Re: Keepers and Go`ers : Sun Jun 17, 2012 9:10 am  

Easty wrote: For me this 10,000 figure is a load of tosh. This magical 10,000 figure was quoted a few years ago. In that time revenue streams could have gone up and we therefore need less then the stated 10,000. Alternatively they could have reduced leaving us needing for example 11000 crowds. A crowd to break even ratio surely changes every season dependant on revenue/spends Well, Hudgell said it again this year: http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html You are right, it's never the same year on year. But the key point here is that a lot of costs (ground maintenance, rates, backroom staff, training camps, kit etc) are fixed. Sky income is fixed, or at least certain. If you spend £1.65m on players, the income from attendances is the balancing figure to break even. And I think he's saying that to afford that needs 10k every week. The problem is that you need to commit to the wage bill without knowing the attendances as you sign players up in advance. If you're being prudent, you'd not over-commit until you had evidence that 10k (or whatever that number is) was achievable. Don't forget the step up in costs next year too. In 40-20 magazine, Mike Smith says one of the North Stand partners has dropped out, leaving Rovers with a bigger share of costs to cover than expected, hence the delay in the East Stand extension. These costs are commitments Rovers have to cover, they're not discretionary in the way that the playing budget is, hence the playing budget being the most likely area to be squeezed if 10k looks uncertain.

Easty wrote: For me this 10,000 figure is a load of tosh. This magical 10,000 figure was quoted a few years ago. In that time revenue streams could have gone up and we therefore need less then the stated 10,000. Alternatively they could have reduced leaving us needing for example 11000 crowds. A crowd to break even ratio surely changes every season dependant on revenue/spends Well, Hudgell said it again this year: http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html You are right, it's never the same year on year. But the key point here is that a lot of costs (ground maintenance, rates, backroom staff, training camps, kit etc) are fixed. Sky income is fixed, or at least certain. If you spend £1.65m on players, the income from attendances is the balancing figure to break even. And I think he's saying that to afford that needs 10k every week. The problem is that you need to commit to the wage bill without knowing the attendances as you sign players up in advance. If you're being prudent, you'd not over-commit until you had evidence that 10k (or whatever that number is) was achievable. Don't forget the step up in costs next year too. In 40-20 magazine, Mike Smith says one of the North Stand partners has dropped out, leaving Rovers with a bigger share of costs to cover than expected, hence the delay in the East Stand extension. These costs are commitments Rovers have to cover, they're not discretionary in the way that the playing budget is, hence the playing budget being the most likely area to be squeezed if 10k looks uncertain.

Re: Keepers and Go`ers : Sun Jun 17, 2012 9:22 am  

Mild Rover wrote:

We're all familiar with the mood music from the club, but it is open to interpretation as to what exactly it means.

Like Terry Jacks.
We had joy, we had fun
We had seasons in the sun
But the stars we could reach
Were just starfish on the beach

Hull FC being the starfish, n'est-ce pas?

Re: Keepers and Go`ers : Sun Jun 17, 2012 9:24 am  

bishops finger wrote: So its not 11 out and 8 quality players in then? It's all just speculation viewtopic.php?f=59&t=526851&tsmp=1339924211&start=80 Paul T - HKR wrote: According to Wayne Parker 11-12 of the current first grade squad are going! rover49 wrote: Although I don't have any confirmed knowledge, I was told by a usually reliable source that 7 will be going, Webster, Galea, Watts, Murrell, Netherton, Mc Donnell and Clinton. This was from someone within the club. All this is from the start of May I posted something similar but can't find it. I've said previously quality for me is a Michael Dobson or a Ben Galea. We wouldn't I'd imagine have the SC for 8 of those.

bishops finger wrote: So its not 11 out and 8 quality players in then? It's all just speculation viewtopic.php?f=59&t=526851&tsmp=1339924211&start=80 Paul T - HKR wrote: According to Wayne Parker 11-12 of the current first grade squad are going! rover49 wrote: Although I don't have any confirmed knowledge, I was told by a usually reliable source that 7 will be going, Webster, Galea, Watts, Murrell, Netherton, Mc Donnell and Clinton. This was from someone within the club. All this is from the start of May I posted something similar but can't find it. I've said previously quality for me is a Michael Dobson or a Ben Galea. We wouldn't I'd imagine have the SC for 8 of those.

