Saints losses in the last FY were some 22% higher than Wigan but on turnover 38% higher.  I guess it depends on whether you have a bull or bear mentality whether you prefer the higher turnover or the lower losses.

Edited September 10 by Dunbar

[Gerrumonside ref]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

Looking at data from Companies House.

St Helenes showed an operating loss of £1,218,292 in the year ending October 2022 and then a loss of £2,205,615 in year ending October 2023.  This is from turnover of £9,275,489 and '22 and £9,095,180 in '23.

Their loss after interest and taxation was £1,379,014 in 2022 and £2,046,194 in 2023 and so I am assuming that when the article says that "financial losses have more than trebled to over £1.3m and they expect next year's figure to be worse, it is the 2023 ~£2M loss that is already posted on Companies House.

For comparative purposes, Wigan made an operating loss of £1,637,314 for the year ending November 2023 and a loss after taxation of £1,680,625.  This was on turnover of £6,589,786 (in 2022, it was a loss after taxation of £1,215,515 from turnover of £6,633,231.

So, Saints losses in the last FY were some 22% higher than Wigan but on turnover 38% higher.  I guess it depends on whether you have a bull or bear mentality whether you prefer the higher turnover or the lower losses.

Agreed and much will depend on Saints own financial planning and what they anticipated.

In my view most journalists don’t understand how to read a set of accounts - it’s a very different skill set.

I would really underline that too for sports journalists.

[Simon Hall]

Wakefield have said they're giving all the proceeds from their next game to St. Helens.

[RigbyLuger]

If the owners can afford the losses, it isn't a problem.

[Bod]

As every year Rugby League is on its backside financially. The sport is not fit for purpose anymore and needs to be put out its misery.

[RigbyLuger]

4 minutes ago, Bod said:

As every year Rugby League is on its backside financially. The sport is not fit for purpose anymore and needs to be put out its misery.

Wait until you see some of the losses in professional football.

[lucky 7]

1 minute ago, RigbyLuger said:

Wait until you see some of the losses in professional football.

Or union

[DemonUK]

If you go around the club accounts on Companies House it doesn't fill you full of confidence.  One club has directors loans totaling 2.6 mil, repayable on demand. Found another with 6 charges against the club another with 3.  One club which appears to have posted accounts for a 'dormant' company for 2022 and 2023. Someone who has borrowed money for the big screen which if they default becomes the property of the lender.  The dormant company is so dormant 2 new perons have acquired significant control just a few months ago. Oh and at Bradford you can't see the Wood from the trees with the number of 'Woods' involved. I actually feel sorry for IMG who are going to have to do their own audits

[Wollo Wollo Wayoo]

57 minutes ago, Simon Hall said:

Wakefield have said they're giving all the proceeds from their next game to St. Helens.

Collection already started mate.  12 chairs surplus to our requirements already on the way.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

Looking at data from Companies House.

St Helenes showed an operating loss of £1,218,292 in the year ending October 2022 and then a loss of £2,205,615 in year ending October 2023.  This is from turnover of £9,275,489 and '22 and £9,095,180 in '23.

Their loss after interest and taxation was £1,379,014 in 2022 and £2,046,194 in 2023 and so I am assuming that when the article says that "financial losses have more than trebled to over £1.3m and they expect next year's figure to be worse", it is the 2023 ~£2M loss that is already posted on Companies House they are referring to.

For comparative purposes, Wigan made an operating loss of £1,637,314 for the year ending November 2023 and a loss after taxation of £1,680,625.  This was on turnover of £6,589,786 (in 2022, it was a loss after taxation of £1,215,515 from turnover of £6,633,231.

So, Saints losses in the last FY were some 22% higher than Wigan but on turnover 38% higher.  I guess it depends on whether you have a bull or bear mentality whether you prefer the higher turnover or the lower losses.

The Saints one explicitly calls out that their turnover has been maintained but on lower margin activity - they call out that they have seen a reduction in room hire and central funding which doesn't bring huge costs with it. 

Looks like Wire made a loss of £1.7m over the same period, so all three in a similar ballpark - Wire's turnover was more in Wigan's area than Saints' - although I'm not sure whether there is anything different done in terms of accountancy around the Rugby operations and Stadium operations. In Wire's accounts there are very few references to the ground's activity.

[bobbruce]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

Looking at data from Companies House.

St Helenes showed an operating loss of £1,218,292 in the year ending October 2022 and then a loss of £2,205,615 in year ending October 2023.  This is from turnover of £9,275,489 and '22 and £9,095,180 in '23.

Their loss after interest and taxation was £1,379,014 in 2022 and £2,046,194 in 2023 and so I am assuming that when the article says that "financial losses have more than trebled to over £1.3m and they expect next year's figure to be worse", it is the 2023 ~£2M loss that is already posted on Companies House they are referring to.

For comparative purposes, Wigan made an operating loss of £1,637,314 for the year ending November 2023 and a loss after taxation of £1,680,625.  This was on turnover of £6,589,786 (in 2022, it was a loss after taxation of £1,215,515 from turnover of £6,633,231.

So, Saints losses in the last FY were some 22% higher than Wigan but on turnover 38% higher.  I guess it depends on whether you have a bull or bear mentality whether you prefer the higher turnover or the lower losses.

Is that a choice though or is that partly down to Saints having the stadium with in the company and with Wigan it’s a completely separate entity. 

