Scott_HKR wrote:From a post on leagueunlimited. no idea where they came from but here they are anyways: Some nonsense in it, but the figures make for interesting reading http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showt ... p?t=348630 Not read the thread, and if its anything like the threads on this subject across a lot of forums it will be contaminated with a load of derision, disbelief or inconvenient-truth dismissal. All the figures I have checked out so far are accurate, though. The limitation is that in some cases (e.g Wire, Hudds) there is a parent company and sometimes other group companies involved. Other than Bulls, few clubs present consolidated group accounts so you need to get all the group member accounts and attempt a pro-forma consolidation to get a more complete picture. You also have to be mindful of exceptional items, like the 7-figure profit arising out of the sale of the cricket ground in Leeds' accounts, which gives them a profit of about £1.2m but stripping out that item gives an underlying loss of about £200k (no big deal, btw). I thought Hudgell was remarkably and encouragingly-forthcoming in what he shared on the finances with you guys.

Scott_HKR wrote:From a post on leagueunlimited. no idea where they came from but here they are anyways: Some nonsense in it, but the figures make for interesting reading http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showt ... p?t=348630 Not read the thread, and if its anything like the threads on this subject across a lot of forums it will be contaminated with a load of derision, disbelief or inconvenient-truth dismissal. All the figures I have checked out so far are accurate, though. The limitation is that in some cases (e.g Wire, Hudds) there is a parent company and sometimes other group companies involved. Other than Bulls, few clubs present consolidated group accounts so you need to get all the group member accounts and attempt a pro-forma consolidation to get a more complete picture. You also have to be mindful of exceptional items, like the 7-figure profit arising out of the sale of the cricket ground in Leeds' accounts, which gives them a profit of about £1.2m but stripping out that item gives an underlying loss of about £200k (no big deal, btw). I thought Hudgell was remarkably and encouragingly-forthcoming in what he shared on the finances with you guys.

Two points regarding Quins...

1. The RFL haven't directly funded them, so there's no money to stop throwing.

2. Without a team in London there is no TV deal.

I need to see a doctor, i am finding myself agreeing with you in way too many threads.

So, RL becomes unwatchable, skill less and boring, unfit for TV consumption purely because we would not have a London team ?

Ho many time did Sky broadcast from Quins last season.

SKY isn't interested in the quality of RL as such. Neither is it interested in the quality of the London side. It is, however, interested in viewers outside the Heartlands and specifically which consumer groups those viewers fall into. Viewers in the south of England fall into more of the groups that SKY and their advertisers identify as key consumers of the products advertised. This allows SKY to sell more advertising and for a higher price.

Like it or not, the presence of a London side in SL is key to the deal with SKY.

Wayne Rooney is apparently negotiating a new deal worth £170,000 per week, which is not far off nine million per year. Would more than cover all of SL's losses.

It isn't just RL. In RU Leicester Tigers lost £750,000 last year. In football, Liverpool are skint, Manchester United are carrying a big debt burden, Chelsea rely on Abramovich and the downturn in property prices has badly hit Arsenal's development at their old ground. Dropping out of the cash cow that is the Champions League could put any of them in trouble.

While it is a problem, it is not one limited to RL. The RFL deserve credit for implementing a 'communist'/american-style salary cap and have even gone so far as to embrace franchises, offering the top clubs a much higher level of security. But sport is about glory more than balance sheets and ambitious people will always take risks to try to get it.
There are exceptions - Hull have been run prudently, generating a profit. That is laudable, but it has contributed to them falling behind more ambitious clubs, on the pitch, and there have been calls for their prudent board to, well basically f*** off. They could carrying on that way, hoping to gain success as the last man standing, but the history of sport shows they'll likely need a lot of patience as it seems there are always wealthy people looking to buy a dream. Sometimes it turns out to be a nightmare, but it was ever thus.

According to todays League Express Hull FC present their accounts differently to every other club in that they they include a valuation of their players into their balance sheet.
The independent auditors have suggested that this (2008 valuation £942,500) should be removed from the balance sheet. The auditors have registererd a disagreement with the Hull directors.

It also appears that from 2009 all clubs have to lodge full accounts which includes a profit and loss account, so we should have some sort of conformity in the next set of presented accounts.

How do they arrive at this figure I wonder, not many would have had fees paid for them. 900k isn't much for a full squad of players is it.

Welcome to 4 years ago (at least).

Hull have always done this. It's not standard accounting practice so there is always a qualification (not a 'disagreement') marked in the accounts by the auditors.

And the player valuations have zero impact on P&L in any case. They sit on the balance sheet which is the sum of assets minus liabilities. This has nothing to do with the annual profit and loss accounts which are the things that everyone seems to be comparing at present.

Which is why it's not standard accounting practice to include them. Player valuations are entirely subjective and situational - a player is basically worth what someone is prepared to pay for him so there is no way to objectively value one as an asset.