Re: For the live of God,Allah or whoever-McDermott GO!!! : Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:19 am  

The Magic Rat wrote:

Doesn't your 1st paragraph apply to every club in SL?

To a certain degree - I would suggest the structures at Leeds are more expensive to run - compare the running costs of Kirkstall to the portacabin that Castleford use for weights etc?

I doubt Castleford/Wakefield/Salford/Widnes have anything like the administrative/marketing costs that Leeds do - it is much cheaper/easier to grow these things than reduce them.

Re: For the live of God,Allah or whoever-McDermott GO!!! : Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:56 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

I doubt Castleford/Wakefield/Salford/Widnes have anything like the administrative/marketing costs that Leeds do

And those clubs don't have anything like the revenue that Leeds do.


Interesting to note Warrington have just announced a £200k+ loss.

Re: For the live of God,Allah or whoever-McDermott GO!!! : Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:12 pm  

Depending on the accounting period Warrington's maybe down to loss of form and related gate receipts etc. Their losses can only grow next season with potentially poor season ticket sales (They are not eve guaranteed to be in Super League yet!).

Re: For the live of God,Allah or whoever-McDermott GO!!! : Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:52 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

What the results indicate me is this business has significant fixed costs that would be difficult to reduce if the revenues dropped. Players/coaches/medical salaries other wage costs, ground maintenance inc. training facilities. It wouldn't take a much of a drop in revenue to see the bottom significantly impacted.

EBIT of 2.8% represents a marginal business - yes it was a bad year and it does look like they have dumped a load of bad news into the results - no bad thing. The club still has £2.5m of cash - how much of that will be required for the new development who knows

revenues did drop. 13.5%. The club made £371k.

13.5% drop is relatively huge for a year on year drop in revenue. I find it unrealistic to think that we would see a significantly bigger drop in revenue.

You also have a hugely positive situation where the addition of a new asset in the north and south stands which will be expected to increase revenues will also have the effect of lowering costs.

a 11mil turnover, profits between 300k and 1.2m, and an asset that must be worth tens of millions. Not really a struggling business. in fact, if i had a criticism of the club it would be the exact opposite. That the club has become a little 'Fat and Happy' and isnt really pushing the game forward as it could. Leeds could right now, even at this relatively low point go out and sign Inglis for a million dollars a year, not bring in a single additional penny in revenue and caddick still wouldnt need to put in another penny of his own money for another 10 years!

Re: For the live of God,Allah or whoever-McDermott GO!!! : Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:04 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

revenues did drop. 13.5%. The club made £371k.

13.5% drop is relatively huge for a year on year drop in revenue. I find it unrealistic to think that we would see a significantly bigger drop in revenue.

You also have a hugely positive situation where the addition of a new asset in the north and south stands which will be expected to increase revenues will also have the effect of lowering costs.

a 11mil turnover, profits between 300k and 1.2m, and an asset that must be worth tens of millions. Not really a struggling business. in fact, if i had a criticism of the club it would be the exact opposite. That the club has become a little 'Fat and Happy' and isnt really pushing the game forward as it could. Leeds could right now, even at this relatively low point go out and sign Inglis for a million dollars a year, not bring in a single additional penny in revenue and caddick still wouldnt need to put in another penny of his own money for another 10 years!

The asset can only be realised if the club spent approximately the same amount of money building a new stadium. The asset is almost unrealisable because of the historic nature of it. You can't say to the council on one hand we want monies because of the heritage and retaining test cricket and then say we want planning permission to flog the land to build a supermarket or more flats. You cannot separate the cricket from the rugby. Given how the stands had to be funded it would suggest the club were unable to use the stadium as collateral i.e. the asset doesn't have realisable value in the millions.

If the club signed Inglis on A$1m that would be £610k the ability to do that would depend on what the £2.5m in cash is earmarked for. I would assume the club will have to put some monies into the new stands venture.

What cannot be argued is the stewardship of the club and in that respect GH has done a brilliant job.

