Mrs Barista wrote:Blimey, the selectivity of information in Mullan's report is staggering even by his (and my
) standards.
Is it better that Rovers' loss is £298k rather than £450k? Of course.
One question that Mullan seems to have missed, is how, with 14 days of the financial year to go, and no further uncertainty over fixtures, gate receipts etc with it being off season, Neil Hudgell's declared loss of £450,000 in his online interview on 16th November improved to £298,000. To miss one's forecasted outturn by an amount this material so close to the year end is bizarre.
The other piece of context that is completely absent is the performance of the rest of Super League in this financial year.
Mullan chooses to reference only St Helens whose position has deteriorated year on year due to failure to reach the CC final in 2009. Why is that, I wonder? There are other more noteworthy performances that he doesn't seem to have clocked. He doesn't mention Leeds, who stepped up from a loss of £300k to a profit of £700k, an improvement of £1m. He doesn't mention Salford who went from a loss of £800k to a loss of £19k. He doesn't mention that Warrington went from a loss of £200k to a profit of £200k. These are the biggest swings in performance. Why would an independent newspaper pick out only Saints, who buck the trend with a deterioration, as the only other club to compare Rovers results against. How odd.
He also fails to reference that in terms of profitability, Rovers are 9th out of 12 clubs to file for 2009, compared to 7th out of 12 for the previous year. Everyone has to raise their game now that licenses are up for review, particularly with Widnes posting £1m profit in a SL standard stadium. Many clubs have stepped up, and some have done more than others in this respect.
And finally Mullan fails to mention that, for the first time, the notes to the accounts include a "going concern" comment as follows:
"These accounts are prepared on a going concern basis. The Directors believe this to be appropriate following ongoing cost-cutting measures which have taken place since the year end together with the continued support of the Company's Bankers and Directors".
This is certainly not unusual amongst SL clubs, in fact most clubs supported by benefactors rather than a self-sustaining economic model have this note, but it is the first time Rovers have disclosed it in their accounts. Maybe it's a change in reporting standards, I'll ask Adeybull.
Go ask him if you're that bothered.
Anyway, £70K profit ain't much cop from a club with the infrastructure that FC have built from the RFL hand-outs and merger money to form "Gateshull".
When all's said and done I trust our Chairman is making the right decisions that are right for the big picture of our club. Improving facilities are key for the club - our Chairman and Board know that and I'm sure they are doing all they can to address this issue.
on both points.
