: Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:57 am  

tigertot wrote:

How about an extra 1,000 on the gate paying an average of £20 to see a better performing team?

Indeed. Or better still, 5k on the gate since as a minimum that must be what we need? That is part of the longer-term underlying solution. Although its not an average of £20, and the profit and cash contribution from each incremental body through the turnstiles is well under half that so you won't get as much extra cash as you might think.

But the cash inflows would (largely) come in time, whereas the cash outflows consequent upon the action most on here are clamouring for would be front-loaded. Unless someone can come up with a pot of cash NOW, Job not sorted.

: Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:06 am  

Adeybull wrote:

Indeed. Or better still, 5k on the gate since as a minimum that must be what we need? That is part of the longer-term underlying solution. Although its not an average of £20, and the profit and cash contribution from each incremental body through the turnstiles is well under half that so you won't get as much extra cash as you might think.

But the cash inflows would (largely) come in time, whereas the cash outflows consequent upon the action most on here are clamouring for would be front-loaded. Unless someone can come up with a pot of cash NOW, Job not sorted.

So to sum up.
i) We can't afford to replace the manager.
ii) THe Chairman doesn't want the job but neither does anyone else
iii) The players are contracted on their current salaries so we have to stick with them
As you say we are in a Catch-22 situation. It is surely time then for the club to have one last throw of the dice. We cash in on our only asset and sell Sam Burgess. Selling Newlove launched the Bulls and so maybe selling Sam could save them. Whilst it seems a little drastic what pleasure is there watching him performing like a thoroughbred in amongst a lot of pit ponies (For thos born after Maggie Thatcher. Pit ponies used to drag coal trucks underground. N.B. Pits were big holes that coal used to come from)

: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:55 am  

Lets take this 'we cannot afford to do any thing' into the future.

Come the next round of license applications we will not have contributed anything on the playing front, out of the playoffs this season, can we improve on this next year. The marks for the grounds being x% full will not be achieved with the reduction in support. Both areas where we scored strongley last time around.

How will we compete with the other teams in super league plus the teams from NL1 who may outscore us on both the above.

Do we want to stay a top flight club or possibly risk being in NL1, but with a good balance sheet.

: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:58 am  

leedsbull wrote:

Lets take this 'we cannot afford to do any thing' into the future.

Come the next round of license applications we will not have contributed anything on the playing front, out of the playoffs this season, can we improve on this next year. The marks for the grounds being x% full will not be achieved with the reduction in support. Both areas where we scored strongley last time around.

How will we compete with the other teams in super league plus the teams from NL1 who may outscore us on both the above.

Do we want to stay a top flight club or possibly risk being in NL1, but with a good balance sheet.

The "points system" is entirely irrelevant. That was proven in the last lot.

They'll make up a points system that best suits the clubs they want in the league. Then ignore that same points system in order to put the 14 they want in there, regardless of how they scored.

Hence how Celtic ended up in the league last year, as well as another club or two I could name, whereas the likes of Widnes, Toulouse, Halifax & Leigh, who probably scored more than them, didn't.

Forget the points system, it won't make a blind bit of difference. We get a franchise if the RFL wants us to have one. Simple as.

: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:25 pm  

leedsbull wrote:

Lets take this 'we cannot afford to do any thing' into the future.

Come the next round of license applications we will not have contributed anything on the playing front, out of the playoffs this season, can we improve on this next year. The marks for the grounds being x% full will not be achieved with the reduction in support. Both areas where we scored strongley last time around.

How will we compete with the other teams in super league plus the teams from NL1 who may outscore us on both the above.

Do we want to stay a top flight club or possibly risk being in NL1, but with a good balance sheet.

I have posted precisely this on a number of occasions recently, and in more detail. To recap: we received a B licence last time - that's 5-7 points. IIRC re scored 7. If we don't get the OSV, then next round we gain a point for the salary cap breach, but could lose 3 for ground < 40% full, average attendances <10k and not making a major contribution to the game. That looks to me to be the worst case, and gives 5 points so still (just) a B licence. We'd have probably 7 points with the OSV, worst case.

I asked questions about this process at the Fans' Forum, with precisely this in mind.

