I'd imagine IL's Harlequins shares will be sold when someone comes along to buy them, and that's all there is to it.

The RFL will say and do nothing. Do they really want to see London go out of business again?

The answer to that is obviously NO

From what i understand I.L. has no active involvement with Quins on the day to day running of the club. And if that stays that way i dont think the RFL will push the matter of the shares as others have said they want a club in London. They know we are not in a good financial climate for selling a R.L. club and i think I.L. will continue with the financial support until the right buyer comes along as in the last 2 years it has done Wigan nor London any harm.

I blame Noble

Quins cant even sell season tickets so how the hell will they find somebody with a few million pound.

Unfortunately business and regulations don't work that way. What if they breached the cap... oh just sweep it under the carpet? What you've said is exactly what could be wrong with our game at the moment and by the same token goes against everything that has punished our club over the past decade.

I can't be sure of course, but it seems likely that IL is fairly well up on business regulations.

Since the cap went live it is near impossible to breach the cap as you cannot sign players until you have satisfied the RFL that you can fit them under the cap space for that club.

I am sure there are ways of getting round this but having spoken to I.L. on a number of occasions and from all his interviews at Wigan he will not make back door payments. And i would presume that this is one of the rules that Quins will have to abide by if they want him to keep putting money into the club.

Plus this is nothing to do with business regulations it is an RFL rule plus there is nothing to stop someone owning more than one business. And if you want to get down to the nitty gritty there is a certain Husband and Wife team that own 2 clubs one in Leeds and one in Hull what is the difference between that and one man Owning and running one club and having an investment in but not running another club.

I'm not being funny but i just found that really funny...

"Having spoke to him many times and heard his interviews IL won't make back door payments..."

Are you suggesting that if he would make them he'd have sought you out to tell you in a conversation? Or that he'd do a question and answer session at a press conference about dropping bungs etc?

The appalling state of a number of SL clubs' finances is proof of the failure of the SC to prevent clubs from getting into financial difficulties.

No i am saying he plays it straight down the line unlike some owners of clubs.

And why you would think he would seek me out i dont know





Funny sence of humor you have you must be a scouser

It would work if they made it simple like your cap was 50% of turnover.
Now every club is allowed to spend up to the cap limit no matter want there turn over is. Its sad that its gone from a way to try and keep clubs solvent to just keeping a level playing field.

The 50% of turn over would make the clubs promote themselves better to make more money so the could pay there players more and have a bigger squad. Rant over

As a non SL fan, I totally agree with Greg. Let the cream rise and the $hit be flushed away. Too many SL rely on the Sky money too heavily, yet are protected from the drop - what ambition?

And the move to a live cap was a risk (to clubs finances) deemed worth taking all because of the fuss about Wigan deferring payments and other breaches of the cap (not just by Wigan).

Clubs were howling like mad that the punishment was only meted out the season after, well that is common enough in all walks of life including sport.

The only way they can revert to a the SC having any ability to reign in clubs spending if to stop having it "live" and to make breaking it have some consequence, make it one of the franchise criteria with the most points in the system.

Now we have a situation where clubs can't break the cap, clubs are in a financial mess but some are widely believed to have found ways of making back door payments and do so and so spend more anyway.

The only way clubs can be protected from themselves is a strict audit of a all income and expenditure and rules put in place that they can't spend any more than a certain percentage of income on anything not just wages.

This would not stop unscrupulous chairman paying players outside of the system out of their own pocket but at least it would stop clubs going bust. Wages are just one aspect of a clubs expenditure so while they may be able to hand out £1.6m in cash to players if they then end up in debt due to ground lease costs or whatever, just what is the point?

Dave

Quote ="AJ"The RFL aren't stupid enough to jepordise the future of SLRL in London by kicking up a stink about this.'" news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 388266.stm Could be the first steps towards jeopardising the future of SLRL in London............

Quote ="AJ"The RFL aren't stupid enough to jepordise the future of SLRL in London by kicking up a stink about this.'" news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 388266.stm Could be the first steps towards jeopardising the future of SLRL in London............

Why? Its only 1 criteria and the last Sky deal was 25% higher with a London team in SL. Quins are the safest of all clubs.

I was only using the cap a vague example. My point was that in business as in RL and life in general you can't just sweep things under the carpet because it suits your objectives. I'm not saying this is the case here, as it wasn't me who suggested that. I'm just putting the real world facts across.

The rules can be applied reasonably though. They are there to stop a chairman owning more than one club, and there being a conflict of interests. I'm sure if any owner can demonstrate he's actively trying to sell his shares in one of the clubs, and there has been no conflict of interest (e.g. we've not tried to tap up LMS), then the RFL will let it pass on the understanding that IL continues to try and sell them ASAP.

Unfortunately, turnover is a very poor indicator of how well a business is run, or how capable a rugby club is of supporting a particular wage bill. The mantra that any business man should have imprinted on their brain is "Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity".

As an example, lets say two clubs both have turnovers of £3m, but to generate that turnover, club A has costs of £5m, so make a loss of £2m, club B has costs of £2m, so makes a profit of £1m. Is it fair that they both have the same cap of £1.5m, when one is clearly being run better than the other, as a going concern?

Surely there should be some consideration of solvency in any cap limit? I woould suggest that that should be the major factor, before turnover is considered.

Leeds for example last year had a turnover of over £10 million but still made a loss.

Prime example. Leeds are one of the best, if not the best run club, and have been for many years. They have had a wage structure in place, and have stayed within the salary cap limits. They cannot make a profit from a £10m turnover and £1.5m cap, if they were allowed to spend £5m on players, they would be in huge trouble, and they would completely dwarf every other club in terms of spending power. Wigan's last turnover was between £3 and £4m? IL has set a target of £5m I belive. Saints have a turnover of between £4 and £5m, with a very shaky financial position. Turnover alone cannot be used to set the cap level.

I didn't think they did, I thought they said when the rebuild the south stand it will cause them to make a loss?

"Latest accounts – for the year to December 31, 2008 – show the club made an operating loss of £324,945, on turnover up from £9,829,658 in 2007 to £10,599,073."

[urlhttp://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/leedsrhinosnews/Leeds-Rhinos-Leeds-facing-stand.5829534.jp[/url

Fair enough!! I bow to your superior knowledge

Come on Brian, it's not just receipts minus expenses equals profit or loss. Creative but legal accounting and tax avoidance (not evasion) taking into consideration capital expense and depreciation can make a solvent business 'loss making' whereas poor cash flow can make a profitable business collapse.
We'll never really know the truth about any set of accounts.