Leeds finances

[M j M]

Moving this here as I/we derailed another thread with stuff about this last week and the Salford finances one was getting confused.

Anyway @paul hicks, picking up your post:

  

26 minutes ago, paul hicks said:

29 minutes ago, M j M said:

36 minutes ago, paul hicks said:

the parent company caddick plc does not own leeds rhinos it jointly owned by paul caddick who has 76% of shares and gary hethington who owns the remaining 24% .

all because a rich man takes a controlling interest in a club does not mean his company owns it. for instance, does AGE PARTNERSHIP now fully own HULL F.C or does Andrew Thirkill just part own them.

what Caddick did when he jointly bought the club was to guarantee the clubs overdraft through one of his companies, he did not pump millions into the club on a capital basis.

indeed, when the cricket ground was sold to Yorkshire cricket for i think £15 million that paid off the club's debts and also provided a dividend for the shareholders . the club has given out several dividends to the shareholders over the years (both of them) and has traded profitably most years.  the two years mentioned are those that were ruined by covid and given the clubs reliance on off field activities with its 365 days a year use of the ground thats no great surprise

i think if you look at losses against asset values you will see there is no problem in the long term.

Why are you just making stuff up?

such as

There's hardly a fact in your entire post.

• the parent company caddick plc does not own leeds rhinos it jointly owned by paul caddick who has 76% of shares and gary hethington who owns the remaining 24%

Incorrect. Leeds are owned by a dormant holding company, Leeds Rugby Ltd. Leeds Rugby Ltd is owned by Caddick Group plc (76%), Hetherington (19%) and Rob Oates (5%).

 

•  all because a rich man takes a controlling interest in a club does not mean his company owns it.

I think it would be a brave move to state, despite the minority shareholders, that Caddick Group plc doesn't own Leeds Rhinos. As a starting point, the Rugby League team's financial results are consolidated into the Caddick Group plc figures.

 

•  what Caddick did when he jointly bought the club was to guarantee the clubs overdraft through one of his companies, he did not pump millions into the club on a capital basis.

Incorrect, Caddick Group advanced Leeds £828k just after the takeover in 1996, a further £692k in 1997, £381k in 1998, £592k in 1999 and £173k in 2000, £517k in 2001 etc etc. These borrowings didn't just cover trading losses but were also used to redevelop the cricket ground - and were paid down when that was sold to Yorkshire.

The existing bank loan and overdraft was secured over the stadium, it didn't need additional guarantees from Caddick.

 

• indeed, when the cricket ground was sold to Yorkshire cricket for i think £15 million that paid off the club's debts and also provided a dividend for the shareholders .

It paid off the bank loans and the amounts owed to Caddick. But most of all it was used to pay for the building of the Carnegie (East) Stand on the RL side.

 

• the club has given out several dividends to the shareholders over the years (both of them)

Not really true. The only dividends paid or being paid are about £5k a year in preference dividends. No discretionary dividends have been paid, although there have been alternative ways of getting some money to Hetherington and Oates.

 

•  the two years mentioned are those that were ruined by covid

The two most recent years were 2022 and 2023. Covid was having a negligible impact by the end of that period.

[Damien]

Leeds announce post tax loss of £1.4 million:

Leeds Rhinos have released their accounts from 2024 revealing a major loss, although there is some positive news too.

The Headingley club have confirmed their full accounts up to 31st October 2024, filing them with government website Companies House.

Within the accounts are of course the financial details which do reveal a post-tax loss of just over £1.4 million, however, that’s actually a smaller loss than the previous year. The loss figures before tax are actually £1,868,435, dropping from £2,312,732 the previous year.

https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/rugby-league-news-leeds-rhinos-release-2024-accounts-as-1800000-loss-confirmed-106651/

 

Edited July 22, 2025 by Damien

[Hopie]

https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/leeds-rhinos-news-latest-accounts-confirm-reduced-loss-as-turnover-commercial-income-rise-5235435

"The average attendance for men’s games last year was down from 13,806 to 13,499, but work is being done to reverse that trend. The strategic report states the fall was “largely due to the differing ‘loop’ fixtures, which saw additional home fixtures against newly-promoted London and Catalans and the inconsistent performance of the team."

Bloody Catalans again!

[Dave T]

22 minutes ago, Hopie said:

https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/leeds-rhinos-news-latest-accounts-confirm-reduced-loss-as-turnover-commercial-income-rise-5235435

"The average attendance for men’s games last year was down from 13,806 to 13,499, but work is being done to reverse that trend. The strategic report states the fall was “largely due to the differing ‘loop’ fixtures, which saw additional home fixtures against newly-promoted London and Catalans and the inconsistent performance of the team."

Bloody Catalans again!

Its a really disappointing narrative that they've created around London and Catalans in there, particularly when as far as I could see these games werent the lowest of the year. 

[whatmichaelsays]

16 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Its a really disappointing narrative that they've created around London and Catalans in there, particularly when as far as I could see these games werent the lowest of the year. 