My guess is that without the OSV we would still outscore enough clubs to remain in the "pass" band, but with another season like this one it would be far more marginal and we'd be sweating. With the OSV, we would be strongly-placed for an A licence provided something improves on the field. Remember the "contribution to the game/top 8 finish" criterion SHOULD average last year, this year and next year, as would the "crowds >10k" criterion

However, I also think DILLIGAF may be right in that if the RFL decide they want us out then they'll tweak the criteria accordingly. We have a large club not far away who clearly do not wish us well, and with a surfeit of clubs in West Yorkshire and a resurgent Halifax club who will surely be a strong candidate next time round we are far from secure.

And remember - you lose a point for not having "a good balance sheet" (the "solvency" criterion), but unlike clubs with a rich owner this club CANNOT fail the solvency test and still keep operating. Some others CAN, because they end up with a technically insolvent balance sheet kept going by loans from directors/owners. We don't have that luxury. I wish some people would understand that we simply do not HAVE the option of living beyond our means to buy success - we've done that before, and this is where it got us. The only way this club could survive with an insolvent balance sheet is if we could find someone to lend money to the club who would certify that he/they would not seek repayment. Any volunteers?

: Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:11 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

I have posted precisely this on a number of occasions recently, and in more detail. To recap: we received a B licence last time - that's 5-7 points. IIRC re scored 7. If we don't get the OSV, then next round we gain a point for the salary cap breach, but could lose 3 for ground < 40% full, average attendances <10k and not making a major contribution to the game. That looks to me to be the worst case, and gives 5 points so still (just) a B licence. We'd have probably 7 points with the OSV, worst case.

I asked questions about this process at the Fans' Forum, with precisely this in mind.

My guess is that without the OSV we would still outscore enough clubs to remain in the "pass" band, but with another season like this one it would be far more marginal and we'd be sweating. With the OSV, we would be strongly-placed for an A licence provided something improves on the field. Remember the "contribution to the game/top 8 finish" criterion SHOULD average last year, this year and next year, as would the "crowds >10k" criterion

However, I also think DILLIGAF may be right in that if the RFL decide they want us out then they'll tweak the criteria accordingly. We have a large club not far away who clearly do not wish us well, and with a surfeit of clubs in West Yorkshire and a resurgent Halifax club who will surely be a strong candidate next time round we are far from secure.

And remember - you lose a point for not having "a good balance sheet" (the "solvency" criterion), but unlike clubs with a rich owner this club CANNOT fail the solvency test and still keep operating. Some others CAN, because they end up with a technically insolvent balance sheet kept going by loans from directors/owners. We don't have that luxury. I wish some people would understand that we simply do not HAVE the option of living beyond our means to buy success - we've done that before, and this is where it got us. The only way this club could survive with an insolvent balance sheet is if we could find someone to lend money to the club who would certify that he/they would not seek repayment. Any volunteers?

Stuff and nonsense. All we need to do is sack the coach, fire Hood, get rid of at least 80% of the squad, buy all the best players in the world to replace them and all will be well. As eny fule kno.

: Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:20 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Stuff and nonsense. All we need to do is sack the coach, fire Hood, get rid of at least 80% of the squad, buy all the best players in the world to replace them and all will be well. As eny fule kno.

Finally you've seen the light, its not taken long has it? Once we follow that plan everything will be rosy again....dont know why it took you so long to see the bleeding obvious load of nonsence that people seem to believe is possible in dreamland

: Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:41 pm  

Ferocious Ostrich wrote:

All we need to do is stick our head in the sand and pretending it's everybody else fault bar McNamara's

Edited.

: Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:40 pm  

As usual the only people on here who are talking with any sense are FA (mostly) and adeybull!

Its a shame people are choosing to ignore them, maybe people would understand more if they listened!

I doubt any coach would have touched us with a barge poll when Noble left, lets not forget the masiah Noble left the club in a worse state than Peter Fox did in 1994! How many home grown internationals left with him? and what sort of set up did he leave with the kids??

McNamara and Hood was left to clear up the poop Noble and Caisley had left behind with little funds! without the use of dodgy offshore accounts!

But dont let me get in the way of your mindless "we all hate McNamara" thread!

PS has dropping Platt and replacing him with the ever dependable Halley made any difference?

McNamara to stay and finnish the job the majority of other coaches wouldnt dare touch!!!

: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:52 pm  

the inquisitor wrote:

Edited.
pretending it's everybody else fault bar McNamara's

If you're that stupid that you really believe that's my position, then there's really no point in trying to explain to someone who seemingly can't read.