Why would a lower cap be bad for the sport? If players earned 60 grand a year instead of 100 grand would it diminish the sport in any way? we may lose a small number of players to RU but that would be it. Players would just earn less (as they did for the previous 100 years of the game). The money just goes straight into the pockets of players and agents

To play devils advocate again, why should we even need a cap? Why shouldnt clubs be able to run themselves properly as other businesses have to, within their means?

Remind me again who went to the RFL first, therefore they made the money available to all clubs?

Reason number 1 ......

Wigan circa 1990's

I'm still interested to hear where the P&O facts have come from? Cant see any reference to them in the press.

If it were that our sponsorship did go t*ts up we have set a sustainable business up with multi-channel income anyway so i wouldnt be overly concerned. I'm more concerned for the employees that work at he companies struggling in the current climate.

Fair point. You still want it to be attractive to promising youngsters and have to remember that it is a short career based on 1, 2 and 3 year contracts. If the quota came down to 3 at the same time, that could mitigate some of the negative impacts.

A return to 12 teams would mean an extra £200k for each of those remaining... but a bleak future for those dropping out - or the prospect of mergers. Squads of 24 and just 3 players on the interchange bench could be considered, for the domestic game.

Because sport is fundamentally different to other businesses in that you need to maintain your competition. And also the aim for many involved in BODs is glory not profits. One benefactor, richer than all the rest, could bankroll whole decades of dominance while interest withers elsewhere. Even the ultra-capatilist USA recognizes that.

MERGERS



oh dear oh dear...but it may be only way in some cases, when the hits the fan

Not an issue for Soccer though, the worlds biggest sport!

It was Hull unless of course you have a link to prove otherwise.

Hull's "operating model" appears to require having a large number of fans and then doing everything possible to alienate them.

Do Hull make a profit because of the board or in spite of them?

To cut a long story short there's not a cat in hells chance of the FC board achieving what Rovers have in Neil Hudgell's reign as Rovers chairman. The Hetherington's have been involved in 2 bankrupt clubs before and only a £1M RFL hand-out and the fortune of playing at the KC enabled an easy ride with Hull SL Ltd.

And as for you stating there is "no commercial business case for a 14,000 capacity stadium", that is complete dross. New stadiums / stands / facilities have accounted for a 40% increase in gates across all sport attendances.

To add to that, 100% of covered terracing sold out 100% of the time of the SL season which confirms demand out stripping supply hence the urgent need for an increase in that specific catagory of terracing.

As Neil Hudgell said, Rovers' losses this season have to be viewed in the context of paying the full salary cap - something which if FC had have done, then they wouldn't have made a profit.

If both sets of boards had similar resources/facilities, then there's no doubt to me would would do better.

IMO it is a massive issue for football. A mismatch is more likely to produce a surprise result than rugby, but you also have distorting factors such as the Champions League and Roman Abramovich. The dream, if not quite dead, is in a pretty deep coma for all but 4 clubs in England. And none of them has a particularly robust business model as far as I can tell.

Perhaps the Hetheringtons have learnt from experience, which is why they run the only 2 profitable clubs in SL. Even without the £1m handout, our debt would be considerably less than yours.



There is not one shred of evidence that Rovers would sell out a 14,000 stadium on a regular basis. If anything the fact you are unable to sell out what you have now is a solid reason for commercial investors not to put any money in. It's silly to predict the elasticity of demand in such aggressive terms when your average gate has gone down this year despite a regular season 4th place. In the current environment it's hardly an attractive investment.



How do you know what profits FC have made this season - the accounts aren't due to be filed until next August? Plus Rovers have made losses 5 years on the bounce, and not spent the full cap in the other 4, so that's a bit of a limp rationale. You've paid the full cap for the first time, done very well in the league and it's made no difference to getting people through the gate and you aren't well-organised enough in terms of retail opportunities to maximise revenue.

Our board have their faults, but the fact is that with our resilient attendances in the region of 13,500 and excellent merchandising and sponsorship arrangements, they've bucked the trend and reduced debt significantly over the last 5 years, albeit helped by 3 major final appearances. Criticise the recruitment and admin if you like, but to suggest the board's financial delivery is down to good luck when everyone else bar Leeds is in the financial mire, is a bit soft.

Leeds didn't make a profit and had Hull SL Ltd. paid a full salary cap, they wouldn't have made a profit either so your sentiment is wrong.


"Hull SL Ltd." (previously "Gateshead SL Ltd." after it's inception as "Made Later Ltd."icon_wink.gif was created in 1998 and has had Sky money for every year since, with the fortune of the KC Stadium generating an increased fan-base which also removed the need to invest in "game-day facilities", specifically.

"Hull Kingston Rovers FC Ltd" has been trading since 1905 and is therefore still subject to the substantial knock-on effects (such as having to invest in "game-day facilities"icon_wink.gif of the ground switch in the early '90s under the Chairmanship of Colin Hutton.


We have sold covered 100% terracing 100% of the SL season which is a cast-iron reason for commercial investors to put money in so have a day from talking out of your @rse.


IIRC our average attendance went up around 300 this season. Besides, we can't account for shocking away followings like 600 from across the river.


Pedantic drivel.


Not in the slightest as the first two seasons we did not receive a slice of the SL Sky money and then there were multiple investments that needed to be made in "game-day facilities" as the club arrived in SL, not to mention some quality ink cartidges to put in the club's pen for Paul Cooke sign his contract.


In terms of covered terracing you can not improve on it being 100% full, 100% of the time hence the immediate need for better facilities.


That is an on-going process.


Not in at all as your board has created the club with a "silver spoon".

At the end of the day, facilities will improve at Craven Park whether you like it or not, and we will continue to humiliate you whether you like it or not...

Dont know you remind us.

Sorry, the guy that states everyone is losing £500k in the national press must be right.



Did he forget about Leeds and Hull FC making a profit and also Bradford making only a small loss?

Who to believe.
Neil Hudgell or TKOAH.

MMM decisions decisions

It's safe to say you'd be better believing TKOAH!

Given that I have just posted information that is common knowledge it shouldn't be a hard decision.

Yeah sure.

So come on, which part of that post was wrong?

We did make a profit as did Leeds and I believe Bradford only lost about £18k according to the official accounts released by the clubs, mind you official accounts don't mean much in East Hull as long as Hudge says everything is rosey losing almost £1m in 2 years will be ok.

Who was refering to that

So rovers are better supported than Hull, but the fans who don't go are concerned in case it rains or they get sunburn? Is that what you mean?