Err easty not being funny but hasnt jake webster signed for cas yet youve got him as stay?

Has he signed for Castleford, Currently only a rumour isn't it? Still the list is only my opinion of the players that I would like to keep.

The comment about 8 players coming in was initially made about two months ago. I'm pretty sure all these things are subject to change and with the squad hitting some form I'm guessing players which where rumoured to be going earlier in the season may yet be offered deals to stay.

My whole point was that I feel where not at full cap and we'll have an even bigger proportion left at the seasons end.

So if it's,say, 6 in, including Lopini Paea and a couple from the NRL, they'll cost less than your 9 going out?

That is a stupid ing question that doesn't even deserve an answer.

OK. You've said it's 11 out, 8 in. You're now backtracking a bit, fair enough, but still proposing 9 out and a reduction in salary expenditure. My point is that Paea will not be on peanuts, on your other board Sandercock's talked of referencing a big signing and there's plenty of Newcastle Knights players being discusssed. I'm just trying to reconcile the net year on year position in terms of players and your view that there will be a cash saving if,say, 6 come in.

LOL your so full of it's unreal. OFC We'll have a reduction in salary expenditure at the end of the season, Problem is this will be taken up by any new players coming into the club. Why do you always have to try and twist every post to suit your own agenda? I don't think we'll have any savings on the contrary I'm hoping we spend the full cap which I don't think we are doing this season.

Right, I get it now, you're saying Rovers will be increasing their spend on players overall. Sorry, the tone of what you were saying seemed to be saying the opposite.

Is that assumption right though? Rob Crossland has already said fans need to realise the financial responsibilities the club has and Hudgell has said there'll be no more underwriting losses by the board, that policy is shifting and the club will go backwards to go forwards or words to that effect. The challenge here is that to operate at full cap, the club needs 10k gates. It's possible, but a gamble, to think Rovers will get 10k gates next season. The club will therefore need to estimate income including attendances and the wage bill will be the balancing figure to achieve break even (most other costs being relatively fixed and including rental on the £2m North Stand). If it were my money, and I'd said there can be no more losses, I wouldn't be committing to a full cap spend until the 10k average was proven.

I never said they will be. I'm not joined to the hip of the directors and know what they plan to budget for sc spend. I would simply hope we could find extra revenue streams with the north being built to increase our sc spend.

FFS I'm a fan not a staff member anything I say is an opinion yet you twist it to make it look like I'm saying it will happen.

For me this 10,000 figure is a load of tosh.

This magical 10,000 figure was quoted a few years ago. In that time revenue streams could have gone up and we therefore need less then the stated 10,000. Alternatively they could have reduced leaving us needing for example 11000 crowds. A crowd to break even ratio surely changes every season dependant on revenue/spends

And I'm just saying that your directors are on record as saying the squad will be rebuilt, step backwards to go forwards and they're not underwriting losses anymore, which to me suggests spend a fair bit below the cap.

On the North Stand, it's 35 weeks until the new season, so it would appear that it will be ready on time. However, you could argue that the revenue streams from it will initially go towards paying back the £2m borrowed by the council to fund it, not necessarily onto the wage bill.

From what's been said, I'd be surprised if spending on players was higher next season than this, that's all.

So its not 11 out and 8 quality players in then?

The money borrowed for the stand is being paid back over 35 years IIRC.

Quote ="bishops finger"So its not 11 out and 8 quality players in then?'" We don't know - it is all just speculation. We're all familiar with the mood music from the club, but it is open to interpretation as to what exactly it means. To fully understand Barista's interpretation, imagine it being spoken by an actor (over)playing the part of a Shakespearean fool ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespearean_fool ), forefinger to cheek, eyebrows raised in mock simplicity.

Quote ="bishops finger"So its not 11 out and 8 quality players in then?'" We don't know - it is all just speculation. We're all familiar with the mood music from the club, but it is open to interpretation as to what exactly it means. To fully understand Barista's interpretation, imagine it being spoken by an actor (over)playing the part of a Shakespearean fool ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespearean_fool ), forefinger to cheek, eyebrows raised in mock simplicity.

Quote ="Easty"For me this 10,000 figure is a load of tosh. This magical 10,000 figure was quoted a few years ago. In that time revenue streams could have gone up and we therefore need less then the stated 10,000. Alternatively they could have reduced leaving us needing for example 11000 crowds. A crowd to break even ratio surely changes every season dependant on revenue/spends'" Well, Hudgell said it again this year: www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html You are right, it's never the same year on year. But the key point here is that a lot of costs (ground maintenance, rates, backroom staff, training camps, kit etc) are fixed. Sky income is fixed, or at least certain. If you spend £1.65m on players, the income from attendances is the balancing figure to break even. And I think he's saying that to afford that needs 10k every week. The problem is that you need to commit to the wage bill without knowing the attendances as you sign players up in advance. If you're being prudent, you'd not over-commit until you had evidence that 10k (or whatever that number is) was achievable. Don't forget the step up in costs next year too. In 40-20 magazine, Mike Smith says one of the North Stand partners has dropped out, leaving Rovers with a bigger share of costs to cover than expected, hence the delay in the East Stand extension. These costs are commitments Rovers have to cover, they're not discretionary in the way that the playing budget is, hence the playing budget being the most likely area to be squeezed if 10k looks uncertain.

