[Bulliac]

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:38 am  

Northernrelic wrote:

Success is never guaranteed and yes people who make a success of their career in business frequently are willing to take a chance which does not come off.

However, I have never meet a genuinely successful business person who does not:

1) Know his market
2) Has a team of good reliable people
3) Knows how the business is doing day by day
4) Manages his cash

Several of our recent owners would not have been able to tick any of the above.

Well yeah, though I'm far from sure that many of the really successful ones, those who run large [often multiple] companies, micro-manage to the extent of doing 3 and 4 [Ken Morrison may have been the last!] Unfortunately though, many of them come unstuck when they go into sport, I suspect largely because they forget what made them successful in business or regard it something beyond being a business.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:58 am  

Bulliac wrote:

Well yeah, though I'm far from sure that many of the really successful ones, those who run large [often multiple] companies, micro-manage to the extent of doing 3 and 4 [Ken Morrison may have been the last!] Unfortunately though, many of them come unstuck when they go into sport, I suspect largely because they forget what made them successful in business or regard it something beyond being a business.

I didn't say they posted the cash book themselves - but that they know how the organisation is doing each day - total sales, margin - the key indicators. But sport clubs might have limited (very limited) profit opportunities but they are still companies providing a service (putting on the games) for customers (fans, TV companies) - so if you don't run the business properly, like any other commercial organisation - then you have to be prepared for the inevitable knock on the door from someone asking you to get your own cheque book out - on a regular basis.

Good old Ken was genuinely successful for a long time - but at the end he did not recognise the retail business had changed and left his successors with a 1970's operation in an on-line age - so he broke rule 1 - he did not know his business because it had changed and he did not adapt.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 16, 2014 11:17 am  

But surely the difference is that Morrisons' whole point is to make millions in profit, which it is over the long run certain to do and so has solid bank finance as the bank is secure in the knowledge that it is a nailed on profitable customer (ie highly profitable FOR THE BANK) and is good for any borrowings. Whereas running a SL club is pretty much the direct opposite, and "making substantial profit" is not only not remotely the point, but is impossible and if you did would be roundly booed by the fans who would demand and expect that any profit you did make you spent buying up better players. So it isn't a question of coming unstuck. It's a case of going into a venture which isn't at all like any other type of "business" venture. It sometimes makes me laugh out loud when the hordes of business experts pontificate on the forums about how to run a club. (Not a dig at people on this thread, but the ones who you know have emerged from the woodwork duirng the troubles) Indeed, we've had them all on here as a result of our recent insolvencies. Often they make some statement like the simpleton's guide to guaranteed success: "Don't spend more than you have coming in". They usual affirm the magnificence of their deep insight by adding "Simples", which they think reinforces their self-image as a financial whizzkid. So presumably our peripatetic financial advisors would be horrified by Morrisons, which disclosed in its most recent half-yearly results a LOSS before tax of £176m. And whatever Ken Morrison's lack of foresight my or may not have been, it is a bit ridiculous to criticise them, when in fact they have only got a bit behind in the race between their biggest competitors, they remain a highly successful company still very near the top of their particular tree, and if only the Bulls were £1 behind their value on the stock market. But they weren't and are not a one-man show - extremely far from it - and for an insight into just how complex involved and forward thinking you have to be as an organisation at that level here is their preliminary results announcement which gives a very potted insight into future strategy and planning. Of course it is not as simple as that - but then I'm not the one saying that it is. The only purpose of the illustration is to show that in hugely profitable big business it doesn't at all work on the simpleton model, and it's really stupid to even suggest you should run a rugby club like a supermarket chain, because there is no resemblance. Of course you need to run the business properly, but the fact is it's a business, Jim - but not really as we know it. And on current models, no SL business has been or can be successful without the financial backup of a wealthy investor with money to burn. That is no business model at all. We may not like it, but that's how it is.

But surely the difference is that Morrisons' whole point is to make millions in profit, which it is over the long run certain to do and so has solid bank finance as the bank is secure in the knowledge that it is a nailed on profitable customer (ie highly profitable FOR THE BANK) and is good for any borrowings. Whereas running a SL club is pretty much the direct opposite, and "making substantial profit" is not only not remotely the point, but is impossible and if you did would be roundly booed by the fans who would demand and expect that any profit you did make you spent buying up better players. So it isn't a question of coming unstuck. It's a case of going into a venture which isn't at all like any other type of "business" venture. It sometimes makes me laugh out loud when the hordes of business experts pontificate on the forums about how to run a club. (Not a dig at people on this thread, but the ones who you know have emerged from the woodwork duirng the troubles) Indeed, we've had them all on here as a result of our recent insolvencies. Often they make some statement like the simpleton's guide to guaranteed success: "Don't spend more than you have coming in". They usual affirm the magnificence of their deep insight by adding "Simples", which they think reinforces their self-image as a financial whizzkid. So presumably our peripatetic financial advisors would be horrified by Morrisons, which disclosed in its most recent half-yearly results a LOSS before tax of £176m. And whatever Ken Morrison's lack of foresight my or may not have been, it is a bit ridiculous to criticise them, when in fact they have only got a bit behind in the race between their biggest competitors, they remain a highly successful company still very near the top of their particular tree, and if only the Bulls were £1 behind their value on the stock market. But they weren't and are not a one-man show - extremely far from it - and for an insight into just how complex involved and forward thinking you have to be as an organisation at that level here is their preliminary results announcement which gives a very potted insight into future strategy and planning. Of course it is not as simple as that - but then I'm not the one saying that it is. The only purpose of the illustration is to show that in hugely profitable big business it doesn't at all work on the simpleton model, and it's really stupid to even suggest you should run a rugby club like a supermarket chain, because there is no resemblance. Of course you need to run the business properly, but the fact is it's a business, Jim - but not really as we know it. And on current models, no SL business has been or can be successful without the financial backup of a wealthy investor with money to burn. That is no business model at all. We may not like it, but that's how it is.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 16, 2014 11:29 am  

Never trust a business man (or woman) with a moustache*. Simples.

