Board index ‹ RLFANS MAIN ‹ The Virtual Terrace ‹ Bradford at risk of Administration...

wrencat1873 wrote:

Sorry Starbug, but you'll have to give me some info on the Leigh situation.
I am aware that they completed their new ground to SL standard and had some financial issues, but I am not aware of the details.

No we didn't , the RFL refused to acknowledge the LSV in our application and asked for an inspection of Hilton Park

No idea where that one came from

Starbug wrote:

Just pointing out the dual standards applied , on Leighs SL application it stated that the club had a ' history of reliance on owner financial input ' as a negative , and yet Fax were criticised for not having a single financial backer , as for Huddersfield and London , well theres was worded differently

That's the beauty of franchising and the criteria stipulations. It gives the RFL room for manoeuvre and a degree of subjectiveness and selectiveness. Yes, it's open to criticism and examples of inequities like the ones you've pointed out but easier to deal with those complaints by lambasting a member clubs' application and turning the criticism back onto the failed club. What the RFL don't want is to be hamstrung by tight guidelines otherwise clubs like Halifax and Leigh might end up being in SL and that is unthinkable.

littlerich wrote:

That's the beauty of franchising and the criteria stipulations. It gives the RFL room for manoeuvre and a degree of subjectiveness and selectiveness. Yes, it's open to criticism and examples of inequities like the ones you've pointed out but easier to deal with those complaints by lambasting a member clubs' application and turning the criticism back onto the failed club. What the RFL don't want is to be hamstrung by tight guidelines otherwise clubs like Halifax and Leigh might end up being in SL and that is unthinkable.

True , VERY true

littlerich wrote:

That's the beauty of franchising and the criteria stipulations. It gives the RFL room for manoeuvre and a degree of subjectiveness and selectiveness. Yes, it's open to criticism and examples of inequities like the ones you've pointed out but easier to deal with those complaints by lambasting a member clubs' application and turning the criticism back onto the failed club. What the RFL don't want is to be hamstrung by tight guidelines otherwise clubs like Halifax and Leigh might end up being in SL and that is unthinkable.

God forbid !

Fully wrote:

I must be confused. Aren't Leeds, Wigan and Warrington profitable?

No. In their last published accounts for example Wigan had a net worth of Net Worth of -£2,690,240 (that's minus two million if you missed the - sign). They are IIRC also projecting a big loss for 2012. Doubtless there will be very good reasons for it all etc.

How many years have they been profitable to get to a net worth of minus £2.6m then? I might try it myself.

Warrington did actually sneak a very marginal (but well done!!) "profit" per their 2009 accounts when they made the Cup Final. They made a profit of £27,800, (or a months dinner vouchers for Solo) in the year to November 2009. That compares with a loss of £348,000 the year before.

I'm glad you mentioned Leeds. Leeds did decide to keep some money in their pockets the previous season, and their account posted a £1/2m "profit", but they had made the usual loss the year before, and anyway I am talking about the top teams (of the moment). Leeds paid for not spending on their squad by slowly becoming crap. Even we (Bradford) are above them in the table just now and while they did great to win the GF, everyone who watched the game last season knows they were in truth not a top side any more. And they certainly aren't now.

So you kind of make my point for me.

Fully wrote:

Football would be and is a profitable sport but wages have escalated out of control and you can't be successful unless you spend more than the opposition.

Well, quite. So, it's not profitable- at all - then. OK.

Fully wrote:

Rugby League is an ideal sport in which the sporting business should be grown and with a higher profile sport, higher profile competition and an increase in spectators, there is no reason why all clubs cannot be profitable or run a break-even status.

Well, if there's "no reason", that's all right then! Maybe you could ring round all the clubs and tell them? I was at Keighley the other week ( as far as I can tell, a well run club with a decent recruitment policy and making an effort at marketing). The crowd was 837 and half of them were from Featherstone. But if there's "no reason" then I'm sure they'll find it reassuring.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

No. In their last published accounts for example Wigan had a net worth of Net Worth of -£2,690,240 (that's minus two million if you missed the - sign). They are IIRC also projecting a big loss for 2012. Doubtless there will be very good reasons for it all etc.

How many years have they been profitable to get to a net worth of minus £2.6m then? I might try it myself.

Warrington did actually sneak a very marginal (but well done!!) "profit" per their 2009 accounts when they made the Cup Final. They made a profit of £27,800, (or a months dinner vouchers for Solo) in the year to November 2009. That compares with a loss of £348,000 the year before.

I'm glad you mentioned Leeds. Leeds did decide to keep some money in their pockets the previous season, and their account posted a £1/2m "profit", but they had made the usual loss the year before, and anyway I am talking about the top teams (of the moment). Leeds paid for not spending on their squad by slowly becoming crap. Even we (Bradford) are above them in the table just now and while they did great to win the GF, everyone who watched the game last season knows they were in truth not a top side any more. And they certainly aren't now.

So you kind of make my point for me.

Well, quite. So, it's not profitable- at all - then. OK.

Well, if there's "no reason", that's all right then! Maybe you could ring round all the clubs and tell them? I was at Keighley the other week ( as far as I can tell, a well run club with a decent recruitment policy and making an effort at marketing). The crowd was 837 and half of them were from Featherstone. But if there's "no reason" then I'm sure they'll find it reassuring.

There is a ' reason ' , its called nothing to play for

Starbug wrote:

There is a ' reason ' , its called nothing to play for

I think there's everything to play for. NRC and the GF. As you've pointed out - it's up the Championship chairmen to get together and work out a marketing plan. They should forget what's happening in SL and concentrate on the very competitive product that they have before them.

[Kosh]

Starbug wrote:

And why did they do that ?

Celtic Crusaders

Nigel and Richards feet must be shot to hell , they keep altering rules to suit this club or that club , and bugger it up for somebody else

Once again you choose to ignore the fact that it's the SL clubs that make the rules that govern SL, not the RFL.

And why would the removal of the 50% rule have been of particular benefit to CC over any other club?

[Kosh]

Fully wrote:

I must be confused. Aren't Leeds, Wigan and Warrington profitable? Equally, sports can be profitable but measures have to be in place such as a salary cap to encourage that.

Football would be and is a profitable sport but wages have escalated out of control and you can't be successful unless you spend more than the opposition.

Rugby League is an ideal sport in which the sporting business should be grown and with a higher profile sport, higher profile competition and an increase in spectators, there is no reason why all clubs cannot be profitable or run a break-even status.

FA has answered in some detail, but I'll just add that Hull FC posted a profit several season in a row. However it's become clear that we did that by skimping on infrastructure spend and squad development. The result was years of mediocrity as we got further and further behind the more successful clubs.

The best any successful sports club can hope for is break-even IMO. And even that will be far from easy.

Meh, let the haters hate.
I reckon FA and the Greek Financial minister went to the same school. Either that, or he's letting his blatant hostility to his better off neighbours cloud his judgment.

I suspect it's the latter, and how must he wish the Bulls had a balance sheet and a stadium like ours. And as for being crap, yes, we feel really bad about being World Club Champions, and console ourselves with the indisputable SL fact......that your Club wins nowt in June.

Although you can get popped into Administration, apparently!......