Re: Keepers and Go`ers : Sun Jun 17, 2012 9:32 am  

Easty wrote: It's all just speculation viewtopic.php?f=59&t=526851&tsmp=1339924211&start=80 All this is from the start of May I posted something similar but can't find it. I've said previously quality for me is a Michael Dobson or a Ben Galea. We wouldn't I'd imagine have the SC for 8 of those. Do you remember "wanye parker's wig"? Great poster, entice it back. The very lovely GML has hinted at a big clear out too.

Easty wrote: It's all just speculation viewtopic.php?f=59&t=526851&tsmp=1339924211&start=80 All this is from the start of May I posted something similar but can't find it. I've said previously quality for me is a Michael Dobson or a Ben Galea. We wouldn't I'd imagine have the SC for 8 of those. Do you remember "wanye parker's wig"? Great poster, entice it back. The very lovely GML has hinted at a big clear out too.

Re: Keepers and Go`ers : Sun Jun 17, 2012 9:34 am  

Mrs Barista wrote:

Snip, thank Christ.

For wassocking fanny face's sake, although you are my favourite, that was brain dehydrating in it's extreme boredom.

Do we give a cats flange as fans about money? As long as we don't do a Bradford or a nineties Rovers of course we cocking don't. Most of us are lucky enough to have jobs, we're not responsible for Rovers, we just turn up every week and want a bit of entertainment.

We've got Mike Smith to make a massive steaming turd of running the club without us having to worry about it, email him if you're that bothered, that'll be a long conversation.

Re: Keepers and Go`ers : Sun Jun 17, 2012 10:08 am  

Sandra The Terrorist wrote:

For wassocking fanny face's sake, although you are my favourite, that was brain dehydrating in it's extreme boredom.

Do we give a cats flange as fans about money? As long as we don't do a Bradford or a nineties Rovers of course we cocking don't. Most of us are lucky enough to have jobs, we're not responsible for Rovers, we just turn up every week and want a bit of entertainment.

We've got Mike Smith to make a massive steaming turd of running the club without us having to worry about it, email him if you're that bothered, that'll be a long conversation.

Well put sir.

Re: Keepers and Go`ers : Sun Jun 17, 2012 10:22 am  

Mrs Barista wrote: Well, Hudgell said it again this year: http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html You are right, it's never the same year on year. But the key point here is that a lot of costs (ground maintenance, rates, backroom staff, training camps, kit etc) are fixed. Sky income is fixed, or at least certain. If you spend £1.65m on players, the income from attendances is the balancing figure to break even. And I think he's saying that to afford that needs 10k every week. The problem is that you need to commit to the wage bill without knowing the attendances as you sign players up in advance. If you're being prudent, you'd not over-commit until you had evidence that 10k (or whatever that number is) was achievable. Don't forget the step up in costs next year too. In 40-20 magazine, Mike Smith says one of the North Stand partners has dropped out, leaving Rovers with a bigger share of costs to cover than expected, hence the delay in the East Stand extension. These costs are commitments Rovers have to cover, they're not discretionary in the way that the playing budget is, hence the playing budget being the most likely area to be squeezed if 10k looks uncertain. As expected. Well done for turning the subject to what you want. How about if you want to talk about the North stand you talk about it on the thread which has been created for the subject. I know you know where it is seeing as you have made the same point on there.

Mrs Barista wrote: Well, Hudgell said it again this year: http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html You are right, it's never the same year on year. But the key point here is that a lot of costs (ground maintenance, rates, backroom staff, training camps, kit etc) are fixed. Sky income is fixed, or at least certain. If you spend £1.65m on players, the income from attendances is the balancing figure to break even. And I think he's saying that to afford that needs 10k every week. The problem is that you need to commit to the wage bill without knowing the attendances as you sign players up in advance. If you're being prudent, you'd not over-commit until you had evidence that 10k (or whatever that number is) was achievable. Don't forget the step up in costs next year too. In 40-20 magazine, Mike Smith says one of the North Stand partners has dropped out, leaving Rovers with a bigger share of costs to cover than expected, hence the delay in the East Stand extension. These costs are commitments Rovers have to cover, they're not discretionary in the way that the playing budget is, hence the playing budget being the most likely area to be squeezed if 10k looks uncertain. As expected. Well done for turning the subject to what you want. How about if you want to talk about the North stand you talk about it on the thread which has been created for the subject. I know you know where it is seeing as you have made the same point on there.