Quote ="Easty"For me this 10,000 figure is a load of tosh. This magical 10,000 figure was quoted a few years ago. In that time revenue streams could have gone up and we therefore need less then the stated 10,000. Alternatively they could have reduced leaving us needing for example 11000 crowds. A crowd to break even ratio surely changes every season dependant on revenue/spends'" Well, Hudgell said it again this year: www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html You are right, it's never the same year on year. But the key point here is that a lot of costs (ground maintenance, rates, backroom staff, training camps, kit etc) are fixed. Sky income is fixed, or at least certain. If you spend £1.65m on players, the income from attendances is the balancing figure to break even. And I think he's saying that to afford that needs 10k every week. The problem is that you need to commit to the wage bill without knowing the attendances as you sign players up in advance. If you're being prudent, you'd not over-commit until you had evidence that 10k (or whatever that number is) was achievable. Don't forget the step up in costs next year too. In 40-20 magazine, Mike Smith says one of the North Stand partners has dropped out, leaving Rovers with a bigger share of costs to cover than expected, hence the delay in the East Stand extension. These costs are commitments Rovers have to cover, they're not discretionary in the way that the playing budget is, hence the playing budget being the most likely area to be squeezed if 10k looks uncertain.

Like Terry Jacks.
We had joy, we had fun
We had seasons in the sun
But the stars we could reach
Were just starfish on the beach

Hull FC being the starfish, n'est-ce pas?

Quote ="bishops finger"So its not 11 out and 8 quality players in then?'" It's all just speculation viewtopic.php?f=59&t=526851&tsmp=1339924211&start=80 Quote ="Paul T - HKR"According to Wayne Parker 11-12 of the current first grade squad are going!'" Quote ="rover49"Although I don't have any confirmed knowledge, I was told by a usually reliable source that 7 will be going, Webster, Galea, Watts, Murrell, Netherton, Mc Donnell and Clinton. This was from someone within the club.'" All this is from the start of May I posted something similar but can't find it. I've said previously quality for me is a Michael Dobson or a Ben Galea. We wouldn't I'd imagine have the SC for 8 of those.

Quote ="bishops finger"So its not 11 out and 8 quality players in then?'" It's all just speculation viewtopic.php?f=59&t=526851&tsmp=1339924211&start=80 Quote ="Paul T - HKR"According to Wayne Parker 11-12 of the current first grade squad are going!'" Quote ="rover49"Although I don't have any confirmed knowledge, I was told by a usually reliable source that 7 will be going, Webster, Galea, Watts, Murrell, Netherton, Mc Donnell and Clinton. This was from someone within the club.'" All this is from the start of May I posted something similar but can't find it. I've said previously quality for me is a Michael Dobson or a Ben Galea. We wouldn't I'd imagine have the SC for 8 of those.

Quote ="Easty"It's all just speculation viewtopic.php?f=59&t=526851&tsmp=1339924211&start=80 All this is from the start of May I posted something similar but can't find it. I've said previously quality for me is a Michael Dobson or a Ben Galea. We wouldn't I'd imagine have the SC for 8 of those. '" Do you remember "wanye parker's wig"? Great poster, entice it back. The very lovely GML has hinted at a big clear out too.

Quote ="Easty"It's all just speculation viewtopic.php?f=59&t=526851&tsmp=1339924211&start=80 All this is from the start of May I posted something similar but can't find it. I've said previously quality for me is a Michael Dobson or a Ben Galea. We wouldn't I'd imagine have the SC for 8 of those. '" Do you remember "wanye parker's wig"? Great poster, entice it back. The very lovely GML has hinted at a big clear out too.

For wassocking fanny face's sake, although you are my favourite, that was brain dehydrating in it's extreme boredom.

Do we give a cats flange as fans about money? As long as we don't do a Bradford or a nineties Rovers of course we cocking don't. Most of us are lucky enough to have jobs, we're not responsible for Rovers, we just turn up every week and want a bit of entertainment.

We've got Mike Smith to make a massive steaming turd of running the club without us having to worry about it, email him if you're that bothered, that'll be a long conversation.

Well put sir.

