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

Donkey OTay wrote:

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.

I understand that but it also the same for you to come out and suggest that we don't need them when, as you have pointed out yourself, that your own argument is based on "just a whole load of guess work and 'probabilities' based on absolutely nothing". Now if you can make statements based on that then surely I can especially as I've actually given reasons to support my argument? If was you who more or less plucked a statement out of thin air that Saints are over-staffed without adding any reasoning to it. I'm only challenging that view.

[Sadfish]

Donkey OTay wrote:

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.

what a load of rubbish, neither you nor I know the reason why 70-90 odd people where employed by the club, that could have included playing staff, lottery staff, restaurants, maintenance.... then...... Compared to now where some areas might be outsourced that weren't. playing staff might not be included now, who knows.......

To just state the any person who accepts that amount of staff should be sacked is ridiculous.

Are you two reading the same osts as me or are you reading some other words that nobody else can see.

Let's get this straight
1) I never said sack anyone. I said Saints have lost a lot of money over a lot of years. I asked is it because of this large non-playing overhead? I based the question on facts - numbers. Not speculation on how many groundsmen are needed. My comparison is other similar sized (by turnover) companies. It was you two who got on your high horses and attacked me for having the cheek to even ask the question. Is nobody allowed to ask how Saints lost so much money whilst at Widnes, and previous years? Are we all supposed to bow and accept unquestioningly massive losses when we see big clubs like Bradford go under?

2) Sadfish. Please stop half reading stuff then lashing out. These are non-playing staff including coaches. So why do you suggest they are playing staff. What part of that do you not understand? Saints have on their books a further 92 payers at all grades. Have you got that clear now?

3) Any manager that accepts that amount of staff for the reason you gave... i.e. because there's always been that number, deserves sacking. There is nothing ridiculous about that.

I am asking one thing and one thing only.... Is this a disproportionate number of staff for a company with a turnover the size of Saints? I suggest comparing other businesses of this turnover and other clubs such as Bradford. I further suggest examining Saints' record of years of losses.

If we want to continue watchng Saints for many seasons to come (in view of the sorrow the Bradford fans are going through right now) it is a perfectly reasonable question to ask.

So stop taking this so personal and attacking me with half arsed, hardly researched responses.

[Billinge_Lump]

Donkey OTay wrote:

Are you two reading the same osts as me or are you reading some other words that nobody else can see.

Let's get this straight
1) I never said sack anyone. I said Saints have lost a lot of money over a lot of years. I asked is it because of this large non-playing overhead? I based the question on facts - numbers. Not speculation on how many groundsmen are needed. My comparison is other similar sized (by turnover) companies. It was you two who got on your high horses and attacked me for having the cheek to even ask the question. Is nobody allowed to ask how Saints lost so much money whilst at Widnes, and previous years? Are we all supposed to bow and accept unquestioningly massive losses when we see big clubs like Bradford go under?

2) Sadfish. Please stop half reading stuff then lashing out. These are non-playing staff including coaches. So why do you suggest they are playing staff. What part of that do you not understand? Saints have on their books a further 92 payers at all grades. Have you got that clear now?

3) Any manager that accepts that amount of staff for the reason you gave... i.e. because there's always been that number, deserves sacking. There is nothing ridiculous about that.

I am asking one thing and one thing only.... Is this a disproportionate number of staff for a company with a turnover the size of Saints? I suggest comparing other businesses of this turnover and other clubs such as Bradford. I further suggest examining Saints' record of years of losses.

If we want to continue watchng Saints for many seasons to come (in view of the sorrow the Bradford fans are going through right now) it is a perfectly reasonable question to ask.

So stop taking this so personal and attacking me with half arsed, hardly researched responses.

What other companies of a similar size have you compared the number of staff to? You've only mentioned Bradford here. And seeing as they are in administration, I'd suggest that they aren't the best example of getting their business practices right.

What do those staff do? Without knowing that, the question cannot be answered. If all 92 staff are all doing their jobs then they aren't over staffed.

Donkey OTay wrote:

Let's get this straight
1) I never said sack anyone. I said Saints have lost a lot of money over a lot of years. I asked is it because of this large non-playing overhead? I based the question on facts - numbers. Not speculation on how many groundsmen are needed. My comparison is other similar sized (by turnover) companies.

Billinge_Lump wrote:

What other companies of a similar size have you compared the number of staff to? You've only mentioned Bradford here. And seeing as they are in administration, I'd suggest that they aren't the best example of getting their business practices right.

What do those staff do? Without knowing that, the question cannot be answered. If all 92 staff are all doing their jobs then they aren't over staffed.

Exactly.

Donkey OTay wrote:

It was you two who got on your high horses and attacked me for having the cheek to even ask the question. Is nobody allowed to ask how Saints lost so much money whilst at Widnes, and previous years? Are we all supposed to bow and accept unquestioningly massive losses when we see big clubs like Bradford go under?

I think you might be taking this a bit personally bud. All I'm doing is asking you if you've considered everything in this picture. Just because the Bulls run with 22 staff doesn't mean everybody should. The fact that the Bulls have struggled financially may even suggest that their model isn't a good one to follow. I think the club has pretty valid reasons for why it made such a big loss last year. I mean they'd actually been giving out warnings about this before we entered that financial year. This isn't a surprise to anyone who has been following the Saints narrative for the past five years and I'm pretty sure those running the club have in place what they deem is necessary. McManus used to work in finance and if there's thing I'm pretty sure on, it's that financial people do not like wasting money, especially when it comes to staffing (sometimes to the detriment of the business which is what I was hinting at in relation to the Bulls in my first post mentioning it). I don't think you can run a world class professional sporting organisation with just 22 employees (excluding players) although I'd love to see a business plan that actually proposes this.

[bewareshadows]

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?

No

The average drop in attendances alone would account for near £865000 pounds, and we where already making a loss before we went to Widnes, then add on costs of hiring widnes, loss in merchandising revenue, etc etc,