Terrible financial news for Saints

[DoubleD]

2 minutes ago, dkw said:

I tell you what, seeing as though the value of these contracts keep dropping maybe we as a sport should try and get some experts on board to help raise the value....

Go semi-pro perhaps?

[dkw]

12 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

Go semi-pro perhaps?

I think some would rather see that happen than IMG succeed. 

[Harry Stottle]

39 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

And why is that?

Well they weren't happy last time and told us to get our house in order, what have we done any different other than taken away Sky's option of showing the jeopardy battle (yes I know they are still televised but it doesn't have the same draw) which I believe that curiosity if nothing else brought in quite a lot of viewers, and so many games this term being reduced in the number of player's on the field usually deciding the result, they are not good for viewing.

[Harry Stottle]

39 minutes ago, dkw said:

I tell you what, seeing as though the value of these contracts keep dropping maybe we as a sport should try and get some experts on board to help raise the value....

Didn't we have 'experts onboard' in the last discussions?

[Click]

13 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Well they weren't happy last time and told us to get our house in order, what have we done any different other than taken away Sky's option of showing the jeopardy battle (yes I know they are still televised but it doesn't have the same draw) which I believe that curiosity if nothing else brought in quite a lot of viewers, and so many games this term being reduced in the number of player's on the field usually deciding the result, they are not good for viewing.

Did it though?

[bobbruce]

54 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Well they weren't happy last time and told us to get our house in order, what have we done any different other than taken away Sky's option of showing the jeopardy battle (yes I know they are still televised but it doesn't have the same draw) which I believe that curiosity if nothing else brought in quite a lot of viewers, and so many games this term being reduced in the number of player's on the field usually deciding the result, they are not good for viewing.

You really think Sky don’t have an input into what we are doing. 

[Tommygilf]

45 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Well they weren't happy last time and told us to get our house in order, what have we done any different other than taken away Sky's option of showing the jeopardy battle (yes I know they are still televised but it doesn't have the same draw) which I believe that curiosity if nothing else brought in quite a lot of viewers, and so many games this term being reduced in the number of player's on the field usually deciding the result, they are not good for viewing.

Did it? Crowds certainly didn't reflect that?

On the contrary you could say the sport has paid to bring in outside expertise from a reknowned company with the specific aim of making the top flight of the sport as attractive to TV as possible, implementing sport wide changes as a result, and then providing a significant amount of content for Sky's new streaming platform too.

Sky aren't stupid an expecting things to transform overnight, but the sport has done some things at least.

[dkw]

51 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

You really think Sky don’t have an input into what we are doing. 

Sky are one of our major stakeholders, they will absolutely be involved, and pretty heavily involved I expect.

[JT RL]

Obviously it looks & is bad.

But, let’s not forget that Wigan were bust back in the day 

- hence the need to sell Central Park to survive 

And they are doing ok these days 

[Tommygilf]

12 minutes ago, dkw said:

Sky are one of our major stakeholders, they will absolutely be involved, and pretty heavily involved I expect.

One of the main reasons we have every game televised is because we have worked with Sky and aligned ourselves in that vision.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

Did it? Crowds certainly didn't reflect that?

On the contrary you could say the sport has paid to bring in outside expertise from a reknowned company with the specific aim of making the top flight of the sport as attractive to TV as possible, implementing sport wide changes as a result, and then providing a significant amount of content for Sky's new streaming platform too.

Sky aren't stupid an expecting things to transform overnight, but the sport has done some things at least.

Proof of the pudding Tommy, never mind looking into your crystal ball, let's wait and see what happens.

I'll bet you sixpence, the Sky contract offer goes down next time from its present value.

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Proof of the pudding Tommy, never mind looking into your crystal ball, let's wait and see what happens.

I'll bet you sixpence, the Sky contract offer goes down next time from its present value.

If it doesn't, are you going to say IMG works? If it does are you going to say it's because we need London in?

[Hopie]

9 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

This,

Perfectly well put Hopie and it can be put in conjunction with a discussion on another thread about what I said that any investment should be aimed totally at the heartlands "To make it the best if can be", which includes investment in the infrastructure of the game in all its forms below SL as you state. It needs a good dose of looking at, carry on as we are without investment in these areas at our peril and as you say the whole structure will collapse.

Nah, not aimed at the heartlands, aimed at the foundations. London could use an academy structure just as much as Cumbria, Leeds or South Wales. 

[Harry Stottle]

6 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

If it doesn't, are you going to say IMG works? If it does are you going to say it's because we need London in?

Maybe, c'mon you disappoint me can you only think if those two scenarios?

Anyway what about the sixpence bet, that's two and half pence in new money.

[Harry Stottle]

8 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

One of the main reasons we have every game televised is because we have worked with Sky and aligned ourselves in that vision.