Quote ="Mrs Barista"Well, Hudgell said it again this year: www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html You are right, it's never the same year on year. But the key point here is that a lot of costs (ground maintenance, rates, backroom staff, training camps, kit etc) are fixed. Sky income is fixed, or at least certain. If you spend £1.65m on players, the income from attendances is the balancing figure to break even. And I think he's saying that to afford that needs 10k every week. The problem is that you need to commit to the wage bill without knowing the attendances as you sign players up in advance. If you're being prudent, you'd not over-commit until you had evidence that 10k (or whatever that number is) was achievable. Don't forget the step up in costs next year too. In 40-20 magazine, Mike Smith says one of the North Stand partners has dropped out, leaving Rovers with a bigger share of costs to cover than expected, hence the delay in the East Stand extension. These costs are commitments Rovers have to cover, they're not discretionary in the way that the playing budget is, hence the playing budget being the most likely area to be squeezed if 10k looks uncertain.'" As expected. Well done for turning the subject to what you want. How about if you want to talk about the North stand you talk about it on the thread which has been created for the subject. I know you know where it is seeing as you have made the same point on there.

Quote ="Mrs Barista"Well, Hudgell said it again this year: www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html You are right, it's never the same year on year. But the key point here is that a lot of costs (ground maintenance, rates, backroom staff, training camps, kit etc) are fixed. Sky income is fixed, or at least certain. If you spend £1.65m on players, the income from attendances is the balancing figure to break even. And I think he's saying that to afford that needs 10k every week. The problem is that you need to commit to the wage bill without knowing the attendances as you sign players up in advance. If you're being prudent, you'd not over-commit until you had evidence that 10k (or whatever that number is) was achievable. Don't forget the step up in costs next year too. In 40-20 magazine, Mike Smith says one of the North Stand partners has dropped out, leaving Rovers with a bigger share of costs to cover than expected, hence the delay in the East Stand extension. These costs are commitments Rovers have to cover, they're not discretionary in the way that the playing budget is, hence the playing budget being the most likely area to be squeezed if 10k looks uncertain.'" As expected. Well done for turning the subject to what you want. How about if you want to talk about the North stand you talk about it on the thread which has been created for the subject. I know you know where it is seeing as you have made the same point on there.

Quote ="Mrs Barista"Well, Hudgell said it again this year: www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html You are right, it's never the same year on year. But the key point here is that a lot of costs (ground maintenance, rates, backroom staff, training camps, kit etc) are fixed. Sky income is fixed, or at least certain. If you spend £1.65m on players, the income from attendances is the balancing figure to break even. And I think he's saying that to afford that needs 10k every week. The problem is that you need to commit to the wage bill without knowing the attendances as you sign players up in advance. If you're being prudent, you'd not over-commit until you had evidence that 10k (or whatever that number is) was achievable. Don't forget the step up in costs next year too. In 40-20 magazine, Mike Smith says one of the North Stand partners has dropped out, leaving Rovers with a bigger share of costs to cover than expected, hence the delay in the East Stand extension. These costs are commitments Rovers have to cover, they're not discretionary in the way that the playing budget is, hence the playing budget being the most likely area to be squeezed if 10k looks uncertain.'" That is one obsessed bird.

Quote ="Mrs Barista"Well, Hudgell said it again this year: www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html You are right, it's never the same year on year. But the key point here is that a lot of costs (ground maintenance, rates, backroom staff, training camps, kit etc) are fixed. Sky income is fixed, or at least certain. If you spend £1.65m on players, the income from attendances is the balancing figure to break even. And I think he's saying that to afford that needs 10k every week. The problem is that you need to commit to the wage bill without knowing the attendances as you sign players up in advance. If you're being prudent, you'd not over-commit until you had evidence that 10k (or whatever that number is) was achievable. Don't forget the step up in costs next year too. In 40-20 magazine, Mike Smith says one of the North Stand partners has dropped out, leaving Rovers with a bigger share of costs to cover than expected, hence the delay in the East Stand extension. These costs are commitments Rovers have to cover, they're not discretionary in the way that the playing budget is, hence the playing budget being the most likely area to be squeezed if 10k looks uncertain.'" That is one obsessed bird.

I can see how a sensitive soul might interpret me posting some highly relevant, but slightly cautionary context, as simple trollage but this is a thread about squad changes vs this year. And I'm just making the point that, vs this year there are, according to your directors a couple of potential game-changers. Firstly they're not underwriting losses anymore. Understandable 7 years on with their hugely significant personal contributions to your resurgence. Secondly they're taking on a big incremental financial commitment, which, of course, may yield big upsides. So to post this in reply to a post hoping for an increase in spend to full cap is fair enough IMO.

I think that there are other clubs in for Lovegrove and McDonnell. I think they'll both stay at Rovers, but at prices inflated by market forces. Murrell to Cas, along with Webster. Taylor to Leeds for a fee and a house. Watts to Hull on a free. Clinton to Brisbane Broncos, perhaps no longer as their highest paid forward. Hall to sign a 2 year extension, Galea 1 year. Lopini Paea in along with that kid from Warrington, Kopczak, Reece Lyne, a centre from Newcastle Knights and another Con Mika style player. Con Mika to Hull.

If I get a hit rate >25% I'll be pretty pleased.

You'll be getting a one hundred per cent hit rate off my cricket bat around your chops.