Gavin Miller - Legend wrote:So whatever Rovers spend is with the intention of getting one up on Hull FC. You really do have a chip on your shoulder
Not at all mate, nothing to do with the spend, its to do with approach. Dont blame him to be fair been in envy of the larger more succesful neighbours but glad he has realised he's fighting a losing battle, at least in the short term.
Joined: Sep 18 2005 Posts: 8742 Location: 2017 City of Culture
Big Dave T wrote:Not at all mate, nothing to do with the spend, its to do with approach. Dont blame him to be fair been in envy of the larger more succesful neighbours but glad he has realised he's fighting a losing battle, at least in the short term.
If our only aim was to become the best team in this city we could have saved 1/2 our salary cap and still managed that. How hard could it be to finish 10th then 11th?
Chet. U. Betcha wrote:Because he is the person who led HKR into this position
Far to simplistic- what about the issues surrounding the time when FC muppet Willby tried to bury the club. Sorry but to blame it on Hudge is pathetic.
Wait until Aunty Kath and the pork butchers call in the loans and FC will be without a paddle. It's funny how FC fans have more of an opinion than us Rovers fans!
Mild Rover wrote:Just when I thought I was out, they drag me back in. Try telling that to hmrc Why would they care? Rovers are not in debt to the revenue afaik.
But apparently they had not been appraised of the financial position which is what the original quote asked
Has the continued year on year loss been justified?
Well the club has got to, stayed in and consolidated in SL. It wasn't my money, so you'd have to ask the board. Hopefully they regard it as money well spent.
[color=blue]I dont suppose the answer will be known for a while yet but to gamble with the existence of the club is imo a dodgy way to run a business [/color]
They may not be insurmountable but barring some new source of revenue where is the deficit going to be made up from. The problem is that to sustain the current level of support Hudge accepts a continuing loss of arounf £500k pa but to increase the support to the target ie 10,000 there needs to be substantialy more investment. The alternative is to reduce the amount lost and accept a fall off in performance. Not a choice i would care to make.
It is going to have to be a combination of things. The country will hopefully start to climb out of recession, which should help. On the squad, I think we may be looking at getting the same for a bit less, rather than a bit more for the same. The East stand extension would be positive. The North stand will rquire help from other people - sound familiar? We may not be as lucky as you, but hopefully the board will continue to make the best of the cards they have been dealt. Tough choices likely lie ahead - but SL is the place to have to make them
Agreed
If they cant then you may have had fun but there may be no club to support. The situation is serious and I feel for the genuine fans but in my opinion Hudgie has had this coming
If they hadn't gambled, the club would still be in the NL. Worst case the gamble doesn't pay off, NH and RC lose their money and Rovers start over back where they found them. Best case the club grows and becomes established in SL. What has Hudgell (as Rovers' chairman) done to deserve anything bad? The board has bankrolled the club they support with their own cash to SL, living a dream, and not really harming anybody - apart from a bit of psychic distress in West Hull.
Worst case is the club goes under.Have the board bankrolled the club? If so ,how much longer can they? And what happens if they cant. Good luck to you fans as we all know what a worrying time it is when our club is in financial trouble
Seventies red wrote:I actualy believe it is a very realistic outlook and you obviously have warped perceptions of what is small or big judging by your above comments, you keep on proclaiming you are a big club and yet, as i have pointed out in my previous post you have only piece of silverware to show for your extended period in Super league and at the end of the day, whether you like it or not, success and status is usualy judged by trophies and titles won. With these facts in mind that makes you an average size club with potential but who usualy under achieves With regard to your remark in relation to Hull and other clubs turning things around, they havn't!, you obviously didn't take in what said in my previous post. Leeds who are a very big club in relation to their success ratio in SL, suffered losses of about £360,000 last year, Wigan lost substantialy more apparently, your own club has had two extremely poor seasons on the pitch and one very poor one, out of the last three, if you think that constitutes a turn around in fortunes then far from me be it to spoil your dillusion of type. I am sure most rovers fans and indeed most other super league clubs fans will hope your club addopts your perceptions and definitions of success for many years to come.
Joined: Jun 01 2007 Posts: 12664 Location: Leicestershire.
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.
Chet. U. Betcha wrote:Worst case is the club goes under.Have the board bankrolled the club? Yes If so ,how much longer can they? Don't know - not indefinately, I'd assume. And what happens if they cant. Adapt or die - it is that simple. Good luck to you fans as we all know what a worrying time it is when our club is in financial trouble
What is your opinion of Davy at Huddersfield or Moran (sp?) at Wire. RL benefactors or malefactors distorting the natural economics of the sport?
Joined: Jul 15 2005 Posts: 29811 Location: West Yorkshire
Basil Fawlty wrote:Far to simplistic- what about the issues surrounding the time when FC muppet Willby tried to bury the club. Sorry but to blame it on Hudge is pathetic.
Wait until Aunty Kath and the pork butchers call in the loans and FC will be without a paddle. It's funny how FC fans have more of an opinion than us Rovers fans!
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.
The Goroka Gene-ius wrote:If our only aim was to become the best team in this city we could have saved 1/2 our salary cap and still managed that. How hard could it be to finish 10th then 11th?
Exactly!! Was Rovers aim to lose half a million quid a year for 2 years?
Joined: Jun 01 2007 Posts: 12664 Location: Leicestershire.
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?
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 Rovers up from NL1 to a place where some serious thought can be given to a long-term SL future?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 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