No, no and thrice no, Sky said they wanted it, irrespective that they have done a poor job with it and RL followed suit they had no choice but to agree, Sky only put all the RL games on the main channels because SS+ was not ready they were waiting till the 2nd division football season started.

[Click]

4 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

No, no and thrice no, Sky said they wanted it, irrespective that they have done a poor job with it and RL followed suit they had no choice but to agree, Sky only put all the RL games on the main channels because SS+ was not ready they were waiting till the 2nd division football season started.

SKY didn't have to put all of our matches on their main channels, or on SS+. 

They could have continued with the previous way we have done it for 20 + years. 

[Dave T]

7 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

No, no and thrice no, Sky said they wanted it, irrespective that they have done a poor job with it and RL followed suit they had no choice but to agree, Sky only put all the RL games on the main channels because SS+ was not ready they were waiting till the 2nd division football season started.

What makes you think Sky drove this? It's clear Sky wanted the 2 matches they always have.

They just don't seem to care about matches 3 to 6.

[Wakefield Ram]

On 10/09/2024 at 13:31, 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.

Turnover for vanity, profit for sanity.

[Wakefield Ram]

On 10/09/2024 at 17:15, whatmichaelsays said:

I think the critique of Carter, and I think it's a fair one, is that he was excessively prudent - he seemed to approach things with a "zero growth" mindset. 

There's a place for people with those skills and mindset within sport, but there's equally a place for people who want to grow and expand their business with some calculated risks. Carter, I would argue, was too far on one end of the spectrum. Eventually, a strategy of "try to stay in SL as cheaply as possible" was always going to catch up with him. 

Guess it depends if it's you who's expected to make up the shortfall. And think this season has been a shot in the arm for Wakefield, the club has a real buzz again, much more so than if they'd scraped another season in the lower end of SL. 

[Tommygilf]

10 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Maybe, c'mon you disappoint me can you only think if those two scenarios?

Anyway what about the sixpence bet, that's two and half pence in new money.

I'm just showing how it's a silly proposition based on an understanding dependent on a (false) dichotomy. You know you'd take any result as validation of your viewpoint.

[Tommygilf]

9 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

No, no and thrice no, Sky said they wanted it, irrespective that they have done a poor job with it and RL followed suit they had no choice but to agree, Sky only put all the RL games on the main channels because SS+ was not ready they were waiting till the 2nd division football season started.

I don't think Sky particularly wanted it, per sé. They've kept their standard 2 games a week for their main broadcast fixtures.

We wanted it, we set up a whole new App and streaming service for it all. And better still, because we were able to align that with Sky bringing in their own streaming channel, we've got Sky to pay for it too. Including them bringing in more experienced commentators.

The current TV deal, whilst not up in monetary value, does account for this significant cost. It's the first time we've had it in our sport and we've been talking about it for years. We didn't get it when we had licensing, or when we got £40 million, nor did we get it when we had that interim with Ken Davy as chair despite what he said. 

[Tommygilf]

2 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Guess it depends if it's you who's expected to make up the shortfall. And think this season has been a shot in the arm for Wakefield, the club has a real buzz again, much more so than if they'd scraped another season in the lower end of SL. 

To a certain extent I'm not sure how this would have been much different regardless which league they were in.

Being in SL would have been better imo, as they would have benefited from greater media presence (and all televised fixtures).

The buzz has come about because it's all looking positive for the club. New shiney East Stand in place, renovated North Stand, and crucially a new owner bringing in money and ambition to the place. I don't see either point as being particularly dependent on being in the championship or Super League. Perhaps its effects are multiplied more in the championship because of the difference money can make to dominating the league? 

Likewise the reverse of that would be a season of forgone conclusions in the championship, at least from a few rounds in, isn't particularly what people are interested in watching either.

[JohnM]

17 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

If it doesn't, are you going to say IMG works? If it does are you going to say it's because we need London in?

In his Escher-like non-Euclidian universe, not even THAT is possible.

[Harry Stottle]

6 hours ago, Click said:

SKY didn't have to put all of our matches on their main channels, or on SS+. 

They could have continued with the previous way we have done it for 20 + years. 

 

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

What makes you think Sky drove this? It's clear Sky wanted the 2 matches they always have.

They just don't seem to care about matches 3 to 6.

Do you both not consider showing RL on SS+ by Sky is just a stocking filler for this streaming medium by Sky, the whole production costs must be so minimal with the bad, ney very bad quality they broadcast.

[Dave T]

29 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

 

Do you both not consider showing RL on SS+ by Sky is just a stocking filler for this streaming medium by Sky, the whole production costs must be so minimal with the bad, ney very bad quality they broadcast.

I have no idea how this point links to your claim that Sky drove this.