Re: Keepers and Go`ers : Sun Jun 17, 2012 12:02 pm  

Mrs Barista wrote: Well, Hudgell said it again this year: http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html You are right, it's never the same year on year. But the key point here is that a lot of costs (ground maintenance, rates, backroom staff, training camps, kit etc) are fixed. Sky income is fixed, or at least certain. If you spend £1.65m on players, the income from attendances is the balancing figure to break even. And I think he's saying that to afford that needs 10k every week. The problem is that you need to commit to the wage bill without knowing the attendances as you sign players up in advance. If you're being prudent, you'd not over-commit until you had evidence that 10k (or whatever that number is) was achievable. Don't forget the step up in costs next year too. In 40-20 magazine, Mike Smith says one of the North Stand partners has dropped out, leaving Rovers with a bigger share of costs to cover than expected, hence the delay in the East Stand extension. These costs are commitments Rovers have to cover, they're not discretionary in the way that the playing budget is, hence the playing budget being the most likely area to be squeezed if 10k looks uncertain. That is one obsessed bird.

Mrs Barista wrote: Well, Hudgell said it again this year: http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html You are right, it's never the same year on year. But the key point here is that a lot of costs (ground maintenance, rates, backroom staff, training camps, kit etc) are fixed. Sky income is fixed, or at least certain. If you spend £1.65m on players, the income from attendances is the balancing figure to break even. And I think he's saying that to afford that needs 10k every week. The problem is that you need to commit to the wage bill without knowing the attendances as you sign players up in advance. If you're being prudent, you'd not over-commit until you had evidence that 10k (or whatever that number is) was achievable. Don't forget the step up in costs next year too. In 40-20 magazine, Mike Smith says one of the North Stand partners has dropped out, leaving Rovers with a bigger share of costs to cover than expected, hence the delay in the East Stand extension. These costs are commitments Rovers have to cover, they're not discretionary in the way that the playing budget is, hence the playing budget being the most likely area to be squeezed if 10k looks uncertain. That is one obsessed bird.

Re: Keepers and Go`ers : Sun Jun 17, 2012 12:09 pm  

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

As expected.
Well done for turning the subject to what you want.
How about if you want to talk about the North stand you talk about it on the thread which has been created for the subject.
I know you know where it is seeing as you have made the same point on there.

I can see how a sensitive soul might interpret me posting some highly relevant, but slightly cautionary context, as simple trollage but this is a thread about squad changes vs this year. And I'm just making the point that, vs this year there are, according to your directors a couple of potential game-changers. Firstly they're not underwriting losses anymore. Understandable 7 years on with their hugely significant personal contributions to your resurgence. Secondly they're taking on a big incremental financial commitment, which, of course, may yield big upsides. So to post this in reply to a post hoping for an increase in spend to full cap is fair enough IMO.

I think that there are other clubs in for Lovegrove and McDonnell. I think they'll both stay at Rovers, but at prices inflated by market forces. Murrell to Cas, along with Webster. Taylor to Leeds for a fee and a house. Watts to Hull on a free. Clinton to Brisbane Broncos, perhaps no longer as their highest paid forward. Hall to sign a 2 year extension, Galea 1 year. Lopini Paea in along with that kid from Warrington, Kopczak, Reece Lyne, a centre from Newcastle Knights and another Con Mika style player. Con Mika to Hull.

If I get a hit rate >25% I'll be pretty pleased.

Re: Keepers and Go`ers : Sun Jun 17, 2012 12:22 pm  

You'll be getting a one hundred per cent hit rate off my cricket bat around your chops.