Joined: Feb 20 2007 Posts: 10540 Location: Hunting Gopher
Kosh wrote:I don't think appointing Radford was impulsive or a lack of planning. It's clear that Pearson puts great store on personal relationships and the idea that people emotionally invested in the club will perform better. He didn't have a close personal relationship with Gentle but apparently does with Radford. I think Radford was a deliberate choice based on these factors. Pearson's mistake was allowing his personal feelings to direct his choice rather than stepping back and making a dispassionate assessment of our needs and the best person to fulfil them.
I'm not sure. Ever since he bought the club he seems to have looked around at others to see which strategy to copy. At first it seemed to be Leeds' long-term youth core with a bit of Warrington spending to catch up (some plug-the-gap signings and bring in the available coach lots are talking about). When Gentle was sacked I think he saw Wane winning trophies at Wigan, Anderson having a great first season at Hudds with their first silverware in decades, and Catalan following suit with Frayssinous, so it looked like the way forward was appointing ex-players from within.
FWIW I think his first approach was right, it just should have been done a bit better, was taking longer than anticipated, and he got impatient.
Joined: Feb 03 2004 Posts: 3743 Location: United Kingdom
Geoff Toovey would suit us down to the ground and bring the fans back and there would be little need to cut cloth and ambition would return. Ambition is a beautiful thing and we are drunk on mediocrity.
We file small company abbreviated accounts - our small size from a turnover/assets/employees perspective gives us exemptions from filing a P&L. These three don't qualify to do so because they are bigger financially.
Leeds are a relative Goliath of an outfit in our sport, fully accept that.
I'm not seeing turnover figures in there for Saints and Wigan, though. A quick Google suggests Wigan were around £6.5m in 2012, so they're likely slightly over the threshold for abbreviated accounts, which doesn't necessarily mean we're a long way behind. Saints not being able to file abbreviated accounts may not be turnover related at all. With the new stadium I'd be very surprised if they don't now exceed the balance sheet and employees requirements regardless of turnover. Also in the case of Saints, they have at best been around breaking even point for several years but still outperforming us, which again comes back to spending more wisely than rather than having a significant financial advantage.
And of course another point is that we're not even 4th behind these big boys. Maybe if we were we might start to see some improvement in our financial position.
We file small company abbreviated accounts - our small size from a turnover/assets/employees perspective gives us exemptions from filing a P&L. These three don't qualify to do so because they are bigger financially.
Leeds are a relative Goliath of an outfit in our sport, fully accept that.
I'm not seeing turnover figures in there for Saints and Wigan, though. A quick Google suggests Wigan were around £6.5m in 2012, so they're likely slightly over the threshold for abbreviated accounts, which doesn't necessarily mean we're a long way behind. Saints not being able to file abbreviated accounts may not be turnover related at all. With the new stadium I'd be very surprised if they don't now exceed the balance sheet and employees requirements regardless of turnover. Also in the case of Saints, they have at best been around breaking even point for several years but still outperforming us, which again comes back to spending more wisely than rather than having a significant financial advantage.
And of course another point is that we're not even 4th behind these big boys. Maybe if we were we might start to see some improvement in our financial position.
Joined: Feb 20 2007 Posts: 10540 Location: Hunting Gopher
Kosh wrote:Agreed. In fact I think this has been at the core of our problems for years, starting well before Pearson took over. He's simply carried on the same trend.
Agree. The frustrating thing being that Pearson seemed to start with a different idea, but now seems to be reverting to doing exactly what the previous owners did; run it as cheaply as possible and excite the fans to buy tickets and shirts with a big name.
carl_spackler wrote:I'm not sure. Ever since he bought the club he seems to have looked around at others to see which strategy to copy. At first it seemed to be Leeds' long-term youth core with a bit of Warrington spending to catch up (some plug-the-gap signings and bring in the available coach lots are talking about). When Gentle was sacked I think he saw Wane winning trophies at Wigan, Anderson having a great first season at Hudds with their first silverware in decades, and Catalan following suit with Frayssinous, so it looked like the way forward was appointing ex-players from within.