Re: For the live of God,Allah or whoever-McDermott GO!!! : Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:09 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The asset can only be realised if the club spent approximately the same amount of money building a new stadium. The asset is almost unrealisable because of the historic nature of it. You can't say to the council on one hand we want monies because of the heritage and retaining test cricket and then say we want planning permission to flog the land to build a supermarket or more flats. You cannot separate the cricket from the rugby. Given how the stands had to be funded it would suggest the club were unable to use the stadium as collateral i.e. the asset doesn't have realisable value in the millions.

From memory the issue re: funding was on the YCCC side rather than us.

Whilst realising the land value of the stadium would probably be complex, it will still have a huge value. Its a massive site in an area which has a big market for housing. However im not arguing that the value of it would need to be realisable as land. It does a pretty good job as a stadium and the new improvements will make it do a better job as a stadium, which will of course increase its value as a stadium.

If the club signed Inglis on A$1m that would be £610k the ability to do that would depend on what the £2.5m in cash is earmarked for. I would assume the club will have to put some monies into the new stands venture.

What cannot be argued is the stewardship of the club and in that respect GH has done a brilliant job.

my intention with that hypothetical was to highlight the 'buffer' the club has. I dont think we necessarily need to spend A$1m on Inglis, but i also dont think it wouldnt increase income, wouldnt see savings made elsewhere (Inglis would have to replace someone after all) and i think we can increase profitability elsewhere anyway, we have made £1m+ profits in previous years. GH and Caddick have obviously done a great job and im not really criticising them, its just i think we could lead the game in recalibrating its ambitions to something a fair bit bigger.

Its not just players, a good example would be the decision to keep games at HQ during the building work, we could have gone to Elland Road and worked to sell it out build some real momentum there. Or do something really ambitious and take a bit of a risk and take some of these games on the road to new areas, take one to Toronto and put on a double header with the Wolfpack, rumours abound that Eric Perez has got someone in NYC interested in joining, lets take an SL game out there, South Africa has 2 teams joining the PRO12, take a game there see if we can build a bit of interest for RL in SA, theres not even timezone issues, challenge ourselves to go out there and sell it. Closer to home Coventry are apparently crying out for RL events, or London, maybe even just go down to GH's old stomping ground and play a game at Hillsborough or Bramall Lane. Ask the RFL to schedule us up against Les Catalans first game and take it to Barcelona, with a bit of thought and ambition we could start next season with games played in Australia (wigan v hull) Spain (leeds v Les Catalans) Canada (Toronto) France(Toulouse) Wire are usually good for trying to push the boundries a bit, maybe they could take one to another country, plus obviously everyone else in England. Schedule them consecutively all in order over the 1st Saturday, 1 day, 6 games, 6 countries, 3 continents, all live on Sky Sports what a way to kick off the season!

But we arent going to, we are just going to muddle through at HQ with a 13k capacity.

Re: For the live of God,Allah or whoever-McDermott GO!!! : Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:19 pm  

but its not the capacity. I was told long ago leeds made their money through the corporate/sponsorship side. as long as they got 13k they would make money

Re: For the live of God,Allah or whoever-McDermott GO!!! : Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:32 pm  

tad rhino wrote:

but its not the capacity. I was told long ago leeds made their money through the corporate/sponsorship side. as long as they got 13k they would make money

No doubt they do, but attendances will be down next year, we're going to make less anyway, lean in to it and we could turn it from a negative to a positive.

The structure of the season means its unknown how many home games we have for next year anyway, we have to budget for +/-1 game.

A bit of foresight and ambition and we don't even have to 'lose' a game. We could say, Leeds, Wigan, Saints and Wire all take their first game on the road next season, however they will play 4 home games in the 8s regardless of position and we have 14 home games as we would if he finish the first part of the season out of the top 4. So that game becomes something of a 'freebie' because its a game we can't budget for having anyway.

And if we took all games to Elland Road, there is more capacity for corporate hospitality, so in the same way we can work on volume with normal fans and use this almost as an opportunity to get new fans to try it, we can do the same for corporate.

Re: For the live of God,Allah or whoever-McDermott GO!!! : Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:19 pm  

Any of the usual suspects want to defend this shower of $hite tonight then?

Re: For the live of God,Allah or whoever-McDermott GO!!! : Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:25 pm  

I'm sure they'll try. as usual. anyone but brian