[Bulliac]

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:12 am  

Bullseye wrote:

It’s a peculiar phrase to use and implies that after the end of the season things may be uncertain. I suppose if we get relegated that’s a whole new situation so that might be the reason.

Whatever. Green needs to act quickly to re-assure everyone that he’s serious about SL survival. He’s said he is but in the next couple of weeks we need some more bodies on board. Obviously they might be of variable quality but people will make decisions about his intentions based on who comes in.

Yeah, agree with that.

It's important the fans are kept 'on board', and also brought back on board. The one and only way is by actions, particularly how much Franny has to bring people in.

The rhetoric has been good, so far but I'm afraid we've had fine words up to the ears and it no longer cuts the mustard. For sure, I for one am fully prepared to be realistic and I'm not expecting a team if internationals to be suddenly rolling up Manchester Rd any time soon, but we need sufficient to suggest the fight to stave off relegation is a genuine one, in short we need the squad to be topped up with players of sufficient quality to inspire us that all is not lost. Ohh, and we need it pdq!!

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:19 am  

As much as I fear for the stability of the game with P&R, you can look at Cas who were relegated a couple of times in the last 10 years. With the correct structures in place it is possible to bounce back in a healthier position & a better feeling about the place. You never know, we might even relieve you of 3 of your better players as a gesture of solidarity

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:20 am  

Derwent wrote:

You missed the 3rd option out.

3. Cut costs to the bone, including playing staff, and operate for the rest of the season by fielding virtually an academy team and reappropriate the monthly Sky payments (such as they are) elsewhere. Do not pay any suppliers or non-essential bills.

You may not think there is anything to take but there is still a cashflow into the club.

Personally I think it'll be a version of Option 1 he takes, but I think you have it the wrong way around. Rather than putting money in, he'll be taking costs out, even if matching expenditure to income means relegation. This year being relegated is not the end of the world due to the parachute payment for next season and the obvious advantage that brings in trying to get promoted straight away.

option 4.

Cut costs to the bone, including playing staff, field virtual academy/amateur side. Do not pay suppliers or non-essential bills, Take parachute payment, put it in pocket, field another squad with virtual academy side, put club into admin. Walk away with money.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:22 am  

tigertot wrote:

As much as I fear for the stability of the game with P&R, you can look at Cas who were relegated a couple of times in the last 10 years. With the correct structures in place it is possible to bounce back in a healthier position & a better feeling about the place. You never know, we might even relieve you of 3 of your better players as a gesture of solidarity

Cas were quite public that they didnt come back healthier because of P+R, they just banked on getting back up, which they did, and paid the debts out of the SL money when they came back up.

Also when they came back up they finished bottom and would have been relegated if it werent for franchising. They benefitted massively from it.

[Bulliac]

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:36 am  

tigertot wrote:

As much as I fear for the stability of the game with P&R, you can look at Cas who were relegated a couple of times in the last 10 years. With the correct structures in place it is possible to bounce back in a healthier position & a better feeling about the place. You never know, we might even relieve you of 3 of your better players as a gesture of solidarity

I'm not actually suggesting the stability of RL is under threat. I'm simply discussing whether the Bulls would get back, or whether any other club would make the jump. Thing is, much as it matters to me personally, I don't actually believe that any particular club has to be in SL; it will mog on, quite happily for years, with whichever clubs happen to be in it.

Maybe long term it would cause the league to atrophy, with a lack of fresh blood, but I'd guess the RFL would change things around before then - well I'd hope so.

3 of our better players? Good heavens man we'd have none left....

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:45 am  

Bulliac wrote:

...
3 of our better players? Good heavens man we'd have none left....

Can i just point out that technically that is not correct because if you lose your 3 best players then the player who was your 4th best player before you lost your 3 best players is now your best player. The one that was your 5th best player is now your 2nd best player and so on, which means you get to keep your best players.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:59 am  

tigertot wrote:

You never know, we might even relieve you of 3 of your better players as a gesture of solidarity

As long as one turns out to be a drug user and another fabulous for 14 games and then really quite poor for the remainder of his highly paid time with you.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:14 pm  

Bulliac wrote:

I doubt there will be any getting back up.

If I fully understand the situation the top 'lower division' teams will have to play in a mini league with the bottom SL clubs, with the top clubs from this going into the SL for the following year.

Given the difference in the cap for the clubs, not to mention the advantage of competing in the much higher level of SL for the first half of the season, it would be a major miracle if any of the lower division clubs ended in the top half of this mini league. The first chance of getting back would probably be when the RFL realise it isn't working and bring back licensing, or straight P&R.

I agree it will be tough, but there is a route, one which when it looked like we might be one of the "lower 4" SL1 teams I was concerned about, now as a possible "top4" SL2 candidate it might offer some hope. If we take the leagues as they are today just for the example, the first middle 8 league would consist of;

HullFC
Catalan
Hull KR
Wakefield
London
Bradford
Leigh
Doncaster

Top 3 up to SL1, bottom 3 stay in SL2, 4th and 5th playoff for SL1. I think its very unlikely a SL2 side would finish in the top 2 positions and an outside bet for the 3rd. However, appearing in the 4/5 knock out game should be very doable. Then, given that to be towards the top of SL2 we'd have won more than we've lost, and we're chasing promotion we'd hopefully be playing with confidence, whereas the SL1 team dropping into the playoff match could be low on confidence and playing with the fear of relegation - I'd say that playoff match, whoevers in it, would be a difficult game to call and offers a very realisitc chance for promotion for an organised SL2 team.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:15 pm  

Derwent wrote:

You missed the 3rd option out.

3. Cut costs to the bone, including playing staff, and operate for the rest of the season by fielding virtually an academy team and reappropriate the monthly Sky payments (such as they are) elsewhere. Do not pay any suppliers or non-essential bills.

You may not think there is anything to take but there is still a cashflow into the club.

Personally I think it'll be a version of Option 1 he takes, but I think you have it the wrong way around. Rather than putting money in, he'll be taking costs out, even if matching expenditure to income means relegation. This year being relegated is not the end of the world due to the parachute payment for next season and the obvious advantage that brings in trying to get promoted straight away.

This option won't work. If he wanted playing staff cut, he needed the administrator to make them redundant.

There's not a hint of us being on full sky money again for the rest of this season so , at best, we will get £55k per month for that. Season ticket money? sponsors? gone already?

The only chance of income then is fans. And there will be a lot more fans this year than any other who are walk-ups or haven't bought ST's. But they will need action, players into squad, competitive on the pitch or their cash will stay in their pocket.

So it's a circular argument. He needs cash, basically from fans. He will want to keep costs down, but if the team is cut further, fans won't pay, he won't get cash.

Mr Green may think he has already made the first move by buying the club, but his predecessors have already pi$$ed away any chance of goodwill/belief (as well as cash) that he could hope for.

So the first move is still his unfortunately. Lets see what he does. Actions, not words.

[Pumpetypump]

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:35 pm  

I hope Mr Green is hard-headed and realist to see that the luke warm welcome isn't personal. We are a jaded lot and rightly suspicious of everyone and everything. He'll presumably not be under any illusions that to win our hearts needs signings.

I'm crossing my fingers and hoping he is savvy enough to not think crowds are about to come rushing back. Any projections need be based on the idea that they don't. Unless of course confidence building signings are made.