Joined: Jul 15 2005 Posts: 29811 Location: West Yorkshire
Mild Rover wrote:Indeed.
The adversarial nature of the debate is half the problem. It impairs the critical and analytical faculties.
How about a Hull FC high-five for Hudge and Crossland for having the courage to put their money where their mouths were (doesn't work in plural, does it?), and drag a the club up from NL1 to a place where some serious thought can be given to a long-term SL future?
Too petty and small-minded for that, me. BTW I don't think mouths needs to be plural, as Crossland doesn't really shout the odds much (although maybe Hudgell does that enough for both of them).
Obviously these 2 have taken Rovers on a great journey in a very short space of time. Personally, and with hindsight, I'd have invested a bit less in the squad (Cooke as mentioned, Jake Webster allegedly the highest paid player at the club, the "chocolate factory" scenario in relation to Dobson) and maybe put more into extending capacity. Crowds are the same regardless of finishing in or outside the play-offs, so maybe better to put £200k per year into facilities. One thing they've got absolutely spot on though is not skimping on the coach. Morgan has been by far the best investment the board have made .
I believe Hull fans spouted that their debts were (and are) covered by their board members. NH has stated Rovers debts are also covered by their board members. The RFL have no concerns and none of the local media have taken things out of context.
That in a nutshell annoys and upset those from across the river who wanted a panic station story which didn't materialise.
Joined: Sep 18 2005 Posts: 8742 Location: 2017 City of Culture
Big Dave T wrote:Exactly!! Was Rovers aim to lose half a million quid a year for 2 years?
Of course not, that's merely a bi-product. The vast majority of our big earners joined in the close season after the 2007 season. At that point the overriding aim of the club was to secure a franchise. Having a decent team on the pitch was the best way for Rovers to acheive this.
I expect many of those contracts will not be renewed at the same level (or at all in some cases) when they expire this time next year. At that point Rovers can hopefully look forward to a more financially balanced approach, and work towards the next round of franchises.
Joined: Jun 01 2007 Posts: 12664 Location: Leicestershire.
Mrs Barista wrote:Obviously these 2 have taken Rovers on a great journey in a very short space of time. Personally, and with hindsight, I'd have invested a bit less in the squad (Cooke as mentioned, Jake Webster allegedly the highest paid player at the club, the "chocolate factory" scenario in relation to Dobson) and maybe put more into extending capacity. Crowds are the same regardless of finishing in or outside the play-offs, so maybe better to put £200k per year into facilities. One thing they've got absolutely spot on though is not skimping on the coach. Morgan has been by far the best investment the board have made .
What is the chocolate factory scenario? Are you say Dobson is an oompa loompa? If Cooke and Webster are two of the worst wastes of money that can be cited, that reflects pretty well on recruitment, IMO. Some are always going to work out better than others. There are a lot of players off contract at the end of 2010, so some scope to reshape the squad. A lot of recruitment was done quickly at the end of 2007, but they got decent value for money, I think.
Joined: Sep 18 2005 Posts: 8742 Location: 2017 City of Culture
Mild Rover wrote:What is the chocolate factory scenario? Are you say Dobson is an oompa loompa? If Cooke and Webster are two of the worst wastes of money that can be cited, that reflects pretty well on recruitment, IMO. Some are always going to work out better than others. There are a lot of players off contract at the end of 2010, so some scope to reshape the squad. A lot of recruitment was done quickly at the end of 2007, but they got decent value for money, I think.
Mrs Barista wrote:Here's the thing. FC is a now going concern with £1.4m of debt and (almost) in a net assets position following 5 years of profitability. Shareholdings are spread pretty evenly across 5 directors, and the club has worked hard to get the business to a point where it is self-sustaining and not dependent on 1 or 2 individuals. Why not applaud that sensible approach - they've learnt from the mistakes of the past?
Rovers have debts of, in all likelihood, >£3m (£2.4m at 2007 with further losses of £0.9m) owed to the current directors, and have the double whammy of not enough capacity to break even and unable to raise the finances to create that capacity. The ground expansion plans Rovers presented to the RFL to support the franchise application last year required £8m. Hudgell has chosen to invest in the team and got some success on the pitch the last 2 seasons, but attendances have stalled at 8,500. In hindsight you could question whether, for example, the rumoured £350k+ spent on Cooke's contract (six figure salary over 3 1/2 years allegedly) and the cash for the electronic turnstiles might have been better spent on the East Stand extension as this would provide the infrastructure for future growth. It's a very difficult balancing act.
how much do them 5 directors take from your the club? And were does your profit go?
The Goroka Gene-ius wrote:Of course not, that's merely a bi-product. The vast majority of our big earners joined in the close season after the 2007 season. At that point the overriding aim of the club was to secure a franchise. Having a decent team on the pitch was the best way for Rovers to acheive this.
I expect many of those contracts will not be renewed at the same level (or at all in some cases) when they expire this time next year. At that point Rovers can hopefully look forward to a more financially balanced approach, and work towards the next round of franchises.
and as i said earlier in this thread, thats entirely the right approach. The issue Rovers will have to content with though is the number of fans that may decide not to bother coming if the side on the pitch isn't as good due to running at a lower player cost to build your new stand etc. Could be that the income drops in relation to this and further adds to Rovers financial troubles.
hkrovers wrote:how much do them 5 directors take from your the club? And were does your profit go?
I'm sure Mrs B knows the answer but i'd assume that the 5 Directors take back payments through the year in relation to the loans theyve given the club and that they also take a profit share from the club as any shareholder would when the business is profitable. I'd also imagine that before the profit share is awarded the club may use a chunk of the cash to pay the loans off additional to the regular payments to help reduce our debts.
Mild Rover wrote:HMRC (tax returns) and Companies House (filing accounts) are slightly different things, but I don't want to get technical as I'm no expert. The club has been run as it has been, out of necessity to deliver what the board wanted, over the short- to medium-term of the last few years. It wasn't unsustainable, because those people were willing to underwrite the losses in a fairy godmother stylee. If it continues it would become unsustainable. The club has to evolve therefore, and become more self-sustaining. A challenging future, certainly, but not necessarily a bleak one.
What is your opinion of Davy at Huddersfield or Moran (sp?) at Wire. RL benefactors or malefactors distorting the natural economics of the sport?
Benefactors are great for individual clubs, but are a risk in that they could walk and leave a massive financial hole.
I see nothing wrong with the original 50% salary cap except that itenabled the top clubs at the time of introduction to remain there. At Hull fc by good luck and good management we have progressed. Rovers took another approach(similar toCaisley) andpushed harder and risked more. That is why the responsibility rests with hudgell.
Users browsing this forum: JACK DETH and 33 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
BTW I don't think mouths needs to be plural, as Crossland doesn't really shout the odds much (although maybe Hudgell does that enough for both of them).
