Board index ‹ Super League ‹ St. Helens - the-entertainers.tv ‹ Club Statement

This whole Bradford thing has revealed some interesting comparisons. The administration showed Bradford employed only 22 non-playing staff in total (they made 16 redundant and kept 6 on). That's it, to run the whole business. That includes the coach and his assistants.

Saints employ 62 full-time non-playing staff. What's going on there? I know Saints invest a lot more in youth development than Bradford do but nevertheless that's a lot of wages to carry for a business of this turnover.

Is that why we lost 2.4 mill in one year?

Donkey OTay wrote:

Saints employ 62 full-time non-playing staff. What's going on there? I know Saints invest a lot more in youth development than Bradford do but nevertheless that's a lot of wages to carry for a business of this turnover.

Is that why we lost 2.4 mill in one year?

Maybe some of those are part time, I know some of the security staff are agency and work at the Widnes ground as well.

[quote="saint at wire"]Cladding aside, the accounts for the club and its parent Sporting Club St Helens are now filed at companies house.
As per the Chairman's earlier statement the club has a net worth (shareholders funds / net asset value) of just over £20M. This was achieved by getting the long term (999 years) lease for £7.2M and having it professionally revalued at £27.2M giving rise to a revaluation reserve of £20.1M. Eammon further states that the staium will increase in value by at least another £2M due to the fit out./quote]

But, the value is only really determined at the point of sale, who would want to purchase the stadium if it were ever sold? OK there's the materials and the land, but I do wonder how a bank would get it's money back if it needed to sell the ground due to loans secured upon it.

I find it difficult also to work out how high the value of the stadium has become, who would buy it?

Judder Man wrote:

Maybe some of those are part time, I know some of the security staff are agency and work at the Widnes ground as well.

Nope, they are 62 full-time staff. Part-time game day only staff are countered elswhere.

[Sadfish]

People, don't forget Lottery Agents, typically, Saints have always had between 70 and 90 staff in total. So 62 is a reduction over previous years.

With regards to the value of the stadium, a value is given to everything, regardless of sale-ability, perhaps the value is build value for insurance purposes. Whether there is someone out there willing to buy a £30 million stadium or not only matters if you need to sell it. Property of this type is not valued like Houses or Cars as they are rarely sold.

Don't forget the amount will include, all the steel, bricks, fittings, and land.

[quote="goobervision"]

The stadium was valued by Chartfields, Chartered Surveyors on an "existing use, depreciated value basis". The value is valid otherwise the financial statements could not be signed off by their auditors as a fair and true representation of Saints' accounts.
As I have stated previously, there are several other ways of unlocking the value of the stadium if necessary other than selling it - but we don't need to fortunately.

Donkey OTay wrote:

This whole Bradford thing has revealed some interesting comparisons. The administration showed Bradford employed only 22 non-playing staff in total (they made 16 redundant and kept 6 on). That's it, to run the whole business. That includes the coach and his assistants.

Saints employ 62 full-time non-playing staff. What's going on there? I know Saints invest a lot more in youth development than Bradford do but nevertheless that's a lot of wages to carry for a business of this turnover.

Is that why we lost 2.4 mill in one year?

It may have escaped your attention that the Bulls are in dire financial straits. Perhaps some of that has to do with not enough people around to do the jobs that need doing. You can't hold onto good people if they have too much to do. Given the labour intensive operations that a club has I'm amazed they've been able to keep functioning at all with 22 non-playing staff. You need at least two people per day in the club shop alone. How many groundsmen? Two? That's four right there without even starting to look at things like sales, administration, strategic planning, logistics, cleaning, finance, kit, organisation for matches, community work, youth team, scouting etc. And all for a £5m business.

Should have added that the loss is more likely to have come from having to rent another stadium because that's a cost, plus it will negatively affect our overall turnover i.e. less fans, lower rates to attract corporates, travel expenses incurred, less revenue from catering etc. Although I don't expect us to make up too much ground this year given the amount of money the club must have had to spend in responding to questions about cladding. That must have wasted weeks of the club's time. Time which could have been better spent elsewhere.

WTF Mclennan?
1) Nothing you said makes any business sense, it was just a whole load of guess work and 'probablies' based on absolutely nothing, if you feel you can contribute something it might have more impact if you considered known facts, and
2) The club have made one statement about the cladding in months which after reading it you can see they spent no more than one hour in writing it.

Sadfish
The 62 full time staff does not include Lottery Agents. They are employed by a seperate company.

To say 'well Saints have always employed between 70 to 90' is not a basis for economic control management. Any Manager who thinks like that should be sacked.

Donkey OTay wrote:

WTF Mclennan?
1) Nothing you said makes any business sense

Well I suggest you re-read my post then because it makes perfect business sense to me. Many organisations cut back on staffing to save money, which in turn has a knock on effect elsewhere e.g. if you employ five sales managers and then decide that you are going to have three, I would expect their to be more work done by having five than having three. Having more numbers doesn't always lead to increases in revenue but it certainly increases your chances. Having less numbers mean you're expecting more from less resources. You have to invest in off the field resources as well as on the field to be successful.