FWIW I think his first approach was right, it just should have been done a bit better, was taking longer than anticipated, and he got impatient.
I think that this is spot on. I said on another post that for someone supposedly single minded he is can be easily and quickly influenced by something/someone. He then entrenches himself in that opinion and the more challenged he gets the more entrenched he becomes until someone else gets into his ear. Can we get Phil Gould out for a few beers with him?!
Joined: Jul 15 2005 Posts: 29811 Location: West Yorkshire
carl_spackler wrote:Leeds are a relative Goliath of an outfit in our sport, fully accept that.
I'm not seeing turnover figures in there for Saints and Wigan, though. A quick Google suggests Wigan were around £6.5m in 2012, so they're likely slightly over the threshold for abbreviated accounts, which doesn't necessarily mean we're a long way behind. Saints not being able to file abbreviated accounts may not be turnover related at all. With the new stadium I'd be very surprised if they don't now exceed the balance sheet and employees requirements regardless of turnover. Also in the case of Saints, they have at best been around breaking even point for several years but still outperforming us, which again comes back to spending more wisely than rather than having a significant financial advantage.
Losses in the transition years from Knowley Road to Langtree Park were projected in advance. Have a look at this - turnover exceeds the £6.5m threshold:y http://m.saintsrlfc.com/content/club-statement-4
Saints have survived for years on benefactors' love of the club and have now transitioned to a new commercial model leveraging stadium ownership.
Wigan Warriors turned over £6.7m in their last accounts so they also exceed the threshold.
carl_spackler wrote:Leeds are a relative Goliath of an outfit in our sport, fully accept that.
I'm not seeing turnover figures in there for Saints and Wigan, though. A quick Google suggests Wigan were around £6.5m in 2012, so they're likely slightly over the threshold for abbreviated accounts, which doesn't necessarily mean we're a long way behind. Saints not being able to file abbreviated accounts may not be turnover related at all. With the new stadium I'd be very surprised if they don't now exceed the balance sheet and employees requirements regardless of turnover. Also in the case of Saints, they have at best been around breaking even point for several years but still outperforming us, which again comes back to spending more wisely than rather than having a significant financial advantage.
Losses in the transition years from Knowley Road to Langtree Park were projected in advance. Have a look at this - turnover exceeds the £6.5m threshold:y http://m.saintsrlfc.com/content/club-statement-4
Saints have survived for years on benefactors' love of the club and have now transitioned to a new commercial model leveraging stadium ownership.
Wigan Warriors turned over £6.7m in their last accounts so they also exceed the threshold.
Joined: Feb 20 2007 Posts: 10540 Location: Hunting Gopher
Mrs Barista wrote:Losses in the transition years from Knowley Road to Langtree Park were projected in advance. Have a look at this - turnover exceeds the £6.5m threshold:y http://m.saintsrlfc.com/content/club-statement-4
Saints have survived for years on benefactors' love of the club and have now transitioned to a new commercial model leveraging stadium ownership.
So like Wigan, they seem to be slightly over the threshold, we may not be that far behind.
I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be shooting for circa £6m turnover, even more with a bit more success. Just break it down a little:
- An average gate of even 10k on a minimum of 14 home league games at maybe an average of £15 a ticket would be £2.1m - Shirt sales of about 7k at an average of £40 would be £280k - The new Sky deal provides £1.8m a season
There's £4.2m already. That would leave less than £3m (stripping out VAT) to be found from sponsorship deals, other merchandise, cup and ideally some playoff games. I'm not seeing reasons why it can't be done other than the product on the pitch. If we could stick another thousand on the gates and shirt sales that'd be another £200k net.
Accepting the status quo as almost too difficult to overturn is unnecessarily defeatist IMO. It's not an impossible challenge, we're just getting it wrong.