I don't think it's necessarily unfair for the club accounts to imply that if you swap home fixtures against Wigan and Castleford with ones against Catalans and London, that would have some impact on your average attendance and/or profitability. 

I get that it doesn't necessarily come across great and I'll be the first to give the "away fans" argument short shrift, but it's not an unreasonable point to make and I don't think it's necessarily "spinning s narrative"

This season our additional home games are against KR and Wakefield - you'd fully expect that to have a positive impact..

[Wakefield Ram]

They've lost £1.4m. To refer to loop fixtures is irrelevant. 

[Damien]

I think most interesting is that central funding now only stands at £1.24 million. That is almost £600k less than a few years ago. Taking into account inflation its an even bigger reduction than that in real terms.

Edited July 22, 2025 by Damien

[Dave T]

46 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I don't think it's necessarily unfair for the club accounts to imply that if you swap home fixtures against Wigan and Castleford with ones against Catalans and London, that would have some impact on your average attendance and/or profitability. 

I get that it doesn't necessarily come across great and I'll be the first to give the "away fans" argument short shrift, but it's not an unreasonable point to make and I don't think it's necessarily "spinning s narrative"

This season our additional home games are against KR and Wakefield - you'd fully expect that to have a positive impact..

Nah. Leeds' two lowest crowds in 2024 were against Wire and Wigan. 

When you look at comparisons between 2023 and 2024, it isn't the loop fixtures that are the issue.

Comparing 2023 and 2024 - the two loop fixtures (the lowest versus the loop teams) both average 12.9k each year. 

So its actually a garbage point that isn't even factual.

[Tommygilf]

As a Leeds fan, there seems to have been a culture of corporate backslapping at the Rhinos for the past decade or so, particularly with the Stadium rebuild.

That has been reflected in average attendances.

It annoys me immensely how despite being the foremost club in the sport, with undoubtedly the largest market by any metric, we fail to take the initiative or drive to lead the sport forwards.

[Hopie]

58 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

They've lost £1.4m. To refer to loop fixtures is irrelevant. 

It was relevant to their attendance figures, their attendance figures are relevant to their financial results. Their results on the pitch are also relevant to both those things.
All aspects of financial results need to be considered making solid plans for the future.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Hopie said:

It was relevant to their attendance figures, their attendance figures are relevant to their financial results. Their results on the pitch are also relevant to both those things.
All aspects of financial results need to be considered making solid plans for the future.

The loop fixtures had the same crowds as 2023. 

If you can't analyse why your crowds have gone down, you'll take the wrong actions to fix things.

Id have expected them to potentially call out the scheduling and the coverage of every game on tv being implemented as a factor - they moved away from as many games on their favoured Friday night for example.

But loop fixtures wasnt the issue. It looks to me like they've played to the crowd and blamed loop fixtures, Catalans and London. All easy targets.

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, Hopie said:

It was relevant to their attendance figures, their attendance figures are relevant to their financial results. Their results on the pitch are also relevant to both those things.
All aspects of financial results need to be considered making solid plans for the future.

That's true, but a club of Leeds level and stature should really not be dependent to the tune of 7 figures on variations in a few hundred away fans.

We've lost around 3k regular home fans in 15 years. That is the key issue at play, not if London or Wakey turn up.

[M j M]

4 hours ago, Dave T said:

But loop fixtures wasnt the issue. It looks to me like they've played to the crowd and blamed loop fixtures, Catalans and London. All easy targets.

It is a very short line in the financial statements referring to crowds as one of their KPIs and considering why they had fallen YOY. It's doubtful they even expected anyone to see it given few fans read the accounts. 

I know this forum has drifted towards anti-reality recently but it's not a challenging assertion to say that Huddersfield, London and Catalan are amongst the lesser appealing fixtures in the calendar and if they form part of your loop fixtures that will have an impact on overall averages. You can try to address this, do special offers (Leeds are doing exactly that for the upcoming Catalan game), hype them up but it doesn't change that reality. 

[Chrispmartha]

1 hour ago, M j M said:

It is a very short line in the financial statements referring to crowds as one of their KPIs and considering why they had fallen YOY. It's doubtful they even expected anyone to see it given few fans read the accounts. 

I know this forum has drifted towards anti-reality recently but it's not a challenging assertion to say that Huddersfield, London and Catalan are amongst the lesser appealing fixtures in the calendar and if they form part of your loop fixtures that will have an impact on overall averages. You can try to address this, do special offers (Leeds are doing exactly that for the upcoming Catalan game), hype them up but it doesn't change that reality. 

Exactly.

Leeds give offers and heavy discounts to people like key worker staff and kids for those games, the crowd figures do not tell the whole story about income on those match days.

[Wakefield Ram]

7 hours ago, Hopie said:

It was relevant to their attendance figures, their attendance figures are relevant to their financial results. Their results on the pitch are also relevant to both those things.
All aspects of financial results need to be considered making solid plans for the future.

