[=blueTitle is SUPPOSED to say "for Dummies", but it chopped the end off !



A simple economic and business message for the people shouting "sack the board"...


Basically we are financed by leveraged debt - ie these people have borrowed to finance their share holdings, which initially went to service the club's debt levels. Therefore any buyout is not simply to buy the shares, but effectively buy an expensive share of debt.

With interest rates having tumbled, this means the shares have cost a lot more than they are worth now, so it is unlikely that any shareholders are going to sell at what you would call a "reasonable price" (I have seen this word used a lot on here and it basically means nothing !).

The going rate is what they have cost to acquire and service, and what level of debt they cover; not just some current market value for the actual shares.

Therefore in these hard times the shareholders are more likely to sit on their shares and hope for better times, without increasing the debt of the club (as they all own a share of debt), which leads to tightening of the purse strings.

I am no friend of the current "owners" of our great club, but I think we all need a little understanding of why things are as they are, and it's basically down to the recession, not any tight-fistedness of the shareholders.

After all they bought us out when no-one else wanted us, and it has turned out to have cost them a lot to do so !

All the silly calls of "sack the board" need to bear this in mind because anyone else who bought these shares would be in the same position, and is it any wonder that non-one is willing or able to buy them out ? I love Hull FC but even if I won the lottery jackpot it is the last place I would invest any money !!! (well, actually caravan park is, but you get my drift)

Yopu don't need to like Uncle Kath and co, but you need to understand the business situation.

Sorry to preach but there is so much stupid talk on here from people who "know" but actually know very little about business.

Amen "Brother".....

Good post.

Bah. People like you will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes, comrade.

Sack the board

A good investment if you can get it at the right price!

It all depends on wether or not they are willing to sell, which as you say at this time they probably aren't.

Great avatar. Wolfie

How do you propose to do that?

Its even got the right colour scarf.

p45 form

(it was meant to be tongue in cheek by the way)

On the issue of "sacking the board", anyone with a modicum of intelligence realises that this cannot happen. However, I think that the use of the phrase suffices to raise awareness of the opinions of some of the fans. Hopefully the board may take some notice.

Wouldnt be the right thing to do anyway, they arent the problem!!

What happens to the club if ALL the board members went missing

We go under?

Wouldn't it be better for the club (board) to invite (with a bit of cash) the likes of M Walker onto the board to be someone that can actually relate to the game and be that conduit between board room and dressing room, much in the way Lowe does at KR.

Why does the board need to be near the dressing room?

They strategically manage the club and have Jimmy Rule to manage Agar. Agar manages the dressing room.

Questionable.

Agreed.

I should have said that he role is to manage the dressing room. Whether he does or not is a different thing and where the issue lies for me.

you mean like sleep with da fishes

If we had someone with the RL nouse watching Dobson in THAT game, then maybe we could have signed him, if we had someone with RL nouse we may not have signed Thorman as a SH.
Its not a case of being close to the dressing room, I didn't say that.
Everybody slams the signings (even Crocker) as we have too many SR and then we sign Lauaki another SR come prop.
It's about having somebody that can communicate between coaches and board to give balanced views in RL terms relating to recruitment and retention and not by what Kath tells Jimmy to do and say.

So you want the board to make the decisions on recruitment rather than the coach?

Hasn't that been the case anyhow, I don't recall Sharp making the statement 'we didn't think that he (Dobson) was what we were looking for' and that was based on their (Kath & Jimmy) observations on 1 game.
They trumpeted Crockers signing as their visit to Oz being a successful mission to get agents on their side, probably was the case of agents contacts for Moa signing.
So yes the board HAVE made decisions on signings.
They have also made decisions to offload players, Brough/Briscoe/Wheeldon etc.

In respect of Thorman signing as a SH it doesn't take an Einstein to work it out that he came on the say so of one of our coaches, and how good has that turned out to be?

You've totally missed what I have said, I 'suggested' that we have a director that can communicate on the coaches level and have an understanding of what is required. I cannot believe that any other SL club would have signed Thorman as a SH, can you?
And with your own condemnation of Agar/Sharp doesn't stack up with your response, does it?

signing Wayne Godwin was always a strange one that made me wonder if it was the boards choice. Until then Swain had always done 80mins, and Sharp always seemed reluctant to play Godwin, then he was allowed to join Bradford after just one year.

You seem to have misunderstood. I was just seeking clarification as most posters seem to be of the opinion that board involvement in signings is a Bad Thing.

I'm fully aware that the board of an RL club is often involved with signings at some level or other, even if only as regards negotiation of the deal. The role you seem to be describing (unless I've read you wrong) has been filled before by a Director of Rugby - normally a former player or coach. I'm not sure if Sharp is supposed to be filling this role as part of his duties or not TBH.

I doubt it would have helped with Dobson as that was almost certainly a financial decision, no matter how it might have been presented initially. It might have kept us away from Thorman I guess, unless JS was the DoR.

I was aiming at the role of Lowe at Rovers, I think his title is Director FOR Rugby rather than DoR, a position that could 'hold sway' at board level on retention & recruitment as opposed to what appears to be at FC, a shopping list reduced to what is cheapest.

Seems like a reasonable idea, although TBF we seemed to function OK when McRae did all the hiring himself.

In some ways I'd prefer that the coach had sole say on recruitment and the board just focused on appointing the right man for the coaching job.