Mrs Barista wrote:Losses in the transition years from Knowley Road to Langtree Park were projected in advance. Have a look at this - turnover exceeds the £6.5m threshold:y http://m.saintsrlfc.com/content/club-statement-4
Saints have survived for years on benefactors' love of the club and have now transitioned to a new commercial model leveraging stadium ownership.
So like Wigan, they seem to be slightly over the threshold, we may not be that far behind.
I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be shooting for circa £6m turnover, even more with a bit more success. Just break it down a little:
- An average gate of even 10k on a minimum of 14 home league games at maybe an average of £15 a ticket would be £2.1m - Shirt sales of about 7k at an average of £40 would be £280k - The new Sky deal provides £1.8m a season
There's £4.2m already. That would leave less than £3m (stripping out VAT) to be found from sponsorship deals, other merchandise, cup and ideally some playoff games. I'm not seeing reasons why it can't be done other than the product on the pitch. If we could stick another thousand on the gates and shirt sales that'd be another £200k net.
Accepting the status quo as almost too difficult to overturn is unnecessarily defeatist IMO. It's not an impossible challenge, we're just getting it wrong.
Joined: Jul 15 2005 Posts: 29811 Location: West Yorkshire
carl_spackler wrote:So like Wigan, they seem to be slightly over the threshold, we may not be that far behind.
I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be shooting for circa £6m turnover, even more with a bit more success. Just break it down a little:
- An average gate of even 10k on a minimum of 14 home league games at maybe an average of £15 a ticket would be £2.1m - Shirt sales of about 7k at an average of £40 would be £280k - The new Sky deal provides £1.8m a season
There's £4.2m already. That would leave less than £2m to be found from sponsorship deals, other merchandise, cup and ideally some playoff games. I'm not seeing reasons why it can't be done other than the product on the pitch. If we could stick another thousand on the gates and shirt sales that'd be another quarter of a million.
Accepting the status quo as almost too difficult to overturn is unnecessarily defeatist IMO. It's not an impossible challenge, we're just getting it wrong.
I'm not being defeatist at all. The reality is that we're behind the top 3 in terms of financial clout - two of them own their own stadium and all have wealthier, and more RL-centric owners too. I can do the maths you talk about above to figure out how many more fans would improve things. But the reality is that there are far more talking about not renewing in here than I've known in a decade. The need for a better plan than using loopholes to exceed the cap but shrinking the academy and having 3 young ex players as coaches would be welcome.
Joined: Feb 20 2007 Posts: 10540 Location: Hunting Gopher
Mrs Barista wrote:I'm not being defeatist at all. The reality is that we're behind the top 3 in terms of financial clout - two of them own their own stadium and all have wealthier, and more RL-centric owners too. I can do the maths you talk about above to figure out how many more fans would improve things. But the reality is that there are far more talking about not renewing in here than I've known in a decade. The need for a better plan than using loopholes to exceed the cap but shrinking the academy and having 3 young ex players as coaches would be welcome.
They have wealthy backers as safety nets, but it's not like they are Hudds-style money drains. They are very well run and capable (in the case of Saints hopefully from this point) of being self-sustainable.
Totally agree on the last point. And IMO it's things like that (along with the obvious that has been done to death) that are the reasons causing people to consider not renewing.
carl_spackler wrote:I agree that some poor recruitment from that period has hurt us. I don't like how a lot of the current situation is still being deflected onto that, though. The cost of those players and paying them off is consistently highlighted as something Radford had to deal with. Now, had we been better this year I could have gone along with that and attributed last year to it. However, the fact that last year an alleged small fortune was spent on getting rid of those players and replacing them and this year we're no better than we were with them, has me personally thinking that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. We have Gentle/McRae being ripped apart for signing expensive players who were supposedly average, yet Radford/Pearson spending a further fortune on getting rid of them and signing expensive replacements (whom we are told are better, but don't really get better results) to still be no better overall by the time those other players would have been on their way out of the club for free still seems to be a legacy of Gentle/McRae. It makes no sense.
With you 100% on this point.
If you aren't fired with enthusiasm, you will be fired with enthusiasm. Vince Lombardi
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