At a guess the lost income for these two loop fixtures is south of £100,000. So they'd have lost £1.3m. Relevant?  yes slightly but not going to make a significant difference 

[phiggins]

9 hours ago, Damien said:

I think most interesting is that central funding now only stands at £1.24 million. That is almost £600k less than a few years ago. Taking into account inflation its an even bigger reduction than that in real terms.

This was the bit that caught my eye, and does point to a failure of RL Commercial imo. We've gone for a TV deal that gives sky all the games for less money, supposedly in exchange for the production of those games that can be sold on. We don't seem to be doing a very good job of selling that coverage on.

[Dave T]

3 hours ago, M j M said:

It is a very short line in the financial statements referring to crowds as one of their KPIs and considering why they had fallen YOY. It's doubtful they even expected anyone to see it given few fans read the accounts. 

I know this forum has drifted towards anti-reality recently but it's not a challenging assertion to say that Huddersfield, London and Catalan are amongst the lesser appealing fixtures in the calendar and if they form part of your loop fixtures that will have an impact on overall averages. You can try to address this, do special offers (Leeds are doing exactly that for the upcoming Catalan game), hype them up but it doesn't change that reality. 

That's all true. But it just isn't true as a reason for a year on year drop. They state that as a reason, it isn't true.

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Exactly.

Leeds give offers and heavy discounts to people like key worker staff and kids for those games, the crowd figures do not tell the whole story about income on those match days.

They are explaining the average crowd drop, not revenue.  

[Dave T]

41 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

At a guess the lost income for these two loop fixtures is south of £100,000. So they'd have lost £1.3m. Relevant?  yes slightly but not going to make a significant difference 

This is the point - this was a direct comparison versus 2023 when the crowds for the 2 loop fixtures were identical to 2024. 

[Tommygilf]

22 minutes ago, phiggins said:

This was the bit that caught my eye, and does point to a failure of RL Commercial imo. We've gone for a TV deal that gives sky all the games for less money, supposedly in exchange for the production of those games that can be sold on. We don't seem to be doing a very good job of selling that coverage on.

That will depend on SL+ and the BBC at present. You could just as equally say Sky would have offered the same amount or less for less content, reducing the commercial opportunities for the sport and clubs.

The general attitude has been for greater exposure and a sponsor friendly market. As sponsorship deals turn over we'll have multiple years of viewing figures for every game being covered to go on. If those viewing figures are disappointing, then its a reality check.

[Harry Stottle]

It will be interesting to see if or how Thursday night fixtures impact attendances on the next returns if mentioned, the Club in Question Leeds have 5 Thursday fixtures in 2025 (as have Salford) behind Castleford 6 and Leigh on 7 (25% of all their fixtures), down to Wigan with just the solitary fixture and Wire with 2, albeit without going through each individual clubs fixture list I don't know how they are apportioned home and away except obviously my club with 3 at home and 4 away.

But I do think that the fixture planners should make every effort to have these Thursday fixtures done in such a way that they are against neighbouring clubs.

[Dave T]

33 minutes ago, phiggins said:

This was the bit that caught my eye, and does point to a failure of RL Commercial imo. We've gone for a TV deal that gives sky all the games for less money, supposedly in exchange for the production of those games that can be sold on. We don't seem to be doing a very good job of selling that coverage on.

To be fair, this isn't new news really. We've lost c£20m, we know streaming, and games 3 to 6 arent worth anything like that. 

I do think its a bit of a longer play that one in terms of building that appeal. Hopefully proving its value as a package of games again. As per the many discussions, I just can't ever see SL+ as much more than a nicety that brings in pennies and pounds.

[phiggins]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

To be fair, this isn't new news really. We've lost c£20m, we know streaming, and games 3 to 6 arent worth anything like that. 

I do think its a bit of a longer play that one in terms of building that appeal. Hopefully proving its value as a package of games again. As per the many discussions, I just can't ever see SL+ as much more than a nicety that brings in pennies and pounds.

Wasn't the drop in value between the last two TV deals something like £3m? There was a lot of conversation on these forums about how the production costs Sky took on made it worthwhile. I just hope there is a plan to make it worthwhile in the medium term.

[Tommygilf]

58 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

But I do think that the fixture planners should make every effort to have these Thursday fixtures done in such a way that they are against neighbouring clubs.

A very glass half full approach there H.

Some clubs will want their local fixtures on their best slots to maximise the top line, whilst having their worst/furthest fixtures in their worst slots. Happens in other leagues.

[Fevrover]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

It will be interesting to see if or how Thursday night fixtures impact attendances on the next returns if mentioned, the Club in Question Leeds have 5 Thursday fixtures in 2025 (as have Salford) behind Castleford 6 and Leigh on 7 (25% of all their fixtures), down to Wigan with just the solitary fixture and Wire with 2, albeit without going through each individual clubs fixture list I don't know how they are apportioned home and away except obviously my club with 3 at home and 4 away.

But I do think that the fixture planners should make every effort to have these Thursday fixtures done in such a way that they are against neighbouring clubs.

Wigan one  ? Surprised at that being such a big draw.