Gordon Gekko wrote: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.
Hull have had more income over the last few years but have also had much high outgoings including a players wage bill of £1.6m vs one of £0.4m.
I agree that neither club is in a brilliant state financially but the size of the loss Rovers made in 2007 is pretty worrying considering the playing roster that season when Paul Cooke and Mick Vella were pretty much the only big names. The payroll costs will have increased in 2008 with Newton, Galea, Crossman, Jake Webster, paying James Webster for a full season and Dobson for half - this isn't speculation as the club are on the record that they were much nearer the salary cap in 08 than 07. Crossland has also said you've increased youth development expenditure so that's an extra drain on resources. The point is that unless something startling has happened to Rovers business model it's unlikely that 2008 accounts will show a much improved position so the debt figures could well increase.
I agree that FC's level of debt will increase with the new training centre, but depending on how any ground developments at Rovers are funded, so will theirs.
Now the accounts are finally available and a bit grim, I would challenge Hudgell's claim dismissing people speculating about Rovers finances as mischief-makers.