[Dunbar]

18 minutes ago, DemonUK said:

If you go around the club accounts on Companies House it doesn't fill you full of confidence.  One club has directors loans totaling 2.6 mil, repayable on demand. Found another with 6 charges against the club another with 3.  One club which appears to have posted accounts for a 'dormant' company for 2022 and 2023. Someone who has borrowed money for the big screen which if they default becomes the property of the lender.  The dormant company is so dormant 2 new perons have acquired significant control just a few months ago. Oh and at Bradford you can't see the Wood from the trees with the number of 'Woods' involved. I actually feel sorry for IMG who are going to have to do their own audits

Agreed, it doesn't fill you with confidence but it is the usual story with professional sports where ambition outweighs common sense.

The losses for some of our top clubs are tiny compared to other sports - top level Union comes to mind where many clubs are living well beyond their means and of course Premiership football where clubs would be a financial disaster if it weren't for foreign oil, gas or sovereign funds.

[M j M]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

Looking at data from Companies House.

St Helenes showed an operating loss of £1,218,292 in the year ending October 2022 and then a loss of £2,205,615 in year ending October 2023.  This is from turnover of £9,275,489 and '22 and £9,095,180 in '23.

Their loss after interest and taxation was £1,379,014 in 2022 and £2,046,194 in 2023 and so I am assuming that when the article says that "financial losses have more than trebled to over £1.3m and they expect next year's figure to be worse", it is the 2023 ~£2M loss that is already posted on Companies House they are referring to.

For comparative purposes, Wigan made an operating loss of £1,637,314 for the year ending November 2023 and a loss after taxation of £1,680,625.  This was on turnover of £6,589,786 (in 2022, it was a loss after taxation of £1,215,515 from turnover of £6,633,231.

So, Saints losses in the last FY were some 22% higher than Wigan but on turnover 38% higher.  I guess it depends on whether you have a bull or bear mentality whether you prefer the higher turnover or the lower losses.

I'd be more interested in how the clubs compare at EBITDA level than net profit given the three big stadium owning clubs will have huge depreciation charges going through which don't represent cash losses in the year as such.

[The Blues Ox]

And people think that a 14 team SL is a realistic possibility. 

[OMEGA]

I don’t know all the ins and outs of it like some but I think Wakefield just posted their accounts and they were mightily impressive (for Wakefield). Something along the lines of a decent sized profit, + an asset of £14million and £500k in the bank.

Is there a Trinity fan on here that can be a bit more accurate than me?

[jacksy]

Dare I ask about Hull Fc finances.

[Dunbar]

15 minutes ago, M j M said:

I'd be more interested in how the clubs compare at EBITDA level than net profit given the three big stadium owning clubs will have huge depreciation charges going through which don't represent cash losses in the year as such.

Sure, but that isn't a required reporting metric for company accounts on Companies House so difficult to dig up.

The bottom line is that no-one is getting rich running or owning a Super League club - Wigan still owes £9.495m to former owner Ian Lenagan’s Wigan Sporting Club

[whatmichaelsays]

48 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The Saints one explicitly calls out that their turnover has been maintained but on lower margin activity - they call out that they have seen a reduction in room hire and central funding which doesn't bring huge costs with it. 

Looks like Wire made a loss of £1.7m over the same period, so all three in a similar ballpark - Wire's turnover was more in Wigan's area than Saints' - although I'm not sure whether there is anything different done in terms of accountancy around the Rugby operations and Stadium operations. In Wire's accounts there are very few references to the ground's activity.

It is a little sneaky of St Helens to lump in central funding cuts with reductions in other revenues. I get the point is that they're generating more revenue from streams with a higher cost of sale, but it arguably does leave the door open for the reader to blame Sky / IMG / RFL. There is mention further in the accounts of the NHS no longer renting space, so I assume that is what a large part of the rental income drop relates to.

The Leeds accounts explicitly shows the reduction of central funding to be £200k (£1.8m to £1.6m), so it's fair to assume a similar level across the board. 

One big cost factor appears to be energy costs - Leeds show an increase in energy of £275k per year, which isn't a small chunk of change. 

[bamfordsbeans]

Sky money is probably half of what it used to be and in real terms even more.

It seems the majority of clubs have failed to find other revenue areas to compensate for this.

[M j M]

A quick analysis of the Big Four from their 2023 financial statements. None of them look good.

 

It's been six years since I last did this analysis. In that time Saints are the only club to record an increase in turnover - they've grown it by more than £2m which is pretty impressive whilst their rivals have fallen back.

At EBITDA level though it's pretty cataclysmic: in 2017 these four clubs made a combined positive EBITDA of £886k (ranging from £1.2m at Leeds down to negative (£696k) at Saints). In 2023 the combined EBITDA for the four clubs is negative (£5.6m) with all of them having fallen back by hundreds of thousands of pounds and all of them much lower than the worst of the four in 2017. Warrington and Leeds are both making over £2m less EBITDA than they were six years ago.

Below EBITDA things get murky with differing levels of depreciation and tax write backs.

Leeds for some reason have included a detailed analysis of their turnover which is instructive (I would have resisted including this if these were my accounts, there's no need to go into this level of detail). It shows as mentioned above the YOY reductions in central funding.

Edited September 10 by M j M

[Pete Grady]

Going semi pro is the answer.

All the best British talent will go the NRL, our National team will then prosper and the British game will be sustainable.