*Possible exception in Movember.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:03 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Of course you need to run the business properly

Well we will agree on that - however the basic principals of running an effective organisation be it Microsoft, a charity, a council or a corner shop are the same just on a different scale. There are actually thousands of not for profit organisations in the UK (Bullbuilder for example) - and while they might not be trying to make a multi-million profit they don't want to loose money either. So while successful sports clubs might require top up funding from their owners if they want to compete for trophies - I would be surprised if any of these sugar daddies would take additional losses due to incompetent management lying down?

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 16, 2014 1:15 pm  

Northern Relic has summed up precisely how the Bulls should have been run.

What any successful businessman also needs are a clear set of rules not the make it up as we encounter insolvencies by the RFL/Super League.
The withholding of Sky money by way of penalty was known about by OK/Sutcliffe on purchase of the club.
You therefore cut the cloth to fit that loss in guaranteed income.
Ok let it drift and as the successful bidders (Moore @ Co)pointed out even after his resignation last sept he continued to have influence as a shadow director in telling Whitcut who to pay.That is in the administraters report.

That if insolvent was unlawfull.

You dop not borrow £150K on 6 weeks terms at 8 pc per month to cripple the club unless you are
1.Seriously desperate having exhausted all other avenues
2.Are attempting to offload without been truthfull to the prospective new owners,who were running the club by then,as to the true financial state of the company been sold.
3 Are attempting to raise the finance to buy OK out with company money (as the RFL have inferred)

The appeal will be determined on the basis of
1.Was admin avoidable
2.Is there intent to settle the creditors

In relation to 1) the answer is no it was not avoidable.
As far back as September the company was insolvent with nothing but a prospect of little income through the winter.
The new lot wanted to put the sick patient into admin in November.The RFL baulked and said "No way"
There was no money to pay the HMRC in jan when the wind up petition was presented.

So we have an owner by default which is better than no club.

This is still about survival until Sky dosh returns.
Ok and his cohorts are entirely to blame.

Wages should have been slashed early on in his tenure.
Together with all overheads.

No sugar daddy and it will always be like this.
The salary cap takes most of the Bulls income.
Which is dropping weekly 6100 there for the crucial match with Salford.
3500 of them paid up.Gate receipts on day must therefore be no more than £40000.
The wages bill is still £100000 a month.
Simple little indicators as that bring the reality of the Bulls problems to mind.
Little alarm bells and lights in the head of OK should have meant it never came to this.
Marc Green will have to fund these shortfalls going forward or we will be back where we have been for three years very quickly indeed.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 16, 2014 1:43 pm  

Noble & Honest wrote:

...
Ok let it drift and as the successful bidders (Moore @ Co)pointed out even after his resignation last sept he continued to have influence as a shadow director in telling Whitcut who to pay.That is in the administraters report.

But it has not come from OK, the administrator has not spoken to OK, and it is simply untrue. As well as completely not credible. having sold his shares, why would he WANT any more involvement and having BOUGHt teh club, why would Whitcut act on anyone's "directions"?

Noble & Honest wrote:

...You dop not borrow £150K on 6 weeks terms at 8 pc per month to cripple the club unless you are
1.Seriously desperate having exhausted all other avenues
2.Are attempting to offload without been truthfull to the prospective new owners,who were running the club by then,as to the true financial state of the company been sold.
3 Are attempting to raise the finance to buy OK out with company money (as the RFL have inferred)

I have no clue why he did it. Those seem fair possibilities.

Noble & Honest wrote:

...Marc Green will have to fund these shortfalls going forward or we will be back where we have been for three years very quickly indeed.

Indeed he will, which makes the talk of "running like a business" in terms of "only pay out what you get in" seem absurd. And he ain't even a sugar daddy, and that's when we only have not far off a skeleton squad to fund.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:58 pm  

"why would he WANT any more involvement" Depending on whose figures you believed OK had between 450,000 and 1,100,000 reasons to be involved!

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 16, 2014 3:42 pm  

Northernrelic wrote:

"why would he WANT any more involvement" Depending on whose figures you believed OK had between 450,000 and 1,100,000 reasons to be involved!

Well spotted xx

If I had a million tied up in a failing business that could be turned around I would want someone in there watching out for things.

FA seems to have really liked Ok.

Ok and Whitcut have been through all this before with Lister Hotel.
They appear joined at the hip.
I could say worse but will button it in case Raisemeup jumps to defend their behaviour.
Bad news always hurts sadly.
But please don't turn on the messagers

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 16, 2014 3:59 pm  

Noble & Honest wrote:

But please don't turn on the messagers

yes we will if the herald is blowing his trumpet from the inner depths of his *hole. somewhere in that monologue lies the odd gem. how do you know Moore etc wanted admin but the RFL didnt let them? Evidence not tittle tattle please.