As average squad age seems to be your sole barometer of success, you must be pretty gutted.

Really?

You sure about that?

Have a read of this list of latest financial results, that some kind soul compiled on the Hull FC forum. I've not checked them all out, but I've not seen any of the numbers refuted anywhere either:

Hull FC PROFIT £185,000
Bradford - Loss £17,000
Warrington - Loss £212,000
Cas - Loss £369,000
Saints - Loss £449,000
Rovers (2007) Loss £478,000
Wigan - Loss £592,000 (although debt they owed being written off of £1,175,000 gave them a net profit of £444,000)
Salford - Loss £832,000
Huddersfield - Loss £1,377,000
Harlequins - Loss £1,819,000

Add to that Leeds, lost £325k (although exceptional profit on sale of fixed assets, non-operating, turned that into a profit)

And Wakey not filed their 2008 accounts yet - overdue again last time I looked, and just paid a visit to the High Court to stave off oblivion.

Still so sure of your statement?

Bulls balance sheet shows net assets of £1.25m. You might want to check what the balance sheets of those other clubs show?

Guess we don't want a few facts getting in the way of received wisdom though, do we?

And to think there are fans out there wanting the salary cap increased.

If anything its still too high as clubs are still losing massive amounts of money.

THe only thing keeping most of the above clubs afloat is rich benefactors, that situation cant continue indefinately.

And he's still younger than Gidley, Cunningham and Fozzard

Indeed, and scary isn't it?

Our Chairman attracted some flak recently for observing that, for the reasons you succinctly explain, the game's foundations are built on sand. With the exception of Leeds and their £12m balance sheet, you'd have to say he has a point?

The Warrington figure is way out and they have net assets of over £10m on the balance sheet.

Oi! Oi! Oi!

Did say I had not verified all the numbers. But £10m net assets??

Could you do me a favour and tell me what the operating company's name is? Can't remember and its a while since I last called off their accounts? Ta.

Adey, will Bradford still be breaking even after the £330k released to income stops after next year?



Im sure the 2009 accounts and 2010 accounts will be very interesting. Especially if Bradfords crowds stay as poor as they are.

Warrington Sports Holdings Ltd

Thanks. See my post over on the Wire forum. On reviewing the accounts, transpires that's the holding company, and it does not file consolidated accounts so you also need the accounts of its subsidiary which is the rugby club.

This is different to Bulls, where they file consolidated accounts for the whole group. Warrington do not.

The rugby club lost £212k and is technically insolvent with total net liabilities of £2,75m. Supported by the parent.

The parent - which holds the stadium - lost £55k, but has the mother of all strong balance sheets with £12m net assets . Same as Leeds. That is amazing - must reflect some huge capital profit or other financial engineering, since most of the net assets are represented by "other reserves". I'm sufficiently intrigued by where this huge surplus came from that I'll go call off some previous sets of accounts so I can work it out. (Yup...sad and beyond redemption I know...!



But the Warrington figure quoted is correct - and indeed understated if you add in the parent company.

Poor in comparison with what? There are nine clubs that would welcome crowds as big as Bradford's, even now. And your own were only about 1.5k higher despite you finishing 7 places above us. So don't think that dig will cut much ice, despite this being Bulls worse season by FAR since the inception of SL ad an absolute effing disaster. Shame you contrived to lose to Cats at home last match of the regular season - I reckon we'd have made some buggers' eyes water in the playoffs. But we are where we are.

I expect the 2009 accounts to show a slightly worse position - as I suspect we will see with pretty well every club. I expect the cash flow position (the bit that really matters) to be neutral, since Bulls pretty well HAVE to at least break even in cash terms. The Burgess transfer fee will likely plug the gap.

I expect a significant improvement on the park in 2010 (write that down someplace so you can challenge me with it this time next year) with a commensurate improvement in profitability - probably back to break-even again.

To some extent, the deferred income will be offset by reduced depreciation and amortisation. There will be a net adverse effect on profitability though, probably well over £200k. No effect on cash flow as these are all non-cash items, the attributable cash flows having occurred (mainly) in 2002 and 2003.

The P&L will improve significantly once the ongoing cost of the settlement with Leeds over Harris has been expunged from the accounts. Shame the same can't happen to those who are responsible for it.

What is the score with this shambles? Did you pay Leeds all the coin they demanded, wasnt it somethign like £800k or such silly figures they were demanding? What the hell happened here, how did it happen? I mean surely someone at the bulls must have realised there would be trouble if they sniffed up Iestyn Harris

Orfords move to the Bulls now in doubt with Titans winger Chris Walker taking legal action to block the move: www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,865 ... 47,00.html And to think they have just released Paul Deacon too. Could turn out to be another embarrassing situation for the Bulls

Orfords move to the Bulls now in doubt with Titans winger Chris Walker taking legal action to block the move: www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,865 ... 47,00.html And to think they have just released Paul Deacon too. Could turn out to be another embarrassing situation for the Bulls

Quote ="The Chief"Orfords move to the Bulls now in doubt with Titans winger Chris Walker taking legal action to block the move: www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,865 ... 47,00.html And to think they have just released Paul Deacon too. Could turn out to be another embarrassing situation for the Bulls'" oh dear.... pay him off

Quote ="The Chief"Orfords move to the Bulls now in doubt with Titans winger Chris Walker taking legal action to block the move: www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,865 ... 47,00.html And to think they have just released Paul Deacon too. Could turn out to be another embarrassing situation for the Bulls'" oh dear.... pay him off

This is the latest! www.leaguehq.com.au/news/lhqnews ... 82719.html Letter of intent signed and contract signed by Walker and sent back to Bulls. Oh dear, another large compo claim!

This is the latest! www.leaguehq.com.au/news/lhqnews ... 82719.html Letter of intent signed and contract signed by Walker and sent back to Bulls. Oh dear, another large compo claim!

Quote ="The Chief"This is the latest! www.leaguehq.com.au/news/lhqnews ... 82719.html Letter of intent signed and contract signed by Walker and sent back to Bulls. Oh dear, another large compo claim!'" Kinell!! surley they cant have cocked up that badly.

Quote ="The Chief"This is the latest! www.leaguehq.com.au/news/lhqnews ... 82719.html Letter of intent signed and contract signed by Walker and sent back to Bulls. Oh dear, another large compo claim!'" Kinell!! surley they cant have cocked up that badly.

And that would count on the salary cap.

Only if he's a registered player . They could pay him to come over here and make tea , like you lot did for Renouf's wife

or on a serious note didnt you do that with Karl Pryce in his first season ? keep him off the cap by simply not registering him as a player?

Yeah if it was made public, he just shuts his mouth and says "ok no worries, let bygones be bygones" and then turns up for training in a new Aston Martin with phillipino virgon boys scattering his path from the car to the training groudn with rose petals.