750k a season!!!! Your in dream land.

According to Saints last published accounts, their long term liabilities are £13,321,247

Quote ="Rogues Gallery"According to Saints last published accounts, their long term liabilities are £13,321,247'" Not sure where you're looking? companycheck.co.uk/company/00331905 Liabilities 2mil net worth 14mil Also, with a closer look none of the liabilities are director loans (as was said) Wigan as a comparison companycheck.co.uk/company/00174 ... UB-LIMITED Liabilities 5mil Different accounting techniques by the looks of it, but no 13mill liabilities

Quote ="Rogues Gallery"According to Saints last published accounts, their long term liabilities are £13,321,247'" Not sure where you're looking? companycheck.co.uk/company/00331905 Liabilities 2mil net worth 14mil Also, with a closer look none of the liabilities are director loans (as was said) Wigan as a comparison companycheck.co.uk/company/00174 ... UB-LIMITED Liabilities 5mil Different accounting techniques by the looks of it, but no 13mill liabilities

Wigan's last 5 accounts: companycheck.co.uk/company/00174 ... l-accounts Saints' last 5 accounts: companycheck.co.uk/company/00331 ... l-accounts

Wigan's last 5 accounts: companycheck.co.uk/company/00174 ... l-accounts Saints' last 5 accounts: companycheck.co.uk/company/00331 ... l-accounts

Why not say 'extra fans'? That's exactly what DOES happen. Look at Salford now, Wire when they signed Johns etc. It's common sense that people will pay to see great players. In most cases that's why we get interested in the game I the first place!

Basically saints have a net worth of £14 million from building our new stadium. While wigans net worth is actually -£2.5 million so basically Wigans net worth is actually in negative.

Debts - saints debts are at a steady £3 million whirls Wigans is now £5 million.

Money in the bank - saints have currently £475k in the bank compared to Wigan who have £11k in the bank.

If we are a small club, what does that make you ?

You could bank some more money by selling your trophy cabinet, and your "Envy-o-meter".

Haha I was waiting for that.

The small club didn't work so now it's compare trophies.


I'll see you in October mate. Just keep them warm.

Can we get back to the topic in this thread.

Why would clubs vote for the marquee when in, let's say £5 million debt?

You have none to compare, and October is a long way off...

Let not turn this into a measuring contest.

Both Wigan and Saints are in (for sporting clubs) a great financial position. Saints chairman doesnt think THE LEAGUE can afford marquee players at a time it can't afford an U21's comp.
Wigans thinks, rightly he can afford marquee players.

These are not opposing veiws, just different priorities and both have merits.

Personally i think we should have both. If clubs can afford a marquee player, let them have them, but for every club that wants them, make them put into a fund, to fund an U21/U23 comp again.
If the Dr wants 4 stars, let him bankroll the entire academy system. Take his money and invest it in the whole leagues youth system

Obviously you've done well for a small club then. Well done.

Now, can you answer the question ?

Get over yourself, i was being flippant...

Can you please answer the question and get back on topic. Let's stop the Wigan v saints thing until Good Friday and have a normal debate on the marquee rule being knocked back.

Why don't you answer my question from earlier? How is buying a clubs golden ticket for £200k not putting money into the game? Also, whilst I'm in a querulous mood do you agree your chairmans defence (dreadnoughts FFS) was nothing short of pathetic?

The statement is weird one and not the way I'd have wrote it and pretty silly really by McManus.

However, I agree with the point he's making.

If a club loses 201k in sponsorship, ticket sales et al then no, it's not bringing money into the game.

It wasn't "pathetic" no, it was designed to ruffle a few (peacock) feathers, which it achieved. Ultimately when people are so set and convinced by their own ideas, strong words and examples are needed to get the point across.

Whilst I don't mind arguing the merits of a marquee rule, this is rapidly turning into nothing more than chairman vs chairman - and in decision should be made purely on the basis of one-upmanship from one set of people or the other (which, btw is the point of the dreadnought argument ... ) - voting against a marquee rule doesn't mean saints are acting like a big club, in the same way selling tomkins doesn't make Wigan a selling club. Whether you agree with the marquee rule or not, there's no need to take shots at the individual clubs involved.

And my original question?

Which is ?

Can you answer mine?

Your first sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

I think that says enough for me......
I'll leave you and your Saints buddy to it, enjoy.

Well let me expand then.

You asked is paying 200k a way of getting money into the game.

I suggested that, as a result of selling their opportunity to sign a "marquee" it could cost clubs through fans ticket sales, sponsorship and merchandise (because we keep hearing about how much money a marquee brings to a club) - if the sum total of that is 201k then no, it's not bringing money into the game.

That's a ludicrous analogy! I'd go so far as to say the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen on this board, and that's saying something. It would take 3 pages just to touch on what's wrong with that statement!

Koukash says he'll pay 200k for someone else's ticket, the thing is I'm sure that is just a number he flippantly spouted off, he could pay 300k or 800k, possibly a million.

If a team Auctions it off and say Wigan, Leeds, Salford and Wire have earmarked a player, it could be a big figure going to a club in need, I'd imagine Bradford wouldn't mind a one million cash injection right now.