Mild mannered Janitor wrote:So, in comparison with Hull, who have a real net liability position of just under £370k (I have taken the liberty of ignoring the nonsence figure of player valuation which is a blind stab in the dark), I'd say rovers financial statements were in a more risky state.
And thats with a wealthy backer.
There is no absolute proof that this person exists unless long term liabilities (£737k) are made up of directors loans from the said 'person' which would lessen the overall net liability somewhat in the short/medium term.
Also if you want a direct comparison with the performance of Hull you would have to look at Hulls books after their first S/L season, the season which these accounts are produced for. Remember Hull have had 7 years of S/L handouts to get where they are now.
Neither Clubs accounts make particularly good reading but nor do most RL clubs, and with Hull about to commit £2m to their training facility i would say theirs are about to take a turn for the worse as there is no evidence that this money can be raised without considerable borrowing, thus incurring more debt.